January 24, 1863.
To the editor of the Spectator my thanks are due for the insertion cif my last letter, since it happened not to square exactly with his own views on the latest speech of the French Emperor. To allow the full light of publicity to fall on the opposite sides of a given question, is the noblest homage that can be paid to the principle of free inquiry, and the best use that can be made of the power of the
press.
Having said this much, I beg to be permitted to maintain my ground, not from any petty desire to have the last word, but from a deliberate adherence to what I take to be true.
Firmly as I believe that the history of the 2nd of December is one written in characters of blood which all the waves of the ocean would fail to wash out, I do not think, nor did I ever say that Na- poleon is a man to love cruelty for cruelty's sake. What I think and what I said is this, that to lecture a manacled nation on the blessings of liberty, sounds like a monstrous piece of irony, and calls to mind Tiberius taunting the Roman Senate with their servility.
Now, is this true, or not? Here we have the ruler of a great nation which he has enslaved, telling that very nation, " Come, agree with me that it is charming to be free." Here we have a despot who forbids meetings of any kind, gags the press, mono- polizes in his own hands all the channels of public information, violates the secrecy of private correspondence, and through an army of spies interferes even with the freedom of private inter- course, commending the liberty allowed to all opinions to express themselves without restraint as the only means to ensure the development of all interests. Here we have a self-appointed rival of Providence, whose all-absorbing guardianship leaves no room, ever so little, for the action of civic spirit, proclaiming before those he has himself paralyzed into mummies the advantages of indi- vidual initiative. If such language, under the circumstances, has nothing in it of a cynical sneer, what can possibly be meant by the words cynicism and sneer I am at a loss to make out.
But is the Imperial sneer to be considered a wanton display of
cruelty ? No ; Napoleon had a motive for speaking as he did, and the motive seems to me obvious. Knowing but too well that no speech of his would have to go, in the French press, through the ordeal of a hostile criticism, and that the English press was sure to welcome a panegyric upon English liberty, he thought of court- ing popularity where he could hope to entice it, and saw no danger in doing so at the expense of a nation prostrate and dumb, thus yielding to the influence of that feeling of disdain with which despots are apt to look down upon their victims and their instru- ments. In fact, it must be singularly gratifying to an unscrupu- lous man to be dreaded in France as a tyrant, whilst praised in England as a prince liberal in the main ; and that situation can- not fail to be tempting which combines the profits of wrong-doing with the merit of well-meaning.
It may be also that the French Emperor was betrayed into publicly insulting France by a sort of morbid want—not uncom- mon amongst those whose pride has been palled by a long unopposed enjoyment of supreme power—to show to what extent his is an irresistible sway.
the Spectator regards the French Emperor as being, like the rest of us, a man with two natures, but without the conscience which should bring them into some kind of practical harmony.' Be it so. But to the conclusion the Spectator draws from these' premises I demur. No one can, without dishonesty, admire free- dom in theory, whilst being a relentless tyrant in practice ; and no one can, without cynicism, boast of worshipping what he is bent on destroying. The absence of the link of conscience be- tween the theoretical and the practical nature is precisely what constitutes dishonesty. A man who did evil from his utter inabi- lity to perceive what is good would be an idiot, not a reprobate ; the reprobate is just the man who, having a clear perception of what is good, departs from it deliberately, under the influence of his selfishness and to gratify his passions ; nay, the clearer that perception, the greater the guilt. Ask a murderer whether murder is a process which he admires theoretically ; his answer will be, " Certainly not," inasmuch as he would not like to be himself murdered. Yet society will deliver him up to the hangman without paying the slightest attention to his theoretical view of the case in the abstract.
It is perfectly true that " we have all ideals a great deal better than any to which we shall ever attain ;" it is perfectly true that every one of us is more or less subject "to fall short from his standard." Meliora video, deteriora sequor. But the question is one of degree. Why would it be hard to call that man dishonest who bids his son to appreciate gentleness as the first of qualities, and then swears at his wife on finding the dinner overcooked ? Simply because, in this instance, the contra- diction between the theoretical and the practical nature happens to be accidental, is fraught with no sinister consequences, and refers to a trifling matter. But picture to yourself the same man bidding his son remark what an admirable virtue gentleness is, and, at that very moment, so striking him as to endanger his life ; and suppose, besides, this man to be in the daily habit of giving himself up to fran- tic fits of violence,would his conduct be free from dishonesty and his language from cynicism ? Strictly speaking, we do not call dishonest the clergyman who preaches contempt of wealth, yet accepts a richer living with fewer opportunities of good ; but we decidedly call dishonest Tartuffe who falls short from his standard, to the extent of playing the saint with a view to rob his benefactor both of his property and his wife.
I agree with the Spectator that Napoleon would put aside the whip could he be sure that without it his will would still be done. But this amounts to saying that Napoleon would have no objection to grant freedom to France on condition that France would remain enslaved. Nor is this at all an extenuating circumstance, that he is fully alive to the impossibility of setting France free, even in the event of his House being accepted by France as was the House of Brunswick by England, because to his dynasty is closely linked the fate of men whose misdeeds he has to shield. For never was a criminal made less criminal by the logic of crime. Moreover, if Napoleon knows so well that the impossibility of France being set free under his rule is the necessary consequence of his usurpation, of the means through which it was accom- plished, and of the character of the accomplices he is now bound to protect at any price, what are we to think of his sincerity and honesty when be gives as a reason why France is not set free, that she does not yet deserve freedom—thus shuffling off to her, in the most aggravating and insulting manner, the responsibility of what he knows to be the unavoidable, the fatal result of his own sin ?
Certain it is that never did history record so gross an insult offered to a nation by its very ruler than that contained in the latest speech of Napoleon. A man has been found bold enough to tell France that she ought to thank him for being held, like a child, in leading strings ; for being denied the blessings of liberty till she is a grown-up person, as if France had not been sufficiently trained by experience ; as if she had not shown herself long ago one of the most enlightened nations on earth ; as if she had not fought with an unparalleled amouut of energy the battles of liberty, and taught the world much of what she is now described as being ignorant of and almost incapable of learning ! And who is the man who presumes to be her indispensable guide ? One whose early life was marked by blunders I need not mention, and who, since he became a success- ful usurper, has always been seen feeling his way without any settled notion of his aim. Witness the inconsistency of his Italian policy, so candidly laid bare the other day by M. Thouvenel. The comparison of France with a naughty little boy who is promised
a cake, should he be good, may appear trivial, but it is unfortu- nately apposite to the case under consideration ; and if you ask me to make good -what I said of the feelings of indignation and humiliation likely to be generated in the heart of every right- minded Frenchman by the speech of the Emperor, I will point to the following amendment, to be moved in the discussion of the address by MM. Jules Fevre, Henon, Darimon, Picard, and Emile 011ivier :- " The right of electing a deputy implies the right of knowing what one is about, and consequently the enjoyment of freedom. Since the decree of the 24th of November, the word Liberty has been constantly uttered in the official harangues ; but the Govern- went practices have remained unchanged. No individual initia- tive, no free discussion, no independent municipal life. The system of warnings is brought to bear upon the newspapers with un miti- gated weight, even when no attack whatever is levelled at the Government, and the clandestine pressure under which the Press sinks is incessant. The dignity of the nation demands that there should be an end of this contradiction between what is spoken and what is done. Let us be free, or let the blessings of liberty no longer be cried up to our face. Let us be spared, at least, the humiliation of being told that we do not deserve a boon for which, since our great Revolution, other peoples have so often been in- debted to us."
This protest, so unusually energetic, so full of half-suppressed but unmistakeable indignation, bears to my letter to the Spectator an analogy upon which it would be superfluous to dwell. Nothing Could be more strikingly confirmatory of my appreciation of the effect likely to be produced in France by the speech alluded to. It is self-evident that, like myself, MM. Jules Fevre, Emile 011ivier, Ninon, Darimon, Picard, nave resented that speech as an insult to our country, and their protest is but the faithful reflex of the feelings sure to burn in the breast of all independent men on the French side of the Channel. Is there any exaggeration in their impression that France, their mother, has been slapped in the face ? So the Spectator seems to think. They stand accused of holding extreme views because they smart under the lash, and are warned that this is not the way of obtaining influ- ence over English opinion. With all due deference to the editor of the Spectator, may I be allowed to say that he hardly does justice to his country and to himself by such an assertion ? If it were at all certain that to secure English sympathies, the French Liberal party must take care not to resent with manful vivacity the humiliation of France, much as they respect England, much as they value her sympathies, to which theirs correspond so well and for so many reasons, they would probably not find the prize worth
Previous page
