76 France. 



The French monarchy of 1 790 was not upset. It fell of itself ; it could 

 not go a step farther j it foundered. The people of France never set 

 themselves free, till political paralysis had stricken the monopoly that 

 enthralled them. But when they did set about freedom, they did the thing 

 more completely than we did. We began from above, pruning such 

 branches as kept us from the sun. They began at the roots, of which 

 they plucked up the old, planting a new and different seed altogether. 



Now here is the mistake. We think, that when Buonaparte came, he 

 merely renewed the system of the old monarchy. No such thing he 

 was but a temporary dictator, who stood by his own might, and made no 

 institutions to prop himself with, except the military ones of the hour. He 

 left the republican seed of equality in the ground, and let it grow without 

 trampling or uprooting. Hence it was, that when the Bourbons came 

 back, they found a florid despotism, in appearance just what suited them, 

 but beneath that appearance was a republican people. The French were, 

 and are, a republican people. The great revolution made them so irrevo- 

 cably. We may regret it, but we must own it. We may wish to make 

 it otherwise, but it is beyond our power ; unless that which has been 

 declared impossible, viz., that a man be born again, should become 

 possible. The French are a republican people, republican in spirit, in 

 social feeling, in pride, in habits of life, in the division of property, in fact, 

 in all their private and domestic properties and relations. Yet, with all 

 this, the form and machinery of government is monarchic. Hence the 

 eternal combat betwixt them ; and, while it lasts, the monarchic principle 

 can never feel secure, nor the republican principle feel satisfied. 



Charles the Tenth and his people must have come into collision, angry 

 collision for they were at issue on points, that only the sword can decide. 

 Nevertheless, when the revolution of 1830, was completed, the chiefs, 

 frightened at the name of a republic, associated as it was with crime, 

 thought to make a compromise, and erect a throne, surrounded by repub- 

 lican institutions. Here was a mistake. It was the mingling of two 

 principles, that never amalgamate. For the new king was no sooner king, 

 than he took on him a king's nature, and leanings, and aspirations ; and 

 ere a little month was over, the great mistake was seen, and the republi- 

 cans lamented their fault. However, instead of being angry with Louis 

 Philippe, they ought to have accused themselves, for what in reality was 

 their blunder, and, indeed, his misfortune. 



Such has been the state of things in France. To all outward appear- 

 ance, Louis Philippe has enjoyed a species of popularity: but analyze it ; 

 'tis, with the exception of a court-faction, such as must always exist in 

 proportion to the civil list and place list of a monarch, but a general 

 desire for peace and quietness. The influential majority of the French, 

 viz. the population of great towns, are all commercial $ they have made 

 capitals ; they exist and trade on credit. A riot kills at once their revenue 

 and their capital j and hence the National Guard of any city are always 

 ready to put down the artizans, when they rise. But is this loyalty, is 

 this affection for Louis Philippe, and his dynasty ? No. His name,, indeed 

 is, and has been, a word synonymous with order. It has stood for govern- 

 ment. But let it be once proved and suspected, that the upholding Louis 

 Philippe affords greater chance of troubles than tranquillity, and he in- 

 stantly is left without support. A few more such riots as those of last 

 month will be sufficient to prove this. The middle and industrious 



