REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM IN FRANCE.
THE way in which a Liberal morning paper has lately spoken of the events passing before our eyes in France, and the difference it perceives between the difficulties of our position and those of our neighbours, would warrant a belief that the writer has not considered the subject. In both France and England, it is plain, the apparatus of representative government is imperfect. It is sufficiently orga- nized to embarrass the march of monarchical despotism in the one country, and of aristocratical oppression in the other; but it is too incomplete to accomplish positive progression. Things may be maintained as they are, without any great difficulty; at let any new ph cenomena demand legislative interference, and the inefficacy of the popular organ reveals itself at once. Louis PHILIPPE hap- pens to belong to that small number of sovereigns who prefer pur- suing their own purposes at all risks, to such a compromise with the other powers of the state as may secure the possession of their throne by yielding up some part of their personal importance ; and hence it is that the real operation of the French constitution comes to be tested. The remarkable struggle between the King of the French and the leading members of the Chamber of Deputies, is a trial of strength between the monarchical and the representative priuciples. The most talented men in the Chamber found themselves set aside and overborne by the habit pursued by the King, of preferring docile mediocrity to his councils and to the executive functions, To put an end to a system so insulting to the whole body of able public men, they combined to destroy his majority in the Chamber, without which it is assumed he will not venture to carry on the go- vernment. This was accomplished, a new Chamber summoned, and every conceivable agency put in action to secure one favourable to the King's views. Nevertheless, the electoral body, small as it is, in spite of the most pressing solicitations of self-interest returns a majority for the Coalition. Now what can exceed the injustice of saying, what our contemporary says, of a people who act thus— Abet "the French are not worthy of the blessings of representa- tive government ?" It is indeed true, that the chiefs of the con- federacy have been baffled, and even partially disunited, by the
intrigues ntrigues of "time Château," so that the object of forcing the Monarch to employ the notabilites among the members in the conduct of his government, has not (or had not when the fore- going sarcasm was uttered) been attained. But is this to be laid to the fault of the French people ? No—it no more lies with them than the recent failure of Mr. ViLmas's motion against the Corn- laws does with the English people. Both are mocked with the form and pretence of representation ; and to upbraid them with its failure, is only to add cruelty to fraud. The contendingparties are not the same in the two countries, to be sure ; but we suspect the two principles now in hostility in both are pretty closely analagous. The English electoral body are worried and subjugated by an aristocracy, whom nevertheless, as a class, they worship and look up to ; and they are only made conscious of their abasement 'when a new election comes round. When an effort is made to re- turn popular candidates of their own free choice, the sacrifice hardly answers, and the individuals chosen rarely fulfil their hopes. Moreover, such individuals are not likely to become influential as
members of the Government ; and as such to work out any benefit to the public; the offices of state in England being exclusively parcelled out among a "house list," -fransed to suit party pur,. poses, without regard to personal merit. Accordingly, with these discouragements, the representative principle in this countr3r is combated by the aristocratical, with almost complete success, The representative force in France, such as it is, on the other hand, is opposed, not by an aristocracy—for it exists only in name, being destitute of politibal influence—but by the formidable interest el the Crown ; between which and the people is now waging the strife. The system of centralization, which pervades the adminis. tration of France, tends to strengthen the hands of the Executive to a fearful extent; whilst it lulls to sleep and deadens the ideas of self-government among the citizens of the departments. Hence,
all their feelings of self-importance and of political interest come to be centred in the person of their representative in Parliament (for no constituency sends more than one). A constituency has a pride and pleasure in sending up a man qualified for public honours ; and as these are open to every one who possesses talents and ambition, be he meanly born or noble, many candidates are furnished by the middle ranks, and become Deputies, possibly Ministers, by force of personal qualities. But the influence of the Crown is extensively
introduced by the same process ; for the Deputy is frequently won by the lure of a public appointment, whilst the electors, vanity is gratified at seeing their choice so honoured. The number of Deputies who enjoy offices is something monstrous, according to M. FAUCHER'S recent statement in reference to this
abuse. No wonder, therefore, that the Crown exercises prodigious influence over the elections by means of them,—considering, too, of what small numbers the constituencies are composed. The con- test, then, with our neighbours, lies betwixt Kingly and Democrati- cal pretensions, feebly enough sustained, God knows, by their 180,000 electors. The result must depend upon the degree to which the coalescing Liberals are disposed to enforce popular rights against the Sovereign ; for the people have done all that the electoral system allows of their doing. Much do we fear that the agitation to which they have lent themselves of late will subside so soon as they have obtained what they seek for themselves,—namely, office, and patronage, and importance : this secured, we augur that the combined parties will endeavour to make the constituencies believe that the honour of' France is safe, and the " besoins de la nation" in course of fulfilment. The electoral body, in truth, will have triumphed over the King's obstinacy : but the electoral body is not the French people, nor is the interest of the one co- incident with that of the other. Thus it is with both countries: electors are mistaken for the nation—the representative system is nullified for want of attending to its true defects. The Morning Chronicle has, after a long trance, awakened to a sense of these defects, and is preaching Radical Reform ably and honestly, de
720210. But how is it, good Chronicle, that the English are worthy of representative government, while the French are unworthy? Both are deceived, cajoled, thwarted : why condemn the one and offer to assist the other? When we see (if, indeed, any one is destined to see) the theory of representation fairly carried out in practice, we shall he ready to join in censuring the people who do not use it to advantage. But to blame the •:,ictints of a bungling, misshapen machinery, for its imperfect working, were too bad.
There is one more observation which suggests itself in reference to the two countries. The French know what they are contending against,—namely, the tyrannous aims of the Monarch : the English are very far from knowing the real causes of their being misruled. But they arc beginning to understand their case.
Previous page
