The History of the Restoration of Monarchy in France

briands, the De Maistres; the great orators who practised themselves in discussion, the Lainés, the De Serres, the Foys; the sight of those princes and of those princesses, before whom France composed its features, to render their country sweet and hospitable in their eyes; the saloons, the theatres, the fêtes, the assemblies of an aristocracy eager to enjoy; enthusiastic women, beautiful, intellectual, and grouping once more around them the illustrious men of Europe, of the war, of the tribune, of literature and of art;)— it is natural, I say, that the impressions of such a period, in the existence of a people, should remain profoundly engraved in the memory of a young man, and predispose, at a later period, the man of maturity to I know not what partiality in his reminiscenses of this fascinating dawn of his opinions.

VII.

Such is, I confess, my tenderness or my weakness of mind towards the Restoration. Its faults and its misfortunes have made no alteration in my first impressions. I have interdicted myself from serving, and still more from liking, the monarchy without antecedents, without prestige, and without right, which succeeded, in 1830, to the government of my sympathies. The uncle was solely unpardonable in replacing the nephew. Nature, at least, is a legitimacy for those who do not recognise legitimacy in a political sense. The Republic from this period might have set aside the throne; no other sovereign than the people could occupy it. The Revolution of July would then have been a progress; but it was only a subversion. It did not replace the throne; it did not crown the nation; it only put off the day of struggle. Although I have never disturbed or insulted the government of Louis Philippe, for fear of disturbing the country itself, I had an instinctive perception of its instability.

It is with governments as with metals: nothing false has strength; truth is the vital principle of everything. Nothing was true in that royalty, but a throne and a people equally defrauded. Sooner or later it must have perished as it arose― in a breath. Neither eminent men, nor ministers, nor orators, nor abilities, nor talents, nor even private virtues were wanting to this reign. What it wanted was respect-that which gives durability to institutions, the youngest as well as the oldest. When it was asked what it was, it could invoke neither God nor the people; it could only say for itself, “I am the negation of Divine right, which prolongs the hereditary reign of princes; and I am the negation of the right of nations to choose their own kings." Between hereditary right, which it had banished, and national election, which it had eluded, what could it do? Manoeuvre, negociate, compound, unduly influence, or corrupt. It was a government with two faces, neither of which spoke the truth.

VIII.

Its fall, in leaving the palace vacant, made room for absolute right, the right national, the right natural, the right of every man coming into this world to have his portion of suffrage, intelligence, and will in the government,— the vote universal. Universal Suffrage is the true name of modern society at present. This principle has made a Republic of France; and it could not do otherwise. In the state of incredulity, of anarchy, and of struggle in which the monarchical principle, personified in three dynasties, was plunged with itself, to give France of 1848 to monarchy, would be to give it up to factions. The country should assume the dictatorship; the dictatorship of a country is republicanism. It has taken the dictatorship, and will preserve it so long as it is worthy of

the name of a nation. For a prince or a dynasty which abdicates is replaced by another dynasty, or by another prince. But a nation worn out, or incapable of liberty, which abdicates,—what can replace it? Nothing but a chasm in history; nothing but shame, servitude, or tyranny. We look upon the map of the world, and say, "A great people occupied that place; but now there is nothing but a great blot upon the dignity of nations.”

IX.

After having paid our tribute of sincerity to the age, we ought to pay our tribute of gratitude to the writers who have illumined and placed landmarks for us upon this route of history. We owe much to two amongst them above all: M. Lubis, who has so well divested himself of his prepossessions for the Bourbons, in recounting, with courageous impartiality and with a luminous appreciation, the faults and the misfortunes of his cause; M. de Vaulabelle next, who in our opinion has somewhat too largely drawn his facts from hostile sources; but who has disposed his matter, and written with a consciousness of talent, and an art of grouping events which assigns him a distinguished rank amongst historians. We ourselves have written from another point of view, because we were farther removed than they from the impression of the drama; but without them we could not have written. M. Lubis has recorded the feeling of the Restoration; M. de Vaulabelle also the feeling, and often the opposition, of liberalism. Without the spirit of bigotry or of opposition, we shall endeavour to write the truth.

Books