« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
Cavaignac was attacked by M. Pierre Leroux, who insisted that it was to the state of siege in the previous year that all the misfortunes of the country were to be ascribed; and that Gen. Cavaignac had then fallen a victim to his own
These words were responded to by a noble burst of eloquence from General Cavaignac. "No, no,” he exclaimed, "say not that I fell from power, but that I descended from it. Universal suffrage degrades no one; it commands, and a good citizen feels no degradation when he obeys its voice." This expression of legitimate and dignified pride was received with exclamations of sympathy from every bench in the Assembly. The general had said in the committee, that his sword and every drop of blood in his veins were at the service of the cause of order. "I am not," he added, "one of those who founded the republic, but I serve it with devotedness, and I here solemnly pledge myself never to serve any other government. You have spoken of terror; the only feeling you have inspired me with is that of profound sorrow, for should ever the republic fall and perish, it will be under the weight of your exaggeration and your phrenzied fury."
Of the Montagnard members who had assembled at the Conservatory of Arts and Trades, seven were arrested by the troops. They were MM. Deville, Fargin-Fayolle, Pilhes, Maigne, Daniel, Boch, and Vauthier. The Assembly authorized proceedings to be commenced against them. Many others escaped on hearing that the Conservatory was about to be surrounded by troops commanded by M. Pierre Bonaparte, who, though an ardent republican, is a friend to order and the laws.
The French government may congratulate itself on having thus got rid of Ledru Rollin, who from the commencement of the revolution has proved himself a perfect firebrand. He is a man undoubtedly of considerable ability as an orator; but possesses no solidity of judg ment. His leading principle throughout has been his own aggrandizement. The party of Montagnards may now be said to be without a
We think it was unfortunate that General Cavaignac, the most sincere republican who has yet appeared in France, was not elected President. During the four years he would have remained in power, he would by his moderation, his firmness, and his enlightened love of freedom, have consolidated the republican institutions, and have caused France to be respected by the European powers. During the short time he was at the head of the government, he clearly showed that he was inimical to a war of propagandism; that his only aim was the security, the tranquillity, and the prosperity of his country. He would never have been led into such an error as the present gov
The French are not yet masters of Rome, and Garribaldi and the Triumviri appear determined to resist to the uttermost. That the Eternal City must eventually fall, cannot be doubted, surrounded as it is by foes on every side. But the French can acquire no glory by stigmatized as Goths and Vandals, setting the conquest; on the contrary they will be aside the enormity of their conduct in thus attacking a sister republic, for the destruction of her revered monuments and works of art.
All the progress they have yet made is to have battered a breach in the outward walls, in which they have lodged some of their battalions. The Romans had in the mean time constructed another wall immediately within the breach, which must be also battered down, and hundreds of lives will be again sacrificed.
The government of Louis Napoleon will have to apply to the National Assembly for a fresh grant of money to carry on this most unpopular and iniquitous war. It will no doubt be granted, but it will give rise to much discontent.
On this subject we cannot refrain from quoting a few lines from a very witty ode addressed to Louis Napoleon by "Punch," and regret that our limits will not allow us to give the whole. It is one of the best jeux d'esprit we have seen for many years.
"When Rome shook off her priestly yoke,
What ground had you for interference? When of the POPE she made a clearance, Pray who call'd you with her affairs to deal? The Romans may be right or wrong,
I don't care which, in turning Pics out, And sending all the Cardinals along
With that good Pontiff to the right about; But let them choose their form of government, And what's the odds so long as they're content
French and German Democracy.
Strongly as we sympathize with the spirit of individual liberty and true progress in all parts of the world, we regard with the greatest detestation and horror the principles and practices of the ultra-democratic agitators in Europe. In a letter from Mr. Walsh to the Journal of Commerce (New York), dated Paris, June 18th, 1849, we find the following extracts from the manifesto of the German democrats, now congregated in Switzerland, translated by that admirable and most reliable writer. Let American democracy pause, and consider well, before it encourages by sympathy the originators of such doctrines.
"The French inquirers distinguish between American Constitutional Democracy, and French Revolutionary Democracy; if you would comprehend the German Democracy, peruse the huge manifesto of the German democrats congregated in Switzerland, which is well translated in the London papers of the 14th instant. War of extermination with all the old governments and social institutions; no pity, no mercy, to be accorded to enemies; communities in the ancient mould, wherever, to be completely decomposed and broken up. Accept a tiny sample of the precious text: "The reform of the present state of society must go hand in hand with and be made permanent by a reform in the system of education and public instruction. Education and instruction must, therefore, be stripped of religious doubts and superfluities. Its sole object is to make men fit companions for each other. RELIGION, which must be banished from society, must vanish from the mind of man. Art and poetry will realize the ideals of the true, the good, and the beautiful, which religion places in an uncertain future.
"The revolution generally destroys religion by rendering hopes of heaven superfluous, by establishing the liberty and welfare of all on earth. We pay attention, therefore, to religious struggles and contentions (the formation of free congregations, and so forth) so far only as we may, under the phrase, religious liberty, understand freedom from all religions. We do not desire liberty of belief, but the necessity of unbelief. In this, as in all other respects, we wish to break entirely with the past. We do not wish to engraft a fresh branch upon a rotten stem; we in no respect desire reform, but everywhere revolution."
"Now," says Mr. Walsh, "there is nothing worse in the programme of the German refugees in Switzerland, of which the authenticity cannot be disputed, than the collection of excerpts in my memorandum book from the oracles of Socialism and the Red Republic in France Proudhon could demonstrate that all agreed with him in the main and essence; property was theft; capital the insufferable nuisance;
progressive taxation indispensable to pare down all capital; universal, equal, compulsory education of male and female to terminate all inequalities. Let me offer you a notion of the supernal doctrine of the man, Proudhon, whose imprisonment the Nationel lately bemoaned as the eclipse of a glorious intellectual and political luminary. I cite from his System of Economical Contradictions; Creation of order in Humanity: Whatever may be our offenses, we are not guilty towards Providence; and, if there is one who before us and more than us deserved hell, let me name him, God. The true remedy of fanaticism is to prove to humanity that God, if there be a God, is the enemy of man. God! I know of no God; it is a mysticism.""
* * *
Then follows a hint for politicians, of such value we cannot forbear giving it entire.
"LEDRU ROLLIN, the generalissimo of the democratic parties, was examined as a witness at a trial at Bourges of the conspirators of May. He went coolly, and in the French sense cynically, into the following digression; I will tell you how we revolutionary republicans set to work. We seize and turn to account some idea or topic sympathetic to the people—ad captandum. We do not say whither we go, but the ball is set in motion. When the obnoxious government is overturned, we, by a device (lour) not less ingenious and adroit, substitute another government of our own.' In February, 1848, the sympathetic idea was the suppres sion by the monarchy of the right of political reunion or assemblage; in May, the Poles; in June, the right of the people to be employed, or fed without employment; last week the crusade against the darling and exemplary Roman republic. In Germany it has been German unity, the result of which idea I pray you to produce for your readers in a Berlin article of the 10th instant, enclosed in this epistle."
One would think that Tammany Hall had gone over to Europe, and after making a tour of the continent, had established itself in Frankfort and Paris. It is Tammany run mad with a little bad logic, and raw science, that produces the Proudhons and the Rollins.
That the American principle of universal suffrage and constitutional government is the great safeguard of human rights, may be gathered from the conduct and language of the majority in Paris. They will not fail to observe that a minority has no more right than a despot or a prime minister, to assume that it alone represents the true spirit and desires of the nation, much less upon that assumption to break down the government.
When the French democratic sects found themselves a minority in the Legislative Assembly, they resorted to this theory: "We represent alone the sound principles and feelings of the nation-the true sovereignty; it is for
us, not the pseudo-majority, to interpret the constitution; the President and ministers have violated the constitution, and the majority have connived by a vote of acquittal; all, therefore, of these traitors are hors de la loi, ipso facto outlawed; authority has rightfully passed to the minority, whose duty it is to organize themselves as supreme government, and grasp all power."
This, literally, was the daily proclamation of all these journals, from Friday of last week to Wednesday, the epoch of their abortive attempt. When, on Monday, LEDRU ROLLIN anathematized the Assembly, and was requested to remember that it was the offspring of universal suffrage, he answered:" I can understand the force of universal suffrage; but there is something superior to it-Eternal Justice." Thus it is that, whenever fundamental principles and essential institutions of republicanism, or constitutional texts and processes, operate to the disappointment of their efforts and aims, they appeal to something vague and ambitious, beyond or extraneous, and hold themselves free of all possible restraints and ordinances.
with the lesser European States would retard the movements of civilization for another age; in short, he indirectly adopts the policy of Washington and of the present wise admisistration of this country; to set a grand example of forbearance, and to leave other nations to achieve their own liberties. This great statesman adds, that when the northern powers have attained the objects they have in view, difficulties, not of war, but of peace, difficulties of commercial restrictions, of non-intercourse, of a proud, watchful, and gloomy jealousy will begin for France; he, therefore, advises the ministry to seek earnestly and speedily for serious guarantees and equal alliances;-if these cannot be found, let future difficulties suggest their own remedies. He would by no means, by anticipating wars, compel their commencement.
British Reasons against the Annexation of
Lord Brougham, in the House of Commons, in the debate on the Canadian Indemnification Bill, (19th June, 1849,) argued for keeping up Philosophy in France and Germany is gen- a close political connection with the Canadas, erally got up by medical students who have no on the ground that those provinces offer conpractice. These savans derive their principles veniences for the smuggling of British goods of political economy from a minute study of the into the United States. "No amounts of Amernervous system of frogs and cats. The scalpel ican police, or of American militia," said his in their hands generally changes into a sword, lordship, "could prevent a bale of goods from and their ambition rises betimes from the hack-crossing that extensive frontier into America." ing of dead flesh, to the more exciting dissection of living subjects. The precision and beautiful rapidity of the guillotine knife affects their imaginations. Seriously, if any one will be at the pains to trace back the modern social philosophy to its cradle; it will be found to have drawn its first breath in the dissecting chambers of the French and German schools. It is no disparagement to the exquisite science of physiology, that a mere smattering of it absolutely infects men with a kind of philosophic madness. Governments, however, take their rise from the experience of ages, from the common sense and prudence of men exercised in the business of common life.
"All we required to insure the introduction of our goods into America was a frontier; that frontier we had while we possessed Canada, and that the Americans knew well. Tariff there could be none; that was a dream, an impossibility, while we retained Upper Canada. (Hear.) Therefore it was that he conjured their lordships to do all they could to knit to us the affections of our fellow-subjects in Canada."
His lordship related an anecdote of smug. gling Brummagem hatchets into Illinois, by way of illustration, and with an evident zest. An English lord, said some one, is a retired shopkeeper; it now appears that an English Lord Chancellor is a retired smuggler.
General Cavaignac on the French Policy. General Cavaignac has shown himself to be unquestionably, if not the first, at least the Of the importance of Sir Robert Peel's most judicious head in power among the movement against the Corn Laws, one may French republic. In a late speech in the cham-judge by the fact that by a loose computation bers he defends alliance with England; he declares that reciprocal surveillance and not sentimental friendship is the basis of every military alliance. He thinks liberally of England, and attributes to her a peaceful motive in the late offers of alliance:-he repudiates the idea of a coalition. With a peculiar wisdom he surmises that if the States of Europe were in insurrection against the French republic, they would rather have returned to their former allegiance than submit to France; that a war of France
the effect of the repeal of those laws has been the removal of $30,000,000 of taxation a year from the manufacturing industry of the country, and the laying of it by a new tax upon income and land. No measure could have been devised more favorable to manu factures; it is, in fact, a protection to that amount, of the manufacturing classes. The burthens of the landholders, and of the receivers of incomes, are very largely increased; but this cannot be regarded as an oppression,
and should incomes in England be taxed
Defeat of the Jews' Bill.
Notwithstanding the eloquent defense of the Earl of Carlisle, in the House of Lords, the bill enabling Jews to sit in Parliament was rejected on the 26th ult., at the second reading. Among the arguments against the bill, the most powerful were probably those offered by the Bishop of Exeter. He observed, that in a republic all had an equal right of admission to the offices of State; but maintained, that in the English monarchy, the sovereign was bound to maintain the religion of the country; that Parliament was the great council of the Crown, sworn to be the protector of the true religion; and that a Jew could not be a faithful counsellor of the Crown in maintaining the religion of the nation.
Lord Brougham ridiculed the opposition to the bill. Having accorded to the Jews judicial functions, official stations, and the elective franchise, with power to canvass and spend money at elections, the attempt to keep them out of Parliament was ridiculous. Catholics, he said, had been admitted because Roman it was wise to do so, and not because their lordships were afraid to refuse; that it was discreditable to them to refuse the Jews, merely because they were not afraid to refuse them. The majority against the second reading was
Sir Robert Peel's Sympathy with Ireland.
At the sixth of the State dinners given by the Lord Mayor of London during his year of office, the party of which Sir Robert Peel is the leader was entertained. A great number of the nobility were present. Sir Robert Peel spoke. He sympathized with Ireland; he intimated that the natives of Ireland should not be expelled from the soil; that it was rather the duty of England to endeavor to elevate their character, to encourage their industry, to find for them permanent employment, to teach them order and respect for the laws.
Notwithstanding these intimations of Sir Robert Peel, we may rest satisfied that there will be a steady and undivided opposition in England to the only possible measures which can be adopted for the benefit of Ireland. These measures, we make bold to say, are, first, a system of protection for Irish against English manufactures and produce-a system which cannot be established without an independent Irish parliament. Ireland must be
placed upon an equal footing with England lish legislation for Ireland has been hitherto in respect to legislation. The system of Eng contrived for the express purpose of drawing hands, all her savings and all her capital. The away from Ireland, and placing in English profit derived to England by this procedure has been, in all probability, far exceeded by the outlay of the English government in the the Irish poor. Those who wish to obtain a military subjugation, government, and relief of clear insight into the present condition of ful description of the causes of her decay under Ireland, will find a most brilliant and powerEnglish legislation, in that valuable work of our countryman, Mr. Carey, entitled "The Past, the Present, and the Future," and which, in our own opinion, is the completest, as well as the most interesting, treatise of political economy that has ever appeared.
Protection in England.
in this country, that English protectionists It must never be forgotten by protectionists tion of manufactures in Great Britain, but have in view, not the establishment or protecmerely that of the aristocracy of land, the maintenance of high rents and low wages for the poor farmers. This party have a vio lent jealousy of the manufacturing aristocracy, represented by Peel and Cobden, while they, establishment of the English manufacturing on their part, have but one end in view, the removing the burthens of taxation from the interest, which it is their plan to protect, by operatives in cotton, wool, and iron, to the operatives who use the hoe and the plough. It is a struggle for power between the two grand divisions of the English aristocracythe landholders and capitalists.
Repeal of the English Navigation Laws.
11th, 1849, a valuable selection from English We find in the New York Tribune of July journals of the various opinions of English politicians on the navigation laws, the repeal of the 1st of January, 1850. Protection is now which, passed last month, is to take effect on extended only to the coasting trade and the bank fisheries of Great Britain. It will be no longer necessary for American whalers to have wish to carry the product of their voyages to their vessels fitted out in English ports, if they England.
There are now 732 American ships engaged in the whale fishery, employing 20,000 seamen, and bringing home $6,000,000 worth England without landing first in the United of oil. This oil can be carried directly to States. The South Sea whale fishery is almost entirely in American hands.
Under the new repeal bill, goods may be
purchased by American merchants in any part | of the world, by their own captains or supercargoes, and carried, in their own vessels, directly to any part of Great Britain. If, however, any foreign nation shall refuse to reciprocate with England in this measure, the executive power of the British empire can impose such equalizing restrictions as may seem necessary. British ship-owners can purchase American built vessels in America.
Lord Brougham, in the discussion on the repeal, insisted that, under the new law, ships could not hereafter be built in England with profit to the builder. He adduced the evidence of a ship-owner of Leith, confirmed also by that of others, that a vessel, built with the greatest economy at that port, cost him $97 the ton; that if the duty of $9 75 cents the ton on timber were abolished, the cost of the vessel would be $87 25 the ton; while at Dantzic, in the Baltic, the same ship could be built for $58 the ton.
production of cotton and woollen fabrics and manufactures of iron, that forces this extraordinary repeal through the House of Com
The Navigation Act of our own country, March 1st, 1817, provides that no other nation shall engage in a carrying trade between any foreign country and the United States, but that goods brought from any foreign nation to the United States, shall be brought in vessels of that nation or of the United States. But this regulation extends only to the vessels of foreign nations which have adopted a similar regulation. The fourth clause of the Navigation law of England enforced the same regulation for Great Britain; and the consequence has been an almost complete exclusion of English ships from the trade between England and America. Of course there would be no disposition on the part of our government to repeal the Navigation act of 1817, while that of England remained in force; for it is generally understood that statesmen never proceed on theory, but if they advocate free trade or its contrary, they do it for the support of that interest which they conceive to be most important to be sustained in their own country. The free trade controversy is a war of logical manoeuvring on the part of England, between her own manufacturing interest and her landholders.
Mr. Gladstone, (Sir R. Peel's secretary for the colonies,) was of opinion that the relaxation of the old severe Navigation laws had helped the mercantile navy. He said in 1848, in the House of Commons, that from 1791 to 1824, the increase had been at the rate of 20,000 tons a year. From 1824 to 1847, it had been 40,000 tons a year, which was a more rapid increase than that of the United States. He said that the shipping of the British colonies had grown with still greater
The ship-building interest in England employs $80,000,000 of capital; the annual outlay in the building of ships is $15,000,000; the outfit and repairs, $40,000,000; the number of shipwrights employed, 80,000 at $1 the day-a class of men among the most industrious, sober, and skillful of mechanics. A shipmaster in the Baltic received about $24 the month; in Belgium and Holland only $20; while in England the same man would receive $41 the month. The men, in the Baltic, Holland, and Belgium, received from $7 50 to $9 the month; but that the price of food in England was thirty cents a day, and in the other countries named but fifteen cents. Such were the statistics given to show that foreign competition would destroy the merchant service of England. Now, as it is very certain that ships can be built much cheaper in the United States than in England, we may expect a very great increase in the amount of capital to be embark-rapidity. ed hereafter in the shipping interest in America. The advocates of the bill have not yet discovered the real motives which actuate them in forcing the repeal; there is little doubt, however, that the measure is carried entirely by the manufacturing interest, aided by the general theory of free trade, which at present occupies the minds of the public. That the class of ship-builders will suffer materially in England is not to be expected, as the greater part of them will probably emigrate to the United States. The policy of the manufacturing interest in England is, at present, to facilitate, by the sacrifice of every inferior interest, the freest intercommunication, and to establish reciprocity, if possible, with all other nations; the only course left to her to save her manufacturers from total ruin, and her operatives from the extremest poverty, and even from famine. It is the poverty of England, exasperated by American competition in the
This increase may be attributed, not to any relaxation of the Navigation laws, but to two principal causes, viz: the increased intercourse with the colonies, and the want, so severely felt in England, of a profitable place of investment for unemployed capital; especially as Mr. Richmond, before the House of Lords, states that for many years past, fully one-half the capital employed in shipping has been sunk and irretrievably lost; and that only a few individuals here and there have been fortunate enough to save themselves from the universal ruin.
Dr. Bowring, arguing for the repeal, lets out the secret. Freights, said he, (bearing testimony against ship-owners,) in the case of coal, iron, ores, and other articles, cost more than the materials themselves. Why, he would ask, were we not to lessen the cost of conveyance? We should no more, he adds, be taxed by high freights than by the increase