Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub
[blocks in formation]

marble is the tribute of an attached friend, Peter Moore." Three similar stones in close juxtaposition with this, form a continuous parallelogram. They cover the remains of John Henderson, David Garrick, and Samuel Johnson. It would be difficult to select four more remarkable men lying together in the peaceful communion of the grave, throughout the vast extent of that thickly peopled and time-honoured necropolis.

At the opening of Drury-lane Theatre, on September 7th, 1816, "A Monody on the death of Sheridan,” by Lord Byron, was spoken by Mrs. Davison, and repeated for five successive evenings. It was written in a great hurry, on very short notice, and can scarcely be ranked amongst the happiest of the noble bard's minor compositions. The two concluding lines have been often quoted with commendation :

We mourn that nature form'd but one such man, And broke the die in moulding Sheridan,"

The idea is forcible, and well expressed, but not original; being borrowed almost literally, and without acknowledgment, from Ariosto's well known sentence

"Natura lo fece, e poi ruppe la stampa."

It would be superfluous here to enter into a review of Sheridan's pretensions as a writer, his qualities as a legislator, or his frailties as a man. All this has been done so often that repetition would be wearisome. Few individuals have been so highly endowed, and a still smaller number have so thoroughly wasted rich gifts, and thrown away golden opportunities. If he had possessed a greater share of worldly judgment and prudence, with a

more limited genius, tempered by a methodical mind, his life would have been happier for himself, more profitable to his friends, his family, and dependants, and the moral lesson it supplies would have been less distressing, though, perhaps, not equally instructive.

In 1826, a volume was published, which contains a selection of the best authenticated anecdotes in connexion with the subject. From this compilation it appears that the author of The School for Scandal was passionately given to betting, that he was fond of practical jokes, and often indulged in witticisms at his own expense; which he enjoyed with as much gusto as did the listeners. In the latter practice he has had few imitators. Tom Sheridan closely resembled his sire in many points of character and peculiar humour. He too is dead, as is also his second son, Frank; but the eldest, Charles Brinsley, lives" a prosperous gentleman,” married to the daughter of the late distinguished General Sir Colquhoun Grant (well remembered as commanding the Dublin garrison), by which union he obtained an ample fortune. The line of Sheridan, originally from the middle ranks, and with slender means, expands and has soared up in two generations, until connected (and likely to be perpetuated, through their descendants) with the high aristocracy of the land. Three grand-daughters of the subject of this memoir are ennobled in the peerage, and have long been celebrated for mental accomplishments and personal charms. Lady Seymour was specially selected to represent the Queen of Beauty at the Eglinton tournament, and the various works of the Hon. Mrs. Norton prove that she is the genuine scion of a gifted family. Before closing this notice, it is proper to mention, that Miss Sheridan, the sister of the great author, produced one dramatic performance, entitled The Ambiguous Lover, which was acted at the Crow-street Theatre in Dublin, in the year 1781, but never printed.

J. W. C.

The Dukes of York and Sussex. The pall-bearers were, the Duke of Bedford, the Earl of Lauderdale, the Earl of Mulgrave, the Lord Bishop of London, Lord Holland, and Lord Spencer.

WORKS OF NAPOLEON III.

THE visit of the Emperor and Empress of France-now that it is over, and the fine writing of the newspapers on the subject has ceased-must still be regarded as a great historical fact. It takes its place among those pageant incidents which, looking back into history, seem commemorative of certain epochs, either as points of culmination in which the spirit of the era attained its greatest splendour, or as points of departure, from which human progress took a new direction. We are too near the historical pageant we have just seen performed to guess the character it will have in history; meantime, its chief effect has been to centre the eyes of all on him who played the principal part in it.

Louis Napoleon is, out of sight, the most conspicuous man at present alive-whether we regard his descent from that race which produced Napoleon I., his own remarkable career prior to his accession to power, or the wisdom and sagacity which has since characterised his administration, there is no one who so universally attracts European attention. And, even if there were no elements of romance in his career-were he simply a legitimate monarch, destined to the purple from his cradle the formidable power which he wields, the peculiarity of his position, and the greatness of the present crisis, in which he must act the most important part, were sufficient to rivet on him the eyes of all those who pay the slightest attention to those political questions which deal with the future destiny of the world. But when both these elements of interest are combined. when the most romantic of careers sees its hero in the possession of the whole power of France, and master of the position in the great struggle of nations, we cannot overestimate the interest and importance attachable to anything which can give an insight to his character and mode of thought, and afford us

[ocr errors]

some clue in our speculations as to what is likely to be the future of one apparently so marked out from the rest of the species.

Now, a man's writings have always been regarded as one of the best indexes to his character: the reason is, that his writings are his thoughts. We propose, therefore, to make use of this index to character, in attempting to attain some insight into that of Napoleon III.

The volumes before us purport to contain his collected works. They were published in Paris in 1854, we believe under his personal superintendence— at all events, with his full consent and approval.

Independent of the interest attachable to them from the remarkable character of their author, the intrinsic merit of many articles in the collection is very considerable: so much so that, if it were not for their condensed style and unornamented diction, we are convinced they would have secured to Louis Napoleon no ordinary reputation as a writer; and now that his political position commands attention, this want of artistic interest will not prevent them from being extensively read; and we predict with confidence that the more they are known and studied, the more will the estimation of Louis Napoleon as a man of intellect be enhanced.

But the excessive condensation of his style renders the task we have undertaken peculiarly difficult; for it is impossible to give a just view of the contents of these volumes either by quotation or by giving a general idea of his method of reasoning on the multifarious topics he discusses. The one method would exhibit our author in his weakest aspect, as he is deficient in point and imagination as a writer; the other method could not be adequately carried out in fewer words than the author himself employs. Indeed, these volumes are rather like

* "Les Œuvres de Napoleon III." Libraire d'Amyot Editeur, 8, Rue de la Paix 2 vols. 1854.

a review-and not a very lively onethan like an original work; and how are we to review a review?

In these circumstances, we think the best method we can pursue, in order to give a fair account of Louis Napoleon's writings, will be to go over the different articles seriatim, discussing fully those subjects which seem to us to be of importance, briefly indicating the leading idea in others, and giving only the names of such articles as seem to us of no general importance or interest. This plan implies a chariness in disquisitions of our own. We will in general leave Louis Napoleon to speak for himself; and, at once and at the outset, give up any pretensions to originality on our part, and all intention of showing off our own powers of political speculation.

The principal treatise in these volumes, and that on which Louis Napoleon seems ready to rest his literary fame, is "L'Idée Napoleonienne;" and we cannot better describe its purport than by saying that it is an attempt to solve the great historical problem of Napoleon Bonaparte. The theory propounded may generally be described as an attempt to prove, that the whole career of this most remarkable of men, was the strict development of a preconceived plan, in which nothing was impulsive, but all flowed in logical sequence from certain fixed principles which he ever kept in view. We do not believe that this solution is correct, or that Napoleon I. was so purely an intellectual monster as it would make him: but it is, after all, nearly as good as any other with which the world has yet been favoured.

In approaching his subject, Louis Napoleon first tries to establish an ideal of government. He adopts, as his text, the celebrated pensée of Pascal: "Le genre humain est un homme qui ne meurt jamais, et qui se perfectionne toujours," which he paraphrases somewhat thus: The human race does not die, but it is subject to all the maladies of the individual; and, although it perfects itself ceaselessly, it is not exempt from human passions_ the cause, to the race as to the individual, alike of elevation and of degradation; and, as in man there are two natures and two instincts-the one inducing to perfection, the other to decay; so society contains in its bosom

two contrary elements- the one the spring of immortality and progress, the other that of disease and disorganisation.

Hence the origin of government, as a means of developing the higher elements, and of impeding the downward tendencies, of society. But, as every nation has its idiosyncrasy, a model government suited to all is impossible. On the contrary, the government of each nation, if a good one, must differ, in some respects, from that of all others; a diversity which must be coextensive with difference in race, in climate, and in that previous history out of which has sprung those national habits and traditions which, to so great an extent, distinguish from each other the different nations of the earth. But, irrespective of the necessity of adapting government to national peculiarities, there is another difficulty inherent in its very notion; for, whereas nothing is necessary to develop the divine principle in society but liberty and labour, compulsion and restraint are the main instruments to be employed in checking the action of the causes of decline and fall. the means of government are, to a certain extent, contradictory; for, if liberty be unrestrained, vice will develop itself fully as fast as the higher principles of civilisation; and, on the other hand, if liberty be restrained, the legislator runs the risk of impeding the growth of social good, as well as of its opposite.

Thus

This statement of the case being premised-government being essentially relative, and always, at best, but a balance betwixt contradictory modes of action the question relative to Napoleon Bonaparte is two-fold. First, Did he rightly apprehend the peculiar character of the French nation? and, second, Did he hit upon the best equipoise between the opposing forces by which government must act? The first question receives its answer in the general scope of the treatise; and, as we go on, we will find that, in Louis Napoleon's opinion, his uncle instinctively adapted himself to the ésprit Française. The second question necessitates an inquiry into the state of France when Bonaparte seized the supreme power. Now, in justice to Napoleon Bonaparte, it cannot be too distinctly kept in view that, on his advent to power, the disorganisation of

France was complete. The old system of things had been utterly ruined; every institution had in turn been destroyed, and all attempts at reconstruction had only resulted in a more wide-spread anarchy. It was the task of Napoleon I. to select, out of the mass of heterogeneous and discordant elements the principles of order and government. This task he accomplished under the guidance of a principle, as simple as judicious. He saw that, although the old order of things was utterly bereft of vitality, still its forms were the channels through which the French nation had been accustomed to receive the mandates and feel the influence of authority. On the other hand, the revolution had evoked new principles of action, and created new interests; in particular, it had utterly abolished all caste, and left a free course for talent, irrespective of birth. Napoleon, therefore, retained. the old forms, as the channels of authority, but poured into them the energy and ambition of the revolution. This policy was not his invention, though our author speaks of it as if it were. Julius Cæsar acted on the same principle, with this single and instructive difference, that he infused monarchical ideas into republican forms, whereas Napoleon infused republican ideas into forms derived from the monarchy. This difference arose from their positions being inverted relatively to each other. In both, the design was to amalgamate the old with the new. But to return to France: the old forms alone were not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the new society: it was necessary to institute new ones. Napoleon did so; but, according to his nephew, the following was the somewhat elaborate reasoning which guided him in the task. Reverting to the parallel between the individual and society, it is to be observed that as man has permanent and temporary interests, so has society; and as, in the one case, reason is the guardian over the first class of interests, while the others are cared for by inclination and appetite-so, in society, it behoves that there be a permanent guardian of permanent interests, and a fluctuating and changeable guardian of temporary interests. Now, the one class of interests was fully provided for under the ancient regime, by the aristocracy and the king; but now the aristocracy being

defunct, the kingly principle alone was obtainable, and only in the form of the imperial power of Napoleon. On the other hand, the temporary interests of the community, fluctuating from day to day, and which had no adequate protection under the old regime, were now to be committed to the guardianship of a body chosen from the people by some method of popular election.

But while Napoleon I. found it very easy and natural to attend to the permanent interests of society, it was impossible, our author says, fully to protect the temporary interests. Their rights were, in the meantime, to be deferred to a more convenient opportunity. Still, according to our author, liberty was the principle which was ultimately to triumph under Napoleon's policy. Her name, no doubt, was not at the head of the laws of the empire, nor placarded in the streets, but every law of the empire prepared her reign tranquil and sure.' But, meantime, it was necessary, first of all, to drive back the foreign enemy; and that being done, it still remained to repress the bitter hatred of parties; and where there was neither religion, patriotism, nor public faith, to create them. Above all was it necessary to give dignity and prestige to government, the very principle of which had been discredited. But to accomplish all this, forceeven despotism-was necessary.

[ocr errors]

So argues Louis Napoleon as to the policy open to his uncle, and so, doubtless, would he justify his own government; nor are we prepared to dispute that in either case the justification is insufficient:

"Il faut plaindre les peuples (says our author) qui veulent récolter avant d'avoir labouré le champ, ensemencé la terre et donné à la plante le temps de germer d'éclore et de mûrir, une erreur fatale est de croire qu'il suffise d'une declaration de principes pour constituer un nouvel ordre de choses."

Napoleon was less tyrannical than the governments which preceded him. Like our friends the Americans, the French Republicans had been somewhat inconsistent. They could hardly speak without an ovation to liberty, fraternity, and equality; but they applied these terms only to those who coincided with them in opinion, and ostracised the rest of the nation. true is it that despotism and republicanism differ only in this, that the

So

1

former is the tyranny of one, the latter the tyranny of many; and as it is proverbial that corporate bodies are less amenable to moral considerations than the individual members which compose them, the many-headed corporate tyrant may be expected to be more unscrupulous than the single Baseleus, who cannot escape criticism under cover of the number of his confederates in iniquity. Thus, in the case of France, although we have grave doubts of the solicitude of Napoleon I. for liberty, and have not much more confidence in the liberal tendencies of his nephew, they both ameliorated the tyranny which existed before they seized on the supreme power. Such an amelioration was indeed necessary to the policy of Napoleon I., since he avowedly tried to enlist in his service the abilities of all parties-"Je suis national,” said he, "je me sers de tous ceux qui ont de la capacité et de la volouté de marcher avec moi." This quotation expresses the real essence of the Napoleonic system, whether under the uncle or the nephew; but it also involves its vice, for how can men of all shades of opinion enlist under a single banner, without an appalling sacrifice of political honour?

Louis Napoleon now proceeds to illustrate, by a detailed examination of his uncle's policy, the somewhat vague and general observations of which we have endeavoured to give an idea. He classes his remarks under two headsfirst, the administrative organisation of the empire; and second, its political organisation. The administrative organisation, he says, like the greater part of the institutions of the Empire, had a temporary object to fulfil, and a distant end to attain. Centralisation was the only means of reconstituting France; but its excess under the Empire ought not to be considered as an end, but as a means; the time was to come when France was to be decentralised, and local government developed. We think the remarks on this subject by our author worthy of attentive consideration. He glories in being the copyist of his uncle, so that the time may come when he will head a reaction against that excessive centralisation which has been the bane of France. In Napoleon Bonaparte's time centralisation was essential, to enable France to combat her enemies, and his surpassing genius enhancing its intensity,

France became a system of political telegraph, the centre of which was Paris, because it was the residence of the Great King. Under Louis Napoleon no such necessity can be alleged. He is at peace with all Europe, except with that power against which all Eu rope is banded. His subjects are submissive to his will, and by an unquestionable majority have adopted him as their Emperor.

Our author gives the details of what he designates as the Administrative Organisation. These are embraced under the general heads of "Ordre Judiciaire, Finance, Etablissement de Bienfaisance, Communes, Agriculture, Industrie, Commerce, Travaux Publics, Instruction, l'Armeé." We do not purpose to follow him in these details, descriptive of the vanished government of the first Empire. A full account of the matter will be found in Alison, who, in the main, coincides with our author. But irrespective of the special information such a detailed account would afford, it is instructive as a specimen of perfect organisation, and as such will repay the study of our statesmen. There was very little redtapism under the first Napoleon; but, notwithstanding, things went on with the precision of clockwork-the reason was, that personal energy was the mo. tive power.

Bonaparte was no advocate of the laissez aller philosophy; he interfered in everything, and perhaps principally in those concerns which political economists think it of the last importance to leave to private enterprise and association; for instance, he interfered between the employers of labour and the workmen, but the manner of his interference was by means of courts of arbitrators representing both interests. He interfered with commercial credit, and contemplated organising a system of assistance to the mercantile interest in seasons of monetary difficulty. But above all, Napoleon directly interfered to encourage industry by directing towards it the light of science, and with that lofty generalisation which so strikingly distinguished him, he said-"Si l'on m' eût laissé le temps brentôt il n'y aurait plus eu de metiers en France tous eussent été des arts."

Napoleon encouraged only scientific education, as that which could immediately be made useful to the State. But such training was undoubtedly recom

« ПредишнаНапред »