M. CHALLEMEL-LACOLTR.
OF all French Statesmen of the present time, no one is so little known to the English public as M. Challenael- Laconr. If we consider the comments of English papers upon his speech of the 16th of July, if we notice the surprise they express at its moderation and dignity, it becomes clear that the man has been misunderstood.
In their excuse, we may say that M. Challemel-Lacour is not easy to understand. Now, we read a speech of his remark- able for bitter sarcasm and for open contempt of the opinions of others ; now, an utterance no less noteworthy because of its moderation and urbanity. The reading of this riddle is not in itself a grateful task, for M. Challernel-Lacour can scarcely hope to be reckoned among great men. Yet the solution of the problem is earnestly to be desired at the present moment, when a certain straining is felt of the ties of friendship which bind England to France.
Paul Armand. Challemel-Lacour was born at Avranches (Manche), on May 19th, 1827. lie studied at the most famous lycee in Paris, that of St. Louis, with notable success ; and in 1846 entered the Normal School, from which he graduated in 1849, as first in the competition in Philosophy. It was, too, as Professor of Philosophy that the young man of twenty-three went to teach in the lycees of Pau and Limoges. Even at this age, his political opinions were formed—and so formed as not to undergo any serious subsequent modification. He expressed himself so boldly on the questions of the day as to become a marked man, and after the coup d'e?at he was arrested, imprisoned, and banished from France. The young exile withdrew to Belgium, where he lectured successfully. In 1856, however, he was called to Switzerland, to fill the Chair of French Literature in the Polytechnicon of Zurich. After the amnesty, he returned to France, and entered upon his career as a journalist. His articles on literature, art, and philosophy, in Le Temps, La Revue Nationale, and La Revue des Deux Mondes, attracted attention, and he became the manager of La Revue Moderne. In 1868 he established, in conjunction with MM. Brisson, Allain- Tare, and Gambetta, the Revue Politique, of which he under- took the management. This position brought him once more into conflict with the powers that were, and he underwent a convic- tion for publishing the list of subscriptions for a monument to be erected to Baudin. With the downfall of the Napoleonic regime, his sufferings for the cause of political freedom became so many titles to popular favour and he was appointed Prefect of the Rhone. After September 4th, 1870, the administration of the city of Lyons was given into his hands. His conduct of the affairs of this city brought him, to say the least, no additional reputation. Yet it must be admitted that his position was one of great difficulty. Lyons had proclaimed the Republic even sooner than Paris, and when M. Challemel- Lacoar arrived there, the city had already entrusted the con- duct of its affairs to a Central Revolutionary Committee. All authority was broken down, and the egotism of the indi- vidual had at once become anarchical. The police seemed suddenly to have disappeared, and the troops were hostile. M. Challemel-Laeour was the representative of a Government too free to attract the military chiefs, too bourgeois to enlist the sympathies of the populace. Between the hostility of the leaders of the Army and the mistrust of the populace, M. Challemel-Lacour found himself placed as between the Devil and the deep sea.
The only way out of the difficulty which M. Challemel-
Lacour saw was to surround himself with moderate men, and appeal to the patriotism of all. He got the Central Committee to liberate the Imperialists whom the populace had thrown into prison on September 4th, and to fix a date for the Municipal elections. He thus brought the city once more under the dominion of the laws ; but the French artisam, in the towns at least, are Socialists, and one day, led by Cluseret and others, they stormed the Prefecture, and im- prisoned M. Challemel-Lacour. On the next day, he was freed by the Moderates, and at once was invested with com- plete civil and military authority by the Delegation of Tours. It is said that he now ordered the troops to fire on the populace,—" Fusillez-moi ces gens-lh !" It is certain that he drove Cluseret and the other leaders out of the city, and partially, at least, re-established order. Now, however, the General in command of the troops refused to obey the delegate of the Civil authority, and M. Challemel-Lacour at once gave orders to arrest General Masure. To cut a long story short, the confusion became worse confounded, the populace was all but openly rebellious, and one night the commander, Arnaud, was assassinated. Immediately Gambetta came to the assist- ance of his friend. Gambetta, representing, as he did, the spirit of patriotism, soon evolved order out of disorder. The stronger man was successful where the weaker had failed, and this is the more remarkable, inasmuch as the only repressive measure then taken seeems to have been the prohibition of all political assemblies. Yet, from that time on, M. Challemel- Lacour's task was easy. When Gambetta left the Govern- ment, M. Challemel-Lacour gave up his position in Lyons, and a few months later became editor-in-chief of La Re'publique Franpise. In January, 1872, he was elected Deputy for the Boucher; du Rhone by the Radicals. Whatever may be thought of M. Challemel-Lacour as a doer, his success as a speaker is beyond question. In a Chamber where Gam- betta alone surpassed him in eloquence, he immediately took the first place as a debater. Always calm and self-possessed, his readiness in discussion was as remarkable as the exactness of his knowledge. On January 30th, he was elected Senator for the Bouches du Rhone, and before the expiration of the term of six years he was sent as the Ambassador of France to the Court of St. James. Once more his practical talents were called in question. Nothing could exceed the lucidity of his despatches, nor did he fail in conducting the business of his office ; but he was disliked in society, and condemned by public opinion. Yet the French, who forgive ability every- thing, have ratified his appointment to the most influential position in the French Ministry, and it is not too much to say that upon his present conduct the future of France, at least for one generation, may rest.
What, then, shall we say of M. Challemel-Lacour f For- tunately, we have not only his actions, but also his speeches and writings, on which to base our judgment. He has pub- lished the letters of Madame d'Epinay, with an introduction ; translated Ritter's " History of Philosophy," also with an in- troduction ; and, finally, has written a book on Wilhelm von Humboldt, entitled " La Philosophie Individualiste." These, with his speeches, afford data enough to allow us to measure his intellect. Let us take his most important work, his criti- cism, published in 1864, of the individualistic philosophy. The position of Wilhelm von Humboldt as a political thinker may be made clear to Englishmen almost in one phrase,—he was the forerunner and teacher of J. S. Mill. Humboldt insists that it is necessary to allow the individual the most complete liberty of action ; the State should never, according to him, substitute its action for that of the individual. In later life, Humboldt saw reason to modify somewhat these articles of his political creed, but he had affirmed too stoutly ever to change his position as the head of a school ; and it is as a teacher of individualism that M. Challemel-Lacour studies him. He begins by calling Wilhelm von Humboldt his hero, and states the creed of the German with clearness and vigour. When M. Challemel- Lacour, however, comes to Humboldt's statement that the sole function of the State is to provide for public security, he hesitates to accept the dogma, and helps himself out of the difficulty by a somewhat fine-spun argument,—"Agreed," he writes, "but the public well-being is also a condition necessary to peace, and, therefore, Humboldt's theory forces us to give back to the State some of the authority which he would have taken from it." M. Challemel-Lacour, however, decides nothing, and ends his book with an ill-defined statement of the question. Whether it is well to trust in the many, and to repose all authority in the masses, or to hope all from a few gifted individuals, he confesses himself unable to determine.
At least we see here that M. Challemel-Lacour is truth-loving, or he would not be content to formulate without settling the question. Here, too, his desire to be impartial is as con- spicuous as the fact that his intellectual capacity is not of a
really high order. He is one of the led, and not a leader in thought ; he is an opportunist, not because he has solved the problem, and reconciled the two opposing dogmas
in an affirmation which includes both, but because he sees un- clearly the two antagonistic movements, and, unable to calculate the resultant of the forces, abandons himself to the leading of circumstances. Nor is M. Challemel-Lacour's opportunism, meaning hereby his want of insight, atoned for by depth of moral feeling, by purity of conscience. He is not a large man, even in mental stature ; and yet his ethical tone is of a lower order than his intelligence. He asserts that it " is a great imperfection in a statesman to push mere conscientious scruples too far, and to be incapable of sacrificing his moral delicacy to his aim Whentruth has conquered, she has almost always owed her victory to means of a questionable morality" (" a des moyens scabreux et equivoques "). Now the man who sees that there is but one law, one order, in the moral and in the material world, that right always in the long-run is might, may be called a believer. The man who doubts this is a sceptic—one much to be pitied —but what shall we say of the man who absolutely declares that the lie is stronger than the truth, and that it alone helps the truth to victory, except that he is an avowed detractor of the truth ? The intellect, then, the mental eyesight of M. Challemel-Lacour is fairly keen, truth-seeking, and impartial, but not sufficiently powerful to save him from disbelief in the very existence of right ; the conscience, on the other hand, the mental feeling of the man, is so blunted that he considers it an imperfection not to be able and willing to do even what he sees to be wrong.
He is dogmatic withal, and self-assertive ; he can overawe the men about him—men, for the most part, of even less insight and less knowledge than himself—by his gift of speech, for he is a master of acrid and biting sarcasm. To enable the reader to judge of his power some instances of it may be given. Speaking of Madame d'Epinay's connection with Grimm, and noticing that moral axioms abound in their cor- respondence, he says :—" They had the double pleasure of sinning together, and then of condemning themselves with one accord from a philosophical [ethical 1] stand-point." The same Grimm of whom St. Beuve speaks as a judicious, honest, faithful man, as one of the greatest of critics, M. Challemel-Lacour dis- misses as Grimm " the frog-eyed." M. Challemel-Lacour's power of sarcasm appears to come from his inability to see the good, at least as much as from his quickness to see defects. Not that his knowledge is really deep or accurate ; he makes, for instance, laughable errors in translating from German into French, but as it is rare for a Frenchman to know German at all, he may be considered as a whale among minnows.
We have thought it our duty to depict M. Challemel-Laeotr as we see him, but we must not forget that he has often shown both courage and dexterity, and, above all, that he is in complete sympathy with the surface tendencies of the time. Practical men, that is those who desire to gauge his probable conduct as the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, will do well to look upon M. Challemel-Lacour as a fairly intelligent man, whose intellect may be trusted to restrain his imperiousness of temper. The moralist, the thinker, will see him but as one of that numerous class to whom, in Shakespeare's language, Time gives " alms for oblivion."
Previous page
