XXV. CHAP. fall of Warsaw and the sterile effervescence in Paris completed the ruin of the revolutionary principle in Europe." 1831. 87. against the In the midst of these violent storms and altercations Bloody law the ministry of Casimir Périer not only stood its ground, Bourbons. but sensibly acquired strength,—the evident necessity of supporting Government in the critical circumstances in which the country, both externally and internally, was placed, prevailing over the known democratic feeling of the majority of the Chamber. But at the same time the republican feeling, which had swayed the greater part of the elections, appeared in various domestic acts of the legislature. The majority in the Chamber, by the smallest possible number, was Liberal,* and their hostility to the Crown was evinced in two important subjects. The first was on the civil list for the Crown, which amounted to 18,000,000 francs (£720,000), and did not pass without the most violent opposition. The second was an amendment brought forward by M. de Bricqueville on the law for the banishment of the Bourbons, which, from having not been brought forward in time, had not passed the Peers in the last session, though it had been carried by a large majority in the Deputies; and it was now proposed, as an amendment, that the penalty of DEATH should be pronounced against any member of the elder Bourbon family who should set foot 1 Ann. Hist. on the French territory. This sanguinary law, worthy of the worst days of the Convention, was voted almost 20, 1831. unanimously, to the extent of being sent to committee; M. Berryer and M. de Chartroun alone opposed it. Sept. 19. 1 xiv. 338, niteur, Sept. A majority of ONE for the Opposition-the same as brought on the French XXV. 1831. But the committee rejected the capital sanction, and CHAP. reported that the family of Napoleon should be included in the decree of banishment. The discussion on the report came on on 15th November, and gave rise to some very striking observations on both sides. 88. M. Pagès law. "There is but one measure," said M. Pagès, "which really suits the dignity of our situation, and may signalise Speech of it in the eyes of Europe. Do not try to inspire fear; against the that only betrays fear in yourselves. Pass to the order of Nov. 15. the day as to the five laws against the elder branch of the house of Bourbon, repeal alike the law of 1816 against the family of Napoleon, and prove to all the world by that lofty measure of prudence and courage that you labour under no apprehension, that you despise vain words and criminal enterprises, and that you know that no one can ascend the throne of France but by the will of the French. France, say the courtiers, is renowned among nations by its loyalty to its sovereign; but history tells a different tale; and truth gives the lie to flattery. It was by the assassination of the last of the Valois that the first Bourbon ascended the throne. Henry IV. died cruelly assassinated. During their respective minorities, Louis XIII. and Louis XIV. found with difficulty a shelter for their heads; the dagger of an assassin pierced the breast of Louis XV.; Louis XVI. died on the scaffold; Louis XVII. wasted away in chains. There is Bourbon blood to be seen in the fosse of Vincennes; its stains are visible on the steps of the Opera. Louis XVIII. has been twice proscribed; Charles X. has three times set out on the path of exile. Is it in a country which so often has brought before its eyes the miseries of royalty that it is allowable, under a monarchical government, to add to that load of oppression, and to inscribe deliberately in its statute-book a tyranny which has hitherto been found only in the dagger of the assassin, or the madness of the 344. people ? "1 1 Moniteur, 1831; Ann. Nov. 16, Hist. xiv. CHAP. 1831. 89. Striking speech of M. causes the the clause. Notwithstanding the historic truth and generous eloquence of these words, such was the terror inspired by the prospect of a civil war in La Vendée, lighted up by the threatened descent of the Duchess de Berri, that it de Martig is more than doubtful whether the sanguinary clause nac, which would not have been replaced by a vote of the Chamber rejection of in the law, had it not been for a noble and most moving appeal of M. de Martignac. This able and estimable statesman, who had tried in vain to check the perilous career of Charles X., immediately before the accession of the Polignac administration, had risen from the bed of sickness to oppose the motion, and spoke now, in a feeble and faltering voice, for the last time in the Assembly. "Gentlemen," said he, "banishment is in our law a punishment for infamous offences, pronounced by the judge after a mature examination of the evidence; and it is now proposed to declare it in advance against entire generations, without a trial, without evidence, without knowing even whom you are condemning! One of your orators has lately said from the tribune, In France proscription absolves.' That profound and just sentiment condemns the amendment. Should a pretender arrive in France, the Government will immediately be warned of the danger which the public security will run, and the risk will be prevented. But if a proscribed person, condemned beforehand, arrives on your shores, where will you find a man who will clap the executioner on the shoulder, and say to him, Look at that royal head; get it identified, and cause it to fall?' When I had the misfortune to be minister, a proscribed regicide appeared on the territory of France. The minister, informed of his appearance, so far from causing him to be arrested, hastened to provide for his retreat. He was an old man, and he was nursed, for he was sick; he received succour, for he had need of it; he was conducted, with the respect due to his age and misfortunes, to the frontier. I rendered an XXV. 1831. account of what I had done, and it was approved of, as I CHAP. know I should be by you to-day."-" Yes! yes!" broke from all parts of the Assembly. "What, then," he added, "would have been the case if the penalty had been death? I believe, in truth, I would not have spoken of it. Let one of the proscribed, whom the amendment submitted to the Chamber proposes to punish with death, return to France, to seek an asylum there; let him knock at the door even of the mover of the amendment; let him give his name and come in, and I will engage beforehand for his security." The effect of this appeal was irresistible among a people so accessible to the generous sentiments as the French. Profoundly moved, the whole Assembly 1 Moniteur, rose as one man; and, amidst universal acclamations, the Nov. 20, amendment, proposing the capital sanction, was with- Hist. xiv. drawn, and the law passed as proposed by the committee, Louis which bore, "The elder branch of the Bourbons is ban- 45, 46, 47. ished for ever from France."1 1831; Aun. 345, 346; Blanc, iii. the abolition of the hereditary peerage. These incidental discussions, however, were all preli- 90. minary merely to the grand question of the session, which Question of was the ABOLITION OF THE HEREDITARY PEERAGE. This was so emphatically the question of the day, that it might be said without exaggeration that the mission of the new Chamber was to destroy the peerage, as that of the House of Commons in England, elected in the same year, was to destroy the nomination boroughs. So strongly was hatred of the hereditary aristocracy rooted in France, in consequence of the extravagant pretensions it had asserted, and the exclusive privileges it had acquired, that the first Revolution may be said to have been mainly directed to its overthrow. It was this which was meant by its watchword, "Liberté et Egalité." Its abolition, accordingly, was one of the first acts of the Constituent Assembly in 1791. Napoleon, however, who saw clearly that a hereditary monarchy could never exist without a hereditary aristocracy to support it, restored titles of 1831. CHAP. honour, and declared them hereditary; and it was one XXV. leading object of his policy to effect a "fusion," as he called it, of the ancient and modern nobility. Louis XVIII. on his accession wisely followed the same conciliatory system, and pronounced several sonorous periods on the noblesse on one side of the throne recalling the ancient honours of the monarchy, and on the other the new-born glories of the empire. In secret, however, he was by no means favourably inclined to a hereditary nobility. A House of Peers named by himself was much more to his taste, and he was only prevailed on to permit its restoration upon condition that the Crown was to retain the form at least of calling the eldest sons of peers to the Upper House. During the tumult, however, of the Revolution of 1830, the prejudice against the aristocracy greatly increased, and the number of deputies pledged to effect its overthrow was so much increased Blane, iii. by the lowering of the suffrage, and the vast increase of 20,25; Ann. republican members whom this introduced into the legis297, 300. lature, that its abolition in the next session became a matter of certainty.1 1 Cap. v. 349, 351; Louis Hist xiv. 91. for the abolition. The question first came on for consideration on the Argument 27th August, when the Government proposed a simple decree "that the hereditary peerage should be abolished." M. Casimir Périer was known to be a decided supporter of the hereditary peerage, but, aware of the strong feeling which existed on the subject in the country, and the decided majority in the Chamber, he yielded to necessity, and concurred in the measure. Although all knew that the fate of the peerage was sealed, the arguments used on both sides were not the less worthy of attention, and, as not unfrequently happens, the more weighty were adduced on the side which proved unsuccessful. On the part of the abolition it was argued by M. Odillon Barrot, M. Bignon, and General Lafayette, and M. Remusat: "In whatever way you consider the hereditary peerage, it |