object was the royal safety. Yet when first denounced to the national assembly, he triumphantly vindicated his character, and was cleared from the charges of his virulent accusers. Was it owing to indecision or imbecility that he finally bowed to the storm, which, after prostrating every landmark of public virtue and justice, at last scathed even those who had wantonly excited its ungovernable fury? Were the virtuous, the noble, the patriotic, spared? On the contrary, they fell the first victims. The best blood flowed most freely, mingling in the crimson current poured from royal veins. We are informed by M. Cloquet, that Lafayette's general knowledge was very extensive. We copy the following opinion of this author respecting his talent for debate in deliberative assemblies, and for popular speaking. "Lafayette spoke but little at the constitutional assembly, for at that time his functions left him less at liberty to ascend the tribune than to address the National Guards or the populace, whose passions he had often to blame, and whose excesses he was obliged to check. 'At the assembly,' as he said in a letter to the bailli de Ploëu, 'I spoke but little, and with the reserve which became the general of the armed force.' Since the restoration, his natural dislike to public speaking had yielded to his desire of defending the interests of his country. His talent for extempore speaking, which then dawned, and which increased still farther during his last journey to America, shone forth in all its lustre since the revolution of 1830. None of the speeches pronounced by him in the chamber of deputies were prepared. His extempore addresses were just, luminous, and often characterized by that manly eloquence to which his sincere patriotism gave birth. If the subject with which he was occupied interested him deeply,-if it was connected with the general interests of society, with the defence of the oppressed, with the relief of the unfortunate, with the maintenance of the dignity of France, -his language was most persuasive and engaging, and every listener felt that his talent and his eloquence were the faithful interpreters of his heart. His speeches were intelligible to all, on account of their simplicity and the clearness of the object at which he aimed. Being one day in a public place, I listened to the conversation of several artizans who were reading a newspaper among themselves, on the articles of which they commented in terms less courteous than just. 'Come,' said the reader, 'this man, (naming Lafayette) at least, speaks French-we can understand what he wishes to say.""-Vol. I. pp. 14, 15. To the same effect is the testimony of all who heard his voice raised in expressions of grateful recollection and joyful hope, during his visit to the United States in 1824-5. "Hear him,' says one, "hear him say the right word at the right time, in a series of interviews, public and private, crowding on each other every day, throughout the Union, with every description of persons, without ever wounding for a moment the self-love of others, or forgetting the dignity of his own position." The conclusion which we would draw from these opinions, and our own perusal of Lafayette's speeches, is, not that his eloquence was of the highest order, but that he was distinguished for a simple, unaffected, appropriate, and dignified style of speaking, which, joined with his candour and earnestness, always secured an attentive and pleased auditory. His education and course of life had been little calculated to prepare him for superiority in parliamentary debate. How few, how very few, comparatively speaking, have ever attained eminence as public orators, whose lives have not been laboriously devoted to literary and professional pursuits! Let the history of English parliaments and of the English bar illustrate this remark. A more difficult part of the task which we have proposed to ourselves, is to form a proper estimate of Lafayette's principles and public life: more difficult because every portion of his diversified career must be attentively considered in order to arrive at a just conclusion. Of course, our limits prevent us from entering fully into such an investigation: we shall, therefore, give only the results at which we have arrived, and the more obvious and important grounds of our deductions. As to the general characteristics of Lafayette's principles,that which widely distinguished them from the illiberal views of European monarchs and aristocracies, we, as Americans, could scarcely be at a loss in forming a judgment. His character was stamped during his services in our struggle for independence, and that impress was as deep and well defined in the last stage of his life as when it appeared fresh from the plastic influence of the revolution. With inconsistency we never heard him charged. Even his most bitter enemies, in asserting that "from the first days of the French revolution, il n'a rien oublié ni rien appris," give evidence to the contrary; and the well known declaration of Charles X. that he "knew but two men who had always professed the same principles-himself and Lafayette," adds still greater weight to our conclusion. But our enquiry shall not be whether his avowed principles were correct, but whether he ever invoked those principles to sanction unwarranted and inexcusable measures. Is there any Englishman even, so recreant to British institutions and laws, as to deny that France, under Louis XVI., needed reformation? Radical reform, in church and state, had become the only hope of French patriots. The revolution was but the violent action of a remedy too long delayed. Lafayette, laying aside his predilections for a constitution moulded after the American pattern, fixed his eye on the English government, as the only imitable model which would, in any degree, accord with the hopes and demands of his countrymen. Were not the first changes which he proposed essential to the enjoyment of the rights which every Briton holds most dear? When, in a liberal constitution, he beheld the object of his exertions, he swore a willing obedience to his king and country, an oath which was never violated. The humiliations and outrages to which the unfortunate monarch was subjected, were by none regretted more deeply, or opposed with more firmness, than by Lafayette. His final denunciation and long imprisonment were but the effects of his firm adherence to his promises and principles. After his release from captivity, how clearly did his patriotic firmness manifest itself, in all his intercourse with Napoleon ? He was not to be dazzled by the gilded banners of a republic floating over a throne of despotism. Read his letter to Bonaparte, on the occasion of his declaration, "I cannot vote for such a magistracy, (the consulate for life,) until public liberty has been sufficiently guaranteed. Then will I give my vote for Napoleon Bonaparte." "General," said he, "when a man, penetrated with the gratitude which he owes you, and too much alive to glory not to admire yours, has placed restrictions on his suffrage, those restrictions will be so much the less suspected when it is known that none, more than himself, would delight to see you chief magistrate for life of a free republic. The 18th Brumaire saved France, and I felt that I was recalled by the liberal professions to which you have attached your honour. We afterwards beheld, in the consular power, that restorative dictatorship which, under the auspices of your genius, has achieved such great things, less great however than will be the restoration of liberty. It is impossible that you, general, the first in that order of men, (whom to quote and compare would require me to retrace every age of history,) can wish that such a revolution, so many victories, so much blood and misery, should produce to the world and to ourselves no other result than an arbitrary system. The French people have too well known their rights to have entirely forgotten them. But perhaps they are better enabled to recover them now with advantage than in the heat of effervescence; and you, by the power of your character and the public confidence, by the superiority of your talents, your situation, and your fortune, may, by re-establishing liberty, subdue our dangers and calm our inquietudes. I have no other than patriotic and personal motives in wishing for you, as the climax of your glory, a permanent magistrative post; but it is in unison with my principles, my engagements, the actions of my whole life, to ascertain, before I vote, that liberty is established on bases worthy of the nation and of you.” Passing by the scenes of the empire and the restoration, we hasten to consider Lafayette's connection with the revolution of 1830. We before remarked that his accusers were not remarkably consistent in their defamatory assertions. As a single example we may observe, that, at one time, he is represented as 'making large steps in the dark toward rebellion ;" and again, as secretly plotting with Lafitte, the Duke of Orleans and others, Sarrans' Memoirs, vol. I. pp. 84, 5. the overthrow of the reigning family, and the elevation of Louis Philippe to the throne. Now we think that a passage in M. Cloquet's work completely refutes both these accusations. It is as follows: "In the month of May, 1830, an American in Paris, Mr. Mason, I believe, gave a ball, to which Lafayette and his family were invited. 'We must have some chat together,' said he to M. Lethière and one of his friends, who were also there. They crossed the rooms where dancing was kept up, and seated themselves at some distance from the noise. There they talked politics for some time with the ease and freedom of three persons who have a mutual esteem for each other, and who entertain the same opinions. Lafayette spoke at length of the infatuation of the Bourbons, and predicted what has since happened, terminating the conversation with the following words- What would you have? they have lost their wits, and are three centuries in arrear of the age; Charles X. will get himself exiled, and yet, with a little good sense, he might have been as happy as a mouse in a pie.""-Vol. I. pp. 122, 3. We shall not stop to point out the evident bearing of this passage upon the first of the above assertions. But in regard to the second, we ask, can any man, in his senses, believe, that, while Lafayette was conspiring against the government, his volubility should have so far got the better of his discretion as to lead him to utter such an unguarded speech? We do not mean to intimate, by these remarks, that we hold rebellion and conspiracy to be in all cases unjustifiable, but only to give evidence against what we consider unfounded assertion. We may add, as an appendix to the above, a precious morceau of secret history, recently furnished in Blackwood's Magazine. "There is a secret connected with the indemnity sentiment which we will take this occasion to disburden ourselves of, as nobody else, that we know of, has blundered upon it. After the three days of July business, Lafayette had actually acceded to the wishes of the republicans, and consented to be named first president of the French republic. Before proceeding to the Hotel de Ville, where the party were assembled to inaugurate him, the General called on Mr. Rives, the American envoy, a worthy, sensible man, as we can testify from personal acquaintance, who had great influence over him. Monarchy trembled in the balance, and France was within two hours of a republic, when the advice and exhortations of Rives, who pointed out the perils of the undertaking, and the want of due elements in that country to constitute a pure democratic government, decided the veteran patriot. He repaired to the Hotel de Ville, and, to the astonishment as well as rage of his partisans, presented Louis Philippe to the people, as the meilleure des républiques. Louis Philippe was grateful-in his way-he saddled his debt upon France at the rate of twenty-five millions of francs American indemnity. Thus Rives accomplished in a few months what the astute Gallatin had failed in, and Ame 1 Quart. Rev. No. CIII. p. 143, et al. (Foster's edition.) rica had negotiated twenty years for in vain. The claims were but a Flemish account after all, but, having contracted, France ought to pay." What a complicated and subtle intrigue is here! Lafayettethe blind, the feeble, the imbecile Lafayette, on the one hand, conspiring against Charles X. and offering the crown to Louis Philippe ; and, on the other, conveniently forgetting his engagements, and himself aspiring to the chief place! Are these contradictory statements made, in order that the public mind may run a double risk of being deceived; in order that it may, perchance, "cleave to the one," though it "despise the other?" We will not, however, venture to deny the authenticity of this alleged disclosure, as we know nothing of the source whence the writer has drawn his information, and have not, at hand, any means of investigating its claims to truth; though we should hardly be willing to adopt it, from such a parentage, as an article of belief. But, even if full credit should be given to it, when taken apart from the other assertions, with which it is above collated, it contains no imputation injurious to the character of Lafayette. It serves, in itself, as a complete refutation of the charges of deliberate conspiracy preferred by the London Quarterly Review. We take for granted that nothing more is intended by the expression that "Lafayette had acceded to the wishes of the republicans, and consented to be named first president of the French republic," than that he had agreed to take the presidential chair as head of a provisional government, depending for its continuance on the suffrages of the whole people. That he intended to usurp the chief magistracy, or to receive it at the hands of the citizens of Paris and the Chamber of Depu ties, we shall never believe, without more convincing evidence. Such an intention is, indeed, disproved by his alleged ready acquiescence in the views of Mr. Rives, which acquiescence can only be accounted for on the supposition of an anxiety, on his part, for the welfare of the people. Such an intention, too, would have been entirely inconsistent with every prior act of his life. It is true, that, in the light of this disclosure, conceding its truth, he might be complimented for a small amount of discernment and sagacity, in imagining, for a moment, that France could govern itself under republican institutions. We freely admit that, if there was any error in Lafayette's political course, it was, that his patriotism sometimes blinded him to the faults and frailties of his countrymen; that he sometimes indulged the hope of seeing his most ardent desires for France accomplished in the complete adoption of American principles of government. We would not say, with M. Cloquet, that "he was too virtuous 'Black. Mag. Vol. II. p. 77. (Foster's edition.) |