Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

herent in the natural state of society, IS OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE. (!) Since the Socialist republic speaks out, it must be looked in the face and interrogated thoroughly."

Thus far it was demanded by truth that we should render justice to the Socialists, in ridding their fundamental theory of the misrepresentations of the author. But this is all, we believe, that truth will demand in their behalf. They profess, at least, to appeal to the natural laws of society; whereas their assailant appeals to nothing less arbitrary than the despotic ukases of Russia, or the traditional usages of England. But, as to their interpretation of those laws, the Socialists are, we fear, almost as perverse on the side of progress as their antagonist is himself on that of order. For instance, they do not recognize-the Communist branch at least-as amongst the natural arrangements of society, the institutions of property or of marriage; which, however, are assuredly its two fundamental elements. We must, therefore, here abandon them to the cat-o'-nine-tails of the austere ex-professor. And his dialectic castigation makes the best chapter in the

book.

We pass to the next, which treats of the Essential Elements of Society in France. These are well enumerated, as follows: "The family; property, in all its kindsland, capital, or wages; labor, in all its forms, individual or collective, intellectual or manual; the situations and mutual relations established among men in consequence of these institutions of family, property, and labor." This is the analysis of the civil code of all countries, as well as France. The fact, says the author, which characterizes the civil condition of the latter country, is a "perfect unity of the laws and equality of rights. All classes of men, all species of property, all departments of labor, are regulated by the same laws, and possess or confer the same civil rights. No privileges-that is to say, no laws or civil rights peculiar to this or that family; this or that form of property; this or that mode of labor. It is a new and an immense fact in the history of human societies." Here we might retort a thousand things such as, how this great fact was brought to pass ? Was it by maintaining the policy of "order?" But, we accept it

as excellent in itself, and only add a single remark. It is, that our country shares this glory in an equal degree with France, in all except the two following particulars: our civil laws are sufficiently far from a "perfect unity," and they do not recognize property; they do not protect labor in the most valuable and elevated of its departments-that of intellect. These, it must be owned, are serious and shameful exceptions.

But amid this universal unity and equality before the law, there are, the author proceeds to remark, certain diversities and inequalities of condition, not to be cured by that unity. Of these there are, in fact, two obvious sources: one, in the natural differences of capacity in man; the other, in the accidental differences of opportunity into which men may be born in particular places or times. But these classes of influence may be said indeed to be accidental; and it might be argued to be the business of society to counteract and correct their malignant influences. This is, in fact, the associative spirit of the present age; which tends to make society a sort of insurance company against misery as well as misfortune. But then there is a law of subordination which, as Guizot rightly insists, the equalization can never infringe with impunity. This fundamental gradation of society he distributes, with the political economists, into,

"1. Men living by the income of their properties, landed or personal, without seeking to increase the latter by their own labor;

"2. Men who apply themselves to working, and augmenting, by their own labor, the property of all sorts in their possession;

"3. Men living by their labor, without capital or land."

That this is a correct and a complete analysis of the social situations of mankind in all the communities of the past, may be as the author contends, quite true, and is, no doubt, substantially so. But that this triple division must be a type to the indefinite future, is a proposition which we do not hesitate to deny, as a consequence; and cannot quite assent to as a probability, without an extent of explanation which our limits will not now permit us. At the same time, however, we entirely agree as to the

second series of diversity which M. Guizot well points out in the subjects themselves of property and labor, and which are undoubtedly founded in the progressive order of things.

The Political Elements of French Society. Here, too, there is a diversity in equality. These political divisions, however, are not parties, properly speaking. There can be tolerated but two parties the government, and opposition-in a republic; and a republic, M. Guizot scrupulously concedes, to be the actual form of government in France. But the sects of opinion in question are not the less essential or obstructive for being rather of a social than a partizan character. The first enumerated is the Legitimist, which represents not only the ancient monarchy and dynasty, but also certain other remnants of the old feudal society; such, for instance, as the church, and the parti pretre. The Legitimists, in truth, are held together by sentiments and prejudices; a poor prop in these hard days of reality and ratiocination. Next comes the bourgeoise or "middle-class" party. It represents the constitutional monarchy of Louis Philippe and M. Guizot himself, who, both, no doubt think a return to it to be the final destiny and sole salvation of France. In fact the burgess body is the party of material interests; a principle somewhat more vivacious than poetic reminiscences, and which, accordingly, holds the Socialists at present at bay. As to the latter-who, according to M. Guizot, constitute the third and last of the "political elements" of France, and repose upon the multitude-he will not allow them to have any fixed tenets at all. Their principle of union is the destruction of every thing established. The appellation that befits them is, the "party of anarchy." But this is an angry, and, as already shown, an erroneous judgment. In fact, of all the parties mentioned, they alone have any doctrines, in the strict sense of the term. What many of their doctrines may be we have left M. Guizot to wreak his relentless analysis in exposing. But we must insist that the doctrines are professed, and that while the other two are, as we have described them, the parties of prejudices and interests, the Socialists ought to be designated the party of ideas. Be this as it may, it is only by recognizing

those diversities of political sentiment that social order and permanent government can, in our author's opinion, be established in France. How is this to be done?

What are the Conditions?-M. Guizot answers, by constituting a corresponding diversity of powers in the State. The unity or one-chamber principle of the present French constitution, he thinks to be no better than a popular form of despotism. He contends, we have shown how rightly, that a people is not a simple aggregation of individuals, but an organic body, and that organization supposes gradation. He admits, on the other hand, that a State should not be a confederacy of classes, professions, opinions, claiming each a distinct and special representation in the government. The arrangement ought to be something between these opposite extremes. This something is supplied, it seems, by a process of amalgamation, and concentration which is operated quite spontaneously between the various classes, professions, &c., and which ends by reducing this multitude of particular elements to a "small number that are principal and fundamental." But why this grand internal operation of nature, of which Guizot makes ordinarily so little account-why this progressive progress of social assimilation, should "end" with this "small number," he does not take the pains to prove, although combating a constitution that discards the doctrine utterly. He does not even name the actual number. Not that he was here

at any loss, you may be sure. He only shrunk, no doubt, from the perspective of that shrug of derision so peculiar to his countrymen, were he to recommend them in terms the venerable trio of king, lords, and commons, of his constitutional monarchy. In this triple diversity of independent and ever antagonistic powers consists, he, however, ends by declaring, the practicability of government in France, and its perfection the world over, to the end of time.

It is hardly necessary to note that the author here, as throughout the book, takes a special situation of facts, or stage of social development, for a general system of principles. He extends an empirical aspect of government into its normal and natural organization. In short, he ignores, we repeat, all science as well as all prog

ress in the subject. This he nowhere be- from the monarchy, by beheading one and trays more signally than in the tenet just banishing another of the Stewart dynasty? described of the famous "balance of pow- And is not the contest with the aristocracy ers. For is not the "order," which in progress, accordingly, at the present Guizot makes the prime end of all govern- hour, while the crown is but a cypher signiment, precluded, in the very terms, by this fying nothing by itself? If these strictures co-equality and contention of powers? be just, it will be seen that the powers in How, moreover, can the same strife be question, instead of presenting a "balnow so salutary among the branches of the ance" or equipoise, have always, in fact, government, which was a while ago pro- alternated in a transitive subordination. nounced so fatal among the classes of the Thus much for the doctrine of this balcitizens? But the "order" which Guizot ance of the three powers as accounting for contemplates is not the order of science the duration of the English monarchy. which implies subordination and harmony, But the inconsistency of the doctor is still but the order of equipoise, which asks only a grosser oversight. How, it is obvious to brute force. Accordingly, he goes on to ask, did the Commons conquer their power tell us, that the "practice of seeking guar- by "degrees," and from weak beginnings, antees against the abuse of power, by in the face of the dogma just laid down, making it weak, is an enormous error. that "every weak power is a power doomed For every weak power is a power condemn- to annihilation or usurpation?" Again, ed to death or to usurpation. What," he ought not this single fact of the rise to asks, "has made the force and the fortune power of the "poor Commons," " (as they of the constitutional monarchy of Eng- whiningly styled themselves) have shown land?" Aye, there the idol of Guizot is him the futility in practice, as well as the unveiled half-covertly at last! It is the falsehood in history, of this pretended balempirical example of England; not the in- ance? Ought it not to have suggested ductions of general history; not the laws that there must be some great natural and of social science. Let us hear, however, expansive energy at will in society itself, from this fifteenth successor of Fortesque which could thus at once supply and suand Blackstone, what it is that constitutes persede its protection? Especially ought the pretended preeminence of the British it to have done so, in fact, with a man, who constitution, and how far it confirms the not only recognizes the conquered aggrancondemnation just denounced. The secret dizement, still incomplete, of the English so often said and sung, is this:-"The Commons, but who saw the principle carEnglish crown and aristocracy were power-ried much farther by the fiercer democracy ful from the first, and the Commons are become powerful by conquering successively from the aristocracy and the crown, the rights which they at present enjoy. Of these three constitutional powers two continue strong and rest upon deep lying roots; the third has become strong and taken deep root by degrees. All are capable of defending themselves from the encroachments of the others, and of fulfilling each its own mission."

Now, potent upon the face of this ofttold tale, there lie many things to tempt remark. For example, was the English crown powerful in the days of King John and Magna Charta, when it succumbed to the aristocracy? Was the aristocracy powerful, in turn, under Henry VIII. and Elizabeth? Did the Commons commence the conquest of their present rights "from the aristocracy," and not, on the contrary,

of his own country. He could not have forgotten that the tiers etats, who were dug, so to say, out of the earth by the pamphlet of Sieyés, in a few years swept away successively the monarchy and the aristocracy of privilege, and are battering now, with vigor unabated, the kitchen aristocracy of wealth. Or is it only the crown and the aristocracy that nature may have left in want of this political "balance" to uphold them? Very possibly.

In any other sense than this, in fine, we must conclude it no better than a chimera begot by politics upon pedantry. No such balance ever really existed in England or elsewhere. And for the conclusive reason, that the thing is as incompatible with the idea of organization in the social body, as would the severance of the nervous, the muscular, and the alimentary systems be with the continued subsistence of the indi

and commons, in every act of legislation, and the theory is that they are represented also in the judicial and executive functions. Moral Conditions of social quiet in France. But were his "political organi

vidual. This organic unity must have always and every, then existed, either virtually or institutionally. In England and wherever, there is no written constitution, it appears in the predominance of one or other of the powers for the time; a pre-zation" of powers, all the author mistakes dominance which we have just exemplified it for, there would still, he says, be necesin the remarks upon the last citation from sary, certain other conditions of a moral the author. In our government, and the nature. These are the family spirit, the French, for example, this principle of uni- political spirit, and the religious spity is the constitution, because it is presum-rit. The family is undoubtedly not ed a transcript, more or less imperfect, of only the premordial unit, but the perpetual the natural laws of the social system. primary school of the State. It is the proper nursery of those sentiments of affection, disinterestedness, self-denial and devotedness, which, shaped by education and solidified by principle, form the virtues that support and adorn the edifice of public life. Where the former is neglected, the latter can scarce exist; at least as the vigorous growth of a lofty morality, and not the sickly exotics of an interested calculation. That there is much to mend in this particular in France, we have no doubt; but we are quite sure there is still more to mend in the same quarter elsewhere.

We feel a clinging necessity of justifying over and over our imputations of scientific ignorance against a man of the real ability and reputed eminence of Guizot. The fact, however, has been submitted to the reader in numerous instances, and last of all the monster one of the "balance of power," which he would have his countrymen substitute for the organic unity of their present constitution. But what is perhaps still more decisive of this singular perverseness is, that he now turns round and taunts them with having introduced in another form the very principle of distribution which they repudiate in this. For "they have been careful, says he, to separate the legislative, the judicial and the executive powers. How, he exclaims, do they not see that the necessity mounts much higher, and that the diversity of the general interests of society and of the duties of the sovereign, demands imperatively a diversity of powers at the summit of the State, as a division of powers in the secondary regions of the government?" Here are manifestly confounded the synergic principle of Organization, and the energic principle of Function. It is overlooked that there is a natural and necessary series in the State as in the individual, between the operations of ordaining, of interpreting, and of executing. No two of these actions can be performed by the same agent at the same time, nor in the same import at different times. Here, therefore, the severalty and separation are essential, indispensable. Of the functions, on the contrary, there is no one that does not imply, successively, the concurrence of the entire organic system, whether in an individual or government. Even the misshapen system of the British Constitution requires this co-operation of king, lords

In the beneficial effects of the political spirit, we cannot so freely assent with the author. In the first place this spirit must prevail to some extent at the expense of the family virtues. And if the latter be, as they assuredly are, a preeminent good, the influence that should counteract them could hardly be classed in the same commendable category. Besides it is matter of every-day observation that the habits of political life tend to blunt the moral sensibilities, and even to deprave the character. Look at the more thorough-paced of the class in our own country. Who is there simple enough to expect from what is termed a trading politician," the observance of a single article of the decalogue, where he was not influenced by the hope of office, or the fear of exposure? We speak not of the drudges only. Turn to many of those who put up for being leaders, and are persons of ordinary integrity in the relations of civil life. Yet look into that parchment, callous, cadaverous face; the indecision alike of attitude, of opinion, and of language; and above all, the vague, winking, wall-eyed expression of the gaze. There is not a man with a soul in his bosom that does not meet that reptile countenance with something of the

strange commingling of the curious and the hideous, inspired by the contemplation of a living viper, or a human corpse. The explanation probably is, that the man, or rather the "politician" is in fact a moral corpse. This is not a training therefore, to be greatly coveted in itself. Nor is it possible to combine it, as Guizot imagines, with the cultivation of the family spirit. On the contrary we should think that this cultivation is principally demanded and providentially destined to prepare against the demoralizing effects of the political spirit.

zot. And in this assent is included the following pregnant antithesis: "If Communism and Socialism were to prevail, the Christian creed would perish. If the belief in Christianity were more genuine, Communism and Socialism would be soon but obscene follies." (p. 132).

The author concludes a respectable, because sincere, however erroneous exhortation to his countrymen to forsake the idol of democracy, and combine all that remains sound of interest and opinion in the state in formation of a government after the It is only in the region of the under- fashion he has thus delineated. The postanding that this spirit may possibly be litical philosophy of his plan, which we beneficial. Here alone it is, accordingly, have endeavored to present in its true light that the author, without noting this essen- to the reader, is maintained to the last, and tial distinction, proceeds to a specification quite qualis ab incepto. "We have,” of its civic consequences. "The political says he, "tried all things, a republic, an spirit rises naturally, through wisdom, if empire, a constitutional monarchy. We not morality, to that which is its funda- recommence our experiments. What are mental law and essential merit, namely, to we to blame for their failure? In our own respect for justice, the sole basis of social days, under our eyes, in three of the greatstability; for beyond justice there is but est nations of the world, these three same force, which is essentially variable and pre- governments, constitutional monarchy in carious. And respect for justice supposes England, the empire in Russia, the repubor generates respect for the laws, the ha- lic in North America, endure and prosper. bitual fountain of justice. And respect Aurions-nous le privilège de toutes les imfor the laws strengthens the respect for the possibilitès ?" p. 154. Here is first the authorities, who make or who apply them." social anachronism of counting the present (p. 143.) And this little social writer French constitution a mere repetition of proceeds, in the first concoction, he tells those of '93. But this uniform inadverus, from the "habit of seeing only what is tence to the social progression of civilizaand as it is;" which constitutes his prime tion and its constant correlation to the characteristic of the political spirit. We form of government is still more stolidly will only add that as M. Guizot may be declared in the concluding interrogatory. "guessed" to be his own exemplar of this M. Guizot seems to have no notion why faculty of attending to the actual, in dis- the institutions that suit England, or Amerregard of the future and the past, the doc-ica, or even Russia, should not be adapted trine here propounded would go far of itself to reconcile to his high but perverted intellectual powers the almost peurile tissue of error and inconsistency which we have been unwinding through his book.

As to the third and religious spirit, we can do no better, after the eloquent and even unctuous descant of our author, than to say as did his burgess colleague to the hustings speech of Burke: we say ditto to M. Gui

to France as well. He does not dream that freemen, or even the philosophers of Paris ought not to be content to be governed like the Cossacks of Siberia.

We had intended to close with some practical inferences from the preceding series of discussions. But want of space compels us to leave the moral to the meditation of the studious reader.

0.

« ZurückWeiter »