The pleasure of a popular ovation would be well worth the sacrifice of a few millions.They sow so much to reap unpopularity! Then, if the nation, its hopes of 1830restored, should feel it its duty to keep its promise,--and it would keep it, for the word of the nation is, like that of God, sacred,--if, I say, the nation, reconciled by this act with the public-spirited monarchy, should bear to the foot of the throne its cheers and its vows, and should at that solemn moment choose me to speak in its name, the following would be the substance of my speech:-- The electoral reform, it is continually asserted, is not an END, but a MEANS.Undoubtedly; but what, then, is the end?
Why not furnish an unequivocal explanation of its object? How can the people choose their representatives, unless they know in advance the purpose for which they choose them, and the object of the commission which they entrust to them?
But, it is said, the very business of those chosen by the people is to find out the object of the reform.
That is a quibble.What is to hinder these persons, who are to be elected in future, from first seeking for this object, and then, when they have found it, from communicating it to the people? The reformers have well said, that, while the object of the electoral reform remains in the least indefinite, it will be only a means of transferring power from the hands of petty tyrants to the hands of other tyrants.We know already how a nation may be oppressed by being led to believe that it is obeying only its own laws.The history of universal suffrage, among all nations, is the history of the restrictions of liberty by and in the name of the multitude.
Still, if the electoral reform, in its present shape, were rational, practical, acceptable to clean consciences and upright minds, perhaps one might be excused, though ignorant of its object, for supporting it.But, no; the text of the petition determines nothing, makes no distinctions, requires no conditions, no guarantee; it establishes the right without the duty."Every Frenchman is a voter, and eligible to office." As well say: "Every bayonet is intelligent, every savage is civilized, every slave is free." In its vague generality, the reformatory petition is the weakest of abstractions, or the highest form of political treason.Consequently, the enlightened patriots distrust and despise each other.The most radical writer of the time,--he whose economical and social theories are, without comparison, the most advanced,--M.Leroux, has taken a bold stand against universal suffrage and democratic government, and has written an exceedingly keen criticism of J.J.Rousseau.
That is undoubtedly the reason why M.Leroux is no longer the philosopher of "Le National." That journal, like Napoleon, does not like men of ideas.Nevertheless, "Le National" ought to know that he who fights against ideas will perish by ideas.
"SIRE,--This is what the nation wishes to say to your Majesty:--"O King! you see what it costs to gain the applause of the citizens.Would you like us henceforth to take for our motto:
`Let us help the King, the King will help us'? Do you wish the people to cry: `THE KING AND THE FRENCH NATION'? Then abandon these grasping bankers, these quarrelsome lawyers, these miserable bourgeois, these infamous writers, these dishonored men.All these, Sire, hate you, and continue to support you only because they fear us.Finish the work of our kings; wipe out aristocracy and privilege; consult with these faithful proletaires, with the nation, which alone can honor a sovereign and sincerely shout, `Long live the king!'"The rest of what I have to say, sir, is for you alone; others would not understand me.You are, I perceive, a republican as well as an economist, and your patriotism revolts at the very idea of addressing to the authorities a petition in which the government of Louis Philippe should be tacitly recognized.
"National workshops! it were well to have such institutions established," you think; "but patriotic hearts never will accept them from an aristocratic ministry, nor by the courtesy of a king." Already, undoubtedly, your old prejudices have returned, and you now regard me only as a sophist, as ready to flatter the powers that be as to dishonor, by pushing them to an extreme, the principles of equality and universal fraternity.
What shall I say to you?...That I should so lightly compromise the future of my theories, either this clever sophistry which is attributed to me must be at bottom a very trifling affair, or else my convictions must be so firm that they deprive me of free-will.
But, not to insist further on the necessity of a compromise between the executive power and the people, it seems to me, sir, that, in doubting my patriotism, you reason very capriciously, and that your judgments are exceedingly rash.You, sir, ostensibly defending government and property, are allowed to be a republican, reformer, phalansterian, any thing you wish; I, on the contrary, demanding distinctly enough a slight reform in public economy, am foreordained a conservative, and likewise a friend of the dynasty.I cannot explain myself more clearly.So firm a believer am I in the philosophy of accomplished facts and the _statu quo_ of governmental forms that, instead of destroying that which exists and beginning over again the past, I prefer to render every thing legitimate by correcting it.It is true that the corrections which I propose, though respecting the form, tend to finally change the nature of the things corrected.Who denies it? But it is precisely that which constitutes my system of _statu quo_.I make no war upon symbols, figures, or phantoms.
