A LETTER FROM PARIS, ON FRENCH POLITICS.

EA.t a meeting of the Conservative Club, held on the let of January 1833, the following resolution was passed unanimously--- Moved by Lord STTJART DE ROTIISAT, late Ambassador at Paris, seconded by Lord HETTESBURY, late Ambassador at St. Peters- burg. That the able and deeply interesting Report on French Polities, just deli- Tema to the Club by a distinguished member, be printed for general circulation."] [Continued from the SPECTATOR, No. 242.] Tins is a general account; let us note some particulars.

1. Allowing for the difference between French and English prices, thirty-three millions sterling in France are equal to fifty millions in England ; so that the Charter a truth raises for placemen and pen- sioners twice as much, at least, as our glorious Constitution. In France, to be sure, there are thirty-two millions of people, and in Eng- land only twenty-four millions ; but then, as the greater number of French are much poorer than the smaller number of English, the com- parison is still full 100 per cent. in favour of this government.

2. LEWIS PHILIP'S civil list amounts to 720,000/.,—more by a good bit than our WILLIAM'S; and the whole of it goes to maintain the dig- nity of the Crown, whereas a part of our civil list is wasted in paying for work done. The distinction is important ; for let our cause pros- per to the uttermost, yet shall we never get a civil list of 720,000/. a year, all for the King, or rather, I should say, for the Club.

3. The Radicals grumble at our pension list : I wish they could see that of the French Conservatives, as settled by the July Revolu- tion. In 1832, the pensions inscribed on the grand book of France,

that is, charged on the consolidated fund, amounted to 56,389,654 francs, which, divided by twenty-five, gives 2,255,586L—two millions and a quarter sterling—not to mention 132,096/. for the Legion of Honour. N. B. Increase of the Legion of Honour under the Charter a truth— grand crosses, 7; grand officer., 29; commanders, 85; officers, 218; knights, 2,464. When will a glorious revolution do as much for the Club?

4. LEWIS Plump has eight cabinet ministers, paid at the rate of 4,100/. a year each. Shabby, you think,—less than our ministers get ;

but now learn that the eight French ministers get, amongst them,

26,960/. for fire and lights, besides pocket. money which figures in the budget under the improper name of dernses secretes, for 88,000/. Add receipts, properly called secret, that is, pots de via (in English, bribes from contractors), and you must allow that the monarchy of July is eminently Conservative.

5. A brief statement of facts will enable the Club to decide which budget, the French or the English, is raised in the more Conservative manner. Much may be said on both sides. For my part, I lean to the French practice ; but judge for yourselves. As to the true prin- ciples of taxation,_ there can be no dispute amongst Conservatives, Whig or Tory. Taxes should be indirect, so as not to pinch at the time of payment, so that the payers may not easily find out how much they pay ; should create monopolies, that is, benefit some palpably in

proportion as they injure others covertly,—the object 1 eing to make

good subjects of those who gain by this operation of the taxes; and should tend, by a moral rather than a fiscal process, to keep down the

lower orders. In England the proportion of indirect taxes is greater than in France : so far we have the advantage. As to monopoly re- sulting from taxes, our corn-laws, however admirable, are matched by the French duties on foreign sugar, hardware, and other manufactured goods. But on the score of taxation with a view to keep down the lower orders, the French beat us hollow. For this special purpose we have but one set of taxes—those which the Radicals call taxes on knowledge ; whereas the French, besides all sorts of fiscal weights and checks on the spread of information, have royal lotteries and royal gaming-houses, which contribute to the budget 340,000/. a year ; not such lotteries as BEXLEY used to manage in England, which, owing to the high price of tickets, scarcely affected the poor, but littlegoes with tenpenny tickets, one in every town and in all largo towns several, so that the poorest of.the rabble are tempted to try their luck ; not hand- some hells merely, such as 'White's, Brookes's, and Crockford's, though of these there be some in Paris, but also plenty of lOw dens, where vents, journeymen, and the like, stake their all in the shape of tenpe:nce. The sum raised by taxes of this kind is a trifling consideration, unless indeed we reckon three-fourths of the budget as a result of the people's degradation. But, at all events, revenue is not the immediate oklect of such taxes RS these on paper, newspapers, and advertisements in Eng- land, or of gaming-houses and lotteries, over and above taxes on know- ledge, in France : for such modes of raising money, revenue is only the plea or occuse. Now, learning that LAFAYETTE and his set have beseeched LEWIS PHILIP and the Deputies to give up the half million raised in this way, estimate the vast quantity of vice and misery pro- duced in collecting that half million, including robberies, murders, sui- cides, and public executions ; calculate the effect of that vice and miseryin degrading the people, and rendering them subservient to the greatest happiness of the greatest number of placemen and pensioners ; take a moral and political as well as a 'fiscal view of the subject, and then tell me—is not LEWIS Puma a most respectable King? Are not the Deputies under the Charter a truth a most Conservative assembly ? -So much for the budget of the Barricades, on which I could dwell for ever but that it seems cruel to tantalize you. Touching the proportion between the happy and the miserable in France, I will state two facts 'from which it may be inferred that the Charter a truth goes nigh to 'fulfil the chief end of government. First, the number of official people in this country, living on the budget, sleek, happy, and devoted to their Citizen King, is so great, that, keep what decent company you will, the difficulty is to meet with somebody who lives on his own means. Secondly, the French calculate (they excel in statistics, particularly such as relate to misery and crime) that of the thirty-two millions of souls composing the great nation, twenty. .three millions have to spend, on the average, not more than 35-centimes, or 3:4d. each per diem ; and that of these twenty-three millions, eight millions subsist on barley or rye bread, water-gruel, potatoes, and chesnuts, seldom tasting wheaten bread, and meat never

This being the case, it is but natural that some should grumble. In- deed, a good government must necessarily, according to the principles here laid down, be disliked by that portion of the people on whose misery depends the happiness of the remainder. Of course, therefore, the Charter a truth is not without enemies. These, however, being for the most part needy, obscure, and fully occupied in slaving for the means to live, would not be worth a thought, if, as in England, all clever men having leisure were ashamed to take the part of the rabble. But it is not so here. The inferior classes find advocates amongst the young Republicans, some of whom write with equal spite and talent. Thus the press, if let alone, might become extremely mischievous. Happily LEWIS Pnr/re and his Ministers do not let it alone. Where the jour- nals on their side are beaten in argument, they call in the Attorney- General ; to what extent and with what effect you may conceive, when I add, that in two years and a half since the Charter became a truth, there have been more prosecutions of the press than during fifteen years when the Charter was a lie ; that many editors of opposition papers live or are dying in gaol, and that several have been converted by the Attorney- General, in other words, broken in purse, health, and spirit, by punishment after punishment. I have made out a strong case in favour of this revolutionary govern- meat: that you will all admit. Some of you, however, may still bear malice towards LEvris PHILIP for having consented to abolish the here- ditary Peerage. I enter into your feelings, having myself, at one time, on this very account felt a deadly animosity towards LEWIS PHILIP. But facts and reflection have softened my anger, have actually made me approve of what has been done. Let me explain. A title by itself is worth absolutely nothing. What would any Englishman give to be called three-tailed bashaw or blue-buttoned mandarin ? not a snap of his finger. Nor would any Englishman give a straw to be called Lord, Earl, Marquis, Duke, if it did not so happen that in England solid advantages are attached to those titles. A ease for example : why does BARING, the great stockjobber, pant for a peerage? because, if he were a lord, all his friends of the mercantile class, who now treat him as their equal, would cringe to him, would blush with joy if he did but condescend to slap them on the shoulder, would boast amongst their equals of their intimacy with a lord, would flatter Master BARrno the honourable, and the honourable Miss

BARING, would behave to the whole family as if they had just come down from heaven, or been raised to the station of demi-gods. Such worship is grateful to him who receives it, swells his heart with deli- cious pride, and fills his head with a belief that he is really more than man ; and feelings so pleasant are a solid advantage. In the next place, if BARING, being a lord, should fall into poverty, the other lords would, for the sake of their own dignity, either put him on the pension list or make him governor of a colony; a very solid good, not to men.- tion that his honourable sons and daughters would find in the marriage market rich bidders for the honour of their connexion. Our Club, therefore, may well set a high value on the possession of title and the right of transmitting it to one's children. Titles are suited to the genius of the English people, Who delight in artificial inequality. The French, on the contrary, despise mere titles, to such a degree, that a man called Duke or Marquis is an object of ridicule unless he have the solid distinction of power. By -a late law any Frenchman may take any title he pleases ; yet nObodylas thought it worth while to dub himself lord. The Cabinet Ministers, who used to be addressed as Monseigneur, prefer to be called Monsieur le Minisire, a title which, as it means something, does not expose them to be laughed at. He who has an unmeaning title would not be-sorry to get rid of it ; and another, who comes in for an immense -slice-of the budget, who enjoys more power in France than any individual does in England, would as soon be called spoon or potato as earl or ,marquis. Consequently, the ruling class in France would miser gain:than lose by the total abolition dor unmeaning titles. Then, as to .the tLsansmission of legislative power from father to son, which is a very different question, I lam 'so observe, that under constitutions which appoint the Deputies to be guardlans of the public purse, the right of making laws has neve descended with titles. In England, that right, when it descends from father to son, goes, not with titles, but with the estates, which enable some who bear titles to name members of the Commons' House, BARING'S son, when he shall inherit the estate which BARING ha, bought near Thetford, will be an hereditary legislator, though no peer ; and if Lord EXETER should stake the town of Stamford on a horse-race and lose it, his son, though an hereditary marquis, would not be a legislator. So in France, the Peers, as such, have never possesaa legislative power, having invariably been swamped by a new batch of peers whenever they presumed to differ from the Deputies. If the English Peers have not been frequently swamped in like manner, was because, as landowners, not as peers, they commanded the Rouse, of Commons. Of course the French Peers could not transmit to thcii sons that which they never possessed themselves : and what neve existed cannot have been abolished. It follows that the French law, which in words abolishes hereditary legislation, is mere words on papa without any real effect. But hold—it has been very useful in one[ respect ; as a toy for diverting the attention of this frivolous people! from the budget ; as a tub thrown to the Republican whale, in order tha.,' the good ship Aristocracy might keep her course unmolested. Who then, I hear some of you ask, who then compose the Arista. cracy of France ? Those, I answer, who levy and dispense the bud. get, reserving large portions of it for themselves. Power consists 0/ command over men's will, which the command of money gives every.. where, and especially in France corrupted by NAPOLEON. One of the, French Aristocracy, a minister, a prefect, or a chief clerk in any pubic office, though he do not obtain power in the same way as a great Eng. lish landowner, enjoys as much power as—whom shall I say ?—Lord LONSDALE or the Duke of DEVONSHIRE. He commands the will of a great a number of people, has as many parasites, receives as much adu. lation' is as blind to his own defects, and as much puffed up with a belief in his natural superiority to the mass of mankind. It is a fine thing to see an English lord, heavy, ignorant, and selfish, surrounded by sycophants who vie with each other in extolling his wit, learning, and generosity ; but a French prefect, inspecting his department, meet- ing everywhere with the most abject flattery, followed by fawning crowds ready to lick up his spittle for a smile, is a sight quite as grati. fying to Conservative eyes. Truly, as official appointments are not hereditary in France, so the tenure of power cannot be transmitted from father to son ; but now—I put the question to those of our Club who are most prejudiced in favour of everything English—is it for the sake of his eldest son that an English great man cherishes the privilege of handing down his greatness ? is it not a fact, on the contrary, that, in nine cases out of ten great English landowners and their eldest sons cordially dislike each other,—the father annoyed because the son treads on his heels, and the son sorry because his father lasts so long ? Why then do Conservatives set so much store by the system of entails and primogeniture ?—because it is a means of providing for younger ehil, dren out of the budget. Suppose that the Duke of BEAUFORT, for in. stance, were compelled to divide his estate equally amongst all his children, in that case, at his death, each fraction of the estate would be too small to give any political influence, and thus the hands of the So- MERSETS would dip no more into the public purse. By our consti. tution, in short, one man possessing 50,000/. a year enjoys great po. litical power, while fifty men possessing. 1,000/. a year each enjoy none at all. In France it is different. Here the greatest estate has no influence on any election ; all election influence being like that which we used to exert at Plymouth, or that which the Whigs have jus: exerted in the new borough of Chatham ; Treasury influence, budget, power, ending in what the French Republicans call bureaucratie,—al peculiar kind of Aristocracy, which, though different from our f

is still aristocracy to all intents and purposes, since it provides, as I have shown before, for the greatest happiness OT the greatest number. To make you thoroughly understand the position of a great man in

France, I would liken it to that of Lord MELVILLE, when he used to elect the members for Scotland.by means of patronage, military, naval,

colonial, judicial, financial., and ecclesiastical. Though his estate were small, if indeed be owned one, he had always a fat place at his disposal for anybody named DUNDAS ; not to speak of pensions. You must thus perceive, that in France entails and primogeniture are not required lot the purpose which they serve in England. Your question is answend —the Aristocracy of this country is composed of DUNDASES, DAT-

SONS, ROSES, HERRIESES, and CROKERS, not controlled by great land- owners, and not out but in. I beg our friends' pardon for touching deli sore place ; they will forgive me presently, when I shall offer them a French receipt for healing that kind of raw.

The Club, I am well aware, judging by the influence of the Met; Days' fight on English politics, conclude that very important changes for the worse must have taken place here since the Week of July. It

is a mistake, easy to explain. On the 26th of July 1830, the people of England were dissatisfied with their Constitution. Consequently, when the French explosion of July induced them to believe that what- ever they should ask earnestly of the ruling class would be granted, they demanded the most important constitutional changes. But on the '26th of July 1830, the French were warmly attached to their Constitution; all the more so, because, during fifteen years, and especially since tls previous August, they had been defending it from the attacks of the Bourbons. The last attack—poor POLIGNAC'S ordinances—drove themt to rebellion ; but they rebelled Conservatively, crying Vice la Clan* whilst they erected barricades. When, therefore, they had beaten the Swiss and the Household troops, instead of proposing to upset the Char- ter, all they desired was, that the Charter should become a truth. This they have obtained, and much good may it do them ; for have I not proved that the Charter a truth is mere Conservative, keeps the presi in better order, and produces a larger budget, than the Charter a lie? Imagine that our present IV/IA.1Am, on coming to his throne, bad en- deavoured to govern England by means of the court and the clergy instead r

of the House of Commons,—that the People had rebelledin defence of the Parliament, Schedule A and all, had sent the King to H8DOVer, putting his brother CUMBERLAND in his place, and bad returned to their work proud of having saved Old Sarum ; conceive this, and you Will

form a just idea of French politics as settled by the /ate Revolution. I forget—the French owe to their Three Days some changes which they prize immensely. Instead of a white national flag, they have one with three colours, blue, white, and red ; instead of lilies as a national emblem, they have the Gallic cock crowing for victory; their monarch, instead of being called King of France, is called King of the French. Add to these alterations, which have delighted the populace, and their betters too, some phrases, which depend on the Three Days, and which the people mouth with satisfaction in lieu of bread, just as English paupers chew tobacco to allay the pains of hunger. The Sun of July. The glorious days of July. The great week. The great week of the people. The heroic people. The heroes of the barricades.

The illustrious barricades.

The popular throne. The Citizen King. The citizen monarchy. The young monarchy.. France of July. The great event of 1830. The new !era of 1830.

Popular sovereignty. The July throne. The July revolution. Our glorious revolution.

give them all, in order that none of them may scare the Club hence- forth. Need I say that they are all fudge ? Yet are they, as fudge, not to be despised. Used by LEWIS Pinup, his courtiers, ministers, and journalists, they serve to cajole the people as never people were gulled before. This brings me to the character of LEWIS PHILIP as a man and a king. [To be continued.]