ЧАР. XLA

revolutionary banner was indeed kept in the background, AP. and that of reform hoisted in its stead. But by the side of reform appeared another with the more significant and formidable inscription of the Rights of Labour; Arago first hoisted it. Ever since 1830, original thinkers and powerful writers had been elaborating schemes for refashioning society, and superseding the unsatisfactory state of things which Christian civilisation had produced. The efforts of the St. Simonians have been mentioned, sufficiently successful as long as they were confined to preaching and to theory. Having the boldness to put their ideas in practice, the nullity and impracticability of them soon appeared. They could not indeed revolutionise property without at the same time overthrowing the laws of family connection and descent. This involved such outrage upon morality that the whole thing exploded. The economical portion of the scheme, however, remained, and was taken up, manipulated, and expounded by able professors of other schools.

The basis of all these theories was that property belonged in principle not to the individual, but to the state, that the promotion of private interests, separate from public ones, was a sin and a crime, and that some way was to be found for rendering the whole population participators in the wealth and produce of the country. As any practical realisation of such a scheme was found to be impossible, it was provisionally announced that the destitute, or the day earner, had at least a right not to bread-such a demand was considered too ignominious for the sovereign people-but to the means and materials of labour. Land and capital formed these, the people had a claim upon both.

The seeds of such doctrine fell upon a soil well fitted to make them germ. In all other countries, the gradual decline and abolition of feudalism has left strong connection between the different classes of society. If there be dependence on one side, there is protection on the

СНАР,

XLVI.

other. That these may degenerate into servility on the one hand, and authoritative mastery on the other, there can be no doubt. But these relations are also blended with kindness, and with affection, respect, and care. In France there survive none of these mutual feelings. The labouring agriculturists had for the most part got possession of the soil in a way, and at a price, that inspired their less fortunate fellows with small esteem. The peasantry had in general subdivided the soil amongst them, and tilled it, with no superior to make a claim, or cast a shadow, unless it was the government taxman or official: Had this peasantry kept possession of the soil, it might have made them a happy and contented race. But the want of capital to raise more than the earth can produce unaided, and the necessity of either raising capital or incurring debt to buy off brothers and sisters, necessarily copartners of the land, as well as to meet the heavy fines of the conscription, left the French peasant, though a nominal proprietor of the land, yet necessitated to pay a larger portion of its produce in interest upon debt than he had under the ancient régime paid in rent. Thus the town capitalists replaced the old aristocracy, and took as large a share of the produce of the earth, without inspiring the same respect. Add to this that the new proprietorial class, labouring itself, required or employed small additional labour. Scant was the class that lived on wages, or that got any in the rural districts. The lackland population hence migrated to the towns, where what was heretofore the rent of land, now the interest of the town capitalist, enabled this latter personage to become the great and general employer. Town industry thus took a large expanse, as did the class that lived by it. Manufactures arose even in the fields. Beet was grown for sugar; and as foreign markets opened, and fertile years succeeded one another, there was a vein of prosperity which tended more than any effort or wisdom of Louis-Philippe or of his government to quiet the in

creasing town population. But about the time of the Eastern question opening, harvests became unfavourable in France, whilst at the same time important foreign markets closed. General Jackson went to war with the Banks and with fictitious capital, and deprived the French of their great Transatlantic market. Manufacturing and agricultural interests both began to suffer at the very time when the government, quarrelling with England and with Europe, was compelled to incur large debts. In the general distress, disaffection and turbulence rose again. Manufacturers, deprived of their markets, could not supply work and wages, or tried to diminish both. The labouring artisan declared himself wronged, and the political agitator backed his complaint by proclaiming that he had a right to labour, and to its hire.

These socialist symptoms showed themselves in various acts of turbulence during the administration of M. Thiers. The small articles of commerce which Paris furnishes, being mostly those of luxury, were left without a market at the time of political agitation, and this, added to the dearness of provisions, rendered the artizan population eagerly attentive to the declaration of Arago that all men. had a right to employment. Strikes took place in almost all the Parisian trades. Tailors, shoemakers, paper makers, compositors, stone cutters, each had their strike. At one moment, in September, this came near to assume the shape of an émeute, with barricades and banners. The troops early got the better of that manifestation. But these difficulties, blended with the embarrassment of the foreign question, formed the heritage which the Thiers cabinet left to its successors.

To these causes of agitation and danger came to be added the humble ground which M. Guizot took, instead of the prouder attitude of Thiers, upon the Eastern question. In this indeed he had the support of parliament, but it was a support of which, although the ma

CHAP.

XLVII.

XLVII.

CHAP. jority assumed the responsibility, they felt the shame. It would have been madness, however, to fly in the face of Europe, and provoke it either by land or sea. The original fault of being of one opinion, and allowing united Europe to hold the other, rendered France helpless. The powers, however, did not want to dethrone Mehemet, or even to reduce him so low as the Porte proposed. They refused to sanction the conditions which Turkey sought to impose by its Hatti Scherif of mid-February, limiting the Egyptian army to an insignificant force, and retaining the nomination of its chief officers. These hard conditions were rejected; and Mehemet was acknowledged as the hereditary Pacha of Egypt, with full right of sovereignty, the Turkish fleet being restored by him. This was offered in June 1841. And in the following month, M. Guizot, as foreign minister, signed with the other powers the Treaty of the Straits, which closed Bosphorus and Dardanelles, the one to Russian, the other to European, fleets. M. Guizot recounts how he endeavoured to make it more complete by regulating the right of way through Egypt, as well as other matters. But Lord Palmerston set these stipulations aside as irrelevant, and the close of both straits alone became European law.

Few ministers were ever burdened with so serious a task as that which M. Guizot and his colleagues had to meet. Whilst he himself laboured at the diplomatic oar, his law officers were engaged in quarrels with the press. Those journalists who often contrived to escape by the indulgence of the jury obtained no mercy when brought before the Court of Peers. Accordingly the Upper Chamber became the target for Republican virulence. The National called it an hospital of Incurables, a mere collection of dry bones, without sufficient energy for independence. Their debates were a constitutional concert played by the dead. These were but jests. The Court of Peers, however, punished them

by fines and imprisonment. Lamennais was condemned about this time. The trial of Darmès for his attempt at regicide also occupied the law officers of the crown. They were convinced that he had accomplices, and was an agent of the secret societies; but they could elicit nothing from either him or his associates.

War minister and prime minister were both sorely pressed by the large expenditure ordained, and the difficulty of supplying funds to meet it. The fortifications of Paris formed the most serious demand. The first idea of these works was to place all round Paris, and at a certain distance from it, detached forts which would keep off a besieging army or an enemy, and prevent hostile artillery from showering its projectiles into the city. The King was for this plan, which, however, was speedily laid hold of by opposition, and denounced as a plan for embastilling Paris. The patriots were for the simple wall, or enceinte continue, open within, and not menacing to the Parisians, their liberties, or their licence. The dispute ended by the adoption of both systems of defence, and of course the expense was proportionately increased.

Moreover, when the war-cry arose, all the materials of war were found to be wanting. Regiments were without equipments, depôts without artillery or matériel. Fortresses were dilapidated, the military offices told of long peace and consequent dilapidation. Credit after credit was swallowed up, without satisfying engineers or intendants. This financial question was a vital one for any minister. That the monarchy of July should manifest itself more obsequious to foreign powers than the Restoration, and yet that its expenditure should be far greater, were confessions dangerous and humiliating to make. Yet unfortunately they could neither be withheld nor contradicted. The public expenditure, which required 40,000,000l. sterling annually in the last years of the Restoration, amounted to 50,000,0007.

СНАР.

XLVII.