When, during the last session of the Legislative Chambers, M. 
E. de Girardin had brought to light those numerous and scandal- 
ous facts of corruption which he thought would overthrow the 
government; when, after all, the government had maintained 
themselves against the storm; when the celebrated Two Hundred 
and Twenty-Five? declared themselves “satisfied” as to the innocence 
of the ministry, all seemed to be over, and the Parliamentary 
Opposition, towards the close of the session, fell back into the same 
impotency and lethargy which they had manifested at the beginning. 
But all was not over. Though Messrs Rothschild, Fould, Foulchiron, 
and Co. were satisfied, the people were not, nor was a large portion 
of the middle classes. The majority of the French bourgeoisie, 
especially those of the second and third rank, could not but see that 
the present class of electors became more and more the obedient 
servants of a small number of bankers, stock-jobbers, railway- 
speculators, large manufacturers, landed and mining proprietors, 
whose interest was the only interest cared for by the government. 
They saw that there was no hope for them ever to regain the position 
in the Chambers which, since 1830, they had been losing more and 
more every day, unless they extended the suffrage. They knew that 
electoral and parliamentary Reform was a dangerous experiment 
for them to try; but what could they do? Seeing that the haute finance, 
the lords of Paris Exchange, bought up the government and both the 
Chambers; seeing their own interests openly trampled upon; they 
were obliged either to submit patiently, and await humbly and 

quietly the day when the encroachments of the ruling money lords 
would make them bankrupts, or to risk parliamentary Reform. They 
preferred the latter. 

The Opposition, of all shades, therefore, united, some four 
months ago, in getting up a demonstration in favour of Electoral 
Reform. A public dinner was arranged and took place in July, at the 
Chateau-Rouge ball-rooms, at Paris. All fractions of Reformers were 
represented, and the assembly was rather mixed; but the Democrats, 
having been the most active, evidently predominated. They had 
made it a condition of their assistance, that the king’s* health should 
not be drunk, but be replaced by a toast in favour of the sovereignty 
of the people; the committee knowing well that in the most 
democratic town of France they could not get up a decent 
demonstration without the Democrats, were obliged to comply. If I 
recollect rightly, you gave, at the time, a full account of the 
banquet,'”? which was in every respect more like a demonstration of 
the strength, both in number and intellect, of democracy at Paris, 
than anything else. 

The Journal des Débats failed not to raise a terrible outcry about 
this banquet. 

‘What! no toast to the king? and this toast not omitted by negligence, by want of a 
sense of propriety—no, this omission put as a condition for their support by part of 
the getters-up! Why, what pretty company this calm and peaceful M. Duvergier de 
Hauranne—this moral-force, monarchical M. Odilon Barrot have got into! Why, this 
is not mere republicanism—this is revolutionism, physical-forcism, socialism, utopi- 
anism, anarchism and communism! Ah, but, gentlemen, we know you—we have had 

samples of your bloody deeds, we have proofs of what you are contending for! Fifty 
years ago, gentlemen, you called yourselves the club of the Jacobinst” 

Next day’s National replied to the fierce and furious vituperation 
of the furiously moderate paper by a host of quotations from Louis 
Philippe’s private journal, written in 1790 and 1791, where every 
day’s note of the then “Citizen Egalité” junior” commenced with the 
words: ; 

“To-day I was at the Jacobins”— “To-day I took the liberty of saying a few words at 

the Jacobins which were warmly applauded”—‘‘To-day I was called to the office of 
door-keeper at the Jacobins”, etc.° 

The central committee of the Opposition had invited their friends 
in the country to imitate the example given by the metropolis, in 

© “Journal du duc de Chartre” in Le National, August 12, 1847.—Ed. 

getting up everywhere similar banquets in favour of Reform. This - 
was done accordingly, and a great number of Reform dinners were 
held in almost all parts of France. But not everywhere the same 
union of all fractions of Reformers could be made to prevail. In a 
great number of the smaller towns the middle-class Liberals were 
strong enough to carry the king’s health being drunk, by which the 
Democrats were excluded. In other localities they tried to make it 
pass in the shape of a toast:—“The constitutional king, and the 
sovereignty of the people.” This being not yet sufficient to the 
Democrats, they went on shuffling, and replaced the “constitutional 
king” by the “constitutional institutions”, among which royalty, of 
course, was tacitly comprised. The great question now agitated 
among the provincial Liberals is, whether they are to give up even 
this, and to resign all attempts at carrying the king’s health in 
whatever shape or disguise it be, or whether they are to separate 
openly from the Democrats, who, in that case, would get up separate 
and competing banquets. For the democratic party insist upon the. 
original agreement, that the king be not mixed up at all with the 
affair, and if in one case the National has been wavering a little, the 
party of the Réforme stand firmly on the side of republicanism. In all 
the large towns the Liberals have been forced to give way, andif in 
the localities of lesser importance they have carried the king’s health, 
it is because such banquets cost a great deal of money, and, 
therefore, the people are naturally excluded from them. On the 
occasion of the banquet of Bar-le-Duc, the Réforme says: 

“Whoever would take such demonstration as a sample of the state of public 
opinion in France, would be very much mistaken indeed; they are got up by the 
middle classes only, and the people are entirely shut out from them. This agitation, if 

it be confined to the limits of the Bar-le-Duc banquet, will vanish like all bourgeois 

movements; like the Free Trade movement, which after a few hollow speeches died 

away very soon.” 

The first large banquet, after that of Paris, was held at Strasburg, 
in the beginning of September. It was rather a democratic one, and a 
working man, at the close of it, proposed a toast to the organisation 
of labour, which term, in France, expresses that which in England 
the National Association of United Trades’ are trying to carry out; 
viz. the freeing of labour from the oppression of capital by carrying 
on manufacturing, agricultural, and other purposes, for the account, 
either of the associated working men themselves, or of the people at 
large, under a democratic government. 

Then came the banquets of Bar-le-Duc, a bourgeois demonstration, 
finished by the Mayor proposing the health of the Constitutional 

King (very constitutional, indeed); of Colmar, Rheims, and Meaux, 
all of them entirely dominated by the bourgeoisie, who, in those 
secondary towns, always have it all their own way. 

But the banquet of Saint-Quentin, again, was more or less 
democratic; and that of Orleans, in the last days of September, was, 
from beginning to end, a thoroughly democratic meeting. Judge of it 
by the toast to the working classes, responded to by M. Marie, one of 
the most celebrated barristers of Paris, and a democrat. He 
commenced his speech in the following terms: 

“To the working men—to those men, always neglected and forgotten, but always 
faithful to the interests of their country, always ready to die for its cause, be it in 
defending their native land against foreign aggression, be it in guarding our 
institutions, when menaced by inward foes! To those, from whom we demanded the 

days of July,!? and who gave them to us; terrible in their actions, generous in their 
triumph, resplendent with courage, probity, and disinterestedness!’”* 

and concluded the toast in these words: “Liberty, equality, 
fraternity!” It is characteristic that the Orleans banquet was the only 
one at which we find it stated that covers were reserved for the 
representatives of the working people. 

The banquets of Culommiers, Melun, and Cosne, again, were 
mere bourgeoisie gatherings. The “Left Centre’, the middle-class 
Liberals of the Constitutionnel and Siecle, amused themselves in 
listening to the speeches of MM. Barrot, Beaumont, Drouyn de 
Lhuys, and such like retailers of Reform. At Cosne, the democrats 
openly declared against the demonstration, because the king’s health 
was insisted upon. The same narrow spirit prevailed at the banquet 
of La Charité, on the Loire. 

In return, the Reform dinner of Chartres was thoroughly 
democratic. No toast to the king—toasts for Electoral and Parliamen- 
tary Reform upon the largest base, for Poland and Italy, for the 
organisation of labour. 

This week banquets will take place at Lille, Valenciennes, Avesnes, 
and throughout the Department of the North generally. Those of 
Lille and Valenciennes, at least, will probably take a decidedly 
democratic turn. In the South of France, at Lyons, and in the West, 
other demonstrations are preparing. The Reform Movement is far 
from being near to its close. 

You see from this account that, from its very beginning, the 
Reform Movement of 1847 has been marked by a struggle betwixt 
the Liberals and the Democrats; that while the Liberals carried their 
ends in all the smaller localities, the Democrats were the stronger in 

all large towns: in Paris, Strasburg, Orleans, Chartres, and even in 
one smaller town, in Saint-Quentin; that the Liberals were very 
anxious of having the support of the Democrats; that they shuffled 
and made concessions, while the Democrats never retracted an iota 
of the condition under which they were ready to give their support, 
and that wherever the Democrats assisted, they had it all their own 
way. Thus, after all, the whole movement has been turned to the 
profit of democracy, for all those banquets which excited public 
attention in some degree, were, one and all, democratic. 

The Reform movement was seconded by the Departmental 
Councils, who met in September, and who are entirely composed by 
bourgeois. The Councils of the Departments of the Cdété-d’Or, of 
Finisterre, of the Aisne, the Moselle, the Haut-Rhin, the Oise, the 
Vosges, the North, and others, demanded, more or less, extensive 
reforms, all of them, of course, confined to the limits of bourgeois 
Liberalism. , 

But what, will you ask, are the reforms demanded? There are as 
many different systems of reform, as there are shades of Liberals 
and Radicals. The least thing asked for, is the extension of the 
Suffrage, to what is called the capacities, or what you, in England, 
would call the learned professions, even if they do not pay the 200 
francs of direct taxes, which make, at present, a man a voter. Then 
the Liberals have some other propositions, more or less in common 
with the Radicals. These are:— 

Ist. The extension of the incompatibilities, or the declaring of 
certain government offices to be incompatible with the functions of a 
representative. The government have, at present, more than 150 of 
their subordinate employees in the Deputies, all of which may, at any 
moment, be cashiered, and are, therefore, entirely dependent upon 
the Ministry. 

2nd. The enlargement of some electoral districts, some of which 
are composed of less than 150 voters, who are, therefore, entirely 
ruled through the influence of the government upon their local and 
personal interests. 

3rd. The electing of all deputies of a Department in a full meeting 
of all the electors, assembled at its principal town, by which. means 
local interests are intended to be more or less submerged in the 
common interests of the whole Department, and thus render 
nugatory the corruption and influence of the government. 

Then, there are proposals for lowering the amount of the voting 
qualification in different degrees. The most radical of these 
propositions is that of the National, the paper of the Republican 
small tradesmen, for extending the suffrage to all men belonging to 

the National Guard. This would give the vote to the entire class of 
small tradesmen and shopkeepers, and extend the suffrage in the 
same degree as the Reform Bill has done in England; but the 
consequences of such a measure would, in France, be much more 
important. The small bourgeoisie in this country are so much 
oppressed and squeezed by the large capitalists, that they would be 
obliged to have recourse to direct aggressive measures against the 
moneylords, as soon as they get the suffrage. As I said in an article I 
sent you some months ago, they would be carried further and 
further, even against their own consent; they would be forced either 
to give up the positions already won, or to form an open alliance with 
the working classes, and that would, sooner or later, lead to the 
Republic.? They know this in some measure. Most of them support 
Universal Suffrage; and so does the National, which goes for the 
above measure only, as far as it is considered as a preliminary step in 
the road of reform. Of all Parisian daily papers, there is, however, 
but one which will not be satisfied with anything less than Universal 
Suffrage, and which, by the term “Republic”, understands not 
merely Political Reforms, which will, after all, leave the working 
classes as miserable as before—but Social Reforms, and very definite 
ones too. This paper is the Réforme. 

The Reform movement is, however, not to be considered as the 
totality of the agitation now going on in France. Far from it! At all 
these banquets be they Liberal or Democratic, the middle classes 
were predominating; that of Orleans was the only one in which 
working men took part. The movement of the working people is 
going on, side by side, with these banquets, silently, underground, 
almost invisible, for every one who does not take the trouble of 
looking after it. But it is going on more lively than ever. The 
government know this very well. They have given their permission 
to all these middle-class banquets; but when the typographic working 
men of Paris, in September, asked for the permission to hold their 
annual banquet, which, up to the present time, they had held every 
year, and which was in no manner of a political character, it was 
refused to them. The government are so afraid of the working 
people, that they do not allow them the slightest liberty. They are 
afraid, because the people have entirely given up all attempts at 
insurrection and rioting. The government desire a riot, they provoke 
it by every means. The police throw out small bombshells filled with 
incendiary papers; which, by the explosion of the shell, are spread all 
over the streets. A trades’ affair in the Rue S. Honoré was profited by 

to make the most brutal attacks upon the people, in order to provoke 
them to riot and violence.'*’ Tens of thousands assembled every 
evening during a fortnight; they were treated in the most infamous 
manner; they were on the very brink of repelling force by force; but 
they held out and no pretext for more gagging laws are to be forced 
from them. And think, what a tacit understanding, what a common 
feeling of what was to be done, at the moment, must have prevailed; 
what an effort it must have cost to the people of Paris, to submit to 
such infamous treatment rather than try a hopeless insurrection. 
What an enormous progress this forebearance proves in those very 
samé working men of Paris, who seldom went into the streets, 
without battering to pieces every thing before them; who are 
accustomed to insurrection, and who go into a revolution just as gaily 
as they go to the wineshop! But if you would draw from this the 
conclusion that the revolutionary ardour of the people is decreasing, 
you would be quite mistaken. On the contrary, the necessity of a 
revolution, and a revolution more thoroughgoing, more radical by 
far than the first one, is deeper than ever felt by the working people 
here. But they know from the experience of 1830, that mere fighting 
will not do; that the enemy once beaten, they must establish 
measures that will guarantee the stability of their conquest; that will 
destroy not only the political, but the social power of capital, that will 
guarantee their social welfare, along with their political strength. 
And, therefore, they very quietly await their opportunity, but, in the 
meantime, earnestly apply themselves to the study of those questions 
of social economy, the solution of which will show what measures 
alone can establish, upon a firm basis, the welfare of all. Within a 
month or two, six thousand copies of M. Louis Blanc’s work on “The 
Organisation of Labour”? have been sold in the workshops of Paris, 
and you must consider, that five editions of this book had been 
published before. They read likewise a number of other works upon 
these questions; they meet in small numbers of from ten to twenty, 
and discuss the different plans propounded therein. They talk not 
much of revolution, this being a thing admitting of no doubt, a 
subject upon which they one and all agree; and when the moment 
will have arrived, at which a collision between the people and the 
government will be inevitable, down they will be in the streets and 
squares at a moment’s notice, tearing up the pavement, laying 
omnibuses, carts and coaches, across the streets, barricading every 
alley, making every narrow lane a fortress, and advancing, in spite of 
all resistance, from the Bastille to the Tuileries.'** And then, I fear, 

most of the reform banquet gentry will hide themselves in the 
darkest corner of their houses, or be scattered like dead leaves before 
the popular thunderstorm. Then it will be all over with Messrs 
Odilon Barrot, de Beaumont and other Liberal thunderers, and then 
the people will judge them quite as severely as they now judge the 
Conservative Governments. 

No. 526, November 20, 1847