I respect scarecrows, and bow before bugbears.I ask, on the one hand, that property be left as it is, but that interest on all kinds of capital be gradually lowered and finally abolished; on the other hand, that the charter be maintained in its present shape, but that method be introduced into administration and politics.That is all.Nevertheless, submitting to all that is, though not satisfied with it, I endeavor to conform to the established order, and to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.Is it thought, for instance, that I love property?...Very well; I am myself a proprietor and do homage to the right of increase, as is proved by the fact that Ihave creditors to whom I faithfully pay, every year, a large amount of interest.The same with politics.Since we are a monarchy, I would cry, "LONG LIVE THE KING," rather than suffer death; which does not prevent me, however, from demanding that the irremovable, inviolable, and hereditary representative of the nation shall act with the proletaires against the privileged classes; in a word, that the king shall become the leader of the radical party.Thereby we proletaires would gain every thing; and I am sure that, at this price, Louis Philippe might secure to his family the perpetual presidency of the republic.
And this is why I think so.
If there existed in France but one great functional inequality, the duty of the functionary being, from one end of the year to the other, to hold full court of savants, artists, soldiers, deputies, inspectors, &c., it is evident that the expenses of the presidency then would be the national expenses; and that, through the reversion of the civil list to the mass of consumers, the great inequality of which I speak would form an exact equation with the whole nation.Of this no economist needs a demonstration.Consequently, there would be no more fear of cliques, courtiers, and appanages, since no new inequality could be established.The king, as king, would have friends (unheard-of thing), but no family.His relatives or kinsmen,--_agnats et cognats_,--if they were fools, would be nothing to him; and in no case, with the exception of the heir apparent, would they have, even in court, more privileges than others.No more nepotism, no more favor, no more baseness.No one would go to court save when duty required, or when called by an honorable distinction; and as all conditions would be equal and all functions equally honored, there would be no other emulation than that of merit and virtue.
I wish the king of the French could say without shame, "My brother the gardener, my sister-in-law the milk-maid, my son the prince-royal, and my son the blacksmith." His daughter might well be an artist.That would be beautiful, sir; that would be royal;no one but a buffoon could fail to understand it.
In this way, I have come to think that the forms of royalty may be made to harmonize with the requirements of equality, and have given a monarchical form to my republican spirit.I have seen that France contains by no means as many democrats as is generally supposed, and I have compromised with the monarchy.Ido not say, however, that, if France wanted a republic, I could not accommodate myself equally well, and perhaps better.By nature, I hate all signs of distinction, crosses of honor, gold lace, liveries, costumes, honorary titles, &c., and, above all, parades.If I had my way, no general should be distinguished from a soldier, nor a peer of France from a peasant.Why have Inever taken part in a review? for I am happy to say, sir, that Iam a national guard; I have nothing else in the world but that.
Because the review is always held at a place which I do not like, and because they have fools for officers whom I am compelled to obey.You see,--and this is not the best of my history,--that, in spite of my conservative opinions, my life is a perpetual sacrifice to the republic.
Nevertheless, I doubt if such simplicity would be agreeable to French vanity, to that inordinate love of distinction and flattery which makes our nation the most frivolous in the world.
M.Lamartine, in his grand "Meditation on Bonaparte," calls the French A NATION OF BRUTUSES.We are merely a nation of Narcissuses.Previous to '89, we had the aristocracy of blood;then every bourgeois looked down upon the commonalty, and wished to be a nobleman.Afterwards, distinction was based on wealth, and the bourgeoisie jealous of the nobility, and proud of their money, used 1830 to promote, not liberty by any means, but the aristocracy of wealth.When, through the force of events, and the natural laws of society, for the development of which France offers such free play, equality shall be established in functions and fortunes, then the beaux and the belles, the savants and the artists, will form new classes.There is a universal and innate desire in this Gallic country for fame and glory.We must have distinctions, be they what they may,--nobility, wealth, talent, beauty, or dress.I suspect MM.Arage and Garnier-Pages of having aristocratic manners, and I picture to myself our great journalists, in their columns so friendly to the people, administering rough kicks to the compositors in their printing offices.
"This man," once said "Le National" in speaking of Carrel, "whom we had proclaimed FIRST CONSUL!...Is it not true that the monarchical principle still lives in the hearts of our democrats, and that they want universal suffrage in order to make themselves kings? Since "Le National" prides itself on holding more fixed opinions than "Le Journal des Debats," I presume that, Armand Carrel being dead, M.Armand Marrast is now first consul, and M.
