France as it is, not Lady Morgan's France

Front matter

<5fc. fye. Sec, KOT lady Morgan's France. IN TWO VOLUMES. BY WILLIAM PLAYFAIR, AUTHOR OF THE POLITICAL ATLAS, POLITICAL PORTRAITS, DECLINE AND FALL OF NATIONS, &C &C VOL. I. Ego vtrum arno, vervm volo did mikt: Mendacem odu Plautufi. LONDON: Printed by W. M'Dowall, Pen.b_.tcn Row, Go-_lwq.are. FOR C CHAPPLE, BOOKSELLER TO THE PRINCE REGENT, AND HIS R. II. THE DUKE OF YORK, S6, PALL MALI.. 181.9. PEjEFACE. THE Revolution of France is so important, and so extraordinary an event, that it must have a great influence on the future conduct of mankind. It is therefore of great moment to show, whether or not it has changed the country in which it has taken place from worse to better, or what are likely to be its con sequences. That the revolution was in itself terrible, is well known ; that nearly one generation has either prema turely fallen, or lived in misery on account of it, is certain ; but then, the great question, and a great one it undoubtedly is, is whether the balance will, in the end, be advantageous or disadvantageous.

Many events are recorded in history, which produced misery at the time, and were founded on in justice; but which, in the end, turned out to be very beneficial to the people, who at the same time were sufferers, and had a right to complain. Amongst those events may be reckoned the invasion of Britain under Julius Caesar. Nothing could a

Preface

. be more unjust; no attack was ever more wanton and unprovoked; yet, it bettered the situation of the inhabitants, and was the means of civilizing them much sooner than would otherwise have been done; and, amongst other things, prepared the way for the introduction ofthe Christian religion. Though the invasion was attended with much blood-shed, yet it is not improbable, that it saved more than it shed, for the situation of the Britons was worse after the Romans left them, than while they remained their masters. Another event, that in itself was highly disastrous, but which in its consequences was very beneficial, is the Crusades, that took place in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Millions of people perished in the wild attempt to wrest the Holy Land from the in fidels, who had got possession of it; but that wild attempt, though terminating in disaster of every description to those who undertook it, and though not much better for those against whom it was pro jected, yet, was the first cause of an amelioration in the state of Europe, then enveloped in darkness, and groaning under the combined influence of ig norance and of the feudal system. The Crusades, so miserable in their immediate consequences, introduced some degree of civiliza-

PREFACE.

. III tion amongst the rude barons, by whom they were undertaken; at the same time that they obliged many of them to mortgage or sell part of their lands, and so rendered them less haughty, less oppressive, and less independent. , If there is any rule without an exception, it is this That in this world there is no good entirely unmixed with evil, and no evil, that is not attended with some good. There has not yet been found any example of either the one or the other, and it seems contrary to the nature of things in this world, that there should be any thing perfectly good, or entirely bad, and productive of nothing but evil. The great business, then, is to see, whether good or bad preponderates ; for, that both enter into the composition of all human affairs, is beyond dispute. That the revolution, during its existence, pro duced many crimes and misfortunes is well known ; that those who conducted it, were either the most insane or the most wicked of mankind, is scarcely doubted by any, and it is asserted by the greater num ber; but has it bettered the situation ofthe people? That is the question. When Brutus and other conspirators, (giving to their virtuous and patriotic spirit a wrong direction),

PREFACE.

. IV murdered Julius Cæsar, they prepared the way for introducing much evil into their miserable country. Rome was not in a state to renew and preserve a republic: it was not then, as when the Tarquins were banished. The good or evil resulting from such acts depends, not so much on the acts them selves, as on the situation of the people for whose benefit they are performed. When Charles I. of England was murdered by his subjects, the men that did the deed, and their con temporaries, were not in a state to profit by what was done. They aimed at becoming free, but they became greater slaves under an usurper, than they had been under the most arbitrary of the legitimate kings. This criminal act, from which the perpetra tors derived no advantage, was nevertheless the pre lude to the happy revolution that took place thirty nine years after, when William and Mary succeeded to the unfortunate son of the murdered king.

Those in like manner who were guilty of bring ing to tbe block Louis XVI. one of the best of kings, and the most benevolent and virtuous of men only brought double destruction on their own heads. Their crimes and misery were so great, that poste rity will refuse credit to their extent, and even those

PREFACE.

. V who were eye-witnesses of the terrible scenes, begin already to doubt the fidelity of their memdry*. Whether or not the present race are prepared, like those who lived when William and Mary came to the throne of England, to profit by what has been * As a sort of specimen of the deranged state of France, and the wild conduct of its rulers, even after the first horrors were over, we shall give the following facts as recorded, and therefore not admit ting of doubt. The number of persons that died, or were killed in consequence of the revolution, is estimated at 8,526,000, or, as nearly as may be, one-third of the population of France; of those, five millions and a half fell under the consulate or imperial government of Buonaparte. 25,800 laws were enacted, 8 constitutions decreed, and 5,062 of the decrees were passed during the reign of Buonaparte.

The expense of the imperial family was yearly 61,420,000 francs, or £2,560,000 sterling. The assemblies, prefects of departments, and other agents, cost annually on an average, J) 4,476,000 francs. The possessions of tbe clergy, supposed to produce a revenue of 200 millions of francs a-year, estimated at 200 millions sterling, to sell, were sold, and the produce wasted; and emigrant's estates, for a bout hajf as much more; yet, with all this, with forced loans, and a bankruptcy reducing the debt tP one-third, the state still owed 63 millions of rentes in 1 814, when tbe revolutionary government fell. The return of Buonaparte from Elba, and his reign of 100 days, doubled the debt! Such are, as nearly as can be known, the results of the VI

PREFACE.

. done, is the great question. There are reasons for and against, and of those we shall endeavour to take some notice in the course of the work, and draw, as far as we can, a parallel. In some respects the present situation of things in France, resembles rather the restoration of Charles II. than the accession of William III. but in other things, it resembles much more the latter event, and it will depend chiefly on the king of France and his brother, whether it is to be ranked with the fortunate or the unfortunate, the evanes cent or the durable state of things. Charles II. like Louis, returned with a number of emigrants, men who had followed his fortune, and shared his adversity. He had not the means of sa tisfying their claims; and from this circumstance arose discontent amongst those unfortunate men, and jealousy in the minds of the rest of the nation.

The situation of the king was peculiarly afflicting; He could not satisfy his friends. He could not even do them justice, and those who had been the enemies revolution to France; while England has, including the war taxes, the loans, and the increase of permanent taxes since 1793, expended above eleven hundred millions, to resist and put down the revolution. This is not including the great expenditure of other countries, on the Sdir.e account.

PREFACE.

. VII of his family, mistrusted him, because they knew he was inclined to do what was not in his power. The situation of Louis XVIII. is so far parallel. The promises which Charles made when he was restored, were not made with that deliberation and prudence, which was requisite, and could not be kept. A charter, a constitution, or the rules by which a country is to be governed, must be practicable. That of England was not so in all its parts ; and we shall show, in the following work, that the constitutional charter of France is not at present practicable in all its parts. The situation of Louis XVIII. and of Charles II. are again so far parallel. The nation felt, that it had ill-treated the father, and could never believe that it was forgiven by the son. Those who are injured may forgive, but those who do the injury, never can be brought to believe that they are forgiven*. * The people of Paris now, notwithstanding the daily and un bounded beneficence of the royal family, can never be persuaded that they are forgiven by them.

The duchess d'Angouleme, in par ticular, is suspected of nourishing an inward desire of revenge. — Where will injustice stop? That princess, so cruelly persecuted in *h her youth, imprisoned with her family, who were all torn from her one by one, to suffer the mott inhuman insults and death. That

PREFACE.

. In France, we believe, that Louis forgives those who injured his family; but we are persuaded, that many do not believe that they are forgiven. This is not indeed very wonderful, for even persons, who are in no manner parties to the affair, cannot rid themselves of feelings of anger, when they read the horrible details. The manner in which Louis XVI. was treated, was so much worse, and his personal character so much better, than that of Charles I. that the French must feel their injustice more than the English did, and consequently be more difficult to be convinced that they are forgiven. Louis XVI. had not violated any charter, for he had none to violate, previous to the constitution of princess, who for years, languished in a solitary dungeon, with the most cruel reflectionson the past, with no hopes for the future in this world, has contracted a sort of dignified melancholy, which will accompany her to the grave.

This plight well be accounted for, by all who can feel, as arising from past scenes, the remembrance of which nothing ever can efface. The Parisians think it disdain. They know they have offended beyond forgiveness towards that princess, and all her unaffected goodness and charity, are unable to convince them, that they are forgiven. Lady Morgan takes care to give to her melancholy dignity, this same uncharitable, unjust and popular explanation, when she saw her pass along the Boule vards, on the marriage-day of the Due de Berri.

PREFACE.

. IX 1789, and after its formation, he had most scrupulously adhered to every article*. His conduct on the whole was mild when in power, and submissive when in adversity, with a degree of firmness, at the same time, that makes it astonishing how men could be found to persecute or insult him, much less to put him and his innocent family to death. Charles I. had violated the charter, by an adherence to which he could only legally hold the throne. He was so far from yielding, like the mild Louis, that he went to war with his parliament; yet, notwithstanding, the parliament and the people felt they * The king constantly carried the constitutional charter in his pocket, and never took any step, with regard to which there was a*y doubt, without first consulting it. His trial before the conven tion, which was an outrage to all decency and justice, showed how much be was belied, when they said he violated the constitution.

As to king Charles, his most zealous advocates admitted, that he violated the coronation oath, but the violence and injustice of his enemies made his faults be forgotten. The brightest star disappears, when the sun shines, and so it was with the faults of the unfortunate Charles." He erred, and that greatly ; but the rebels who murdered him became so criminal, and were so hated, that the bulk of the nation si lently wished to see his death revenged. The nation disclaimed the act, and has always been ashamed of it, though it was the act of • faction, supported by an army of rebels, that held good men in awe.

PREFACE.

. X had gone too far. They did not forgive themselves for what they had done, and therefore they could not believe, that the son of their murdered sovereign could forgive them. So far once more is there a parallel. Charles II. had made promises when he was restored, but his head was still full of legitimacy and divine rights; he still lusted after power, as the Jews in the wilderness did after the flesh-pots of Egypt; and there are some reasons for fearing that Louis XVIII. does the same. So far still there is a parallel Charles II. had no children. The crown was to go to his brother at his death; and that brother, afterwards James II. was supposed to be still more attached to the ancient form of government and royal prerogatives than the king himself. In the language of the present day, he was an ultra royal ist; and here, we are sorry to say, the parellel is complete; or, if it is not, we are misinformed, and, at least, nine tenths of France is in an error on the subject*. * King Charles, walking out one morning, accompanied only by fwo noblemen, met the duke of York coming from bunting, at Hounslow, attended by a company of light dragoons. The duke descended from his carriage, and, joining his brother, remonstrated

PREFACE.

. XI There remains but one other circumstance at tendant on the two cases, which require to be com pared: The English had not, properly speaking, a bill of rights in Charles's time. They had neg lected, at the restoration, to make the arrangement with their monarch complete. The French have a charter; but it is incomplete, and in some places with him for not being guarded. " Ah, James, (replied the witty. monarch), there is no need of that : nobody in the kingdom will kill me, to put you upon the throne." When the duke of York remonstrated with king Charles, one day, for not being more peremptory and severe, the king replied gravely — " I am too old, James, to go on my travels again ; when you come to the throne, you may be peremptory and severe, if you think pro per." These words were half prophetic.

James was peremptory and severe when he ascended the throne, and he soon went again on his travels, never to return. The opinion in France is, that the king's brother is something like the duke of York in his way of thinking, and the king like Charles II. Perhaps it is not so. M. de Cazes told an Englishman who waited upon him on some business, that the king and the whole family were as completely of one mind as possible. " Since you say so, Monseigneur, I believe it to be so, (said the Englishman), but it is a pity that some method is not taken to let the public know the truth. This conversation was in last September, at the time that the open revolt against the king was publicly and generally the sub ject of conversation.

PREFACE.

. contradictory*. It therefore requires a change, but how that is to be brought about, it is difficult to •ay. Here,' in one respect, there is a parellel; and in another, there is none. The nature of a charter or bill of rights renders it permanent. Once granted, there is no power to change it. Eng land obtained the change wanted, by a revolution; but had James II. been wise, or a friend to liberty, it might have been done without a revolution. * We shall give a translation of tbe charter, and show in what it contradicts i'.self; as also in what it is impracticable: but to show all that it wants would be a difficult task. After making eight constitutions, and twenty-five thousand laws, it might naturally be thought a very easy matter to write a charter copied partly from the Rights of Man by Thomas Paine, Esq. partly from M. le Marquis de. la Fayette's constitution of 17S9> and partly selected from the pigeon holes of the Abbe Scieyes.

A sort of tessellated pavement or patch-work counterpane, was thus made in three days, and sent over to the king before he left England. His majesty received it, and, in haste, made some changes ; but the changes made it still more exceptionable. It is easy to see that they were made in another spirit, and thus the whole is such as must be al tered, for it cannot be executed. All parties know this well ; and while they join in crying out—" The charter, all the charter, and nothing but the charter,"— they think of the Sam Culottes, who cried out—" Vh'c la mort." They have great confidence in the good in^ tcutions of his majesty, but very httle in the charter. PRFEACE. XIII The nations are similarly situated as to the ne cessity of a change, but not so as to the means of attaining it. 1 In England, the great charter, the foundation of the bill of rights, was an agreement between the king and people.

It wa9 to all intents and purposes, both in form and essence, a bargain, to which there were two parties. In France, the constitu tional charter is a grant, and not a bargain. Per haps this will diminish tbe difficulty of making an alteration: perhaps, on the contrary, it will in crease the difficulty, because the very circumstance of its being a grant renders it unsatisfactory. It requires more depth of reasoning than the great bulk of any nation is possessed of, to see that a gift made under certain circumstances, though different in form, is in reality a bargain. Every one conceives, that to alter a bargain, the consent of both parties is necessary; but the will of the giver appears sufficient to modify a gift, provided the modification is in favour of the receiver, and not of the giver*.

On this circumstance, in which * The proverb, that nothing is more free than a gift, appears in favour of the king's preamble to the charter. For when it is fairly considered, it expresses that the gift is so free to the receiver, that the giver cannot retract, or alter it; but then one thing is wanting

PREFACE.

. the two countries are not similarly situated, depends a great question. If Louis is inclined to grant a modification, and the nation equally inclined to be content with that, then the difficulty is over. But, if the nation thinks that a grant is -not a sufficiently sure tenor; or if Louis XVIII. is not inclined to modify the grant, then the necessity of a change will, as in England, bring on a change of dynasty. A revolution will be the consequence; but of this we Say there is a question, which particular circumthat alone can make the gift sacred. Did what was given actually belong to him who gave it? Now this is the very point on which men differ. The king had not, say the revolutionists, that is, the French nation, a right to give lo the people what was their own from the origin of the monarchy, and which, though long withheld, they claimed the poss«ssion of for twenty -five years.

But still this is not all. Tbe very acceptance of the charter is a gift, an acknow ledgment on the part of the nation that all their rights emanated from the king, and that they were not inherent rights. Now, with great deference to his majesty, as legitimate king of France, we cannot yield that point, nor did the nation yield it; and there were those present at the time who said, (not in accents loud, but deep), that the receivers should be as free as the giver; but with Russians, Prussians, and Pandours, swarming round them, there was nothing <o be said, nothing to be done, but to take it or leave it, and stand to the consequences ; and, not being prepared to do the latter, they of necessity did the former.

PREFACE.

. XV stances must determine, as it may, by proper con duct, be avoided; and, by improper, brought on*. We know that the restoration effected every purpose during the life of Charles II. but his ultra brother soon brought matters to a cricis. Now, we hope, in the present case, that there will be no pa rallel; and that the example of what happened in England, will prevent a similar thing from happen ing in France. It would be useless, even if it were not wrong, to disguise the truth; but the thinking part of the French nation is very much dissatisfied with the charter being in the form of a grant, and not of a bargain. Though Lewis said in the preamble to the charter that a grant was better than a concession extorted from the weakness of a king*, yet, that is a questionable sort of sophistry. * Had James the Second acted with moderation and prudence, it .. probable that he would have died king of England.

It was not through enmity to him, that his son-in-law and daughter were in vited over, but the nation was tired of struggling, and co.nvii.ced that there was no end to it. The inviting queen Anne, another daughter, to the throne, after the death of king William, was a proof that there was no enmity to the family. * It was supposed, that when the king used these words, he al luded both to the constitution of 1789, which the constituent as sembly compelled Louis XVI. to accept, purely and simply, without

PREFACE.

. It is true, that in ordinary life, what is freely given, is considered as more sure in its possession, than what is obtained by force ; but then, there is a sort of deception in this way of arguing the matter, or at least iu this way of resolving the question. Though the great barons of England did compel king John to sign Magna Charta,tha.t was different from a right or property obtained in ordinary life. John and the barons were king and subjects ; they had each rights to claim, and duties to perform, previous to the great charter, for it will not be con tended that king John's power had no bounds. Now, however extensive it might be, if it had any limit at all, the barons had rights, and whoever has rights, has a right to discuss them. It was in con sequence of such a discussion, that John signed Magna Charta.

That the charter was obtained by coercion and force is true, but there is no analogy bstween compelling a man, with whom one has a previous connexion, to adhere to what is just, and alteration; and to Magna Charta, which king John of England signed, after much difficulty, and when evidently in great dancer had he refused. Louis here lost a fine opportunity. Had he given up the point of right, he might have bargained for any changes that were reasonable and expedient. They could not lypre been refused and would nevertheless have been binding.

PREFACE.

. XVII compelling a man whom one has no connexion with, to grant what belongs to himself, and he has a right to keep. The declaration of Louis evidently, however, is intended to force into analogy the nature of a free concession, and one obtained by coersion and violence. No doubt, if the party coersing overleaps reason able bounds, and exacts what it is not for the good of both parties to be possessed of, or what is evi dently against natural right and justice*, then it becomes, like the forced cession of power, to which Louis certainly referred, when he said that a voluntary cession was preferable to what was obtained by the force of subjects, from the feebleness of kings. * When a traveller gives his purse to a highway-man, it is a gift on coersion, and such is contrary to all right. Should circumstances permit, the giver might, in this case, with propriety and jus tice take it back; but that is, though apparently similar, quite dif ferent.

All bargains are more or less coersive; that is, in making a bargain there is an alternative, yet each party takes his choice. There is a mixture of force and volition: if you will not give me that price, says the seller, I will keep the article. The other party is unwilling to give the price, but still more unwilling to let the ar ticle be taken away. The great advantage of a bargain, rather than receiving a gift, is, that the bargain implies rights on both sides* b

PREFACE.

. If, for example, the greatbarons had, with arms in their hands, compelled king John to give up his domains, the appanages ofthe crown, or any thing belonging to himself, and unconnected with the liberties of the subject, then, and then only, the ana logy wauld have been a fair one. But as the barons only stipulated for what tended tosecure the rights in which they had an interest, and were for the good of all, there was no real, though an apparent analogy. There are, however, many circumstances that dif fer between the situation of France at this time, and that of England during the reign of Charles II. The English revolution had nothing to do with foreign conquests. It had not engendered an immense army, that considered the glory or welfare of the country as being connected with military exploits, or a military government.

The people did not see, in the restoration of Charles, any humiliation. He, was called back by their own will, freely expressed, without the interference of any foreign power. and no man is willing to be indebted to generosity for what he has a right injustice to possess. The revolution, from the beginning, was a war about principles and opinions. Hereditary right was not denied, but divine rioht was. Now, this manner of granting the charter, implies divine right, a qutstion which it was unnecessary and unwise to agitate.

PREFACE.

. XIX Louis, on the contrary, went over to take possession of the throne of France, when the capital, if not the whole kingdom, was in the hands, and under the power, ofa very formidable coalition of nations. He had, it is true, been called to the throne by a deputation from the nation itself; but, though it had the appearance of a voluntary act, it earned with it the feelings of an involuntary one. If the first return to Paris bore this complex ion, the second return bore that appearance still more; and though it is from the first return, in rea lity, that the present possession arises, yet it is from the second that it appears to the people to arise. The present race of Frenchmen have been edu cated and brought up under hostile feelings to all other nations, and to the present reigning family.

It was not so in England. The English, for the most part, deplored the fate of their murdered king, and the far greater portion of the people had an affection and veneration for his exiled family. In addition to those circumstances, which are ve ry different, and all of them unfavourable to Louis, comes the circumstance of the chief who led them to conquest being still alive, and a prisoner in the hands of that nation to which they justly attribute

PREFACE.

. XX the destruction of their splendid, though visionary views, of conquest, dominion, and power. Amongst other things, the total want of religion, and the alienation of all the property from which its ministers had their support, are to be consid ered as the greatest difficulties that Louis has to encounter, The re-establishment of the throne carried with it necessarily the re-establishment of the national church; but the means of supporting it no longer existed*. The clergy and the com- * One of the errors committed by the allies, when they entered Paris in 1814, was their not procuring any stipulation for the clergy and the emigrants, who had lost their estates. It was not only a matter of justice, but of policy. The king could not be supposed to have the means of providing for either the one or the other; and the throne could scarcely be expected to stand, or the nation remain tran quil, with a clergy robbed of all their possessions, and a nobility rob bed of a great portion of their's. To this omission is, in a great measure, to be attributed the facility with which Buonaparte returned from Elba, and drove Louis from the throne.

The natural supporters ofthe throne were driven to desperation, and in a state of indigence, like unto Cain, (except in guilt), they found the hand of every man against them. The purchasers of estates that once owned them for masters, looked on them as a band of marauders come to deprive them of their property. The nation, at the first moment of its fall, would have come to a reasonable arrangement, but to expect concession afterwards, was absurd.