Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow 180.: FRENCH NEWS [68] EXAMINER, 9 SEPT., 1832, P. 585 - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II

Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Collection: The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill

180.: FRENCH NEWS [68] EXAMINER, 9 SEPT., 1832, P. 585 - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II [1831]

Edition used:

The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II, ed. Ann P. Robson and John M. Robson, Introduction by Ann P. Robson and John M. Robson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986).

Part of: Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, in 33 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


180.

FRENCH NEWS [68]

EXAMINER, 9 SEPT., 1832, P. 585

After making a three-week walking tour (19 July to 6 Aug.) and then writing three major essays (“Corporation and Church Property,” “Austin’s Lectures on Jurisprudence,” and “On Genius”) and No. 179, Mill returns in this article to French affairs, with further comment on his Saint-Simonian friends and the trial of Carrel, soon to be taken by Mill as the model of a radical publicist. Writing to Carlyle, who shared his interest in the Saint-Simonians, on 17 Sept., he summarizes the article in a gossipy fashion, and mentions it again to him on 22 Oct. (EL, CW, Vol. XII, pp. 119-20, 125). The article, headed “London, September 9, 1832,” is described in Mill’s bibliography as “A summary of French affairs in the Examiner of 9th September 1832” (MacMinn, p. 22). In the Somerville College set of the Examiner, it is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets.

the head of the st. simonian sect, and two of its principal members, have been sentenced to a year’s imprisonment and a fine.1 This contemptible mode of putting down speculative opinions has been treated by the liberal press, both here and in France, as it deserves. The Times, it is true, with the ingrained vulgarity which so constantly distinguishes it even when advocating a right cause, recommends “ducking in a horsepond” as a substitute for fine and imprisonment.2 For our part, if the base and brutal propensity to illtreat those who think differently from us is to be indulged, we had rather that the operation, like the rest of the dirty work of society, should be executed by rule, and by a hired officer, than that the hands or the souls of the people themselves should be contaminated with it.

With regard to the St. Simonians, the strange attitude which their leaders have assumed since the retirement to Ménilmontant, is of itself enough to prevent any further good or harm that could have arisen from their exertions.3En France c’est le ridicule qui tue, has often been said: and if the St. Simonians have been kept alive till now, it is because they have never till now been actually and truly ridiculous. We hope better things yet from several of them. Of their doctrines we still think, what we have in a measure stated, more than once,—that there is, out of all reckoning, more truth and substance in them than in any other of the numerous Utopian systems which are afloat. We agree in but few of their conclusions, yet we see an undeniable and permanent value in many of their premises; and we venture to assure any person who may desire to know more of them, that he must be either very wise or very foolish if he can read their writings without getting rid of many errors, and gaining a clearer insight into various important truths.

The editor of the National has been tried on a capital charge, for an article published just before the insurrection, and construed as an act of participation in it.4 He has been acquitted not only of the capital, but of the minor, offence. The trial was most interesting. General Pajol, who commanded the military on the 5th and 6th of June, was called as a witness for the defence. One of his own official reports was shown to him, in which he informed the Government that the conflict commenced on the part of the troops; who attacked the people merely because an attempt was made to change the course of the procession, in order to carry Lamarque’s remains to the Pantheon.5 General Pajol acknowledged the authenticity of the document; but, when the counsel for the defence attempted to interrogate him upon the truth of the statement which it contained, the public prosecutor objected, and the Court interfered, declaring that a witness could not be compelled to give publicity to the communications he might have made to the Government in the course of his duty.6

This is a curious specimen of the French law of evidence, which, indeed, is of a piece with the French law and practice in most other points; the rule there is, that all is fair in favour of the Government, and nothing against it. However, we think few will draw from the refusal of the Crown lawyer to allow General Pajol to confirm his own official statement, any inference but that the statement was true, and known by the Government to be such. If so, what condemnation can be too severe for the acharnement with which the Government pursues all who took part in a struggle, in which the military were the aggressors?

It will be remembered that warrants were issued against three deputies, MM. Garnier-Pagès (President of the Aide-toi Society), Cabet, and Laboissière, who refused to stand their trial before a court-martial, but surrendered as soon as the decree of the Court of Cassation had restored the course of law.7 The Chambre des mises en accusation, a court exercising the functions of our grand jury, has set these gentlemen at liberty, on the ground, not that the evidence is insufficient to justify putting them on their trial, but that there is actually no charge against them.8 How long will the French people bear such a Ministry? The three injured representatives of the people will not; for they have published in the newspapers a joint letter, pledging themselves to seek justice from the Chambers against the authors of the injury.9

It is said that poor M. Barthe, the ex-carbonaro, after being used for a twelvemonth, and worn out, is to be turned off to make room for M. Dupin.10

[1 ]Enfantin, Chevalier, and Duveyrier (for their arrest, see No. 140, n7). The other two then arrested, Barrault and Rodrigues, were given trifling fines. Enfantin’s speech in his own defence is in Moniteur, 30 Aug., 1832, p. 1647.

[2 ]Leading article, The Times, 31 Aug., 1832, p. 2.

[3 ]As Mill said in a letter of 17 Sept. to Carlyle: “There was much in the conduct of them all, which really one cannot help suspecting of quackery. . . . The St. Simonians all wear beards, and a peculiar costume, and marched to the place of trial in a body, singing if I recollect right, a succession of hymns, written and set to music by themselves.” (EL, CW, Vol. XII, p. 120.)

[4 ]The editor was Paulin; the article was Carrel’s “Qu’il faut craindre de rendre les modérés violens en se moquant de la modération,” Le National, 31 May, 1832, p. 1.

[5 ]The report by Claude Pierre, comte Pajol (1772-1844), is ibid., 30 Aug., 1832, p. 2.

[6 ]Those referred to are Charles Comte and Adrien Théodore Benoît-Champy (1805-72), counsel; Jean Charles Persil, public prosecutor; and Maître Naudin (b. 1784), the presiding judge. The law of evidence is Art. 378 of the Code pénal, Bull. 277 bis, Nos. 1-7 (20 Feb., 1810).

[7 ]For details, see Nos. 172, n37, and 176. For the ruling of the Court of Cassation, see Moniteur, 1832, p. 1411.

[8 ]For an account, see “Paris, 30 août,” Gazette des Tribunaux, 31 Aug., 1832, p. 1075.

[9 ]Letter to the Editor from all three, Constitutionnel, 30 Aug., 1832, p. 1.

[10 ]The rumour was mistaken; see No. 181.