“He resolved all the great external questions. In the Orient, you will remember the Crimean War that saved Turkey, increasing its territory at the expense of Russia, forbade the latter to reconstruct Sebastopol and to have any military maritime arsenal in the Black Sea, limited the strength and number of ships that it could maintain there, neutralizing that Russian lake and removing from the Tsar the exclusive or isolated protection of Oriental Christians, to replace it with the collective solicitude of powers. Those dispositions, rigorous but necessary, constituted one of the finest treaties that France has ever signed.
“Afterwards, in order to adjourn the return of peril, the Emperor took the status quo for the basis of his politics, save for the amelioration of Ottoman institutions and the equitable emancipation of the populations submissive to the Gate.
“That generous work of conservation and progress consisted of fortifying Turkey in each of its elements, consolidating the Ottoman Empire by developing the vitality of all the countries that constituted it, making them prosper by enabling them to prosper, to safeguard the interests of the Gate and those of the populations that were dependent on it to a greater or lesser extent, to sustain with regard to all authority the power and the acquired and recognized rights of that State, and, at the same time, to obtain satisfaction of the needs and legitimate desires of its subjects and vassals. That is what the French government strove to accomplish and succeeded in executing.
“Perhaps those Christians and vassals could have been contained with a slightly less complaisant hand, and their sometimes-excessive desires could have been deferred with a less facile benevolence. Perhaps they could have been supported more slowly and resisted more when, after having obtained what justice or utility had awarded them, they allowed themselves to be carried away by the pursuit of chimeras. Perhaps efforts could have been made not to allow them to believe that everything they demanded noisily would be procured for them in the fear that they might make even more noise; perhaps it would not have been bad to convince them that an accomplished fact is not indestructible. Perhaps there was too much condescension when Belgrade was evacuated by the Turks and when a Prussian prince was aided to mount the throne of Rumania. Perhaps there was too much disinterest when the Bulgars were discouraged, who were only waiting for an impulsion to convert to Catholicism, which would have put them under our particular and direct influence. Perhaps it was a mistake not to maintain the Maronites of the Liban under exclusive French tutelage…but no matter. Children spoiled by us, as the Italians had been, the Rumanians, the Serbs, the Montenegrins, in the epoch that commenced at Sadowa and finished with our entry to Berlin, would have taken for weakness the fecund expectation in which France awaited the hour fixed by her leader, and they used a certain familiarity toward us; was it necessary, then, to punish them?
“Questions of detail, moreover, all of that, details of execution; the general progress and the definitive results were excellent; Russia did not gain an inch of territory in the direction of Constantinople, and the prosperity of those populations developed greatly, the Turkish Empire forming, after a certain time, a kind of federation composed of free and sovereign peoples under the suzerainty of the Gate.
“But I’m letting myself go into over-scrupulous developments.
“In Italy, continuing the great traditions of François I, Richelieu and Henri IV, the Emperor was able over time to expel Austria, which, by virtue of the domination it exercised, had become a redoubtable danger to us. But, more of a politician than his predecessors, as sage as he was equitable, he did not follow the example of those French or Teutonic conquerors who had snatched the peninsula during the last eight hundred years and kept it as a prey; he restored it to itself, thus rendering impossible a conflict between France and Austria, since past conflicts had never had any other cause than the possession of Italian soil by one or the other. At the same time, he put an end to the bitter suffering of twenty million people.
“Finally, by founding the French confederation composed of France extended by Luxembourg and the Rhenish provinces on the one hand and Belgium on the other, united in a military, diplomatic and trading communion, he repaired the fault, unequaled in history, committee by his predecessor under the preoccupation of paltry personal considerations and fear: the refusal to accept Belgium. He reassembled the scattered groups of the great French family; he replaced the ancient French equilibrium, so imperfect, so conventional, so artificial, so precarious, always under threat, with an indestructible equilibrium, based on justice and liberty, on the nature of things, history, nationalities, geography, races and the wishes of populations...”
Me: “It’s true, then, that you, who are the voice of posterity, judge that reign great!”
The old man: “How could I judge it otherwise?”
Me: “Have you not found traced, in the documents handed down to you, motivated criticisms, radical critiques, and grave accusations? Have you not seen that government stigmatized by the term personal? Have you not read that he made enormous expenditures, committed a nameless fault by causing or allowing the unity of Italy? That he was mad to allow the unity of Germany? That he submitted Mexico to an immense and irreparable disaster?”
The old man; “I’ve read all that in the stenography of the sessions of the legislative body. Men whose names are forgotten today, although they were not lacking in talent, developed those theses in speeches that are read with a certain curiosity. I’ve seen several newspapers of the time in which, from the beginning of the reign to the end, all the actions of the government, without exception, are examined, debated, fundamentally attacked with bitterness—which, parenthetically, renders unintelligible the perpetual plaints exhaled by the same papers regarding the oppression suffered by the press. I’ve had the courage to read a few obscene pamphlets.
“Well, I can assure you that on the impartial man to whom distance from those events leaves all his coolness of appraisal, those epigrams, critiques and attacks produce very little impression, compared with the powerful eloquence of actions, facts and results. One smiles at seeing how the passion of parties agitates in the void, and how little place is taken in the existence of a people, in a movement of humanity by the ambitions and false intelligence of liars. Ultimate failure, and then eternal forgetfulness, was the price of so much effort and so much conflict; that was the term of so much hope. Poor little great men, when will you learn that durable glory is not the lot of orators, but only of those to whom it is given to discern where God is leading the world and who incline under his hand to work for his purpose.”
Me: “Let’s look closely, however: the government of Napoléon III was personal in the sense that the Ministers were not responsible.”
The old man: “The Emperor was. Is ministerial responsibility, then, the essence of liberty? Were the ministers of the United States responsible when that country was a Republic?”
“Me: “No, but a responsible minister would not have done certain things without consulting the country—he would not, for example, have launched France into the war in Mexico.”
The old man: “Why not?”
Me: “Because when one is a responsible minister, one dare not take enterprise so far.”
The old man: “You astonish me. I have always seen, on the contrary, that in the epoch when parliamentary governments flourished, the great and grave decisions, those of peace and war above all, were taken by the executive, save for posterior ratification by the Chambres. Thus, concerning a distant and adventurous expedition that cost England hundreds of millions, and which was almost contemporary with our expedition in Mexico, the resolution was taken, the projects were settled, the forces were organized and the financial engagements concluded—what am I saying?—the expenditures were made and the troops were in motion when the British parliament was united; which, it must he said to the honor of its patriotism, voted in a single session and with neither shameful bargaining nor futile acrimony the first hundred million requested of it.
&nb
sp; “And look: here are documents relating to that parliamentary question. Do you recall how, in 1854, the English parliament was consulted on the question of whether or not to make war on Russia? On the fourth of January, following events in Sinope, Admiral Dundas had received the order to protect the navy of the Gate as well as its territory in the Black Sea—which is to say that the war was irrevocable. Well, it was only on January 31 that Parliament was convened and the Queen announced in her speech that England was to arm. The same day, the government announced that the papers relative to the question would be deposited. That’s how the country was consulted in solemn circumstances, and that’s why, in the Lords, the Marquess of Clanricarde complained about the secrecy that had been maintained with regard to the representation of England.
“But isn’t that manner of procedure in the nature of things? Can one adopt any other? What—a war is judged necessary and you’re going to reveal your intentions, divulge your plans and make your means known, making it impossible for you to act suddenly, giving free rein to all the influences contrary to you, discouraging your chiefs and your soldiers? That is never done! And using it thus would have transformed parliamentary government, which, it seems to me, retains a monarchic element in a republic governed by a sovereign and omnipotent assembly.
“Thus it is understood that a pure parliamentary government, a government according to the heart of the doctrinaire, would have made the expedition of Mexico without consulting the Chambre in advance. I’ll add that it’s probable that the weakness that is natural to that form would have procured it many other disappointments that he Empire did not suffer. But would the doctrinaires have made that war? Yes, certainly: I can prove it to you; I have curious documents that I shall show you shortly.
“Now, what was the truth about these protests that rose up incessantly in favor of the parliamentary regime? What was that persistence in wanting to introduce into a land of universal suffrage a mechanism that existed nowhere else with universal suffrage, which was only encountered in mechanisms totally different from ours? It was merely a tactic of parties.
“As for ‘discretionary power’ and ‘arbitrariness,’ they were used in the early years of the reign; but in practice, that arbitrariness was of a rare mildness and amnesties annulled its effects several times—as you know, the day soon came, under the Empire, when no one was any longer proscribed. Besides, that arbitrariness, after having been worth seventeen years of prosperity to France, which no moral disorder troubled, gradually disappeared, and by 19 January 1867 left nothing standing but the law. Then those quibbles were lost in a regime of full and entire liberty inaugurated by the solemn act of 16 March 1876, the day when the Imperial Prince entered his twenty-first year.”
Me: “So be it. But what about finances? How much money spent! What increases brought to the budget and the National Debt.”
The old man: “What increases in the budgetary revenues beyond all increases in taxation and even of population! What a development of industry, of commerce, and public wealth and wellbeing! How much labor, how many great things accomplished!
“Would you like figures? I have a few present in memory.
“In 1847, our ‘general’ exterior commerce with foreign lands and the colonies rose to 2,340 millions, of which 1,290 was importation and 1,049 exportation.
“In 1866, commerce was 8,126 millions, of which 3,845 was importation and 4,281 exportation. The ensemble of operations had more than tripled, and the exportation of our products more than quadrupled.
“In 1847, the maritime movement with the colonies and foreign lands was represented by the entry and exit of 34,928 ships gauging 4,297,000 tons.
“In 1866, 51,509 ships gauging 9,400,00 tons, or more than double, entered and exited from our ports.
“What money spent, you say. But do you think that nothing was obtained or it in the 36 years that reign lasted? To wit:
“Creating and maintaining the innumerable institutions of beneficence, so marvelously organized, which took the child from the crèche, led him to the refuge, to school, and protected him in his apprenticeship;
“Ameliorating the accommodation of workers in the big cities;
“Subsidizing mutual aid societies;
“Founding the asylums of Vincennes and Le Vésinet;
“Subsidizing the treasury of the invalids of labor;
“Etc.
“Could the cities have been sanitized and embellished the cities, France equipped with by-roads, highways, canals and railways, and the telegraphic network created without spending hundreds of millions?
“Look, here are some more figures. In 1847 we had 1,830 kilometers of railways; in 1867 we had 15,750. We had 17,235 kilometers of major roads, compared with 164,881 on the first of January 1866; 90,000 kilometers of ordinary by-roads compared with 353,797 in the same epoch.
“Without spending a great deal of money, would it have been possible to make that great and generous attempt in Mexico, of such a noble and far-sighted politics, which brought the opposition down; definitively to pacify the Liban; vanquish with the aid of a handful of men sent six thousand leagues from the fatherland, an empire of more than three hundred million souls, enter the Chinese capital and impose tolerance on the vanquished—the most marvelous expedition that has ever been made, which paid for its expenses, if I’m not mistaken; suppress Algeria permanently, augmenting its exploitation vastly and attracting 700,000 French colonists there; found in Cochinchina an empire that far surpassed English India in prosperity and grandeur; stop Russia in its march on Constantinople; expel Austria from the peninsula; bring the Rhineland into our circle of action; increase our territory by eight départements; create veritable European equilibrium, and even universal equilibrium?
“Would it?
“But from another point of view, far from complaining, it’s necessary to rejoice in the borrowings made under Napoléon III. It’s thanks to him that the people, the peasants and the artisans associated their fortune with that of the State, and participated in so many enterprises that opened to our country the fields of activity, into which it had not yet penetrated. Now, it’s because the people became rentiers and shareholders that socialism died; in fact, the enemy of capital, it found itself one day confronted, not only by a capitalist people, but a people owning the movable property, more destructible than landed wealth, who are essentially conservative. That is one of the great events of the reign.”
Me: “My questions are wandering slightly at hazard; tell me about free exchange. I admit that protection is reducible to levying a tax on all to the profit of one; to ‘protect’ the iron industry is to say to the French: ‘You could get this metal of a better quality and at a cheaper price from your neighbor, but I, the government, am opposed to that, and I’m taking measures to force you to buy the product from a few French manufacturers who will sell it to you poorer and dearer, and who, in consequence, will do better business than if competition were established.’ That is as absurd as it is barbaric and iniquitous; for, for from protecting industries, that regime ruins them, since it consists of rewarding poor quality, inactivity, idleness, inertia and poor equipment; it’s an encouragement to reject new inventions and progress in manufacture. All that is incontestable.
“However, if competition is established, how will the consumers profit from it? When products once prohibited over surcharged with duties have been admitted or freed from tax, instead of prices falling, they have been increased, and the indigenous ones have followed them; all products have becomes dearer.”
The old man: “Some of them for causes external to free exchange. It was thus with butchery meat, which thousands of people used in that epoch who had not nourished themselves thereon before. Other products were exported in greater quantities—obviously, were could not have the pretention of making a commercial treaty to our advantage alone; it was necessary to sell our wines to the English if we wanted to buy their textiles.
“As for products relieved of duties, com
petition did bring process down, but in bringing them down, it increased consumption, and did so to the point that the increased consumption caused the prices to rise more than they had been lowered by the reduction in duty. There is even a simultaneity in those two facts.”
Me: “Then what advantage does the consumer obtain from commercial liberty?”
The old man: “More wellbeing and enjoyment. He consumes more than before; he consumes more varied products, some of which were absolutely forbidden to him. Competition also forces industrialists to introduce all possible improvements into their manufacture.
“Furthermore, if you had reestablished protection in 1870, while losing those advantages, you would have seen prices stay very high. Firstly, in itself, protection would have caused them to rise; secondly, consumption would have diminished, and although tending to lower prices, would not have lowered them sufficiently to cancel out the surplus they had acquired, because needs had been created that people would have wanted to continue to satisfy at any price. Add to those considerations the continued depreciation of gold.”
Me: “You defend the actions of Napoléon III one by one—but what about the errors? He committed some.
The old man: “Great governments are not those that make no errors; none like that has ever existed. They are those which, alongside the errors inseparable from human weakness, have done great things. Bad governments are not those that make errors; they are the ones that do nothing else.
“But let’s examine the grievances that were formulated against the one under whose reign you lived. Some people feared that Italy might become a redoubtable neighbor for France; it was, on the contrary, weakened by that exaggerated growth, by the unification that we did not make, and became for a long time another Spain—I mean a Spain like that from 1832 to 1860, for the country recovered thereafter. You saw that when she tried to take Trieste and the Tyrol from Austria, when, drawn by her increasingly crazy ambition, she claimed Nice, the Savoy and Corsica from us; when she lost her senses to the extent of taking up arms against us, the struggle was brief.”
The Humanisphere Page 22