Том. VII.
Sixth period
THIRD DIVISION
Chapter II
FROM THE PEACE OF
TILSIT TILL THE PEACE OF SCHONBRUN
b. France , Germany ,
Italy
1. Alexander and Napoleon – The Latest Carolingian ideas and Autocracy
– Germany and Italy
We have already pointed out the
manner in which Savary, in his report to Napoleon, proceeds upon the principle
that the two emperors should constantly aim at the extinction of the
independence of the nations, and of all individual freedom either by Russians
or the French autocracy, and the substitution of military power for the rights
and privileges of the people. Both emperors were convinced that their will was
the best, and that they had much more correct ideas of the object of all
political constitutions that the whole of the defenders of popular rights. We
feel justified in coming to this conclusion with respect to Napoleon, from all
that his relations, friends, and servants, say of his kindly disposition, when
neither politics nor ambition was in question. We have shown, and will further
show, that he selected bad means for accomplishing good objects; and the blame
in most cases belonged to those servile creatures who suffered themselves to be
employed for any and every purpose.
As Napoleon, however good and
great his view were, almost always exposed them to suspicion by the instruments
he used, so Alexander’s actions very often presented a complete contradiction
to his intentions and words. Napoleon was creature of the revolution, and
filled with ideas; Alexander was a pupil of Laharpe, the republican, and the
actions of both, therefore, formed but too often a contrast with their language
and principles. Alexander was mild and gentle; but he was attended during his
whole life by his father’s coarse and rude servant General Arackdhejef, whose
name was terror to every one who watched over and suppressed every breath of
freedom, and yet still remained the confidential friend of his visionary
emperor till his very death. Alexander was rational and tolerant, the noble
Alexander Turgenieff conducted a ministry of public worship and yet the emperor
affected a slavish reverence for the ignorant monks and extravagant fanatics of
the Greek church.
As to Napoleon, whose power
reached its highest point by the peace of Tilsit, he was at this time, exalted
as an idol, before whom princes, nobles, clergy and the people, always ready to
reverence mere outward greatness and outward effect, bowed down in adoration,
and to whom they willingly offered in sacrifice the highest blessing of
mankind. It is some consolation to the Germans that, just at this time of
idolatry, there arose a great number of noble-minded men, bound together
throughout the whole Germany in the cause of freedom and right, of virtue and
German nationality; because they would not, like the French, suffer themselves
to be induced by the bombast of the bulletins, to take apparent greatness for
real – the outward show for the inward reality. The French altogether forgot
freedom, because the dictatorship of their Emperor flattered their national
vanity; because their ruler, who overthrew kings, elevated Frenchmen of the
humblest class to the rank of the princes – everywhere placed Frenchmen in the
administration of the governments of other countries, and enriched them with
the spoils of all nations. Immediately after the peace of Tilsit, it become
continually more obvious that the great man who, since his adoption of the
imperial title, had been largely astray by the false conception of Charlemagne,
would in future be hurried on from one step to another, till he overthrow
himself. It was clear that one war would lead to another; and that he could not
remain quiet, till he had either brought everything into subjection, or till he
himself was plunged into the pit which he had digged. Men, such as Von Stein,
Von Schladen, Canning, many of the Austrian ministers, and Gentz, long
suspected that he was on the way to ruin himself; he ought to have taken
council from his enemies. He however, took no warning – he surrounded himself
with Frenchmen, who were like-minded, an accomplices with those who undermined
the ground beneath his feet; he therefore, listened to the advice of Talleyrand
and of his own family, who confounded splendor with greatness. As there are
numerous works which have given a minute and full account of all Napoleon’s
merits – and Thiers has recently exhausted all that can be said in praise of
Napoleon’s institutions – we shall not refer to his laws and administrative
regulations, but confine ourselves to that alone which refers to the liberation
of Europe. With this view, we must first show how the giddiness of greatness
seized him; how he changed the institutions and measures adopted by himself,
and calculated for the well-being of the people and not for autocracy, from
free to autocratic objects, and in such manner that every trace of freedom must
necessary disappear.
No doubt can be entertained that
Bonaparte’s dominion was salutary to those countries whose institutions he
altered from the very foundations; for, by the introduction of a selection of
the wisest deductions of the most experienced and ablest men, who had been
active in the revolution, he rooted out all traces of the feudalism, castes and
hierarchy of the middle ages, which were wholly inconsistent with the condition
of men in modern times. Unhappily, from 1804, he added new evils to the old,
which he scarcely, in any case, completely removed. In the larger period of his
sway, this was almost universally the case. When he introduced anything new,
after 1806, it was almost always merely a mutilation of something old under a
new name. We therefore, willingly concur in the commendations which the French
are never weary in bestowing, on his patience, perseverance and the skill in
hitting the right point, which he showed in the consultations, concerning laws
of all kinds, as may be seen from the minutes of the discussions on the new
system of laws. It clearly appears from these minutes, and from the notes
written down by the elder Pelet, in the sittings of the council of state, and
published by his son, with what instinctive penetration he immediately
perceived in the case of every law – nay, in the case of every clause – not
only what at this moment would obstruct his own objects as a ruler, but also
what might be hurtful to them in future. We regard it, therefore, as most
suitable to our purely historical and general object, to show by some striking
examples how he, by degrees, altered all the laws and ordinances, borrowed by
from the archives of the republic, and drown by the ablest politicians of the
republic, whom he converted into imperial councilors, which made his reign salutary;
and how, by very small changes, he everywhere rooted out every trace of freedom
and self government on the part of the people. True it is, there was still
preserved the name of the representation of the people: the inviolable freedom
of the person, equality before the law, the right to speak and write freely, to
be answerable for conduct to the law and the jury, and not to the police and gendarmes, but the things themselves
were gone. There was still a form of freedom, but none of the substance.
The senate and the council of
state, who were mere labourers in Napoleon’s vineyard, gave the appearance of
legality to the Emperor’s most arbitrary decisions; and the miserable senators,
instead of making representations, congratulated the people on the introduction
of those Russian forms. In this way the Emperor, without ever consulting the
legislature, in the course of only four months after the conscription of 1807,
by a mere decree of the senate, called into active service 80,000 men of the
conscription of 1808; and added even to this, five legions of reserves. We are
ashamed to record the flatteries which such men as Cambaceres, Regnault an
Lacepede at this time, clothed in splendid, but empty phraseology, or the
meanness which the whole servile senate exhibited on this occasion.
At the time at when Napoleon
returned from Tilsit Fontanes, a creature of his sister, a rhetorician and
phrase-maker of the old regime, was
president of the legislative body, at length called together in August. The
first thing that took place was a change of the civil code introduced in the
time of the consulate, adapted completely to the spirit of the old absolute
monarchies. It was now denominated the Code
Napoleon, and in the text of the laws, the word subject was substituted
fort that of citizens – state for nation – empire for the republic. Substitution,
which had been previously forbidden, was now granted to those held imperial
fiefs, and the article relating to primogeniture was so drawn up as to prepare
the way for founding a class of a new hereditary nobility. The legal
interpretation of the law, in cases in which the Court of Cassation entertained
any doubts as to its meaning, was not to be referred to the legislature whence
it emanated, but altogether, according to ancient custom, to the imperial
council of state. Did we suffer
ourselves to enter legal minute, it would be easy for us to prove, that in this
revision of the laws, framed in the time of republic, the same course was
pursued to please Napoleon, which was followed by Trebonian in the case of the
ancient Roman pandects to satisfy Justinian. Without going further into the
question of imperial legislation, we shall only refer, by way of example, to
some of the changes of the institutions of the consulate, which were made
altogether in the spirit of, and wit a view to, an absolute monarchy.
Among the changes made in this
absolute direction, we must mention, first of all, that of the manner of
appointing judges. In future, all judges were to be nominated immediately by the
Emperor; whereas previously he had only the privilege of selecting from the
list of names submitted to him. A remarkable instance of the want of openness,
honesty and truth, in everything proceeding from the cabinet, may be seen in
the underhand manner in which these new arrangements were effected, and the
sophistical manner in which they were defended. The independence of the judges
from the government was in appearance maintained, but in fact so diminished,
that means enough were given to the government to procure judges suited to
their purposes. It was determined that every judge should be liable to removal
at pleasure till he was of five years standing in his office; and with respect
to those who had bee longer in office than five years, so many corporal and
other disqualificatons were assigned as causes of removal, that it would have
been difficult to find a man who might not be brought under some of the
categories of disqualification. Things was still worse with the case of the
legislature. The members of the tribunate were deprived of all public respect
and influence by the reduction of their number to fifty, and by being rendered
only capable of being consulted in sections or committees; and yet the
tribunate appeared as a college or body independent of the Emperor, wholly
inconsistent with the new system, however submissive the poor fifty, since the
reduction of their number, had proved themselves. On the 19th of
August 1807, the tribunate therefore was altogether abolished; and yet Boulay,
one of the fluent sophists of the revolution, pronounced upon it a splendid
funeral oration. The rump of the
assemblies of the states, sovereign since 1789 (the so-called legislative
bodies) was also completely changed. No one was now any longer to be admitted
as a member of a legislature who was under forty years of age.
…
(F. C. Schlosser: History of XVIII century and of XIX till
the overthrow of the French empire -
With Particular Reference to MENTAL CULTIVATION AND PROGRESS/ изд. Chapman and Hall, 1850 – ЛОНДОН; стр. 586-590)
No comments:
Post a Comment