This meeting of the Democracy of the Department of the Céte 
d’Or, was incontestably the most splendid one of the whole series of 
Reform Banquets. 1,300 sat down to dinner. There were present 
deputations from almost all the neighbouring towns, and even a 
Swiss deputation, composed of citizens from Neufchatel, Geneva and 
Lucerne. The character of the meeting is very clearly marked out by 
the names of the principal speakers—MM. Louis Blanc, Flocon, 
Ledru-Rollin, Etienne Arago—all of them belonging to the 
Ultra-Democratic party, represented by the Réforme. We need not 
say that Louis Philippe was not toasted at this dinner. 

M. Signard, of Gray, a neighbouring town, spoke to the 
toast—‘“The Democrats of Lille who, at the late banquet of their 
town sternly refused to compromise with the sham-Liberals; and by 
their energy, union, and intelligence, saved the honour of Democ- 
racy.’ 

M. Etienne Arago, a well-known literary character of Paris, and 
who but recently brought upon the stage an exceedingly successful 
comedy, entitled The Aristocracies, then spoke to the senti- 
ment—‘“The development of literature, science, and the fine arts”; 
exposing, in a brilliant speech, the rapid advance literature and 
science were sure to make under a free and democratic system. 

At the toast—‘“‘The future progress of France”, the chairman 
called upon M. Louis Blanc, who was very enthusiastically received 
by the meeting. He delivered a splendid speech, containing many 

* Here and below speeches are quoted according to the reports on the banquet of 
Dijon printed in La Réforme, November 24 and 25, 1847.—Ed. 

just and striking observations on the past development of France; on 
the conclusions to draw from it with regard to the future; on the 
particular character impressed indelibly upon the French Democrat- 
ic Movement by the revolution. He was repeatedly and deservedly 
interrupted by applause. It was a speech quite worthy of the first 
historical writer France now possesses. There is, however, one point 
upon which we would make a few observations, which we hope will 
be taken in the same friendly spirit in which we write them. 
M. Blanc says— 

“We want union in Democracy. And no one may deceive himself, we do not think 
and labour for France only, but for the whole world, because the future of France 
contains in it the future of mankind. In fact, we are placed in this admirable position, 
that, without ever ceasing to be national, we are necessarily cosmopolite, and are even 
more cosmopolite than national. Whoever would call himself a Democrat, and be at 
the same time an Englishman, would give the lie to the history of his own country, for 
the part which England has always played, has been a struggle of egotism against 
fraterni:y. In the same manner, he who is a Frenchman, and would not be a 
cosmopolite, would give the lie to his country’s past; for France never could make 
predominant any idea, except it was for the benefit of the whole world. Gentlemen, at 
the time of the Crusades, when Europe went to conquer the grave of Christ, it was 
France who took the movement under her wing. Afterwards, when the priests would 
impose upon us the yoke of Papist supremacy, the Gallican bishops defended the 
rights of conscience. And in the last days of the ancient monarchy, who supported 
young, republican America?!%* France, always France! And what was true of 
monarchical France, how should it not be true of Republican France? Where, in the 
book of history, do we find anything resembling that admirable, self-sacrificing 
disinterestedness of the Republic, when, exhausted by the blood she had shed on our 
frontiers and on the scaffold, she found yet more blood to shed for her Batavian 
brethren?!%? When beaten or victorious, she enlightens her very enemies by the sparks 
of her genius! Let Europe send us sixteen armies, and we shall send her liberty in 
return.” 

Now, without intending to deprecate in any manner the heroic 
efforts of the French Revolution, and the immense gratitude the 
world owes to the great men of the Republic, we think that the 
relative position of France and England, with regard to cosmopolit- 
ism, is not at all justly delineated in the above sketch. We entirely 
deny the cosmopolitic? character ascribed to France before the 
revolution, and the times of Louis XI and Richelieu may serve as 
proofs. But what is it M. Blanc ascribes to France? That she never 
could make predominant any idea, except it was to benefit the whole 
world. Well, we should think M. Louis Blanc could not show us any 
country in the world which could do otherwise than France is said to 
have done. Take England, for instance, which M. Blanc places in 
direct opposition to France. England invented the steam-engine; 
England erected the railway; two things which, we believe, are 
worth a good many ideas. Well, did England invent them for herself, 

Reform Movement in France.—Banquet of Dijon 399 

or for the world? The French glory in spreading civilisation 
everywhere, principally in Algiers. Well, who has spread civilisation 
in America, Asia, Africa, and Australia, but England?! Who 
founded the very Republic, in the freeing of which France took some 
part? England—always England. If France assisted in freeing the 
American Republic from English tyranny, England freed the Dutch 
Republic, just two hundred years sooner, from Spanish oppres- 
sion.202 If France gave, at the end of the last century, a glorious 
example to the whole world, we cannot silently pass by the fact that 
England, a hundred and fifty years sooner, gave that example,” and 
found at that time, not even France prepared to follow. And, as far 
as ideas are concerned, those very ideas, which the French 
philosophers of the 18th century—which Voltaire, Rousseau, 
Diderot, D’Alembert, and others, did so much to popularise—where 
had these ideas first been originated, but in England? Let us never 
forget Milton, the first defender of regicide, Algernon Sydney, 
Bolingbroke, and Shaftesbury, over their French more brilliant 
followers. 

If an Englishman “would call himself a democrat he would give 
the lie to the history of his own country”, says M. Blanc. Well, we 
consider it as the veriest proof of sterling democracy, that it must give 
the lie to its country, that it must repudiate all responsibility for a past 
filled up with misery, tyranny, class oppression, and superstition. Let 
the French not make an exception to the other democrats; let them 
not take the responsibility for the doings of their Kings and 
Aristocrats of former times. Therefore, what M. Blanc thinks a 
disadvantage to English democrats, we think to be a great advantage, 
that they must repudiate the past, and only look to the future. 

A Frenchman is necessarily a cosmopolite. Yes, in a world ruled 
over by French influence, French manners, fashions, ideas, politics. 
In a world in which every nation has adopted the characteristics of 
French nationality. But that is exactly what the democrats of other 
nations will not like. Quite ready to give up the harshness of their 
own nationality, they expect the same from the French. They will not 
be satisfied in the assertion, on the part of the French, that they are 
cosmopolites; assertion which amounts to the demand urged upon 
all others to become Frenchmen. 

Compare Germany. Germany is the fatherland of an immense 
number of inventions—of the printing press, for instance. Germany 
has produced—and this is recognised upon all hands—a far greater 
number of generous and cosmopolitic ideas than France and 
England put together. And Germany, in practice, has always been 
humiliated, always been deceived in all her hopes. She can tell best 

what French cosmopolitism has been. In the same measure as France 
has to complain—and quite justly—of the treachery of English 
policy, Germany has experienced a policy quite as treacherous on the 
part of France, from Louis XI down to Louis Philippe. If we were to 
apply the measure of M. Louis Blanc, the Germans would be the true 
cosmopolites, and yet they do not pretend to this. 

So much upon this point. We wish to establish a discussion upon it, 
as this will only lead to a mutual understanding; to a firm union of 
French and English Democracy. 

After M. Blanc, M. Flocon spoke to the toast: ““The Democrats of 
Europe.” 

M. Flocon said: 

‘Look around you, listen to the voices which arise from foreign countries; 
complaints or menace; sighs or hopes; what tell they? They invoke the principle of the 
French Revolution; they proclaim in the face of all despotisms, its immortal] motto: 
Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. Yes, those very nations, which in the delusions of slavery and 
ignorance, made an impious war on the revolution; they now come by thousands to 
take up its standard, and promise to be most ardent defenders of the glorious 
principles they did not understand in times past. This striking fact is before the eyes of 
all the world, and I know nothing more terrible to our enemies, nothing which could 
more effectually recall to our minds our duty. In England, at the side of the old 
factions, in the face of the richest and most tyrannical aristocracy of the world, the 
people are organising. An immense association, conducted by experienced leaders, 
enrols daily thousands of working men, who will undertake to avenge the wrongs of 
humanity. And the rights of man are not a new watchword in England. At the time of 
the old civil wars, in the midst of religious fanaticism and political passions, several 
parties clearly saw the great social truth: 

When Adam delved and Eve span 
Where was then the gentleman??“* 

That was proclaimed by the Covenanters” almost three hundred years ago. The 

same question is again put; and the cotton lords disdain as much to listen to the 
complaint of the children of toil, as did the landlords in by-gone times. Therefore, 
asking what is right will not suffice, the people must be strong enough to take it, and 
the English people know this. In Belgium, at this very moment, a society is organising, 
uniting Democrats of all nations, a Democratic Congress” is being prepared. In 
Germany, while the princes play the game of granting gracious constitutions, the 
people prepare themselves for working out their own salvation.” 

The speaker then reviewed briefly the Polish, Italian, and Swiss 
movements, and closed his speech as follows: 

“Yes, the seed of the revolution is germinating, the soil is fertile, the splendid 
flower of hope adorns the fields of the future. But the winter has been long, and we 
ought soon to take to the sickle, to make our harvest. Let us then take up again the 
work of the revolution, where our fathers left it. Let us make haste, else we shall have 
to take it up where they commenced.” (Loud applause.) 

The next toast: ‘““The Sovereignty of the people”, was spoken to by 
M. Ledru-Rollin, deputy. 

Reform Movement in France.— Banquet of Dijon 401 

Letters of apology were read from MM. Francois Arago, 
Lamennais, Dupont de L’Eure, and the meeting separated. 

This demonstration proves that the provincial Democrats are 
more and more leaving the party of the National, in order to rally 
around the party of the Réforme.