IMPERIALISM IN FRANCE

MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1862.

" TEN Years of Imperialism in France : Impressions of a ' Flaneur.' " A curious work under this title has just reached us. The "Flaneur" is not precisely an idler, but one who, disengaged from all the passions which surround him, surveys tho objects which attract his attention with a sort of nonchalance, and comes to a conclusion rather as an amused spectator than as a serious critic or moral judge. The whole tone of the work is favourable to the present Government of France. There are, indeed, interspersed here and there reflections which seem to imply doubt and insecurity, but we fancy the final conclusion of all who read this book will be that the writer deems the present Imperial Government superior to all that have preceded it, and superior to any that in the present state of things could take its place. The first chapter gives an account of tho great changes which have been made in Paris itself- the object being twofold- to break up those dens of disorder and filth where multitudes of the Parisian population lived and died, and by opening up new avenues, laying population more completely under military control, and preventing the possibility of those revolutionary riots which in 1848 exhibited the spectacle of a people demolishing with all their might that which they called the capital of the civilized world. The following extract will be read with interest.

"It is difficult to say which is the greater marvel-to look, after some years of absence, at the result obtained in building this imperial city, or to watch the process by which the old town of Paris is transformed. The first intimation which the Flâneur gets of the impending revolution, are a number of placards over the shops of the doomed quarter, informing him that, 'pour cause do démolition,' the business is transferred to some other place. .......


" Augustus found Rome built of wood, and he left it built of marble. The Emperor Napoleon, who is often accused of a predilection for Roman Caesarism, is in a fair way of effecting in his capital a change scarcely less complete than that accomplished by his prototype in Rome."

The question of course naturally arises by what means does a Government which seemed to be bankrupt in 1848, and which inherited all the distress and destitution of the revolution, find the money to accomplish this transformation ? The author, in a chapter on " What it cost, and who pays it," points out the means taken, explaining that the cost itself is not so ascertainable as the parties by whom it is paid. It is, however, clear that the immense outlay has drawn to Paris a considerable increase of trade and population. The beautifying of the capital has rendered it more desirable as a residence. Foreigners throng it as with a consciousness of something like security under the Imperial regime, and as the city funds are raised by imposts at the city gates on almost all articles of general consumption, the growth of population is directly the growth of civic revenue. Besides which, there has been some profit in these alterations. A succession of loans was raised upon the credit of the works. The land taken up by the authorities was resold, and sometimes at a profit. A particular institution called the Office of Works was established at Paris, by which a large portion of these demolitions and constructions are effected. It was not, however, for merely material improvement that the EMPEROR resolved by a decree, and in the exercise of supreme authority, to demolish the old and dangerous portions of Paris and to establish the new. It was intended to quicken industry, and to offer to a population craving for State interference, something like socialism. On this question the author remarks :

" The rights of labour and ateliers nationaux are not an invention of the Imperial Government; it has inherited them from its predecessor, the Republic. The principle that it is the duty of the State to interfere in the relations between capital and labour in favour of the latter as the weaker of the two, was not only avowed by the Government of 1848, but acted upon, although, as every one knows, with little success. The arguments of brute force used in the days of June to prove the fallacy of these socialistic ideas, although overpowering for the moment, were triumphantly refuted by the masses on the 10th of December, 1848, when Cavaignac, the champion of these arguments, had to make way for Louis Napoleon ; and on the 2nd of December, 1851, when these self-same masses applauded the application of similar arguments against their adversaries, and insured the triumph of their own ideas by the election of Napoleon III. as Emperor of the French.

" To solve practically this social problem, and to heal the breach between bourgeois and ouvrier, became thus one of the most arduous tasks to which the new monarch was pledged, and on the success of which his own safety depended.

" The transformation of Paris represents one side of this solution of the social system, the failure of which overthrew the Republic. It is the most important one, for Paris was the cradle of the system and it battle-field. The extreme solution of the problem by the establishment of the ateliers nationaux has too signally failed for its renewal to be attempted ; and the only way out of the difficulty seemed some compromise by which both antagonists, capital and labour, might gain, and the Imperial Government have the credit of the whole transaction.

" The gregarious habits of the Celtic race, so conspicuous in their great capital, offered an opportunity for this compromise, and the great resources of the municipality the means for it. The impulse once given in this way, the imitative French nation could be easily enlisted to assist the Government in the work, and help, almost unconsciously, to carry out the ideas which it had once taken up arms to resist.

" The city of Paris had a large surplus revenue every year; what was more legitimate than to apply it to works of public utility ? Relieve the crowded town, open out thoroughfares, offer a profitable investment to private capital, set in motion every trade, repair and redeem bridges, construct quays, make the capital into the finest city in Europe ; it was doing the public good, assisting capital, supplying labour, improving the habits of the people, flattering national vanity, preventing the renewal of the sad conflicts between classes, and providing good lines of defence for possible emergencies.

" To leave this work in the hands of the municipality would have been to leave free scope for narrow and interested ideas, and to open out the old struggle. It could be carried out only with a high hand by the Government and its agents. Individuals may complain, but the great majority will profit. Besides, it is the very principle of the Imperial Government to be the initiator of all measures ; it alone can be the impartial and competent judge between conflicting interests, and has to maintain the balance between them.

"There can here be no dispute about the principle —the right or the wrong—for the French people have long sanctioned the interference of the Government in the private relations of the people for the general good ; the whole reduces itself, therefore, to a question of measure and calculation.

" The supporters of the Imperial Government point triumphantly to the success which has attended the efforts of the Government. The general and daily increasing prosperity of the city, those hundreds of new houses which private enterprise has constructed, the wellbeing of all classes in spite of the dearness, the undiminished resources of the city in spite of the heavy expenses, the labourer better fed than ever, are all facts which it would be difficult to deny. To any objections about so artificial a fostering of industry the reply is, that it is a natural development which in France requires the hand of the Government to impel and to guide ; if one hints at a possible crisis through circumstances which cannot be controlled, the answer is that the harvest failed in 1860 and that there was a momentary crisis in 1857, yet everything went on well. If one speaks of the future, of the great influx of labourers from all parts of France, attracted by the high wages, of the impossibility of going on thus for ever, of the consequences of a temporary interruption of the works, the answer will probably be less confident. Still people will try to prove that, in a large city like Paris, which is growing richer every day, there will be always a good deal of activity ; that the impulse given by the Government has reacted already, and will still more react, on private enterprise and speculation ; that it is impossible to say how far activity and prosperity can increase

" To a new problem like that tried in Paris and France, the old standard cannot be applied, and time alone can decide whether the calculations will prove right or wrong in the end. What has been already effected is so extraordinary that the future defies calculation. One fact will prove this better than anything else. Since the year 1851, the exports and imports of France have doubled. The means may have been artificial, but the result is as real as anything can be. If this hothouse system of production, as the adversaries, and manuring system, as the supporters of the Government call it, has added so much to national wealth, who can say where it will stop ?

" In the meantime, volcano or not volcano, it is pleasant to lounge about it. This is the feeling of the Flaneur himself, and if one is to judge by countenances, it is likewise that of the busy crowd which jostles him. It may indicate carelessness of the future, but it looks very much like tolerable satisfaction with, and enjoyment of, the present, and it is pleasant to behold."

SMH 1862,