Since my last? the banquets of Lille, Avesnes, and Valenciennes, 
have been held. Avesnes was merely constitutional; Valenciennes 
half-and-half; Lille a decided triumph of democracy over middle- 
class intrigue. Here are, shortly, the facts concerning this most 
important meeting:— | 

Besides the liberals and the party of the National the democrats of 
the Réforme had been invited, and Messrs Ledru-Rollin and Flocon, 
editor of the last-named paper, had accepted the invitation. 
M. Odilon Barrot, the virtuous middle-class thunderer, was also 
invited. Every thing was ready, the toasts were prepared, when all of 
a sudden M. Odilon Barrot declared he could not assist, nor speak to 
his toast, “Parliamentary Reform”’, unless that reform was qualified 
by adding:—“‘as a means to insure the purity and sincerity of the 
institutions conquered in July 1830.” This addition excluded, of 
course, the republicans. Great consternation of the committee 
ensued. M. Barrot was inflexible. At last it was resolved to submit the 
decision to the whole meeting. But the meeting very plainly declared 
they would have no alterations in the programme; they would not 
violate the understanding upon which the democrats had come to 
Lille. M. Odilon Barrot, along with his tail of liberal deputies and 
editors, scornfully retired; Messrs Flocon and Ledru-Rollin were 
sent for, the banquet took place in spite of the liberals, and 
M. Ledru’s speech was rapturously applauded. 

Thus the treacherous plot of the middle-class reformers resulted 
in a glorious triumph of democracy. M. Odilon Barrot had to 
decamp shamefully and will never dare to show his face again in the 
democratic city of Lille. His only excuse was, he had understood the 

gentlemen of the Réforme intended to profit by the Lille banquet to 
get up a revolution—in the very depth of tranquillity! 

A few days after, M. Barrot got some consolation in the Avesnes 
banquet, a mere family meeting of some middle-class liberals. Here 
he had the pleasure of toasting the King.* But at Valenciennes he was 
again obliged to pocket his favourite sentiment, dropped so sadly at 
Lille; no King’s health was to be drunk, although the formidable 
getters-up of revolutions, at the shortest notice, were not at hand. 
The discomfited thunderer will have to devour his virtuous 
indignation until another hole-and-corner banquet will allow him to 
denounce “anarchism”, “physical forcism”, and “communism”, to 
the astounded grocers and tallow-chandlers of some petty provincial 
town. 

The Lille banquet produced extraordinary discussions in the 
press. The Conservative papers shouted triumph at the division in 
the ranks of the reformers. M. Thiers’ old and drowsy Constitution- 
nel, and the Siécle, M. Barrot’s ‘‘“own’’, all of a sudden were seized 
with the most dreadful convulsions. 

“No,” shouted the indignant Siécle to its shopkeeping public, “no, we are none of 
these anarchists, we have nothing in common with these restorers of the reign of 
terror, with these followers of Marat and Robespierre: we would prefer to their reign 
of blood the present system, were it even a hundred times worse than it is!” 

And quite rightly; for such peaceful grocers and tallow-chandlers 
the white nightcap is a hundred times more fit than the red cap of 
the Jacobin. At the same time, however, that these papers heaped 
their vilest and most virulent abuse upon the Réforme, they treated 
the National with the utmost esteem. The National, indeed, has 
behaved, on this occasion, in a more than doubtful manner. Already 
at the banquet of Cosne, this paper blamed the conduct of several 
democrats who would not assist on account of the King’s health being 
proposed. Now, again, it spoke very coolly of the Lille banquet, and 
deplored the accident which for a moment troubled the demonstra- 
tion, while several provincial allies of the National openly attacked 
the conduct of Messrs Ledru and Flocon. The Réforme now asked of 
that paper a more explicit declaration. The National declared his ar- 
ticle to be quite explicit enough. Then, asked the Réforme, what was 
the deplorable accident at Lille? What is it you deplore? Is it M. Bar- 
rot’s or M. Ledru-Rollin’s conduct you deplore? Is it M. Barrot’s 
impudence or his bad luck you deplore? Is it M. Ledru’s speech in 
favour of Universal Suffrage? Is it the discomfiture of monarchism, 
the triumph of democracy, you deplore? Do you avow, or not, what 
your provincial allies say on this occasion? Do you accept the praise 

of the Siécle, or do you take our part of the abuse it heaps upon us? 
Would you have advised M. Marie, your friend, to submit, if, at Orle- 
ans, M. Odilon Barrot had made similar pretensions? The National 
replied, from party motives they would have no controversy with 
the Réforme: they were not responsible for articles sent to provin- 
cial papers by a “friend” of theirs; as to the other questions, the past 
of the National allowed them to pass them unnoticed, and not totrou- 
ble themselves with a reply. The Réforme gave the whole of this reply, 
with this remark only:—“‘Our questions remain.” Democrats now 
have the documents under their eyes—they may judge for them- 
selves. This they have done; a whole host of radical, and even liberal, 
papers of France have declared in the most decided terms for the 
Réforme. 

The conduct of the National, indeed, deserves the strongest blame. 
This paper is getting more and more into the hands of the middle 
classes. It has of late always deserted the cause of democracy at the 
decisive moment; it has always preached union with the middle 
classes, and has on more than one occasion served none but Thiers 
and Odilon Barrot. If the National does not very soon change its 
conduct, it will cease to be counted as a democratic paper. And in this 
Lille affair, the National, out of mere personal antipathy against men 
more radical than itself, has not hesitated to sacrifice the very prin- 
ciples upon which [it] itself had contracted an alliance with the 
liberals in order to get up banquets. After what has passed, the 
National will never again be able to oppose seriously toasting the 
King at future banquets. The “past” of the National is not so very 
bright as to allow of its answering by silence only the questions of its 
contemporary. Think only of its defence of the Parisian Bastilles!'*! 

P.S.—The Reform Banquet of Dijon has come off this week. 
Thirteen hundred sat down at dinner. The whole affair was 
thoroughly democratic. No toast to the King, of course. All the 
speakers belonged to the party of the Réforme. MM. Louis Blanc, 
Flocon, E. Arago, and Ledru-Rollin, were the chief speakers. M. Flo- 
con, editor of the Réforme, spoke to the toast of the foreign dem- 
ocrats, and mentioned the English Chartists in a very honourable 
manner. Next week I shall give you his speech at full length, as well 
as a full report of the whole proceedings of this most important 
meeting.” 

No. 528, December 4, 1847 

2 La Réforme, November 16, 1847.—Ed.