THE OPPOSITION IN THE NEW CHAMBER.
[Fnoii OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.] London, November 4, 1863. MANY and divers, indeed, have been the speculations indulged in on the other side of the Channel, as to what the Emperor will or will not say at the opening of the French Chambers.
Some have shown themselves inclined to think that his would not be a warlike policy. Others have fondly cherished a hope that the long-expected note of war was about to be sounded for the sake of Poland. By others it has been given out that the Emperor, nettled at the reluctance of England to side decidedly with him, and tired of the double-edged policy of Austria, has a mind to try what flirting again with Russia will do, and is prepared to declare his intention to make the bringing together of the Court of the Tuileries and the Court of St. Petersburg peacefully advantageous to Poland.
The truth appears to be, that to no man on earth has this mystery been as yet unravelled. To-morrow only will there be an end to all conflicting rumours and random surmises ; to-morrow will it be known what the Emperor of the French has in store for the world, unless he takes delight in protracting that state of anxious, still silent, suspense which is the most flattering homage that can be paid to the unchecked magnitude of his power. Much also has has been said about the part which the Opposition in the forth- coming Legislature ought to play, and the way in which the task should be performed to tell on the management of public affairs— a subject on which, unhappily, opinions in the Liberal party seem greatly to disagree. Must the opponents try to act in concert at any price, or fight separately, each of them following the swing of his own personal feelings and individual convictions? These are the two courses under consideration. Which is prefer- able ? This much is sure, that the opponents in the new Legisla- tive Body will impersonate divergent principles. M. Berryer and M. Marie, although elected by the same constituency, are not likely to take the same view of the occupation of Rome. M. Jules Favre and M. Thiers can hardly be expected to tug at the same oars. That they will agree on questions of internal policy is probable enough ; but what about foreign policy ? M. Thiers cannot but speak against any attempt to rescue Poland, if he speaks at all.
It is, perhaps, not out of place to remind the reader in what strains of impassioned eloquence M. Thiers, in the celebrated sitting of the 19th of November, 1881, contended that to go to war for the sake of Poland amounted to sheer insanity. Was not Poland a measureless plain destitute of defensible frontiers? What more chimerical could be conceived than the hope of a country like Poland being made independent ? Had the Court of Versailles, whilst aiming at the creation of a trans-Atlantic Republic, attempted to revive Poland ? Had the French Revolution, with its fourteen armies, been able to achieve anything of the sort? Was not Napoleon himself found unequal to the task ? Who could deny that Frederick the Great would have shrunk from the partition, had he not been aware of the utter impossibility effectually to connect the cause of Europe with that of Poland ?
No speech, let it be remembered, made at that time a deeper sensation in the French Chamber. If the impressive outpourings of M. Manguin, the weighty arguments of M. Bignon, the shrewd remarks of M. de Lafayette fell dead to the ground in the Legislative Assembly; if the wrath of the people, actually threaten- ing insurrection, was confronted by the Government ; if Poland was abandoned, this was to a great extent due to the exertions of M. Thiers, to his political influence, to his oratorical powers. Unless, therefore, he has wonderfully changed his mind ever since, he is certain to oppose, in the Polish question at least, some of the most popular representatives of the Parisian workmen.
The case is a hard one, and this is the very reason why not a few are for the adoption of a high-wrought system of Parliamentary strategy intended and calculated to impart to the Opposition unity both of purpose and action. According to them, the main point for the opponents is to set aside their individual tendencies or views, so far as they are of a nature to stand in the way of a well- concerted attack. Let every member of the Opposition make up his mind to pass over in silence any point on which his opinion is at variance with the opinion of the majority of his companions in arms ; let, in the drama to be performed, the various parts be so distributed that the opponents should not run the risk of opposing one another, the province of M. Jules Simon being, for example, to denounce the unlawful practices resorted to during the elections ; that of M. Thiers to lay bare the disordered state of the Imperial finances ; that of M. Gueroult to urge against the occupation of Mexico such arguments as could not safely find their way into his paper, the Opinions Nationale, and so forth.
This is the plan suggested by those who, little regardful of the means, look, above all, to the end. They point to the fact that the character of the last elections, as regards the Liberal party, was compromise, and they maintain that the deputies are bound to pre- serve this character in the discharge of the trust. Freedom and retrenchment were the only watchwords of the Liberal party during the last electoral struggle. It was because M. Berryer, a Legitimist ; M. Thiers, an Orleanist ; M. Jules Favre, a Republi- can ; were considered equally anxious to demand freedom and retrenchment, that they were elected side by side, despite the well- known difference of their religious and political tenets. Hence the conclusion that the members of the Parliamentary Opposition would baffle the expectation of the electors, should they fail to concentrate their forces almost exclusively in a common attempt at vindicating freedom and obtaining retrenchment. I need not say that to many Liberal and high-minded politicians the proposed stra- tegy seems very objectionable. France hankers, no doubt, after economy and liberty ; but there are other questions to which she is not indifferent, and will not suffer her representatives to show them- selves indifferent. M. Berryer was not elected on condition he should, in his own thoughts, give the occupation of Rome the go-by. M. Thiers was not elected on condition he should refrain from publicly stating on what grounds he may consider a war against Russia as dangerous and impolitic. The electors, who knew what the opinions of these gentlemen were, and chose to be represented by them in spite of their opinions, have now no right to demand that those should on this or that topic remain mute, whose business it is to think for themselves and to speak out their mind. It is the duty of any one who stands where his voice is sure to sound well, to say manfully, on any question, what he thinks is conducive to
the welfare of his country, and no party compact can exempt a public servant in Parliament from the fulfilment of that duty.
Moreover, what could possibly be the practical result of the con- trary course? The foes of the Empire in the Legislative Body are numerically too weak by far either to grasp at power, or to screw out of those in whom it is vested anything beyond paltry concessions scarcely worth fighting for. They have much to pant after, but little to expect. Theirs, in point of substantial advantages to be gained, is the position of poor clerks longing for the extra forty pounds a year that are to change a maintenance into a competence. From the plan sug- gested, they would derive no material profit, whilst they would lose by it that moral authority and dignified position which are, at present, the only means of influence within their reach. Much as unity of action may be desirable, it is bought too dear whenever the price paid for it is a feigned surrender of opinion in matters of paramount importance, or an unmanly submission of conscience to
Previous page
