TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE SALIC LAW IN FRANCE.
NsPormos the Third must be content with half a chance in the matter of the succession. There is no doubt that an heir born to him might have a great effect in subduing many impatiences and many feelings of uncertainty in the French people. At present the Em- pire stands too conspicuously dependent upon a life tenure, and the heirship that presumptively presents itself is not such as to recon- cile the lieople to the dynastic succession. Could a "Napoleon the Fourth" be presented to the French people even in his cradle, many calculations that will tempt agitators against the present Napoleon would be extinguished. In England, we should consider it of little matter whether the child that is promised should be a boy or a girl ; but in France, for the dynastic succession a girl is " un rien ' ; and the Emperor must at the best be content to wait five weary months before ascertaining whether a princess is added to the charge of his family, or a prince becomes prospectively the perpetuator of his line. NsPormos the Third must be content with half a chance in the matter of the succession. There is no doubt that an heir born to him might have a great effect in subduing many impatiences and many feelings of uncertainty in the French people. At present the Em- pire stands too conspicuously dependent upon a life tenure, and the heirship that presumptively presents itself is not such as to recon- cile the lieople to the dynastic succession. Could a "Napoleon the Fourth" be presented to the French people even in his cradle, many calculations that will tempt agitators against the present Napoleon would be extinguished. In England, we should consider it of little matter whether the child that is promised should be a boy or a girl ; but in France, for the dynastic succession a girl is " un rien ' ; and the Emperor must at the best be content to wait five weary months before ascertaining whether a princess is added to the charge of his family, or a prince becomes prospectively the perpetuator of his line. It might be thought that a powerful military leader, who has seized the throne, who has abolished one constitution and decreed another, could settle this matter of the succession autocratically, and with a stroke of his pen substitute the general law of Europe for the Salle law. Napoleon could perform many acts less conso- nant with sound sense than that, and yet any such stroke of policy would, we imagine, be absolutely beyond even his absolute power. He might, it is true, plead the example of other states, and show that they had not lost either in power or in stability by accepting the female succession. The Frankish lands are indeed the excep- tion on this point. The state which is contesting the lead in Europe with the Western Powers, Russia, has in the days of its most rapid progress been under the sway of female sovereigns. Austria, who has oftener than once held the balance of power, has been under the sway of Maria Theresa. Spain has reverted to the national law, after the assumption on the part of the Bourbons that they were to carry with them into the peninsula the rule of succession that has prevailed in their own family ; and, seated on the united thrones of Isabella and Ferdinand, Ferdinand the Seventh restored the succession to his daughter the Second Isabella. It is a mere party attachment, without any question of mak or female succession save as a technical pretext, that has
-treated any hope that ever existed for the Carlist faction. At this moment France is proud to be the ally of England ; and there is not a class in the country but must attest the firm state of our succession, and the orderly condition of the country under a female sovereign. But we believe that not all these precedents would enable the Emperor Napoleon to set aside the ancient usage of France and decree by anticipation that his child should succeed, be it boy or girl.
Our opinion only coincides with that of Frenchmen, and it is the more curious that this conclusion should almost instinctively be settled ; since in France woman plays and has always played a part at once more conspicuous and more generally recognized than m this country. Notwithstanding our female succession, no Queen, regnant or consort, could imitate Catherine de Medicis in active and tyrannical administration. In high society of France, the stateswoman has as often ruled as the statesman, and Madame de Maintenon exercised an influence more positive than that of Mrs. Masham. In the middle class of France, woman is the man of business ; in the humblest class she is the labouring man. It is not only that she does the hard work aftir the fashion of bar- barous or savage countries, as among the Russians or the North American Indians, but she combines with that principal share of the business of life at least a full share of social or personal in- fluence. It might be expected that in France, therefore, woman would be considered as having a stronger right to share the sue- cession than in this country. Nor is it that our neighbours regard the laws of succession as absolutely sacred against interference. It is within the memory of living man that the law of inheritance in France has undergone the most sweeping and fundamental changes. Property, which used to go to the eldest son, subject to charges which have been common in most countries, and even stronger elsewhere than in France is now divided amongst all the children; and France has adopted that law of gavelkind which we are gradually abolishing even in Kent. It is easier, then, to change the law of succession for every family in the country than for the throne; although the experience of other states, the position of women in France, and every reason of practical sense as it would be called, dictates a reversal of the Salk law.
Could such matters be settled on pure reason, the edict of Napo- leon the Third could be framed in five minutes, and the proclama- tion of it in, the Moniteur would confer the succession on his child be it boy or girl. But it is too late for a coup d'etat of that kind. It might have been possible, perhaps, when the First Napoleon founded the Empire upon the ruins left by the Republic. But willing to employ the theatrical properties of antiquity, Napoleon the First went back to tradition, restored Charlemagne in all his legendary supremacy, sewed the drapery of his own state with the golden bees, and left the Salle law undisturbed. It was Napoleon, therefore, who clinched that half-prohibitory ride, and confirmed the eternal prejudice of the French people against a female monarch. France has oftener than once considered what ruler she should have; she has substituted one branch of the Bourbon fa- for another, one dynasty for another; she has changed King for Emperor, Emperor for King, and King for President; she has been content to do without a monarch at all ; but to set aside the Belie law—the great fundamental rule for French dynasties before the Revolution—would be a breach of etiquette which French manners could not sanction ; and we feel that all the absolute power of Napoleon the Third would dash itself to pieces in the attempt to modify that little regulation. No doubt, there is reason for the prejudice, although probably reason does not consciously assist in establishing or maintaining it. We know well enough in this country, that a female sovereign can do at least as well as a man upon the throne. The kind of business which a monarch has to exercise in modern times does not in general belong exclusively to either sex. There is a certain fidelity to established rules, an appreciation of character in the se- lection of public servants, a reduction of state questions to the simplest elements—functions in which woman, with her simpler and more instinctive mind, is better even than man. If a female sovereign goes right, she exercises over the men that serve her a species of influence which lends an air of chivalry to their zeal, and calls forth a greater power in the administration of the state —a higher personal zest in its servants, and a -vigour of mind such as none but a genius with a crown on could hope to realize if he were a man. As to the pageantries that fill up the intervals of state business, is it possible to conduct them half so well or so gracefully as when the supreme head is a lady P Nor have female sovereigns failed to call forth in different times the most warlike powers of the state. From the days of a Semiramis to our own, we have examples ready to our hand. The servants of Elizabeth began those chivalrous enterprises abroad, by sea and land, which commenced the naval if not the military history of England. The Hungarian was ready to draw his sword and use it unto the death for his " Xing Maria Theresa." Russia was not less warlike un- der Catherine than under her Emperors. And the warlike spirit of England has revived the more readily, no doubt, because a female sovereign can again call out the spirit of chivalry. France, however, is not only warlike as a state—not only possesses within her confines military traditions—but the whole organization of the country tends to the military. Her factions, not content with " the battle of the registration court," appeal against each other to arms. The very epiciers of middle class society are "National Guards," and claim to determine the balance of power in times of civil conflict. The political state of France is one of chronic civil war, kept down by that party which happens to constitute the garrison in power. France not only possesses an army or a mili- tary order, but she is an army, or more than one; and instead of requiring a sovereign to give the royal command for her military movements, she needs a captain of the garrison, to defend the citadel against the factions that are continually besieging it. It is this thoroughly military organization, thin constant antagonism of one military party against another, which probably renders it necessary for France to have a man on the throne, and that man, if possible, a great captain.
Previous page
