The Two

One thing or the other must be

either Theories of Authority comes from Heaven or it dwells

Sovereignty upon Earth; either Divine Right or the Sovereignty of the People.

If this last principle is recognised, efforts may be made to instruct or convince the people; but how can its will be resisted?

Resistance," a "fighting Government," what is the signification of these two expressions if not that the people is in itself incompetent to exercise part of its sovereignty, and must not only be guided, but "driven "? driven"? Now the theory of the full and complete Sovereignty of the People is different. Nobody can claim to hold against the sovereign the monopoly of insight, wisdom, and truth. When the sovereign has declared himself we must bow: Voluntas populi suprema lex esto!

As a matter of fact, if opposition was offered to the triumph of the "revolutionary spirit," it was in the name of a conscious system, perfectly understood and co-ordinated. This was a unique moment for these great discussions; everything was again in question: the origin of power, universal suffrage, liberty of opinion, liberty of the press, education, and, to sum up the whole in one phrase, the constitutional system.

Some noble minds, terrified by so many mistakes, so many accumulated errors and misfortunes, scarcely convinced of the capabilities of a democracy to which they did not belong and which they did not understand-a democracy, too, which at a too recent date had made so grave a blunder-frightened by some reminiscences, exalted by others, further excited by the play of parties, interests, and passions, were carried by their convictions towards an issue

Hesitations

Constitu

tional System

which appeared to them the only logical, only glorious solution. In this there was no cause for astonishment. But why keep silence? Why dissemble? And yet silence was kept ; and there were as to the reasons for this silence. On the one hand, the chiefs of the majority were no Talleyrands; on the other, these doctrinaires were not sure of their doctrine. Thus their action was doubly clogged. Their grey hairs and their honest countenances, devoid of Macchiavelism and fanaticism, had no quality with which to surprise Fortune, for Fortune, as we know, is feminine. There was a kind of anticipatory impotence in their languid action; they were invertebrate. These wavering royalists had not recovered from the blow of 1830, which dragged them with broken backs across a page of history.

From the day on which an intrigue, long woven, had set aside the elder branch in order to make room for the younger, the seals had been broken. The new royalty, which had been christened and proclaimed "the best of Republics," was only an expedient. The "legal Revolution," in the phrase of Guizot, remained the Revolution. Now, those amongst these new masters who possessed the most authority were children of the expedient, and therefore, whether they wished it or not, children of the Revolution.

In 1830, neither the sacred authority of the King and monarchical right, nor the respect for the hereditary compact concluded from all time between the dynasty and the nation, nor even the thought of sacrilege, had stopped the hands which were laid upon the throne. It had fallen in ruin. Could it now be raised again without disavowing

everything-acts, words, situations, doubts, pretexts, profits, principles? For all had served. The second generation was tied to the work of the first. Even its mind was no longer free. Were the partisans of the King of Barricades to be asked what should be thought of the Sovereignty of the People?

This was not all. This majority, these chiefs, these men who revolved these problems in their honest consciences, who were they? The chosen of an election. By whom authorised. By the nation. Who appointed this Assembly? Universal suffrage. To whom did the authority belong? To the people. To whom must account be rendered? To the people. Was this mandate, given in a day of confusion and anguish, to be absolute? Was the question propounded freely, and debated completely on the day of the election? Had the constituent power been so fully delegated that it could pledge the future? Would the principle of representation go so far as to usurp the sovereignty? Doubts and scruples prevailed. The Left denied the constituting authority. The Imperialist party proclaimed the appeal to the people. The vigorous attack of these logical systems, obviously supported by the opinion of the country, confused the most self-assured consciences.

Lastly, from the practical point of view, how could the complicated situation be ignored which the dialectic of M. Thiers pointed out in such a disheartening fashion? "Three claimants are face to face," he used to repeat, "and there is only one throne. Divided, the Right is condemned to impotence. The beautiful theory of Conservative Union, is a mere thesis, a mantle which will be rent

VOL. II.

33

Ꭰ

on the day when it is necessary to use it. All this agitation is vain; the Right will be unable to constitute anything. The Republic is the Government which divides us least."

This argument repeated over and over again had penetrated even the minds which it exasperated; it had filled them beyond contradiction, like the light of day. Even with closed eyes these honourable men discovered it, latent in their own depths. They calculated in advance the inevitable stages of their failure. They were more than timid, they were intimidated. They advanced through fear of evil, not through a clear view of good. Their apprehensions were stronger than their convictions; they rested their hope on some favourable circumstance which was to shape events, not on any fierce determination of their own.

The Three

re

A fact which rendered the crisis more Claimants exciting than ever for the monarchical parties was that they had never held better cards. They were masters of the Assembly. The " volutionary parties," overwhelmed by recent events, were without vigour and disarmed. Each of the three claimants possessed worth or seduction. The first, a man of ripe age, of high personal merit, consecrated by misfortune, representing an intangible principle, heir to the most ancient of European dynasties; the second, a prince entering upon manhood, gentle and dignified, well-informed, benevolent, industrious, disposed to any honourable concession, surrounded by a company of wise and valiant princes; lastly the third, a handsome and spirited youth, feeling his way in life by those first motions of the wings which reveal the eaglet.

Any choice between these three heads might be