page 36

Revolution!

On the evening of September 7th, Professor Grant, of Leeds University, who is exchanging positions with Professor Hight, of Canterbury University College, delivered a lecture on "Revolutions in France and Elsewhere." The Physics Lecture Room was well filled with a mixed crowd, of which students of the College formed, as usual, an overwhelming minority. Representatives of "The Spike," the one institution which, in this god-forsaken university, still upholds the red flag of liberty in the scowling face of a despotic Council, turned up in the hope of gleaning a few practical suggestions for future use. To the down-trodden and unresisting student mob, we commend whatever hints a perusal of the following report may reveal.

Professor Grant cleared the decks for action, as it were, with a preliminary definition of a revolution as a change in the constitution of a country, made in an unconstitutional way, and involving passion and violence. Revolutionary changes did not, in the lecturer's opinion, depend exclusively on national character. The English of the 17th century were regarded by many as being very susceptible to such changes, while the French, on the other hand, were held to be strongly conservative. Nor was the violence of revolutions, to the Professor's mind, generally proportional to the degree of oppression. The violence of the French revolution far exceeded that of the revolution in Poland, though more deplorable social conditions prevailed in the latter country. The three great contributing causes to revolutions, and especially, to successful revolutions, were: (1) A driving force of sentiment and emotion, such as strong enthusiasm. (2) A political condition in which the whole country is under the sway of a centralized despotism, more particularly when the power of that despotism is beginning to wane. (3) A great war accompanied by failure, with the bitterness, distrust, and fear always occasioned by defeat. Lastly, democracy or free government had proved on the whole to be the most stable type of political organisation.

Professor Grant then briefly discussed, according to this plan, the revolutions of 1789, 1848, and 1870 respectively. In none of these cases could the revolution be traced to dismal social conditions or to national character. The great French revolution was to be attributed to the autocratic system of government, and to the critical attitude which grew up under the guidance of such leaders as Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu. The "Reign of Terror" did not begin till 1792, and was due to the great war which, breaking out in 1792, lasted till the Battle of Waterloo.

The widespread European revolutions of the year 1848 were inspired by two great passions—the passions for Nationalism and for Constitutionalism or Liberalism. Nationalist aspirations were, on the whole, successful, as Bismarck's unification of Germany showed. Had Constitutionalism achieved like success, instead of meeting failure, as it did, the subsequent history of Europe might have been much happier.

The revolution of 1870, of which France was again the page 37 centre, was precipitated by the total defeat of Napoleon III. The Commune of Paris was, first, a protest by the citizens against what they considered to be their betrayal by their Government; second, an attempt by Paris, impatient of the rest of France, to achieve autonomy; third, the outcome of the dream of those idealists who believed that they were heralding in a new era of world-wide prosperity and happiness.

There was no justification for assuming that other revolutions would follow the course of that of 1789, or of the Russian revolution. In adopting the forms of liberty we were simply adopting a principle—the principle of democracy—which history has justified, and which lies at the foundation of all stable forms of political government.

Professor Wilson moved a vote of thanks to the lecturer for his interesting and lucid address. He said, as far as we can make out, that while he had derived the utmost satisfaction from reading the works of Professor Grant, he had felt that if he could but reach the pinnacle of ecstasy, if he could but meet the writer of those books, he could die happy. That long-desired incident had occurred, and in consequence he now felt no trepidation, no anxious quaverings, about ceasing to exist. Terrific applause from the history students present, together with the hearty carrying of the vote of thanks, rendered the rest of the Professor's remarks almost inaudible.