PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2695, 8 November 1905, Page 80

PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

"SIRE, IT IS A REVOLUTION."

Last week I briefly referred to one of the questions convulsing New Zealand just now ; to-day I'll make a brief reference to a question further afield — the condition of Russia. Last week one of the headings used in the Otago Daily Times was '"fhe Ruesian Revolt !" bxit, judging by the Czar's manifesto, it is a revolution. One day in 1789 the Parisian French stormed the Bastile, that great French prison which- was peopled with horrors ; and in the middle of the night a courtier entered .the King's chamber in Versailles, and told him that 'Paris was in arms and the Bastile taken. The dismayed monarch sat in silence. "Why, this is a revolt !" he , said at length. "Sire," replied the courtier, "it is a revolution !" Is it the beginning of Republicanism, in Russia, of a limited monarchy, or is it only the beginning of such a struggle as we had against the Stuarts? Charles I had his head lopped off, but the lesson was not fully learnt until nearly half a century after that. In 1894, just about 11 years ago, the late Czar Alexander 111 was blown to pieces with a bomb, and we know that the present Czar's life has been threatened many a time; but will the Romanoffs learn their Jesson quicker than our Stuarts did?

There is one difference between our 'methods and Russian methods of gaining reforms : we have kept fairly well to legal methods, fhe Russians are adopting methods lawless rather than lawful ; but, on the other hand, Russian despots are more regardless of life than any English despot has been.

Then Russia may be compared with France, where, in 1789, the masses overcame the classes, and there was massacre and anarchy everywhere, the outcome of the oprjression of the nobility and the clergy ; but, again, there had not been that callous disregard for life before the revolution by the upper classes. The nobility had not shot down the masses, as has been done in Russia. In 1789 Paris was,' as it has been since, France, Paris decides the fate of. France. Does St. Petersburg stand for Russia? I don't think it does. Rtissia is a country of magnificent distances, and except through the telegraph, communication with its extremities is slow,' for railways are few, and roads the same.

— The French Revolution. — ■

It is a favourite saying with many that history repeats itself. In the present, case | it seems to be doing so, and that being | the case, I think that the outline of one j or two pictures in Carlyle's "History of | the French Revolution" will be interesting at the present moment. Have you read any of this work? It is stiff reading for young folk, but a good way to master the book ie to get some older reader who knows a little history to go through the History and to mark the paragraphs and chapters understandable. A true history it is not. Carlyle's masterful presence bulks up everywhere. It is really a series of pictures, or paintings, of "portraits and events. Incidents are given the space of events, and events the space of incidents. He measured everything by Paris, and, according to the latest critics, exaggerated the evil worked by the clergy and nobility. But whether it is a history or a gallery of pictures it is a fine work. , But what caused the French revolution? Are the same causes at work now in Russia? In 1789 the States-General of France — the Parliament — was called together for the first time in 175 years, and it was called then only because the country was bankrupt, and because the King and ,the nobility were frightened by the clamour of the mbb, as is happening now in Russia-, and- it- remains to be seen whether the assembling of the States-General then and of the Russian Duma now are to have the same effects. During the whole of this time the French sovereigns had been concentrating aud centralising their power, and the nobility and the higher clergy were drawn to the capital "to swell the splendour of the Court." They were exempted from taxation, and had all the offices of (State at their disposal ; so, divorced from the people and revelling in amusements and steeped in luxury, they got out of sympathy with the working classes, and looked upon them as so many creatures made to pay taxes and to administer to the pleasures of those who assumed themselves to be their superiors. Referring to these times Mackenzie, in his "The Nineteenth Century : A History," writes of the Kings : "Liberty had become wholly extinct in France. The King held in his hands the unquestioned right to dispose, at his will, of the lives and property of his people. He was the sole legislator ; his own pleasure was his only rule. He levied taxes, asking no * consent of those who had to pay. He waged war to avenge personal insults, to gain personal ends ; and thousands of his subjects laid down their lives that- his frivolous antipathies might find. gratification. He sent men to prison without any crime being laid to their charge, and kept them there without trial till they died. Within the walls of his capital stood the Bastile — a prison vast and- grim — the slow growth of ages of despotism. The King's orders filled fchose gloomy toweie and

dungeons -with prisoners, many of ■vrhom never knew wherefore this dreadful

fate had befallen them. . . . An agreeable courtier was requited with a gift of lettres de cachet already signed by the King, but with a blank left for the name of the victim. The rich man could purchase for money the power to destroy those whom he haled." Referring to the people, he says : "The taxgatherer was everywhere, and among ihe simple peasantry lie could work his cruel will without fear of detection or rebuke. The great lords preserved game for their lordly sport. Droves of wild boars, herds of deer ranged the country, trampling the crops into ruin. The peasant who slew one of these invaders expatiated his offence by imprisonment. The weeding and hoeing of crops was forbidden, as tending to disturb the young partridges. Limitations were imposed upon the use of manures, lest the flavour of the game should be injuriously affected. Now and then the ruined peasantry in their despair demanded the abolition of all sorts of game, but their cry was unheeded. Men were bound to grind their corn only at the seigneur's mill; to press their grapes only in his press; to bake their bread only in his oven. Hand-mills were forbidden, but sometimes the great lord sold for money to the wretched peasant •permission to crush his handful of wheat between two stones. Services the most intolerable were exacted, or exemptionfrom them obtained by payment. When the lady of the seigueur was ill, it became the duty of the peasants to beat the marshes all night to terrify the frogs 'nto silenco, lest the great lady should be disturbed by their clamour." It is said that taxes purchasing exemption from these duties and going to the State as regular taxation amounted at times to five-eighths of a peasant's income. What could the result be but revolt, and perhaps revolution?

It was such conditions that led to the calling together of the States-General after such a long interval. This is how the historic event is described by Mackenzie : "In the month of May, 1789, there came to Versailles, gathered by universal suffrage from all parts of France, 1200 men, whose wisdom v/as to undo the mischiefs which Kings and nobles had wrought, and restore the sinking fortunes of France. As the chosen twelve hundred walked in procession to hear mass before entering on their duties, a vast crowd, thrilled by the hopes of a new era, looked on with wonder aud joy. The clergy walked foremost, superbly clad in violet robes : the nobles followed in black, with gold vests, and white plumes in their hats ; last of all came the tiers etat in simple black, unglorified by the gay colours of their superiors, but numerous as all the others put together." > What happened after the assemblage I shall relate next week ; but you will see that, so far, the French Revolution of 1789 and the Russian Revolution of 1905 have their origin in the same causes : oppression of the masses and the absence of representative government.