The liberal and even democratic tendencies of the Prince
Napoleon are well known, but never has he given his views so unmistakably as in
a debate in the French Senate on the 25th ult.
The debate was on the address to the emperor, and the remarks of the prince
cause intense excitement among the nobles.
He said:
“I hope France will never be sorry for having surrounded my
family with honors. In any case, my
spirit will be with my descendants no longer than they continue to deserve the
love and confidence of this great nation.
This is how the emperor understood the hereditary succession. And what happened subsequently? When, after immense disasters, a ray of light
seemed to break on France, and the emperor returned from the Isle of Elba, to
overthrow the government of the Restoration, we know in what eloquent words he
threw himself upon the nation, and identified himself with its interest, its
honor, its glory. And what cries did he
hear as he advanced from the Mediterranean to Paris, carried on the arms of the
people and the army? “Down with the
nobles!” “Down with the emigrants!” “Down with the traitors!”
The latter word “traitres” was generally mistaken for
“Pretres,” and immense confusion immediately followed. Some of the senators made taunting remarks,
and some called the prince to order. The
prince refused to hear the call to order, however, and proceeded:
“Do you pretend to deprive me of the right to continue my
speech? I neither approve or disapprove;
I cite the testimony of many historians.
In my opinion, the empire signifies the destruction of the treaties of
1815, within the limits of the force and the interest of France; it is the
maintenance of the grand unity of Italy, in future our indispensable ally. At home it is that order which has no more
ardent defender than myself, combined with wise and serious liberties, foremost
among them the liberty of the press; it is popular instruction diffused without
limits, but not given by religious congregations; it is the well-being of the
masses; it is the destruction of the bigotry of the middle ages which some
would impose on us.” And in reply to
some remarks of the Marquis de la Rochsjacquelin, he continued: “For my part I
say boldly that I have no fear for a government which is rooted in the hearts
of the people; and while it remains true to the principles of nationalities
abroad, and to the liberal and popular sentiment at home. It may defy all, even the agitation of the
clergy. I tell the Marquis that our
principles are different. Neither of us
is ashamed of his origin. Our
antecedents, our families are different. – Whereas his honorable ancestors fell
on the battle fields of civil war under French arms, our fathers fell at
Waterloo under English bullets.”
This again caused an immense sensation, and the Senate was
adjourned in an uproar. These remarks of
the Prince Napoleon are significant and are regarded with joy by the French
liberals. Occupying the position he
does, the prince must be considered as expressing to some degree at least the
views of the emperor, and it is clear the latter is not unmindful or forgetful
of the source from whence he received his power – the people. And it is equally certain that the pampered
aristocracy and the lazy church dignitaries are not henceforth to be the
controlling element in French politics.
The general opinion at Paris is that the tendency of the debate what to
consolidate the alliance between the government and the liberal or republican
party. The London Times the stickler for
the divine rights of kings, and the intense admirer of hunkerism, especially
English hunkerism, ridicules the whole debate, and Prince Napoleon in
particular, as was to be expected. It
also takes the occasion to give a thrust at the United States, and thus
compares the scene in the French Senate to a debate in Congress:
“The debate in the French Senate, of which we have given a
summary, resembles the worst displays at Washington during the last days of the
Union. If we put ultramontanes and
liberals for slaverymen and freesoilers, and the French language for that
spoken in America, there is no need of further substitutions. The spirit is the same, the antipathies and
the personal vanity are the same, and, in spite of the precise and somewhat
stilted style of French disputation, the coarseness and vindictiveness are
exactly the same. Indeed the formality
of the expression in the case of French orators makes the hearty vulgarity of
their treatment of each other the more incongruous. It is like a street fight between to cabmen
in kid gloves?” – {Springfield Republican.
– Published in The
Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, March 22, 1862, p.
1
No comments:
Post a Comment