The more closely we examine the historical records of those ' times, the more evident it becomes to us, that the French 'Revolution was mainly owing, not to the distress suffered by 'the people, but to the false doctrines spread among them.' But what occasioned the success of those doctrines? Strange, that the immediate cause of an explosion should be regarded as only a concurring cause! The disorder in the finances unquestionably broke down the power of the monarchy; but the popular distress, which was a terrible element of the general confusion, was aggravated by other circumstances. The continued scarcity of bread amid an abundance of corn, in the capital, during the first months of the Revolution, is ascribed by Jefferson, who was then residing at Paris, to the mismanagement of the municipality; and this undoubtedly was a powerful cause of discontent. In describing the four distinct parties which divided the Assembly, the American minister characterizes the faction of Orleans as composed of only the Catilines of the Assembly and some of the lowest descriptions of the mob, and that mob as a class which must accept its bread from him who will give it.'* M. Mignet, in his spirited "History of the French Revolution," + describes the events connected with the storming of the Bastille in July 1789, as the insurrection of the middle class of society against the privileged orders; while the assault of the Tuileries, with the massacre of the Swiss on the 10th of August, 1792, he considers as the insurgency of the multitude against the middle class. The Revolution was, in fact, a series of convulsions, produced by agencies coming into successive operation, and crossing the original movement, which had not been calculated upon by the primary actors. Could those agencies have been excluded, all might have been well. The movement, violent as it was, would not have been anarchical, had the machinery of the state maintained its integrity;-had the monarchy, by which the whole cohered, been preserved. But when this controlling principle was abstracted, the whole machine ran down with accelerating violence, and those who in vain attempted to arrest the unexpected consequences of their rashness, were entangled in the wheels. The Causes of the French Revolution, then, were, first, those antecedent circumstances which rendered some reformation not only necessary, but inevitable; secondly, those which supplied the immediate impetus, and occasioned the activity of those predisposing causes; and thirdly, those which governed the movement, and determined the character and issue of the awful and abortive political experiment. * Jefferson's Memoirs, Vol. III. P. 40. 231. With regard to the predisposing causes, if they have been correctly defined as the conflict of the new opinions with the old, we must carry back our inquiry higher than the days of Montesquieu, in order to obtain a just view of the rise and progress of that conflict, which had been going forward ever since the Reformation. In reference to this point, we are tempted to introduce the sagacious remarks of a French writer of distinguished ability, M. Aug. le Comte, which, though somewhat disfigured and obscured by a technical phraseology, contain much that is deserving of attention. 'The numerous and prolonged efforts made by nations and by monarchs, to re-organize society, prove that the need of this re-organization is universally felt. But it has been only attempted, on either hand, in a vague and imperfect manner. These two species of attempts, (national or popular and monarchical,) though opposed, are usually prejudicial in their different bearings. They hitherto never have had, and they never can have, any truly constructive result (résultat organique). Far from tending to terminate the crisis, they only contribute to prolong it. Such is the true cause which, in spite of so many efforts, while it retains society in the critical direction (direction critique), leaves it a prey to revolution. To establish this fundamental assertion, it will be sufficient to cast a general glance over the attempts at re-organization which have been made by kings and by nations. The error committed by monarchs is the most easy of detection. Their idea of re-organization is, the pure and simple re-establishment the feudal and hierarchal system (i. e. Church and State system) in its full power. There is not, in their opinion, any other way to subdue the anarchy which results from the downfall of this system. There would be little philosophy in considering this opinion as principally dictated by the private interests of Governors. However chimerical, it is one which naturally presents itself to minds which sincerely seek a remedy for the actual crisis, and feel in all its extent the need of a re-organization, but which have not considered the general march of civilization, and, viewing the present state of affairs under only one aspect, have not perceived the tendency of society towards the establishment of a new system, more perfect and not less consistent than the old one. In a word, it is natural that this should be the view of things taken by rulers; for, from the position which they occupy, they must necessarily see more clearly the anarchical state of society, and, in consequence, be more forcibly impressed with the necessity of its being remedied. : This is not the place to insist on the manifest absurdity of such an opinion it is now universally recognized by the mass of enlightened men. Monarchs, without doubt, in seeking to restore the ancient system, do not comprehend the nature of the actual crisis, and are far from having estimated the whole extent of their enterprise. fall of the feudal and sacerdotal system is not, as they imagine, owing to recent causes, which are isolated and in some measure VOL. IX.-N.S. Ꮓ Ꮓ The accidental. Instead of being the effect of the crisis, it is, in reality, its cause. The downfall of the system has been effected by means continued through preceding ages, by a chain of modifications, independent of all human volition, in which all classes of society have concurred, and of which monarchs themselves have often been the primary agents or the most ardent promoters. It has been, in a word, the necessary consequence of the march of Civilization. It would not, then, be sufficient, in order to re-establish the ancient system, that society should retrograde as far as to the epoch of the commencement of the general crisis. For, supposing that we could arrive at it, which is absolutely impossible, we should only have replaced the social body in the situation which necessitated that crisis. It would be necessary, in retracing the past ages, to repair successively all the losses which the ancient system has sustained during six centuries, and in relation to which, what the last thirty years have abducted from it, is of no importance. The only method of attaining their object, would be, to annihilate, one by one, all the developments of civilization which have caused those losses. Thus monarchs, at the very time that they are planning the reconstruction of the church and state system, involve themselves in perpetual contradictions, in contributing by their own acts, rather to render more complete the disorganization of this system, or to accelerate the formation of that which must replace it. Numerous instances of this fact, present themselves to the observer. To notice only what is most remarkable, we see, that monarchs deem it an honour to encourage the cultivation and diffusion of the sciences and the fine arts, and to excite the development of industry. We see them, to this end, institute numerous useful establishments; a circumstance which, while ultimately relating to the progress of science, of the fine arts, and of industry, must be regarded as tending to the downfall of the ancient system. Thus, again, by the treaty of the Holy Alliance, the Sovereigns have degraded, as far as they were able, the Sacerdotal Power, the principal basis of the ancient system, by forming a supreme European council in which that power had not even a consulting voice. This radical inconsistency illustrates in the most striking manner the absurdity of a plan which those who pursue it with the greatest ardour do not themselves comprehend. It clearly shews, how complete and irrevocable is the ruin of the ancient system. The manner in which the people have hitherto attempted the re-organization of society is, though in another way, not less prejudicial, than that adopted by sovereigns. This error is, however, more excusable, because they perplex themselves in search of the new system towards which the march of civilization is leading them, but the nature of which has not yet been determined with sufficient clearness: whereas the sovereigns are prosecuting an enterprise, the absurdity of which, the slightest attention to the past abundantly demonstrates. In a word, the monarchs are opposed to facts, and the people to principles, which it is always more difficult to avoid losing sight of. But this error of the people, it is of much more importance to eradicate, than that into which monarchs fall; since it alone forms an essential obstacle to the march of civilization. The predominant notion in the popular mind as to the manner in which Society ought to be organized, has for its characteristic feature, a profound ignorance of the fundamental conditions upon which the social system ought to rest in order to its true stability. People have been led to mistake for organic principles, those which have served to subvert the feudal and hierarchal system; or, in other words, to take the mere modifications of this system for the basis of that which it is sought to establish.' That the genius of the present age is more analytical than constructive, more critical than scientific, more acute in detecting fallacies, than comprehensive of truths, must, we think, be admitted. Happily, however, in our own country, the practical so predominates over the speculative in the national character, that there is small danger of proceeding too fast in the work of "re-organization.' Our legislation still halts a little behind the march of society, and follows, rather than anticipates the Great Innovator. This is as it should be. If, again, few of our lawyers are jurists, still fewer are theorists; and those who are ignorant of principles, retain a conservative reverence for precedents. If few of our politicians are statesmen, at least they do not set up for philosophers. The boldest projects of innovation and reform that are brought forward, the most exceptionable or dangerous, have still nothing of a visionary character. It is not by a parade of general principles that it is sought to recommend them to adoption, but by the promise of beneficial results. The greatest changes that the present generation has witnessed, have been slowly produced and tardily recognized; and reform has been but an accommodation of the law to the fact. In short, in this country, the old and the new opinions seem to blend and mutually re-act, rather than to come into conflict; and re-organization proceeds, as in the operations of nature, so as only to keep pace with the perpetual changes of absorption and decay. Among the causes of the French Revolution, it is strange that so much stress should be laid upon the character of the king, and so little on the national character. It is not a mere truism, that the French Revolution could have occurred only in France, and in France as it was. That such a revolution could not have taken place in England, is proved by the different character of what our Tory writers are fond of calling the Great Rebellion under the first Charles, in which the apparent similarity of the principal events serves but to make more conspicuous the moral contrast. It has been justly remarked by an acute observer of human nature, that a period of insurrection 'deserves peculiar study, as the true touchstone of national cha'racter,—the season when all the qualities of men may be the most fairly judged. It is the interregnum of law and the sa'turnalia of passion." In England, however, during the suspension of the power of the executive, there was scarcely an interregnum of law; for that which George Withers describes as a yet auguster thing, Veiled though it be, than Parliament or King,' still maintained its supremacy in the public mind. Independ'ently of the murder of the king,' remarks Mr. Chevenix, no very great crimes stained this Revolution. It was not accompanied by any such atrocious measures as occurred in the po6 litical disturbances of other countries. Although Cromwell himself was a profound dissembler, no great act of national 'perfidy had taken place. Religion was not rooted out of the 'hearts of the people, to make room for impiety; and fanaticism, not atheism, caused the abuses of the time; still leaving a hope 'that, when the frenzy was calmed, the name of God might be ' again respected. Morality, instead of being openly relaxed, ' affected austerity; and they who despised it, were compelled to use hypocrisy. In short, none of the tremendous vices which threaten the very foundations of society, broke out among the 'people, to destroy the hope of ever re-establishing good order.'t Apart from the merits of the quarrel, in no stage of its history does the English nation present a grander attitude, or exhibit more the character of moral energy, than during the long contest between the Parliament and the King. It is a period which no Englishman needs blush to remember; and he must cease to feel as an Englishman, before he can lose his sympathy with Hampden, and Pym, and Hutchinson, his veneration for Milton and Selden, Owen and Baxter; while of Cromwell himself, it must be said, that even if his sincere patriotism be doubted, he was the most blameless of usurpers. The occasion of the revolution was no idle pretext; it was real and substantial, and the cause of the Parliament was at least in its origin a just one. It was after a long and intelligent struggle for civil liberty, and in consequence of a sudden check being given to its progress, that the insurrection broke out. The nation had gradually been becoming not only more determined upon obtaining its rights, but more capable and more worthy of freedom. In every respect, the state of France before the Revolution exhibits an entire contrast. pretexts, as Mr. Chenevix remarks, were wholly different from its 'The cause,' he adds, was simply this, the moral state of the entire nation. France had long been undergoing a pro causes. 6 * Chenevix on National Character, Vol. I. p. 315. + Ibid. Vol. I. p. 331. Its |