TOPICS OF THE DAY.
FRENCH OPINION.
MR. Heade, in one of his stories, calls the National Assembly a "menagerie of wild beasts, fed with peppered tongue," and the bitter gibe is not without its application, even in the present day. The menagerie is amenable to its keeper, but its favourite diet is still the innutritious condiment described. If the proof of freedom is to denounce, without limit, all that thinking freemen are wont to cherish, the French Legislative Body assuredly is free. The debate on the Address has now lasted four days, and as yet every non-official speaker has illustrated himself with abuse of the policy of England and the unity of Italy. It is true moat of the speakers are comparatively unknown men, but that fact merely adds to the weight of their denunciations. When a party leader denounces England, or upholds the Pope, we know that he defends the policy of those with whom he acts. But sugar-bakers and bankers are supposed to represent the opinions, not of a party but a class, and if men like M. Plichon, M. Kolb-Bernard, Count Flavigny, and M. Kcenigswarter really represent anybody, the bour- geoisie and the upper class are as hostile to England as to freedom. Every speaker who rises thinks it necessary to point to England as the natural and inevitable enemy of France, and this from the most opposite points of view. England, affirms M. Plichon, already dominates over the policy of Italy. That country is avowedly the ally of England, not of France, and the Italian fleet may yet be combined with the British to destroy French com- merce in the Levant. England, exclaims M. Kcenigswarter, on the other hand, is the natural ally of Germany. Ger- many is about to be united, and the two powers will inter- pose a barrier between France and Russia. That inevitable alliance must be met by the combination of France, Italy, and Russia, to acquire the mastery of the Mediterranean, and open the road to India through the Isthmus of Suez. England, therefore, which according to one speaker domi- nates Italy, according to another will be attacked by her, in both cases is thoroughly in the wrong. England, says Count Segur-Lamoignon, again, is the support of the Revolution. England, replies M. Kolb-Bernard, is at once conservative to oppression, and devoted to democracy. If she declines to assist the Italians she is "cold" and " selfish ;" if she assists them, it is out of spite to the Imperial policy and the treaty of Villafranca. Much of all this bitterness is no doubt directed rather against the Emperor than England, the object being to describe the policy of France as subser- vient to that of Great Britain, and thus throw on it the discredit which in France invariably attaches to any:- thing England is supposed strongly to approve. More is designed to divert attention from the feeling of Italy by accusing England as the inventor, for her own purposes, of the unity of Italy. Much, however, remains to be accounted for only on the supposition that the hatred borne by the "old parties" to Louis Napoleon has been extended to the Emperor's great ally. The hatred of these parties towards England is, however, feeble when compared with their detestation of the unity of Italy. Upon this point they are unanimous, and M. de Flavigny, in supporting the treaty of Villafranca, probably spoke the opinion of every educated Frenchman not belong- ing to the extreme Left. The ground of this distrust is avowed in the Chambers, as privately throughout France, with an almost cynical candour. Italy, it is argued, once united, is a country of twenty-five millions, with a magnifi- cent territory jutting into the Mediterranean. Consequently, she may dispute with France the command of the "Franco- Italian sea. The "secular policy" of France, said M. de Flavigny, is to divide Italy. France, said M. Keller, should say to the Revolution, Thou shalt go no farther, and return to the policy. of Villafranca. That treaty, indeed, condemned throughout Europe and described by Prince Napoleon as simply an "unfortunate hypothesis,' is the great object of admiration to the Conservatives of France. They see in it an Italy liberated without being made strong, and forced to lean upon France instead of bending before Austria. Not one of the speakers professed to consider the will of the Italians themselves as worthy of a thought. The unity for which ' they have endured so much, is for the advantage of England and the disadvantage of France, and there the interest of the question ends. It is not, perhaps, wise to ascribe to speeches ouch as these more than their due importance. M. Segur- Lamoignon, in attributing the unity of Italy to Englishmen, does no more than Mr. Disraeli, who attributed it to the Emperor. The design ascribed to England of raising up three great empires to compress France, is not more far- fetched than the project attributed to the Emperor of placing himself at the head of the Latin races. In both assertions there is a glimmering of truth, and in both, traces of the affected bitterness of Parliamentary debate. Still the fact remains : the Conservative interests of France of all grades and all creeds dread and detest the unity of Italy. The debate on the Roman occupation can hardly be said, to have begun, and will only become serious after the motion of M. 011ivier for the withdrawal of the troops. There are traces of a feeling, however, expressed in the speeches yet delivered, which is, we believe, very strong in French so- ciety: there is very little sympathy for the Pope. France, says M. de Flavigny, "is more Catholic than she is believed to be ;" but France, nevertheless, chuckles over the reproofs to Cardinal Antonelli, and does not murmur when General Goyon, that devoted friend of the Pope, compels the Papal Go- vernment to confess publicly that it has stolen a telegraphic message. Not a word of remonstrance was heard in France when the Bishop's mandements were declared, with a refined impertinence only possible to a Frenchman, liable to a stamp duty. Not a voice was raised except to condemn the Pope when he arrested the investiture of French Bishops selected by the Emperor. The Papal fervour of France, considered as a religious sentiment, is, we suspect, a very imperceptible quality. But there is a decided tone of gratified vanity at the armed protection accorded to the Pope. It strikes even Liberals as something creditable to the country to see an Italian throne propped up by French bayonets, and the head of Catholic Christendom dependent on French commands. Baron David, who defended the Imperial policy, and de- nounced the confusion between the temporal and spiritual powers, still argued that to abandon Rome would lower the esteem in which France was held. The Imperial Government must wait awhile, to a period his Holiness's sagacity would fix. Add to this feeling the passionate conviction of the parti pretre that Rome is essential to the Papacy, and we have a body of opinion which may make even Louis Napoleon pause and watch his opportunity. One Papal manifesto irritating to the pride of France, one act tending to affront her amour propre, and the Papacy may be left to itself to reckon with a constitutional Government and a hostile people.
Previous page
