CHAPTER III.

THE ENERGY OF THE PROTECTIVE SPIRIT IN FRANCE EXPLAINS THE FAILURE OF THE FRONDE. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FRONDE AND THE CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH REBELLION.

The object of the last chapter was to enquire into the origin of the protective spirit. From the evidence there collected, it appears that this spirit was first organized into a distinct secular form at the close of the dark ages; but that, owing to circumstances which then arose, it was, from the beginning, much less powerful in England than in France. It has likewise appeared that, in our country, it continued to lose ground; while in France, it early in the fourteenth century assumed a new shape, and gave rise to a centralizing movement, manifested not only in the civil and political institutions, but also in the social and literary habits of the French nation. Thus far we seem to have cleared the way for a proper understanding of the history of the two countries; and I now purpose to follow this up a little further, and point out how this difference explains the discrepancy between the civil wars of England, and those which at the same time broke out in France.

Among the obvious circumstances connected with the Great English Rebellion, the most remarkable is, that it was a war of classes as well as of factions. From the beginning of the contest, the yeomanry and traders adhered to the parliament;[352] the nobles and the clergy rallied round the throne.[353] And the name given to the two parties, of Roundheads[354] and Cavaliers,[355] proves that the true nature of this opposition was generally known. It proves that men were aware that a question was at issue, upon which England was divided, not so much by the particular interests of individuals, as by the general interests of the classes to which those individuals belonged.

[352] 'From the beginning it may be said that the yeomanry and trading classes of towns were generally hostile to the king's side, even in those counties which were in his military occupation; except in a few, such as Cornwall, Worcester, Salop, and most of Wales, where the prevailing sentiment was chiefly royalist.' _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. i. p. 578. See also _Lingard's Hist. of England_, vol. vi. p. 304; and _Alison's Hist. of Europe_, vol. i. p. 49.

[353] On this division of classes, which, notwithstanding a few exceptions, is undoubtedly true as a general fact, compare _Memoirs of Sir P. Warwick_, p. 217; _Carlyle's Cromwell_, vol. iii. p. 347; _Clarendon's Hist. of the Rebellion_, pp. 294, 297, 345, 346, 401, 476; _May's Hist. of the Long Parliament_, book i. pp. 22, 64, book ii. p. 63, book iii. p. 78; _Hutchinson's Memoirs_, p. 100; _Ludlow's Memoirs_, vol. i. p. 104, vol. iii. p. 258; _Bulstrode's Memoirs_, p. 86.

[354] Lord Clarendon says, in his grand style, 'the rabble contemned and despised under the name of roundheads.' _Hist. of the Rebellion_, p. 136. This was in 1641, when the title appears to have been first bestowed. See _Fairfax Corresp._ vol. ii. pp. 185, 320.

[355] Just before the battle of Edgehill, in 1642, Charles said to his troops, 'You are called cavaliers in a reproachful signification.' See the king's speech, in _Somers Tracts_, vol. iv. p. 478. Directly after the battle, he accused his opponents of 'rendering all persons of honour odious to the common people, under the style of cavaliers.' _May's Hist. of the Long Parliament_, book iii. p. 25.

But in the history of the French rebellion, there is no trace of so large a division. The objects of the war were in both countries precisely the same: the machinery by which those objects were attained was very different. The Fronde was like our Rebellion, insomuch that it was a struggle of the parliament against the crown; an attempt to secure liberty, and raise up a barrier against the despotism of government.[356] So far, and so long, as we merely take a view of political objects, the parallel is complete. But the social and intellectual antecedents of the French being very different from those of the English, it necessarily followed that the shape which the rebellion took should likewise be different, even though the motives were the same. If we examine this divergence a little nearer, we shall find that it is connected with the circumstance I have already noticed--namely, that in England a war for liberty was accompanied by a war of classes, while in France there was no war of classes at all. From this it resulted, that in France the rebellion, being merely political, and not, as with us, also social, took less hold of the public mind: it was unaccompanied by those feelings of insubordination, in the absence of which freedom has always been impossible; and, striking no root into the national character, it could not save the country from that servile state into which, a few years later, it, under the government of Louis XIV. rapidly fell.

[356] M. Saint-Aulaire (_Hist. de la Fronde_, vol. i. p. v.) says, that the object of the Frondeurs was, 'limiter l'autorité royale, consacrer les principes de la liberté civile et en confier la garde aux compagnies souveraines;' and at p. vi. he calls the declaration of 1648, 'une véritable charte constitutionnelle.' See also, at vol. i. p. 128, the concluding paragraph of the speech of Omer Talon. Joly, who was much displeased at this tendency, complains that in 1648, 'le peuple tomboit imperceptiblement dans le sentiment dangereux, qu'il est naturel et permis de se défendre et de s'armer contre la violence des supérieurs.' _Mém. de Joly_, p. 15. Of the immediate objects proposed by the Fronde, one was to diminish the taille, and another was to obtain a law that no one should be kept in prison more than twenty-four hours, 'sans être remis entre les mains du parlement pour lui faire son procès s'il se trouvoit criminel ou l'élargir s'il étoit innocent.' _Mém. de Montglat_, vol. ii. p. 135; _Mém. de Motteville_, vol. ii. p. 398; _Mém. de Retz_, vol. i. p. 265; _Mém. d'Omer Talon_, vol. ii. pp. 224, 225, 240, 328.

That our Great Rebellion was, in its external form, a war of classes, is one of those palpable facts which lie on the surface of history. At first, the parliament[357] did indeed attempt to draw over to their side some of the nobles; and in this they for a time succeeded. But as the struggle advanced, the futility of this policy became evident. In the natural order of the great movement, the nobles grew more loyal;[358] the parliament grew more democratic.[359] And when it was clearly seen that both parties were determined either to conquer or to die, this antagonism of classes was too clearly marked to be misunderstood; the perception which each had of its own interests being sharpened by the magnitude of the stake for which they contended.

[357] I use the word 'parliament' in the sense given to it by writers of that time, and not in the legal sense.

[358] In May 1642, there remained at Westminster forty-two peers, _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. i. p. 559; but they gradually abandoned the popular cause; and, according to _Parl. Hist._ vol. iii. p. 1282, so dwindled, that eventually 'seldom more than five or six' were present.

[359] These increasing democratic tendencies are most clearly indicated in Walker's curious work, _The History of Independency_. See among other passages, book i. p. 59. And Clarendon, under the year 1644, says (_Hist. of the Rebellion_, p. 514): 'That violent party, which had at first cozened the rest into the war, and afterwards obstructed all the approaches towards peace, found now that they had finished as much of their work as the tools which they had wrought with could be applied to, and what remained to be done must be despatched by new workmen.' What these new workmen were, he afterwards explains, p. 641, to be 'the most inferior people preferred to all places of trust and profit.'