75 

 FRANCE, OR CAUSES OF THE LATE INSURRECTION IN FRANCE. 



AT the time when, a little subsequent to the acknowledgment of Ameri- 

 can independence, (in 1786,) a popular insurrection in Massachussets 

 menaced all authorities, state and federal, with setting them topsy turvy, 

 the reproach was generally made to the American Government, that it 

 would not last free and united for any space. Half a century, since elapsed 

 in freedom and union, has taken the trouble to answer the cavil. Jeffer- 

 son angrily replied at the time, " that he could have no hopes of a country, 

 that did not shew a similar spirit from time to time. The body politic," 

 said he, " can never be healthy, unless it throws forth its malign humours." 

 Without exactly adopting the creed of Jefferson j on the contrary, most 

 strongly deprecating the custom of deadly political quarrels in the tho- 

 roughfares and lanes of^a capital, we must still say, that the momentary 

 abuse of freedom by the French, fills us neither with disgust nor despair. 

 Since 1789, they have progressed towards liberty, often overthrowing it, 

 but never altogether destitute of what our chroniclers call, losing sight of 

 the great aim. In submission to Napoleon, in seconding his strong arm, 

 the French bartered their domestic liberties, indeed, but it was neither 

 without return nor for ever. They had secured equality at home, and the 

 new state and spirit arising from this principle, had time to grow and to 

 mature at home, whilst the force of the country, united under one powerful 

 head, marched to overthrow the hostile principle of feudality abroad. The 

 French were indeed driven back within their frontiers, not, however, without 

 having achieved their great purpose, and established the seeds of anti-feu- 

 dalism, and anti-despotism, in every crevice of the European soil. These 

 are now germing ; and far more prosperous will be their national growth, 

 than if the French still held their empire. Meantime, the French at home 

 have not been idle. The destruction of privileges, the division of property, 

 the shaking off religious trammels, the annals of the revolution itself, were 

 bequests made by that great event, able of themselves to ensure freedom. 

 Come it must, under any or all circumstances, whether Napoleon had con- 

 tinued to reign or not. The outbreak must have come, for the momentum 

 was placed in the domestic institutions of the people, graven on their 

 hearths more deeply than on their law -tables ; and the only pbssible mode 

 of checking it was for the ruler, whoever or whatever he might be, to put 

 himself at the head of what has been so well denominated the mouvement, 

 and thus rendering it as gradual and as rational as might be. 



These and many other things we do not take into account, when we 

 undertake to pass judgment on the French. Their revolution of July 

 was admired herej it was outrageously provoked, and most gallantly 

 followed up. But their restlessness since, their riots, their plots, their late 

 revolt, are too apt to seem the fruits of mere wanton fickleness, without 

 any cause deeper than their caprice, and consequently afford no hopes of 

 a peaceable settlement in such a country, till it be once more under the 

 rod of despotism. 



But the fault is not in the people. History shews the French to have 

 been the most patient people on earth, and to have borne, longer than any 

 other, the enormous evils of a monarchy pushed to the last extreme of 

 despotism and audacity. The English of 1642 put their shoulders to 

 their monarchy, while it was yet in its vigour, and upset it by main force. 



