TOPICS OF THE DAY.
LOUIS PHILIPPE AND JAMES K. POLK.
HOWEVER opposed to each other in the obvious characteristics of length and style, the two official addresses which come to us this week from the South and the West—Louis Philippe's speech to his Chambers, and James K. Polk's message to Congress— have one trait in common, that they are both conceived in a spirit of courting popularity.
A besetting weakness of the Anglo-American race is an arro- gant pride, which prompts the citizens to look down upon every other notion, even in matters where they themselves are inferior, and deem it a favour if they condescend to conquer. Of late years this spirit has assumed the military form which is its most appropriate and imposing avatar; and under that inspiration the Republicans are breaking through the injunctions of their great fathers, the Washingtons and Jeffersons, not to meddle in foreign affairs, nor be betrayed into the delusive dangers of conquest. Mr. James Polk, having had greatness thrust upon him, is na- turally ambitious both of deserving and of retaining it ; but he can devise no more exalted plan than that of truckling to the popular passions—to the lowest passion which a nation can own collectively, that of national robbery—the one most perilous to his beloved country, that of territorial extension by military-con- quest. His message is an apology for such courses, couched in language so barefaced that it can pass current only among the rude and vulgar. He is either a pander to those classes, or a type of them ; perhaps both.
Can much better be said of Louis Philippe? His speech has the brevity, the polish, the neutral tone of indifference, whicheon- stitute the trick of royal dignity ; but it is as manifest a homage to the people as the President's long message. It is, indeed, a more genuine submission : Louis Philippe has been remindbd of what he owes to the people, and makes his acknowledgments. For some years, while his whole efforts seemed to be con-. centrated on preserving the peace of Europe, he won, from the peaceable, respect and praise ; his neglect to fulfil the require- ments of the Charter were overlooked in his presumed zeal to de- velop the material welfare of France. In the heedlessness of suc- cess, or the diminished sense of responsibility which characterizes old age, he at last allowed it to be perceived that all this love of -quiet was not for the sake of France, but for the sake cf his own family projects. His naked selfishness estranged the people who placed him on his throne ; their alienation becomes-dsuigernosly apparent; he is arraigned at the tribunal of public dinaers-:-.and before that tribunal he deigns to plead ! The fact that the King on his throne engages in controversy with the Reformists, betrays a serious extent of weakness. Not a weakness of France, for France was never stronger than she is now in material resources, and her tranquillity is a new symptom, of increasing moral strength. It is a weakness of the Govern- ment which the King betrays. He feels it necessary to say some- thing against those who refuse the homage of drinking his health after dinner ; or who, without goingto that revolutionary extent of special teetotalism, presume to criticize the position of the Go- vernment. The King uses words which imply that his monarchy is " constitutional" ; that "a union of all powers in the state" will "satisfy all interests"; and that to maintain his government is to "guarantee, according to the Charter, the public liberties and all their developments" : the fact being, that he has very much for- gotten the Charter, the public liberties, and the pledges under which he took the crown. Absorbed in the business of his life, the settlement of his family in the trade of royalty; he has so far forgotten those things, as to resort to that stifling of the press which deprived his predecessor of the very crown he wears. Sinking towards the tomb, be- fore the sense has left his ears, he hears the reproaches which pursue his memory for a forfeited word ; and, unable to endure the reproach which he does not scruple to incur, he raises his ex- piring voice in vain denial. He has used up his resources : in his craft he has used up his own repute for an Ulysses-like discreet, ness : he has used up all the humbugs of the day in France,—the glory of the "three days," of which Lafayette so naively made him a present ; the military ardour of his people; the reputation, nay, the personal honour of his Minister, who has permitted the aged chief to send him down to posterity with a tarnished name. The King has tried to reconcile Austrian support with English support, Spanish encroachment with betrayal of French traditions in Italy. To one thing he has stuck throughout—the establish- ment of his dynasty, as a settlement for his children. His ab- sorption in that scheme has betrayed him, and endangered its success, to such a degree that he, on his throne, is obliged to de- fend himself against after-dinner speeches—to counteract their effect on the nation with hollow professions. Both the American President and the European Monarch are truckling to the people for selfish purposes,—Polk to retain his seat for four years more ; Louis Philippe to fix his family on the t]rone. Both present an ugly spectacle ; yet one not devoid of consolatory suggestion. Time was when rulers could play their pranks without consulting the nation, which was helplessly drag- ged after them to costly victory or degraded captivity : the com- pulsion to take counsel with the people now, is some guarantee against abuse. In France, we see that it brings back the King to a far wiser tone; • and in that respect the Monarchy seems to he better off than the Republic. Polk follows his people for evil,
Louis Philippe for good. The reason is to be sought in the in- tellectual difference between the two peoples. France is a metro- politan country, high in mental culture and civilization. The United States retain much of the rudeness of a colonial country, full culture extending only to a minority so small as to possess comparatively slight influence. The result is, that the Monarchy, with its limited suffrage and its undeveloped liberties, more thoroughly possesses itself, and controls its ruler to more useful purpose, than the Model Republic ; whose ruder passions place it at the mercy of lower influences. Hence we learn, that the dig- nity and safety of nations resides less in the formal structure of institutions than in the intelligence and moral elevation of :the men themselves. It is not the Louis Philippes or the James K. Polka that mete out human advancement.
Previous page
