ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE FROM FRANCE.
Paris, October. 5th.
The spirit of centralization is the ruling spirit of France. It had grown for centuries under the Kings. The work of Richelieu and Louis the Four- teenth was to put down feudality; the work of the Great Revolution was to put down provincialism as well as classes. Certainly it may be said, that in former times the Unitarian system preserved and secured the na- tional independence of the country, and established equality between all classes; but now we begin to see that it threatens to kill, if it has not al- ready killed, Liberty. These remarks irresistibly crowd into my mind when I arrive at the Presidential question, which is now the only one at stake. Republican politicians have at present but one thought, one concern—to avoid Bona- parte at all risks. They know that if the election were to take place im- mediately, the heir to the great Emperor's name, however fallen, however degenerate, would most likely be returned. I do not know what would happen in a month or two; but that is the actual fact. Allow me, however, to cast aside the conflict of individual ambitions, and let us consider the question on more general and more philosophical grounds. Dictators, so powerfully, and, alas! so successfully vindicated by Lamar- tine, is at the bottom of all. Indeed, it is a struggle between the principle of Unity and the principle of Liberty. The very substance of the new Constitution is condensed into these two cardinal points, the singleness of Legislative power, and the election of the Executive. Pure logicians, and Unitarian sophists, contended for a single House, both Legislative and Ex- ecutive, assuming for itself both functions; nominating, not a President, but merely Ministers or Secretaries, removeable at will. The Assembly would have made laws, declared war, negotiated and concluded treaties; it would have been at once Parliament and Crown. That was the ideal of unity—the absolute indivisibility of power. It did not succeed.
The Unitarian party, however, succeeded in outvoting the principle of two Houses. That vote was chiefly carried through pressure from without. The Constituent Assembly in 1848 fell into the same error as the House of Deputies in 1831. At that time, the most eminent politicians of the day, against their feeling, against their convictions, against their will, gave up the heredite of the Peerage, and utterly destroyed the independence of the Upper House. This time, it has been openly avowed that the majority in the Committee of Constitution was favourable to the principle of two Houses, but that, considering the state of public opinion, it felt itself obliged to propose only one. Still, if there is to be but one House, we are to have also an Executive pow- er, a President. But how is the President to be elected?—by universal suffrage, or by the Assembly itself ? What can be a President directly nominated by the Assembly, but its very creature and servant? The moderating, the checking power, which would have resided in a second House, must be sought for in the Executive; and it needs doable strength. But how can it derive that independent strength from the very body which creates it. No; to be in some measure independent, it must directly flow from the source of all power, from the people. Against the despotic will and omnipotence of a single body there is but one resource left, that is universal suffrage.
You see that, in fine, after a protracted struggle, Unity and Liberty are still at stake. Will the contest end with a battle, or with a compromise?— that is the question; and now we fall again into actual politics. It is all very well to speak of universal suffrage; but what if universal suffrage were to decide against Republican institutions? It is a very easy matter to talk of appealing to the people; but what if the people were to return Bo- naparte, or some Republican of the same stamp? There's the rub! As well said one of the present Ministers, "Republic has come too soon." All of 1,12eno feel the truth of that sentence. They know that the general feel- ing of the country is nothing less than favourable to the existing state of things. Universal suffrage has turned against them; and, like Franken- stein, they have evoked a power which they cannot control.
As I have already told you, that Presidency question is a vital one for the Republic. Some time ago, Cavaignac would have been elected at once by the Assembly without much opposition; now, most likely, it is too late. By his wavering between all parties, he has contented none. Preliminary debates and resolutions have already taken place in the Parliamentary Clubs. Members who meet at the Rue de Poitiers, under the guidance of M. Thiers, M. Marrot, M. Berryer, and now also M. Mold, have determined to vote for the election by universal suffrage. The Reunion de Misting, chiefly composed of Moderate Republicans, has come, after much debating, to the same decision. As for the Democratic Club, that is the extreme Republican party, they had at first determined to vote for the election by the Assembly; but it appears that, since the debate upon Italian affairs, they have turned against Cavaignac, and will now vote for universal suf- frage. In the Committee of Constitution, nine members out of Skeen have voted in that sense. The election by the Assembly has no support but in the Reunion du Palais Royal, which holds a kind of juste-milieu between the most moderate and the most extreme Republicans.
Such being the state of opinion, perhaps you would consider the question as already settled. I believe it is not. It will first be proposed that the President should be elected by the Assembly: that, of course, will not pass. It will then be proposed that in future the President should be di- rectly nominated by the people, but, for the first time only, by the As- sembly. That would have passed some time ago; it will not at present. But I believe both parties will come to a compromise; and that Cavaignac will be provisionally maintained by the Assembly till the organic laws are passed,—that is, till the Assembly itself has finished its work. It would merely be a prolongation of the existing state of things. It is said that Cavaignac and his Cabinet intend to support the nomination by the As- sembly: if they do, they will fall. They will have against them not only a majority in the House, but the universal feeling of the country. The greatest excitement prevails in the provinces, and civil war can only be avoided by a compromise. Certainly, difficulties would not be resolved, but they would be at least postponed. It would be but an armistice; but is not the whole of Europe in an armistice?
Previous page
