The French Chambers are now open, and we shall very soon have 
the pleasure of seeing what effect the Reform agitation has had upon 
the 225 “satisfied” members of the majority.* We shall see whether 
they will be satisfied, too, with the manner in which Guizot has 
exposed France in the Swiss question to the ridicule of all Europe. 
Why, this fat, corrupting and corrupted stock-jobbing, swindling, 
blood-sucking, and cowardly majority, are the very men to swallow 
down even that—to say “amen” to the trick which Palmerston, in 
return for the Spanish marriages, played on his worthy colleague 
Guizot—to declare that never was France so great, so glorious, so 
respected, so “‘satisfied”—as at this very moment. 

And it is at this very moment that all the papers of Paris, from the 
Débats? to the Réforme, discuss, as openly as can be done under the 
circumstances, the eventuality consequent upon the death of Louis 
Philippe. The Débats afraid of seeing the majority split itself up, 
warns them every day that this inevitable event, whenever it takes 
place, will be the signal for the general rendezvous of all political 
parties; that “republicanism”, “communism”, “anarchism”, “terror- 
ism”, and so forth, will then break from their subieriancous caverns, 
to spread desolation, horror and destruction; that France will be 
lost—liberty, safety, property will be lost, unless the friends of order 
(M. Guizot and Co., of course) keep them down with a strong hand; 
that this perilous moment may occur any day; and that if M. Guizot is 
not supported in office, all will be lost. The other papers, the Presse, 

the Constitutionnel, the Siécle, on the contrary, say that quite the 
reverse will take place, that al] the horrors of a bloody revolution will 
overrun the country, unless the abominable corruptor, Guizot, shall, 
at the moment of the king’s death, have been replaced by their 
respective political heroes, by M. de Girardin, M. Thiers, or M. 
O. Barrot. The Radical papers discuss the question from another 
point of view, as we shall see by and by. 

Thus, even the Débats agrees indirectly that “satisfied” France only 
awaits the proper moment for proving her dissatisfaction, in a 
manner which the frightened bourgeois imagination of the Débats 
depicts most ludicrously to its terrified reason. This, however, does 
not matter to the “satisfied” two hundred and twenty-five. They 
have a logic of their own. If the people are satisfied, then there is no 
reason for a change of system. If they are dissatisfied, why, then, 
their very dissatisfaction is a reason to stick more to the system; for if 
only one inch was abandoned, there would be a sudden eruption of 
all the horrors of revolution. Do whatever you like, these bourgeois 
will always draw the conclusion from it that they are the best rulers of 
the country. 

Nevertheless, Guizot will give a small bit of reform. He will add to 
the electoral list the “capacities”, that is, all persons possessing a 
university degree, lawyers, doctors, and other such humbugs. A 
glorious reform, indeed. But this will suffice to disarm the 
“Progressive Conservatives”, or, as they call themselves now—for, in 
want of something else to do, they change names every quarter—the 
Conservative opposition. And it will be a ready stroke for M. Thiers, 
who, while sending his second, M. Duvergier de Hauranne, on 
a Reform banquetting errand, slily prepared his reform-plan, 
with which he was to surprise the Chambers, and which was 
equally the same as the one now to be proposed by his rival, 
Guizot. 

There will be a deal of crying, shouting, and noise-making 
generally in the Chambers; but I hardly think M. Guizot has 
anything serious to apprehend from his faithful two hundred and 
twenty-five. . 

So much for the official world. In the meantime the Reform 
banquets and the polemic between the National and the Réforme have 
continued. The allied oppositions, that is, the left centre (M. Thiers’ 
party), the left (M. Odilon Barrot’s party) and the “sensible Radicals” 
(the National), had the banquets of Castres, Montpellier, Neubourg, 
and others; the ultra-Democrats (the Réforme), had the banquet of 
Chalon. The chief speaker of the banquets of Montpellier and 
Neubourg was M. Garnier-Pagés, brother of the well-known 

democrat of that name,’ deceased a few years ago. But M. 
Garnier-Pagés, the younger, is far from being like his brother; he 
totally lacks that energy, that courage and never-compromising spirit 
which secured so prominent a position to the deceased leader of 
French Democracy. At Neubourg, M. Garnier-Pagés, the younger, 
came out with assertions proving him to be entirely ignorant of the 
actual state of society, and consequently of the means of improving 
it. While all modern democracy is based upon the great fact, 
that modern society is irreparably divided into two classes— 
the bourgeoisie, or possessors of all means of production and all 
produce, and the proletarians, or possessors of nothing but their 
labour to live upon; that the latter class is socially and politically 
oppressed by the former; while the acknowledged tendency of 
modern Democrats in all countries is to make political power pass 
from the middle classes to the working classes, these latter 
constituting the immense majority of the people—in the face of all 
these facts, M. Garnier boldly asserts that the division of the people 
into middle classes and working classes does in reality not exist, that 
it is a mischievous invention of M. Guizot’s got up to divide the 
people; that in spite of Guizot he recognises that all Frenchmen are 
equal—that they all participate in the same life, and that he 
recognises in France none but French citizens! According to 
M. Garnier-Pagés, then, the monopolising of all instruments of 
production in the hands of the bourgeoisie, which abandons the 
proletarians to the tender mercies of the economical law of wages, 
reducing the share of the working men to the lowest level of food, is 
an invention of M. Guizot’s too! According to him, the whole of that 
desperate struggle now going on in all civilised countries of the 
world, between Labour and Capital, a struggle the different phases 
of which are marked by coalitions, trades’ unions, murders, riots, 
and bloody insurrections—a struggle whose reality is testified by the 
death of the proletarians shot at Lyons, at Preston, at Langenbielau, 
at Prague,” this struggle has been carried on upon no better 
grounds than a lying assertion of a French professor! What else do 
the words of M. Garnier-Pagés mean but this? “Let the capitalists 
continue to monopolise all powers of production—let the 
working man continue to live upon the merest pittance, but 
give him, as a compensation for his suffering, the title of citizen!” 
Ay, M. Pagés would under certain circumstances, and with certain 
restrictions, perhaps, consent to give the people the suffrage; but let 
them never think of profiting by the gift by passing measures which 

would essentially alter the actual mode of production and distribu- 
tion of wealth—which would, in course of time, give to the entire 
people the command of the productive powers of the country, and 
do away with all individual “employers”! The Réforme was perfectly 
right in styling this honourable gentleman a bourgeois radical. 

The Ultra-Democrats had, as I said before, only one banquet, but 
it was a bumper, and worth a dozen of the coalition party. More than 
two thousand citizens sat down to dinner at Chalon-sur-Sadne. The 
National had been invited, but very significantly had not come. The 
men of the Réforme, accordingly, had it all their own way. 
M. Ledru-Rollin, who had been designated by the National as the 
chief of the ultra-democratic party, here, accepted this position. He 
explained his position and the position of his party, by relating in a 
brilliant abstract, the different phases of French democracy since 
1789. He then justified himself against the attacks of the National, 
attacked that paper in turn, and proposed a jury of Democrats to be 
nominated from all parts of France—one-half by either party—to 
decide between the Réforme and the National. 

And now (he said), after having settled this home affair, would it not be a good 
thing if the French democracy entered into relation with the other democracies? 
There is at this moment a great movement going on in Europe amongst all the 
disinherited, who suffer by heart or by hunger. This is the moment to console them, to 
strengthen them, and to enter into communion with them.... Let us, then, hold a 
congress of Democrats of all nations, now, when the congress of kings has failed!... 
There is one republic in Europe, which just now has secured in its own territory the 
ascendancy of democracy—there is Switzerland, a country worthy of seeing the 
Democrats of all nations upon its free soil!... And thus, citizens, let me conclude, by 
coupling to my toast: “To the Unity of the French Revolution”, that other one, “The 
Union of all Democracies”. 

This speech excited loud applause, and it merited it. We heartily 
rejoice in M. Ledru-Rollin’s oratorial success at Chalon, but at the 
same time, must protest against an unguarded expression, which, we 
are sure, has been said without intention to hurt. M. Ledru-Rollin 
says, that the moment has arrived for French Democrats to console 
and to strengthen the suffering working men of other nations. The 
Democrats of no country, we are sure, want consolation from 
whomsoever it be. They admire the revolutionary pride of French 
Democrats, but they take for themselves the right to be quite as 
proud and independent. The four millions of English Chartists 
certainly are strong enough to do their own work for themselves. 
Glad as we are to see the French democracy take up with enthusiasm 

the idea of a Democratic Congress, and an alliance of all 
democracies, we expect, before all things, a perfect reciprocity and 
equality. Any alliance, which should not recognise this equality as its 
foundation, would itself be anti-democratic. We know, however, too 
well the profoundly democratic sentiments of the men of the Réforme 
to doubt of their perfectly agreeing with us; we only wish them to 
drop for the interest of our common cause, certain expressions, 
which far from expressing their real sentiments, are an inheritance 
from the time when the National alone represented the French 
Democracy. 

At the same banquet, M. Flocon spoke to the toast:— “The Rights of 
Man and of the Citizen”. He read the declaration of rights of the 
National Convention,”** which he declared to be, up to this day, the 
faithful abstract of true Democratic principles. To this, what he 
called the true French principle, he opposed the present system of 
moneyocracy, which places man upon a lower level than even cattle, 
because man is overabundant, and costs more than he gives in nature 
when his labour is not required. This system, from the country in 
which it first arose, he called the English system. 

But lo, he said, while the English principle is introduced into the fatherland of the 
revolution, the English people themselves strive to throw its yoke off their shoulders, 
and write upon their banners the glorious motto:—“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!” 
Thus, by one of those painful turns, of which history offers more than one example, 
the very nation which first gave truth to the world, fallen back into darkness and 
ignorance, would soon be obliged to ask from its neighbours the revolutionary 
traditions which itself could not conserve. Shall it ever come thus far with us? No, 
never, as long as there are Democrats like you, and meetings like this! No, we never 
will prop up the worm-eaten frame of those English institutions, which the English 
themselves will no longer support! (No, no!) Well then, to your tents, O Israel! Every 
one of you rally round his standard! Every one for his faith! Here, on our side, 
Democracy with her twenty-five millions of proletarians to free, whom she greets with 
the names of citizens, brothers, equal and free men; there the bastard-opposition, with 
her monopolies and aristocracy of capital! They speak of reducing the qualification by 
one-half; we, we proclaim the rights of man and of the citizen! (Loud and 
long-continued applause, which ended by the whole meeting singing the Chant du 
départ.?*5) 

We regret not to have room for giving more of the speeches 
delivered at this splendid and thoroughly Democratic banquet. 

At last, the Réforme has forced the National to enter into a polemic. 
The former journal, in declaring its adhesion to the principles 
announced by M. Garnier-Pagés, at the Montpellier banquet, in a 
speech on the French revolution, at the same time disputed the right 
of men, like M. Garnier, who had sacrificed the interests of 
Democracy to M. Odilon Barrot and the middle-class opposition, to 

act as the representatives of the principles of the Revolution.? This, at 
last, brought out a reply from the National, in which Ledru-Rollin in 
his turn was attacked. The principal points of accusation against the 
National were: Ist. Its support of the bastilles around Paris, by which 
the inheritance of the revolution was placed under the control of 
twelve hundred pieces of cannon.?* 2nd. Its silence last year, upon a 
pamphlet of M. Carnot,> in which he engaged the Democrats to join 
the Left Centre and the Left, to get them into office as soon as 
possible, to drop for the moment the Republican principle, and to 
agitate for an extension of the Suffrage within the limits of the 
Charter.” M. Garnier-Pagés, the younger, had about the same time 
announced similar principles; the pamphlet declared itself to be the 
expression of the opinion not of an individual, but of a party in the 
Chamber. The Réforme attacked both M. Garnier’s speech and M. 
Carnot’s (son of the celebrated member of the Convention and 
Republican minister of warc) pamphlet, and tried to provoke the 
National to a declaration.< But the National remained silent. The 
Réforme rightly declared that the policy proposed by both deputies 
would tend to nothing but to place the Democratic party wholly 
under the control of MM. Thiers and Barrot, and break it up 
entirely as a distinct party. 3rd. The National following up in practice 
during the Reform banquet agitation the policy proposed by M. 
Carnot. 4th. Its virulent and calumniating attacks upon the 
Communists, while proposing at the same time no practicable or 
effective remedy for the misery of the working people. 

The dispute has been going on for a week at least. At last the 
National retired from the contest, after having conducted it in a very 
improper manner. It has been regularly beaten; but, in order to 
mask its defeat, it finally accepted M. Ledru’s proposal of a 
Democratic jury. 

We can only declare our full adhesion to the part the Réforme has 
taken in this affair. It has saved the honour, independence, and the 
strength of French Democracy as a distinct party. It has maintained 
the principles of the Revolution, which were endangered by the 
course pursued by the National. It has asserted the rights of the 
working classes in opposition to middle-class encroachments. It has 
unmasked these bourgeois radicals—who would make the people 

believe that no class oppression exists—who will not see the frightful 
_ civil war of class against class in modern society,—and who have 
nothing but vain words for the working people. The Réforme, by 
keeping up this contest, until it has succeeded in forcing its haughty 
rival to break silence, to wave, to retract, to explain, and at last 
to withdraw,—the Réforme, we say, has well merited of Democracy. 

No. 553, January 8, 1848