think to bring forgetfulness of the past, and to quench hatred? I quote this work, because the author is known. He is one of your agents; he has made a boast of it himself. I quote it, because none has been circulated with a more liberal profusion, announced or praised more by the journals: and it is publicly notorious, that a criticism upon that infamous libel, sent by a known writer, has been refused by all the journalists.

Writings of that stamp have not the full effect that was intended by their publication. The people are weary of hatreds: they have closely inspected the conduct of those men calumniated with so much perseverance. Their misfortunes have brought them nearer to the public eye: it is not among them that they are to look for their enemies.

But there is another class of men who read more than the people, upon whose minds the journals and writings could not fail to have a baneful influence.

This influence has shown itself in the very place where it was intended it should operate; in the electoral colleges,- (and we foretold it in our opinion upon the law of elections). In those elections, in which every thing went on so calmly, if we are to believe the ministers and their friends, you might see whether past times were forgotten, and hatreds extinguished. They were not however so in the hearts of those men who insulted me in the market place at Beauvais, as being one of that cast, cursed by the everlasting enemies of the people. Poor fellows, who during the twelve years which I spent near them, groaning under the same tyranny, treated me then as a friend, as a companion in misfortune! I cannot be angry with them; they were only repeating the lesson they were taught. It is a lesson they have learned. in your journals.

As I have begun to speak of the elections of this year, how can I forget the spectacle they have displayed in this capital? It is in this field of action that ministers must have acquired a full conviction, that if there are men whom neither abuse nor slights can disgust, there are others, whom neither kindness nor flattery can gain over. There a power showed itself, which not having dared to appear during the session of 1815, raised at once its audacious front, at the period of the 5th of Sept.: it gained strength by the law of elections, a power which the ministers thought they had fully obtained by the protection which they gave it in the electoral colleges of 1816, but which spurned their favor, because they saw in it only a mark of their own strength, and of the fear which they created. A power which is dreadful indeed when feared, and vanishes when it is despised, and would have been altogether insignificant if it had not been thought of some importance.

Then for a short time the journals used another language. Paris, quite astonished, awoke by hearing for the first time a call upon the royalists. These royalists, whose influence during the preceding night it was attempted to be checked, by means which from generosity I will not call by their true name; these royalists, so much abused, so much injured, it was at last necessary to call in to their assistance, because self-love was committed. This momentary favor did not long continue; they had acted from conscientious motives: the next day, after a petty triumph, of which they ought not to have been so proud, they were not surprised, from royalists, which they were called the night before, to be again called as formerly, the supporters of old errors, of antiquated doctrines, and Gothic prejudices. As to the conflict which was entered upon, it was as short as had been the reconciliation with the pure royalists. Just as in lovers' quarrels, at the close of the day, peace was made, and all was forgotten. You were witnesses, gentlemen, of the shameful part which the journals played in these scandalous transactions. I ask any impartial judge, is it thus their influence should be used to make authority respectable?

The end proposed, it has been said, was to inspire love for the authority of government. Here let us not confound objects that are very distinct. If by inspiring love for authority, you mean to excite love for the king, you do not want for that purpose the assistance of the journals. The king is beloved. If it was not from duty, it would be from gratitude, which all Frenchmen feel, for his inexhaustible benevolence, his virtues, and the concessions that he has been inclined, by his own free-will, to make tol his people. But, mistake not. If the king is loved, the power of his ministers is feared, because they may have incurred the suspicion, that by power they meant arbitrary power; and Bonaparte has for ever made arbitrary power odious to France.

When Bonaparte rose to power, there was a phantom of a republic, still worshipped by those who assisted him to mount the consular throne. This phantom confined his despotic views: but whilst he was working its ruin, he overwhelmed it with respect. Little by little he drew from his dishonored front a few rays of his former bloody diadem: he artfully placed them about his crown, and his hypocrisy went so far, that upon the first coins which he had struck upon his accession to the empire, you read on one side Napoleon Empereur, and on the other Republique Françoise.

I do not wish to offend any body; but in some respects, what the republic was for Napoleon, the charter appears to be to certain agents of authority. It is overwhelmed with a show of respect; it is treated with adoration at the tribune; the journals are filled with its praises but upon some of the ministerial acts, as upon Bona

parte's crown pieces, cannot we read on one side, constitutional charter, and on the other, arbitrary power?

By examining the singular system adopted by ministers in endeavouring to reconcile their love of arbitrary power, with their singular partiality for revolutionary doctrines, and their supporters in endeavouring to rise to the source of so many errors, I thought I found the solution of the problem, in the political education of some of our ministers, an education accomplished at the school of all arbitrary power, at the school of Bonaparte, who himself had his own in the bosom of the revolution. The revolution begat Bonaparte, Bonaparte begat our ministers; let us not lose sight of this double origin, and we shall have the explanation of every thing which is going on. '

Let us follow this historical clue. At the period I mention, Bonaparte found himself equally confined and embarrassed, by his old friends, now generally called independent, (I leave them that name that I may offend nobody's feelings,) and by the royalists. The first were the more troublesome to him, because having formerly reckoned him one of their own set, they thought they had a right to direct and govern under him. The royalists, on their side, full of recent recollections, having tried their means before the 18 Fructidor, were a power which might one day be alarming. His policy was then to strike both parties by turns; flattering sometimes the one side, and alluring them by deceitful promises, to help him to crush the others. This policy succeeded, and ought to have done it. Well, gentlemen, this policy! is it not the policy of our ministers? Is it not proyed to a demonstration that they know nothing but what they have learned of Bonaparte? Do we not find here this middle situation, which is pointed out to us as the centre of all reason, and as a discovery of genius?

But it is not given to every one to handle the weapons of Hercules: the ministers, proud of being dragged in the tracks of Bonaparte's wheels, have fallen into some very weighty errors in the execution of such a boasted plan.

The first and the most culpable of all, is that of having tried to establish, that the king being again seated on his throne, the royalists were still a party. From that moment, the royalists became the soldiers of the king upon any ground, they ought not to be treated as men liable to suspicion; and yet that is what

I may perhaps be thought to go wide of the principal question,this is my answer: the Count Descases in his defence of this same law respecting the journals, in the Chamber of Deputies, at the sitting of the 15th Dec., unfolds at length all the advantages of that system: following his example, I think I may attack the system, by an attack on the law. I thus keep within the boundary which the minister himself has laid for me,

has been continually done. Bonaparte did not behave in that manner to those who had given him pledges of their fidelity.

The second error is very serious also. At the period of the 18 Brumaire, republicanism was worn out by its excesses; all but the veterans of the party were disgusted with it. Bonaparte could strike it with impunity, yet he did it with prudence; but mildness would have been without danger, for it was dying of old age and infirmity. Now, on the contrary, thanks to the last fortnight of the hundred days, thanks to the encouragement given to those doctrines, to the privileges which the journals give to these writers, thanks above all to the clumsiness of the opposition directed against them, when any of their darts have wandered towards the ministers, republicanism revives in full brightness of bloom and health; every encouragement makes it daring, every blow that misses gives it a new strength; the scandal of the business of Comte and Dunoyer, the heaviest and dullest writers under which the press ever groaned, and with whom means have been found to give it power, have enabled it to make an immense stride. '

A third error of the ministers was to have thought, that the means which could and ought to have been used by Napoleon, might be employed under the government of a legitimate king. The means of Bonaparte were his iron will, which bent not before any of the miseries of France. His hand of justice was a sabre, and his ministers were a million of soldiers. The means of the king are the gigantic power of legitimacy, the remembrance of his ancestors, the love of his subjects, and the confidence which must be inspired by what he has done to secure their independence. Alter once that confidence, and all is lost. Thus, arbitrary authority, which made the strength of the imperial government, will never be any thing but the weakness of the royal govern

ment.

Can we be surprised that so many false consequences should have followed so many errors ? From this inconceivable unison of the most opposite principles, must naturally flow, the destruction of all principles whatever. Principles being once set aside, made way for the triumph of systems. And so it is in France; every part of the government is carried on by system: system of war; system of finance; system of subsistence. It is by system that the people must get bread to eat, or the avarice of speculative men will be glutted at their expense. Hence that uncertain progress of the government, this uneasy and tottering disposition, which by - degrees invades all the members of our political society; the most

C

What could not we say upon that singular trial in which the culprits dictated the law to the prosecutors?

dangerous moral disease which we could fall into. Hence you no longer know where are your enemies or your friends: you have not done enough to reconcile your enemies to your cause, and you have too much injured your friends, not to make them lukewarm and indifferent to your welfare. From so many alterations, so many reforms, so many changes in every administration, called for much less by the right and justice due to every individual, than by the_system of such and such minister, succeeding the system of such another minister; it follows, that nothing was certain upon any subject; no body was safe for the next day; there could be no attachment, as nothing could be depended upon.

From this state of affairs, it is not to be wondered at, that upon the subject of a precarious law, momentary coalitions should have been formed between men who were not accustomed to vote on the same side of the question. Could it have been expected that ministers would make it a crime to us, to give once a vote to those men to whom during a twelvemonth they have given their protection and support, and who still every day compliment them upon the ordonnance of the 5th September, and upon the law of elections, which has made them what they are at this day. This coalition is still the consequence of what I said just now. Nobody knows where he steps: we walk in the dark: we sometimes must meet; but it is by running one against another, that we are sometimes found together. The Count Descases has said to us, that the centre of union must be the same for all. There is the throne, there we must all unite. Does his excellency presume to show us where is the throne? To us, who, without being like himself on the steps of the throne, have never lost sight of it, even when in the midst of the thunder-bolts with which it was surrounded?

No doubt this would be a most desirable centre of union. But there must be two parties concerned to form an union. If an enemy who has already wounded me, followed me sword in hand, and I was unarmed, he might call upon me as much as he pleased, "let us unite together," I should run the faster; for in order to complete that union, I must run upon the sword of my adversary. Such an union is death. This is very nearly our situation with respect to

ministers.

Do they really mean to unite with us? Oh! nothing is easier: our confession of faith is very short and very plain. Love for the king, attachment and fidelity to his dynasty, rallying round the sacred principles of legitimacy, respect for religion; the charter, nothing but the charter; the charter, neither more nor less: make a step into that ground, and you may be sure to meet us there.

Words spoken by the minister at the sitting on the 15th. Dec.