London, 1, 1863. Ir is at once saddening and laughable
to see to what extent Napoleon is eulogized by some English papers for having under- stood the significance of the late elections, that is, for having com- prehended what no schoolboy could have failed to comprehend, and heard what was, all over Europe, published upon the house-tops. The warnings of the national voice were this time so unmistakably expressed, that a madman only could have turned a deaf ear to them ; and those must have a singularly morbid disposition to feel enraptured, who expatiate on the sagacity and foresight of the French ruler just at the moment when the result of the elections makes it as clear as the sun at noonday, that no statesman of ordinary sagacity and fore- sight would ever have brought things to such a pass, and suffered his alter ego to commit blunders of which there is no green politi- cian who would not be ashamed. I distinctly remember that, when Napoleon contrived to have no other intermediate agents between the Legislative Body and himself than "des ministres orateurs," men were found to wonder at his cleverness in checking parliamentary agitation. Now that this scheme proves a signal failure, the same men hail, as a remarkable piece of statesmanship, the giving up—or what they imagine is the giving up—of speaking Ministers. Had he shielded from the effects of public indignation and disgust his old, faithful, really devoted friend Persigny, they would have, no doubt, extolled to the skies his serene firmness and the touching adherence of his affection to the fortune of servants of tried fidelity. Now that he has—at least vemingly— cast his
fulus ilchates overboard, they hold him out to the admiration of the world for not having sacrificed reasons of State to the claims of gratitude and friendship. The sober truth in that, on this occasion, he acted more judiciously than his royal brother, the King of Prussia, and did what any man, with a dash of common sense in his composition, would have done in his place —so shameful, so scandalous, had been M.
de Persigny's management of universal suffrage. In his farewell circular to the prefects, this gentleman was bold enough to congratulate them on their zeal, "after observing the order and good faith which have presided over all the electoral operations, as well as the liberty with which all candidateships have been brought forward." Here is a curious instance of the "good faith" alluded to. In one of the districts of the "Canton de Blanquefort, near Bordeaux, the Government candidate, M. Curd, having obtained 418 votes out of 418, the friends of M. Lavertujon, the opposition candidate, thought the circumstance rather suspicious. The elec- toral lists were ransacked accordingly, and it was ascertained that five of the electors had, before voting, the defect of Roland's mare —they were dead ! In another district, near Lyons, seven more votes were returned than there were voters ; and such was the case in many other places. Never were frauds practised so numerous and so gross. The Legislative Body will ring with indignant pro- tests, and this rendered the momentary removal of M. de Persigny from public life a step the necessity of which could have escaped the attention of none but a downright fool. However, it is beyond doubt that the resignation of M. de Persigny gave general satis- faction; but from the ministerial changes consequent upon his resig- nation--from the appointment of M. Billault as Minister of State, of M. Boudet as Minister of the Interior, of M. Baroche as Minister of Justice, of M. Duruy as Minister of Education, of M. Behic as Minister of Agriculture, Commerce, and Public Works, of M. Rouher as President of the Council of State, the French, what- ever may be said to the contrary in the English press, expect little or nothing. True, most of the French papers affect a hopeful lan- guage. M. Emile de Girardin, in the Presse, says that " M.M. Billault, Rouher, Boudet, and their colleagues, will probably make it a point to connect their names with a policy of internal con- quests and fruitful reconciliations, to be called not the English, but the French, liberty." Mr. Gudroult, in the Opinion Nationale, in- dulges a hope that there is a system of compromise in contem- plation at the Tuileries. The Temps, the Sgck, the Debuts would fain regard the apparent suppression of "speaking Ministers" as an advance towards the devoutly to-be-wished principle of minis- terial responsibility. According to La France, the recent minis- terial changes mean "the maintenance of liberal concessions," although we are left at a loss to discover how concessions can be maintained which were never made. To sum it up, most of the Liberal or semi-Liberal French newspapers seem ready to define the new Ministry " Un ministere d'espoir."
Words, words, words ! as Hamlet says. The French newspapers are doomed, under the present regime, to speak always an ambiguous and unmanly language. Whenever they say one thing, on any dangerous topic, depend upon it that they mean something else. It would hardly be safe to express a desire which might be con- strued into a complaint, still less to give utterance to fears which would sound like a reproach. So, they pretend to hope, because hope, implying confidence, is the safest form of encouragement or advice into which they can possibly shape their feelings when they address the Emperor.
In reality, the public have no reason whatever to see in the composition of the new Ministry an indication that Napoleon feels inclined to initiate a new course of policy. MM. Billault, Baroche, and Rouher are but too well known. MM. Boudet, Duruy, &hie, are known, if at all, as men whose past career does by no means warrant their liberal tendencies. The fact of M. Duruy shaving been engaged in teaching history, writing rudimental books, and assisting the Imperial author of the "Life of Cassar," is not suffi- cient to qualify him for the arduous task of moderator of the Bonapartist party. The administrative functions to which M. Behic has hitherto been confined bid fair, perhaps, that he will be up to the drudgery of office ; but what next ? As to M. Boudet, a warm Legitimist in 1830—a secretary-general in the Ministry of Justice in 1839, and consequently an Orleanist at that period— a conservative member of the Constituent Assembly in 1848, and, as such, a sworn Republican—a member of the Council of State in 1850, and in that capacity a Bonapartist—one of the opponents of Napoleon before the coup d'itat and after the coup d'état one of his followers, he is the very last person to be relied upon ; nor does it tell much in his favour that he is indebted to
M. Billault for his elevation. Besides, the obscurity of the new comers, and their want both of moral authority and political in- fluence will make it all the more easy for the master to drill them into mere puppets. The very unexpectedness of such nominations as these shows how little Napoleon cares about public opinion ; they took by surprise not only the public, but the parties con- cerned themselves. So suddenly, for example, was the appoint- ment of M. Duruy decided upon ; so entirely was he himself unaware of the honours that were in store for him, that some time elapsed before he could be found out. It was midnight when he made his appearance at the Hotel de l'Instraction Publique. "Who are you, Sir ?" inquired the door-keeper, half-asleep. "I am the new Minister?" Good heavens !" exclaimed the man, "I have re- ceived no orders, and the apartment of your excellency is not ready." "Never mind that," replied M. Duruy good-humouredly ; "go to bed, I will return home."
M. Billault, among the ministers, is the only one who would have it in his power effectually to exercise his influence in the right direction, were his patriotism equal to his ability ; for Napoleon is sorely in need of the services of a man of talent. That he is fully alive to the difficulty of his position in this respect is shown by the growing favour of M. Moult. I have before me an authen- ticated copy of a letter written by the latter to a friend, in De- cember, 1849, of which the following is an extract :—" You observe that if .I come forward as one of the candidates of the Democratic Committee in the Haute Vienne, I shall be in competition with M. Batanle, who is patronized by the President, and that my election would thus have the character of a direct slap in the face of Bonaparte (d'un sofflet direct sur la Jose de Bonaparte). Just so. That is precisely what I mean (c'est ainsi que is rentendq)." M. Billault would hardly be justified in nursing the same feelings now, as the Emperor is pleased to rain on him all manner of kind- nesses. He is so fondly petted and cajoled ; he is so great at Court, that having gone to Fontainebleau, he became there at once "the observed of all observers." To the fact a fancy writer bears testimony as follows :— "I have just seen the new Minister of State in the carriage of the Empress Ladies, officers, guests, the nobility, the gentry, the mob, were all over-anxious to catch a glimpse of him. I am not quite sure that the very trees of the forest did not bend to see him pass." Unfortunately, M. Billault is not likely to depart from the practices which have proved so beneficial to him. Omnia serviliter pro dominatione.
M. Billault has, up to the present moment, been and remains the official orator of the Government ; but, instead of being styled a minister without portfolio, he is raised to the rank of Minister of State. About this a great fuss has been, is being, and will be made. There are those in this country who roundly declare it to be a "substantial advance towards the great principle of Parliamentary controL" A strange mistake, indeed ! First of all, "the institution of Ministers without portfolio," as the Constitutionnel says, "disappears in ,name but not in fact." Of the two official orators, as matters now stand, one, M. Rouher, is merely president of the Council of State, and ha; consequently, nothing to do with any ministerial department ; the other, M. Billault, is, it is true, Minister of State, but without ministerial function; as the functions appertaining to the Ministry of State have just been transferred, partly to the Emperor's household, partly to the Ministry of Education. M. Billault, no doubt, will have a seat in the Council ; but he had one before. So the posi- tion of the official orators called ministers without portfolio is now, in reference to the Legislative Body, exactly what it was be- fore. Now, as before, there are two official orators directed to de- fend in Parliament a policy over which they have no special con- trol, and for which they cannot, therefore, be held responsible. Now, as before, the only intermediate agents between the Empe- ror and the Chambers are two men, each of whom is nothing more than a mouthpiece of the Emperor.
It is verily surprising, and almost ludicrous, that any doubt should be complacently entertained on the subject after the formal decla- ration of the Moniteur, that in virtue of the plibiscite of 1852, "the Ministers are responsible to the Emperor alone ; that the object of that plibiscite was to put an end to those Parliamentary rivalries and ambitions which were the constant causes of agitation and weak- ness for past Governments,'" and that the subsequent decrees "did not modify the fundamental principles of the plebiscite of 1852." Could anything be expressed in a more lucid, peremptory style? But the proverb is right, "There is none so deaf as he that will not hear."
As regards Poland, the significance of the recent ministerial changes appears to be a little more serious. The retirement of M. Walewski seems ominous, so does the dismissal of M. Ron- land, and so does the increased official importance of M. do Morny, whose sympathies for Russia are well known, and who is reported to have said of late, "We have long enough attended to other people's business, it is high time we should mind our own." But what of that? Where everything exclusively depends upon the will of one man, and of a man who governs from hand to mouth, the world which suffers it has neither the right nor the means of anticipating the omnipotent fiat !
To exhaust the question relative to the recent ministerial changes I must state—and I have it from very good autho- rity—that the appointment of M. Boudet, who belongs to a Pro- testant family, and the fact of Public Worship being henceforth assigned to the Ministry of Justice, have been most bitterly re- sented by the clergy.
I am sorry that both want of space and the importance of the subject preclude me from entering upon a careful examination of Napoleon's letter to M. Rouher, pointing to the evils of our cum- brous system of bureaucracy, and ordering the Council of State to look into the matter. I will revert to it on some future occasion, in order to show that the manner in which the Emperor approaches the question does not bear upon the real points at issue. It must not be forgotten that it is precisely by Napoleon III. that, at one time, six thousand municipal councils have been dissolved, by him that the selection of the mayor has been taken away from the " commune " and made to rest with the central power, by him that the prefects, who were, under Louis Philippe, agents of a responsible executive, have been converted into Imperial vicars. These are the administrative fetters the loosening of which would be hailed in France as a blessing, and these are the fetters to the insufferable weight of which the letter of Napoleon to M. Rouher does not so much as allude. The centralization is the hateful legacy of the first empire, and is not likely to be repudiated by the
Previous page
