« ElőzőTovább »
it? The parliamentary opposition to Louis XVI. was soon after instituted; and men found that a power existed to oppose the will of the Prince. The revolution had commenced. It is not liberty or popular rights which are responsible for the sufferings and horrors of revolution: it is the tyranny and wrong which make revolution possible, nay, imperative. Human nature never re-acts from oppression, without tremendous counterbalancing wrong. We are chilled with horror at the Reign of Terror ; but are the agonies of a violent death by the guillotine half as horrible, half as degrading to human nature, as the loathsome corruptions of a parc aux cerfs ? Thousands of victims fell by the hands of enraged citizens in Paris, it is true ; but tens of thousands had fallen in useless and cruel wars. The people had not forgotten these things; and, in one wild, horrible feast of blood, they quenched the burning vengeance which had been gathering for hundreds of years, and descended from sire to son, too often the only inheritance. Let us never forget one bloody deed done by the people in the name of liberty, - it is a fearful warning ; but let us remember “who taught their hands to war, and their fingers to fight.” Drop by drop, one little stream after another, the waters gather; but when, at last, they burst the dam, it is in one full sweep that they rush onward in destruction over the country,
In the chapter entitled the “Industrial and Philosophic Revolution,” Dr. Springer proceeds to answer the momentous question, What was gained for freedom in Europe by this twenty-five years' struggle? How much better did the cause of popular rights stand in 1815 than in 1790? The answer is carefully weighed, and is not altogether discouraging. At first sight it looks very much like failure. Freedom, Equality, and Fraternity, which had some slight chance under Napoleon, seem to be entirely destroyed by the Restoration:
“ But that perfect freedom, that earthly paradise, which shone before the eyes of the radical dreamers of '89, can only be realized in the gradual unfolding of time, and by means of the times ; the freedom of France can only be possible and assured when it is surrounded by free states. For Europe is a political organism, in which no part is efficient unless the other parts are also brought into harmony, — in which the freedom of one depends on the freedom of all the rest. The princes have long understood this solidarity of the European peoples. The Holy Alliance and the Congress were their defences against a European revolution by a European re-action. The same conviction must also force the people out of their isolation, and unite them in a common bond. But still the Revolution had great results. That France owes to it a new and more reasonable order of things, — the thorough destruction of most of the abuses of the Middle Age, political unity, and a greatly extended dominion ; that, through her, liberal ideas and political enlightenment have been extended throughout Europe ; that she opened the way to representative constitutions on the Continent, — has been already mentioned. The work of freedom, which the French nation began in fiery passion, was now entrenched in the reason of all people, and struck deep root in the consciousness of mankind. But still the great gain was in the emancipation of the middle classes."
Much as the actual industrial condition of Europe falls short of our author's ideal; although he prophesies terrible struggles yet to come, before the question of pauperism and the relations between property and labor are settled,- be yet sees in the elevation of the middle class the sure barbinger of final success. The arbitrary distinctions of birth are broken down, and labor is recognized as the most important power in the community. Under the old régime, not what a man created did him honor, but what he inherited. In the reign of the middle or producing class, personal worth, personal power, takes rank above arbitrary distinctions. If France led the way in the contest for political freedom, England takes the first rank in the industrial revolution. All her political efforts tend towards the fostering and protection of commerce and manufactures. The great struggle which lies before her in the future, therefore, is not a political but a social one. It will be between capital and labor, between the middle classes and the paupers. The most efficient help in this industrial revolution is afforded by the introduction of machinery, that great lever for raising the masses up to individual freedom and intellectual life. This question of the relation of machinery to the laboring classes is always brought up for fresh discussion
on the introduction of every new labor-saving engine. The poor seamstress is hardly yet persuaded that the sewingmachine will not take the bread out of her mouth, instead of the ache out of her bones. It is worth while, therefore, to give the testimony of an independent, earnest thinker on this subject:
"Until the introduction of machinery,” he says, “ the individual had carried on his work mechanically, as he learned it from his forefathers; but he was as much enslaved in his work as he was by the power of the guild. But now came machinery, the various spinning and weaving machines, the steam-engine as a universal motive-power, and finally the railroad as an absolute means of communication. Not only because labor through these means increased in value, not only because a very much greater satisfaction of human needs now became possible ; but because the individual now learned to recognize a whole new class of wants, is the machine of high social importance. Machine work takes the place of manual labor : it relieves man from constant toil, and makes him free in relation to work. This sounds a little paradoxical, when we look at the unfortunate operative, who seems, through the division of labor, to be reduced to a mere machine, or the screw of a machine, and whose labor has reached the lowest grade of involuntary slavery. But we must remember, that the direction of the industrial spirit is to reduce the amount of handiwork to its lowest possible point; so that, at last, the time will come when manual labor amounts to almost nothing, and every individual can give the greatest portion of his time and power to the development of his own individuality. Iu face of machinery, man does not appear as a single workman, but as an inexhaustible creative power; and this relation to work is the only one conformable to his nature."
The story of the period following the final fall of Napoleon at Waterloo is that of a dreary struggle between diplomacy and treachery on the part of the princes, and a confused and illregulated desire for freedom and constitutional rights among the people. The people had zeal and enthusiasm on their side; but they lacked unity and discipline. They differed in regard to the special objects to be gained, as well as the means of attaining them. Their vices and virtues alike stood in their way; they trusted in the promises of their princes, who never scrupled to deceive them to any extent; and they condemned any lawless action of their own number, although justified by the severest suffering. On the other hand, the princes and their supporters, the re-actionists, were very clear in their aims, and entirely unscrupulous as to the means employed. If one looks only to success in his immediate object, it is a great convenience to get rid of conscience. Metternich was never troubled with any; or rather he held it like the Gorgon shield, always turning it towards his foes, but never, by any chance, looking upon it himself. The murder of a supposed Russian spy, the playwright Kotzebue, by a young enthusiast, — whose conviction of the justice of his deed was so perfect, that he thanked God for it on his knees in the public street, — struck a holy horror to the hearts of all re-actionists; but they quietly bore the imprisonment of numberless citizens on suspicions which the government knew to be entirely without foundation. They imagined conspiracies, and imprisoned conspirators, until at last the very thing they pretended became true.
When the Bourbon government had purged the army of all its anti-Bourbon members, no less than ten thousand officers being dismissed; when all the institutions of the Revolution - even the most benevolent and useful, like the celebrated Polytechnic School and French Institute — had been destroyed, - then the ultras boasted that the return to the times of 1789 was accomplished. But their triumph was short. The element of legislative reform was at work, and soon the elective franchise was extended to eighty thousand voters; and, in 1818, the old hero of the Revolution, Lafayette, took his place in the Chamber.
It is almost ludicrous to turn from the powerful struggles of the first French Revolution to that of 1830, fought on the middle ground for the supremacy of the “ bourgeoisie," and led by that incarnation of policy and intrigue, Louis Philippe. Instead of the fierce mockery of St. Guillotine, and the horrible Carmagnole, what pleasant anecdotes of Louis Philippe's condescension ! and what tender care of the wounded of both parties by his pious family! The people, who had fought the battles in the streets on the glorious three days, were indeed somewhat astonished to find, that the result of the whole matter was only a new king. But who could at once find fault with a monarch so affable and familiar? A citizen-king was a novelty: it was worth while to see what might be its result.
“Whoever would listen to him might receive the assurance, that the North-American democracy was his political ideal, — that his deepest affections clung to the Republic. He treated Lafayette and Lafitte, to the latter of whom indeed he mainly owed his crown, as his most intimate friends; and he affectionately pressed the hand of every citizen he met (first guarding his own from too close contact by a kid glove) with the same hand with which he wrote, in all submission to the Emperor Nicholas, that he had only climbed the throne in order to stop the progress of the revolution, and at least to save the remnants of legitimacy. With the same zeal with which he tried to convince the Parisians that he was king in spite of his Bourbon origin, he assured the cabinets that he stood at the head of France, because Bourbon blood flowed in his veins."
Contemptible as this double-dealing and hypocrisy appear, they mark the progress which the people had made since the days when kings and nobles looked upon them as beings of another race. The hypocrisy of Louis Philippe acknowledged the sovereignty of the people, as much as the honesty of Lafayette or the philosophy of Jefferson. The aim of Louis Philippe was to establish a state without foundations; to rule it, not according to natural law, but by compromises. Le juste milieu was the true path, though it were midway between right and wrong, between heaven and hell. Le fait accompli settled all questions, although le fait were a deed of cruelty, injustice, and crime.
Yet, although the reign of Louis Philippe had powerful support in the wealth and industry of France, it was far from tranquil. The seeds of revolution were sprouting everywhere. Lyons uproars, attempts at assassination, secret conspiracies, were constantly occurring. It was evident that the government was sustained only by the dread of change. But