A LETTER FROM PARIS. [Continuedfrom tine SPECTATOR, No. 239.] MY
intended notice of LEWIS PHILIP and his Charter requires an exordium, preface, or introduction, whichever you please to call it. The Club are prejudiced against LEWIS PHILIP, and will not listen to me, who admire him, unless I bespeak their impartial attention. They shudder at the mere word revolution. Why so? I venture to ask. Revolution means change, which in the abstract is not frightful. All depends upon the nature of the change. History, which is a chronicle of revolutions, records a great many changes from worse to better, speaking Conservatively. Our own affair of 1688, for example, why do we call that change a glorious revolution ? Because it was an aristocratic change, fatal to the King who presumed to think for himself, offensive to the rabble who liked the King, and pleasant to the nobility, clergy, and gentry, in whose hands it placed all the powers of government. Not many revolutions, I allow, have been so truly Conservative; but I reckon about sixty within sixty late years; and of these, one only has established a deplorable state of things. Nor need I ad- mit that the American Revolution was the cause of Democracy in America; since our colonies were governed by farmers, shop- keepers, and attornies, long before the War of Independence; more's the shame, be it said, to those Governments of England which permitted English settlers in a distant wilderness to make and execute their own laws. Still, even allowing that one revo- lution has produced the unclean thing we have, on the other hand, fifty-nine subsequent revolutions, which have ended conservatively. I include amongst them the great French Revolution, which, though it knocked down many things such as are dear to us, set up others in their place, equally if not more Conservative. Tithes, no doubt, when a people will bear them, tend to keep down the lower orders, but not more effectually than gendarmes. Even the Reign of Terror had a Conservative effect, having produced throughout Europe a wholesome dread of Democracy, and enabled the great NAPOLEON to make Frenchmen what they are, timid, servile, and mercenary. I am not, however, the advocate of revo- lution; I do not advise the Club to stir up a revolution in Eng- land ; my object is merely to point out that revolution has never, except in one case, been of use to the lower orders or permanently adverse to Conservative principles. Though nations give them- selves airs now and then, they always finish by asking to be governed, and invariably find somebody delighted to govern them. Impress this truth on those of our friends who dislike LEWIS PHILIP'S government because it was established by a revolution. Every new government was So established; but hitherto,notwith- standing, the world has been governed pretty conservatively. The Government of LEWIS PHILIP is, certainly, a Revolutionary Government, but it may be a very good one for all that. Whether it be a good or a bad one, remains to be settled : let us, I beg, ex- amine the question without prejudice. But first, we have an abstract question to determine. What is good in government? A government, you answer, is good in pro- portion as it is Conservative. Conservative of what? The Yan- kee Government is Conservative of popular power, and is, there- fore, a very bad government. We must take care not to fall into that confusion of ;.deas which we intended that the title of our Club should produce in dull and timid minds. What does the Cub mean by Conservative? Not preservative, I take it ; since there are many things in England for which we should be glad to substitute something diffemnt; the licence of the press, for ex- ample. Conservative means preservative thus far—inasmuch as we are for preserving those things which we like ; but why do we like our sacred institutions, our holy religion, and so forth ? Not because they are old, nor even because they exist, but for certain intrinsic qualities having no relation to the term of their being. It is well that the high vulgar, who dread change without know- ing why, should believe in our attachment to whatever is; but when I say to you, between ourselves—I am a Conservative, you fully understand. that I am a Destructive on some points. Let me ask you,—should not we be glad, in our secret souls, to see the Duke, not the dear Duke, but fother pet, in the place of Reform BILL, even by means of a little violence, provided it should stop there ? Aye, say you but why ? Because our royal friend would be guided by the Club, would be a mere, instrument of aristocratic government. Well, then, Conservative means Aristocratic; and in this sense, I acknowledge, Government is good in proportion as it is Conservative. You and I know the precise meaning of Aristocracy; but as some members of the Club, country baronets and clergymen, be- lieve that there is nothing perfect out of England, I must tell a story to set them right. A jolly Englishman newly arrived here went to the Café de Paris, where some waiters understand English, and ordered "a good dinner ;" adding, "and put it all on at once, for I like to see my food, before I eat it, particularly in a foreign country." They served oysters, asparagus soup, little patties, fillets of ducks with supreme sauce, turbot with bread crumbs, that which is here called rosbif, stewed celery with white sauce, sorrel with gravy, olives, anchovies, and a bottle of Lafitte. Our countryman scowled at the display, and clenching his fist at the waiter, said, "D— your eyes, Sir, do you call that a good dinner? Away with it, and give me something fit for a Christian ; fish plain-boiled, a joint fat and underdone, with potatoes and carrots, melted butter, brown stout, and a bottle of port, and be d—d to you." Now, really, as the waiter observed, the French dinner was a very good one, whatever the English godem might say to it. Just so the French Constitution may be very aristocratic, though different from that to which we are accustomed. I entreat our friends to hear it described before they turn up their noses at it. Forms and names are not essential. As to form, our Constitution is mixed; and in name not a little democratic, since nominally it places the public purse, which is the substantial essence of power, in the hands of the people. The states of ancient Greece, of Rome from the last TARQUIN to the first CIESAR, of Genoa and Venice, were all, in name, republics, but in effect tolerable aristocracies. The slave states of America, also, are but formal or nominal re- publics, since in each of them a majority of the people obey and suffer whilst a minority command and enjoy. Forms and names may be highly useful as means of hiding the true nature of agovernment; but we who use them for that purpose should be weak indeed to cheat ourselves when cheating others. I speak plainly amongst friends. Aristocracy, however disguised, is govern- ment of the many by a few for the exclusive benefit of the smaller number. It does not follow, however, that all such governments ere of equal merit. The few may be too fed, or too many; so few as to be weak and always in danger, so many as to leave for each but a small share of the good things which naturally belong to the ruling class. Perfection lies in the golden mean or juste milieu. Perfect aristocracy consists of government by a few for their own exclusive advantage, the numerical proportion between the rulers and the subjects being such as to insure the greatest happiness of the greatest number, or, in other words, the largest possible budget enjoyed by the largest possible number of place- men and pensioners. What think you of my definition? Let us employit as a standard or rule of perfection to measure the govern- mentof our neighbours.
—Government by a Few- Youare all aware that the French Charter was concocted in 1814 by poor.dear CASTLEREAGH and his friends of the Holy Alliance, including LEWIS the Eighteenth, who had picked up some consti- tutional knowledge while living at Hartwell. You cannot doubt, Therefore, that it was framed with a view to establish good govern- ment. The purpose, however, of our departed friend was not fully accomplished. The small number in whose hands the new con- stitution placed all the powers of government had not learned the art of:governing constitutionally. Attached, some of them to the old Strumpetocracy-, others to the rough and ready system of the Empire,Ithey.all disliked the Charter, felt restrained by it, and evaded it whenever opportunity served. Hence great discontent amongst the people, who, falling into the trap set for them by CASTLEREAGH, had become proud and fond of their constitution. In such.oircumstanees the Charter could not work well. Govern- ment that does.notwork well hardly deserves to be called Govern- ment; for though the Sew possess power, they are constantly in dangereflosing itatidtmust live in a state of uneasiness, whatever the amount of the chudget. Under LEWIS the Eighteenth and CHARLES the Tenth, the Charter was a lie : our business is with the Charter a truth. I shall return to this very important dis- tinction. By the Charter a truth, less than 200,000 persons. make the laws which 8,000,000 obey, and spend the taxes which 8,000,000 pay. If I were disposed to exaggerate, I should reckon the tax-payers at 32,000,000; but I always like to be within the mark. Leaving out women and children, as well tax- eaters as tax-payers, the few are to the many as 1 to 40; a pro- portion which must appear satisfactory to the Club, when they reflect that at home, before the late change, we had near half a million of electors in a population of six millions, leaving out wo- men and children. I do not forget that in England many of the electors were mere machines in the hands of individuals; but as that is the case in France also, to a great extent, the comparison is still advantageous to the French Charter. That Charter, like our own, recognizes a King and a House of Lords ; but these may in both countries be considered as names or forms, since under both constitutions the Budget, which keeps Kings and Lords, is voted by the House of Commons. The French House of Lords, like the English one,* inevitably follows the lead of the House of Commons; and as for LEWIS Plume, it is quite pleasant to see him take orders from a majority of the Deputies. But why should I, in a confidential letter, dwell on contrivances, which, however useful as they tend to keep the main fact out of view, are trifling when compared with the main fact, namely, government by a few. This, my figures show, is provided for by the Charter a truth.
—For their own exclusive advantage- Cela vu sans dire; that's a matter of course : I appeal to human nature and to the Club. When wolves shall tend sheep and Con- servatives call in earnest for retrenchment, then every man, ob- taining power over his fellow men, will use it for the benefit of the weak. But the day of miracles is past : in the common course of human affairs, power will always be used for the good of the pow- erful. It was but yesterday that I said so to LAFAYETTE. He began to talk about America ; but I stopped him, saying—" There, all the white people keep power in their own hands and use it for their own advantage." He chuckled at this; but when I added- " How do they treat the black people ?"—I thought he was going to cry, the old noodle. He said with a groan—" You are right; the rule is universal."
—The numerical proportion between the rulers and the subjects being such as to insure the greatest happiness of the greatest number, or, in other words, the largest possible budget enjoyed by the largest possible number of placemen and pensioners.
BENTHAM was a jackass with his greatest happiness of the greatest number, if he meant by it any thing opposed to Conser- vative principles. Happiness consists of money got without trouble. In order that some should be happy, it is necessary that more should be miserable. The greatest happiness of the greatest number is consulted in Jamaica, where as many masters as possible get as much as possible out of their slaves. This is a question of degree and proportion. If the masters in Jamaica were more numerous in proportion to the slaves, each of them would enjoy less happiness; if less numerous, fewer people, of' course, would be happy. In government, the greatest happiness of the greatest number is dependent on a due proportion between the payers and receivers of taxes : if the payers be too few in pro- portion to the receivers, there will be too many people scrambling for too small a budget ; if the receivers be too few in proportion to the payers, though the budget will be great, it will confer happi- ness on too small a number. What the just proportion may be, I am puzzled to determine exactly ; but when I have more time I will endeavour to find it out, for the guidance of constitution- makers. Much, probably, would depend on the peculiar circum- stances of each case. In France, the budget of last year, ordina- ries and extraordinaries, ...mounted (I shall make all your mouths water) to 44,652,9221.: Deduct, for interest of the Debt, 11,562,4741.; leaving 33,089,448/. for the placemen and pensioners, who actually swarm, and who, judging by their devotion to the Charter a truth, enjoy under it the greatest possible happiness.
Don't confound the proprietor of Stamford, voting indirectly in the House of Con. mons, with Lord EXETER, voting point blank or by proxy in the House of Lords.
[To be continued.1
Previous page
