THE FRENCH WAR PAMPHLETS.
[From the Times' Paris Correspondent.'] Paris, November 16
Among the multitude of pamphlets, good, bad, and indifferent, which the Italian war has given birth to, there is one by M. Louis Jourdain, a contributor of some years’ standing to the Siecle, which is entitled to some notice, not for any merits of its own, but for the demolishing reply which it has ■elicited from M. Peyrat in the columns of La Pi'ess. The brochure of M. Jourdain is so far good, as it proves, if it proves nothing else, that even in the Parisian press we‘are not always left without any one to say a good word in our favour. The justice rendered to us by such men as M. Michel Chevalier in the Debats and M. Peyrat in the Presse may console us for the attacks of the scribblers who vilify us without Understanding one single word of our
language, and who take their notions of our history and our institutions from the Memorial Anti-Britannique, or Le Gouvernement Anglais Devoile of the President of the Convention, Regicide, Member of the Committee of Safety, and Colleague of Robespierre, Couthon, and St. Just—Bertrand Barere. “We understand,” says M. Peyrat—
That England, a nation which has combined beyond all comparison the blessings of order with those of liberty, should be an object of aversion to the enemies of liberty, and that such is the case is her glory. The only homage that such adversaries are capable of paying her is to detest her. But M. Jourdain is not of that party. “De cette eglise il n’est pas sacristain.” Why, then, if he is not, does he chant at that desk and take part in this chorus ? Why, if he believes that it is necessary to awaken attention to some mysterious peril which threatens France, does he not give at least convincing proofs of the fact ? With what does he reproach England’ We have read his pamphlet, and, sincerely speaking, we find not a single thing in it which can bear examination.
M. Jourdain first finds fault with the English aristocracy, and in this he merely repeats the traditions of the Memorial Anti-Britannigue. “We must distinguish," he says, “between the English who are stifled beneath the weight of an aristocratic constitution, and that formidable English aristocracy, without faith or law, who wish to dominate over all, grasp all, invade all; who obey the interests which circumstances modify, and who give to their policy a deplorable character of versatility.” Now, it is impossible to conceive, and impossible to give a more utterly false notion of the English aristocracy, of the part it has played in history, and the services it has rendered to liberty. To say that the English aristocracy oppresses the people, we must be, we will not say ignorant of the facts. M. Jourdain is not ignorant of them, but absolutely forgets that it is precisely from the intimate and constant unison between the nobility and the people that the Great Charter and the British Parliament have sprung. In France the people joined the Kings against the nobles; in England they joined the nobles against the Kings. In England the nobles and the people, equally oppressed, leagued themselves against the King, profited by every event, and their stipulations were always advantageous to the Commons. This fact has for a long time fixed the attention of historians, philosophers, statesmen, and publicists. Montesquieu repeatedly refers to it. M. de Tocqueville, in his work, L'Ancien Regime et la Revolution , says that “ It distinguished England from all modem nations." M. de Montalembert, in his Avenir Politique de VAngleterre, shows that the English peers have always been a body of political and national patricians, and not an exclusive caste; and that it is by yielding to all legitimate demands of the democratic spirit that .it has escaped the dangers which have everywhere else destroyed the most powerful aristocracies. Finally, for we must limit ourselves, the unobjectionable authority on such matters, Lord Macaulay, in his magnificent “ History of England,” says —[M. Peyrat here quotes Lord Macaulay’s account of the peculiar character of the English aristocracy, which will be found in pages 37-39, vol. I.] The aristocracy, as we know, has rarely played so noble a part, and in France especially it has thrown the people whom it oppressed into the arms of Royalty. How, then, can M. Jourdain misrepresent the character of the English aristocracy, which “distinguishes it from all modern nations ?"
But he misrepresents in another fashion when he talks of the “ versatility ”of its policy. On this point Barere was not more just, but more clear-sighted. Barere incessantly denounced to Europe that policy, at once unvarying in its object, bold and yet measured in its means, by which the English aristocracy always knew, without or within, to'inflame, direct, and restrain the passions. It is by this inflexible persistence that these patricians, like the Roman Senate, which they resemble in so many ways, have equally profited by their reverses and by their triumphs; have so long maintained their ascendency, and founded the power of England. We may, then, apply to the whole body what has been justly said of one of its most illustrious members, Lord Chatham —“ By the grandeur of his character he elevated the spirit of the nation.”
M. Jourdain pretends that England “willbear in the presence of history the responsibility of the war in Italy, and of the embarrassments which are the consequence thereof.” We declare that we do not understand this accusation. The English Government, as all the world knows, neglected nothing to prevent the war, and to bring Austria to make reasonable concessions. It believed in peace up to the last moment, “hoped against hope," sent Lord Cowley to Vienna to overcome the blind obstinacy of the Austrian Government, and none were more surprised and more indignant at the ultimatum with which Austria abruptly threw off the mask. How, then, can it (the English Government) be responsible for a war which it desired to prevent and in which it took no part ? Once more we do not understand him, But here we understand still less. The war was made “against the wish of Europe,” because France had to defend on the other side of the Alps “a just and sacred cause.” England demands that this war, waged for the Italians, shall turn to the benefit of Italy, that it may bring the formal and definitive consecration of her liberty, of her independence, and of her right to dispose of herself. It seems that she could not better repair the fault with which she is so bitterly reproached. Not at all. Six months ago she did not sufficiently defend Italy; to-day she defends her too much. Her neutrality is unpardonable, and her intervention exorbitant. We do not see how she could oppose this powerful system of reasoning. “ The actual relations of England with Europe,” says M. Jourdain, “are intolerable; everyone feels it.” What does he mean by “ every one”? It is not Prussia, whose alliance with England has never been more intimate; it is not even Russia, if it be true (as announced yesterday by a telegram) that she regards as impossible a Congress into which England would not enter; it is not France, since the Emperor of the French, on opening the session of the Legislative Body on the 7th of February, said, “As to the alliance of France and England, I have put forth all my perseverance to consolidate it, and I found on the other side of the Straits a happy reciprocity of sentiments on the part of the Queen of Great Britain, as well as on the part of the statesmen of all shades of opinion.” For whom, then, are the relations of England intolerable.
M. Jourdain pretends that England carries her pride so far as “ even to desire to perpetuate, amid the most amicable relations, the remembrance of our defeats." It is just the opposite of truth, and all those who of late years have visited England know that this remembrance is much more forgotten and effaced there than it is here. Moreover, on this point there is nothing to add to what M. Michel Chevalier said in two excellent letters 1 published in the Journal des Debats a few days back, and to which we do not see that any one has attempted seriously to reply as yet. It is difficult to speak of England without complaining of her maritime preponderance, and M. Jourdain has not failed to do so. He would have done better, and have been more useful, if he had sought in the diplomatic and political history of Europe, where they are written on every page, the causes of this preponderance. He would have seen that it is because that she was the first to comprehend wherein consisted the principal element of the strength and prosperity of nations, to have developed the intimate connection which exists between maritime commerce, continental commerce, national commerce, and the public strength, that England has reached this preponderance, of which he is simple enough to complain, and to be astonished at. He would have seen that she has reached this preponderance more particularly because she is, as Montesquieu said, “ the people who have best known how to take advantage of those three great things—religion, commerce, and freedom.” He would have seen that in England the laws and policy are always in conformity with the development of the general system of commerce and navigation. Lastly, he would have seen thatif these means have elsewhere acted with less consistency and efficacy, it is not of England that one is entitled to complain. But this is a subject too important to be treated incidentally, and we shall return to it. We desire to submit one observation only to M. Jourdain. If it be true that the maritime power of England is- a danger for us, with what danger would not England be threatened by a state which unites to a military and continental power of the first order a maritime force which will rival the English navy ?
M. Jourdain pretends that he has wished “ to enlighten England, and to teach her that the multiplicity of exchanges and of international relations, the establishment of railways, the lines of navigation, the electric telegraph, and universal exhibitions, have changed the face of Europe.” Of what use is common sense if M, Jourdain is incapable of understanding that English statesmen had no need of his pamphlet to learn what to do in presence of the change effected in Europe by the progress of industry ? This pamphlet is the result of an unfortunate inspiration. Better made, stronger in reason, richer in observation, more successful in facts, it might, under present circumstances, have exercised a mischievous influence on certain prejudiced and passionate minds. Such as it is, however, and in all respects, M. Jourdain must regret having written it. But in this case let him take comfort. * * * “ Le Lethe sur ses rives Attend et gardera ces feuilles fugitives ."
The platitudes of M. Jourdain on the English aristocracy, of whose origin, history, and character he is as ignorant as the mass of French journalists, are perhaps attributable to his republican and socialist tendencies. But if such pamphlets as hi 3 bring forth such articles as those of M. Peyrat and M. Michel Chevalier, the more of them we have the better. M. Peyrat does not say anything that is new to Englishmen ; to answer such writers as M. Jourdain in an English journal is all labour thrown away, for they would never read it, from their ignorance of the language; but M. Peyrat and M. Chevalier will be read by thousands who might otherwise accept the opinions of M. Jourdain.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MPRESS18600210.2.13
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Marlborough Press, Volume I, Issue 6, 10 February 1860, Page 4
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,965THE FRENCH WAR PAMPHLETS. Marlborough Press, Volume I, Issue 6, 10 February 1860, Page 4
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.