economy and defiance of common sense.  Property, with its usual sensitiveness, took the alarm, and the Parisians soon had one another by the throat.  How well founded was this alarm, it would be difficult to say.  Most likely it was grossly exaggerated, and had no facts of importance to go upon.  That among the disciples of M. Louis Blanc there were gentlemen who had no respect for other men’s property, because they had no property of their own, it is quite safe to believe; but that they had any fixed ideas about seizing property, or of providing labor at high wages for workmen, it would be impossible to believe, even if Albert, ouvrier, that most mythical of revolutionists, were to make solemn affidavit of it on the works of Aurora Dudevant.  Some vague ideas about relieving the wants of the poor, Louis Blanc and his associates had, just as all men have them who have heads to see and hearts to feel the existence of social evils.  Had they obtained possession of the French government, immediately after Louis Philippe, to use his own words, had played the part of Charles X., they would have failed utterly, as Lamartine and his friends failed, and much sooner too.  Lamartine failed as a statesman,—­he lacked that power to govern which far less able men than he have exhibited under circumstances even more trying than those into which he so unguardedly plunged,—­and Louis Blanc would have been no more successful than the poet.  The failure of the “Reds” would have been the more complete, if they had had an opportunity to attempt the realization of the Socialistic theories attributed to them, but which few of their number could ever have entertained.  They sought political power for the usual purposes; but as they stood in the way of several other parties, those parties united to crush them, which was done in “the Days of June.”  It is easy to give a fallen enemy a bad name, and the conquered party on that occasion were stigmatized as the enemies of everything that men hold dear, particular emphasis being laid on their enmity to property, which men hold dearer than all other things combined.  The belief seems to have been all but universal throughout Europe, and to have been shared by many Americans, that the party which was conquered in the streets of Paris by Cavaignac was really an organization against property, which it meant to steal, and so afford a lively illustration of the doctrine attributed to it, that property is theft.  To this belief, absurd as it was, must we look for the whole course of European history during the last ten years.  The restoration of the Napoleonic dynasty in France, the restoration of the Papacy by French soldiers, the reestablishment of Austrian ascendency over Italy, and the invasion of Hungary by the Russians,—­these and other important events that have happened under our eyes, and which have enabled us to see history in the making on a large scale, all are directly traceable to the alarm which property experienced immediately