The Enquirer

COMMUNICATION.

Miscellaneous Reflections suggested by the present State of Politics in Europe

Governments do not appear to be always apprised of the tendency of the wars in which they engage, and the modes of hostility they pursue, to promote the favourite views of the governing power of the adverse country. Among the causes that have contributed to accelerate the present crisis in France; to confirm the power of Bonaparte, and render popular his usurpation, none have operated more powerfully than the war with England. Independently of the effect it has had, in common with all other wars, of strengthening the hands of the executive, by an increase of expense and military force, and which are mentioned by Robertson and other writers, among the fortunate causes that led to the aggrandizement of kingly power in Europe, at the expense of the feudal Barons-the existing war with England has been attended with circumstances peculiarly calculated to produce the event, which every friend to liberty must deplore. The mutual animosity existing between the people of the two countries, is known to every one. It is an animosity encouraged by the governments for political purposes, aggravated by injury and insult, and perpetuated by ignorance. It is only necessary to trace a connection between the government of one country and any parts existing in the other, and it has the double effect of attaching all the hatred and jealousy of the people against the enemies to the cause which they support, and of binding them by indissoluble bonds of affection and interest to the power attempted to be overturned. The conspiracy formed by England for overturning the consular power, without considering the wickedness of the attempt and the ignoble and repulsive nature of assassinating warfare, and the cruelty of sending to almost certain destruction a band of faithful and unfortunate, but deluded royalists. had a direct tendency to favour the accomplishment of the wishes of Bonaparte. The language used in all the addresses upon the occasion, and from every quarter of France, prove this fact. That conspiracy has not only extinguished every ray of hope for the unfortunate house of Bourbon, but it has induced the French, in barricading themselves against the machinations of England, to close the doors against liberty itself.

Of the alacrity with which aspiring governments avail themselves of foreign discontents, as a pretext for domestic usurpation; we have had an example in our own country and in our own times. We too had and still have amongst us, a party who think or affect to think that our government wants energy. This party, when in power, in order to obtain this grand desideratum which they say we are so much in want of, found it convenient, among other schemes, to quarrel with France. The party (for a number of persons concurring in any particular object must be called a party) who opposed the measures of the day. were not as the royalists of France are with the government of England, really connected with the government of France ; it was only an imaginary connection, unfounded in truth, and imputed to them for particular purposes. Notwithstanding this, in the partial state of hostility which ensued, every act of aggression, and every capture made by the cruizers of France, operated as a defeat to the republicans, and was a cause of victory and triumph to their adversaries.

In stating my opinion of the effect of the royalist conspiracy, I would not be understood as considering it the only or even principal cause of the establishment of hereditary monarchy in France. I believe there are many circumstances in the internal situation of that country which promoted the event, perhaps many that rendered it necessary. The practicability of republican government in Europe, during her present state of manners, is too questionable a thing for me to decide on. Of the following truths, however. I feel the most entire conviction :-

That no individual can enslave a nation which is capable of freedom, and that no individual can preserve a nation from slavery who are incapable of freedom. Impressed with this belief, I never view with that detestation which is bestowed on them, that class of persons on whom is generally conferred the title of usurpers. Such characters always arise in times of civil discord and trouble, which they have generally terminated. And I believe an attentive perusal of the histories of those events which have produced all assumptions of absolute power, from Julius Caesar to Bonaparte, will show that the people, fatigued by the successive vicissitudes of party, had by general consent invested them with the effective power of the state, before it was legitimated by any formal act, or sanctioned by any title. But it may be asked, why did not Bonaparte, after quelling the factions in France, organise the republic and resign his power, after it had answered the purposes intended? "After the peace of Amiens (says Carnot,) Bonaparte might have chosen between the republican system and the monarchical." But with due deference to Mr. Carnot, this assertion attributes a degree of power which I cannot think was ever possessed by any individual. It is in the power of an individual to say. that he will not, himself, become a despot : it is in his power to choose between himself and another despot ; it is in his power, when aided by the general will, to quell" an existing faction-but it is only for omnipotence to remove the causes which produce factions, and enable them to tyrannise" over states. Bonaparte or Julius Caesar would have found that the task of governing an empire, when compared with the labour of purifying a corrupt state, was attended with but trivial difficulty.