Page images
PDF
EPUB

adopted, and had no confidence in his own judgment. Casimir Perier, on the contrary, had decision and tact, and thus completed the character and just reputation of the house. There, as hereafter in public life, he showed that he was made to govern and not to administer.

-was

The Restoration gave peace to France; and great as are always the advantages of peace to every country, they were for France of greater value and importance than to most nations, under even extraordinary circumstances. Peace and liberty-even moderate, rational liberty-were essential to the happiness and prosperity of the country; and, from 1815 to 1825, individual fortunes received an augmentation for which no parallel is to be found in the history of any people. They were ten years of material and physical amelioration, which Casimir Perier admitted to be unri valled, and always spoke of them as such. The country was wearied of "the drum's discordant sound"disgusted with glory and with bloodand sought not for laurels, but for repose. M. Casimir Perier devoted the greatest portion of these ten years to useful labours and to the acquisition of personal wealth. The Bourbons might have secured his affection by consulting him, his confidence by confiding in him, and his devotion by esteeming him. How was it that this did not take place? There were two reasons, and they must be recorded with equal frankness and fidelity. The first was, that M. Casimir Perier was suspicious of the Restoration. And why? He had never known the Bourbons; he was but a young man when they were exiled; he had forgotten, in the horrors of the republic and in the wars of the empire, even the names of his princes. He had been taught to believe that they were an isolated race-that they had no sympathy in common with France that they had never forgiven the murder of the members of their familythat they were surrounded only by pauper peers or by Papist priests, and that they returned to France, not as fathers and brothers, but as conquerors and tyrants. He was also taught to believe that the Bourbons had no affection for the middling classes-took no interest in the progress of trade, commerce, manufactures, the arts and

the sciences-and only felt happy in the society of a chosen few, who were members of the old nobility, and who had remained faithful amidst all the infidelity and distrust of so many former partisans. The consequence of this conviction was, that Casimir Perier and the men of his party, instead of rallying round the throne, stood aloof; and, instead of devoting their talents, influence, and property, all of which they possessed, to the strengthening of the hands of the Government, and to enlightening the throne as to the wants, prejudices, and wishes of men essentially loyal at heart, but who were mistaken as to the characters of their princes, they by degrees got up a parliamentary opposition, and joined themselves to men whose principles and doctrines they have since been compelled not merely to repudiate, but also to repress. So far, then, M. Casimir Perier and his friends were to blame.

But there was a second reason why Casimir Perier and the mercantile and manufacturing party belonged to the Opposition, and that was the fault of the court and of the Popish clergy. The Royal family was made to believe that all who were not violent Romanists were Jacobins or Revolutionists. Thus they viewed with distrust such men even as Casimir Perier. This exclusiveness was the fault of the Ultra-Papist party. Whenever Louis XVIII. and Charles X. shook off the yoke of these counsellors, and acted as their warm hearts dictated, and their own superior minds suggested, they always acted wisely and well. Then the mercantile and manufacturing classes drew near to them. Then unions were formed between the wealth and rank of the country. Then the throne became solid as well as brilliant, and then France was flourishing and happy. Thus Casimir Perier and his friends were to blame for not separating in their minds and hearts their princes from the Popish priests; and the house of Bourbon was in its turn to be censured for adopting too implicitly the opinions of those who represented all as opposed to the throne who were not Ultra-Romanists.

It is not true that the princes of the House of Bourbon ever sighed, or hoped, or desired, or even dreamt of re-establishing the old and absolute monarchy of France. Louis XVIII.

Perier always acknowledged with respect, and spoke of in terms of sincere admiration.

From 1824 to 1827, the whole burden of the Opposition rested on Casimir Perier. He made many mistakes and adopted many errors, but he was no conspirator, no revolutionist, no enemy to his King, and no rebel. He read the Charta differently from the counsellor of the crown, but he believed the throne to be as essential to France as was France to the throne.

The elections of 1827 changed the system of the Government. A new Ministry was formed, and the Crown, of its own accord, appointed an Administration in harmony with the sane and moderate portion of public opinion. The Viscount de Martignac was a man of a million. His eloquence, his good faith, his virtue, his sincerity, his attachment to his princes, and yet his love of rational liberty, pointed him out as "the" man of the epoch. But the Opposition dealt unfairly with him. Instead of rallying round him, they deserted him; instead of seconding, they attacked him. Casimir Perier said, that it appeared to him "impossible de faire vivre la dynastie avec toute la Charte-et sans toute la Charte de defendre la dynastie." This was a remarkable truth, as it was afterwards reduced to practice. In rendering justice to the conciliatory intentions, and to the moderate efforts of the Martignac Ministry, he doubted its force and its duration. He would not attack nor oppose it, because he considered its nomination a concession made by the throne to the opinions of the electoral body; but he was one of those who believed that a conflict between the Bourbons and the Opposition of the Ultra party would, some day, sooner or later, be almost a necessity; and it was his opinion that it would end either in the re-establishment of the old monarchy or in the total overthrow of the Papist party.

The appointment of the Polignac Administration led to the conflict he anticipated, but not to the result he had expected. He never would hear of a change of dynasty; he never wrote diatribes or treason against the drapeau blanc. He thought that the priest party would be overthrown, and that the King and royal family would thenceforth be compelled to address itself to the Conservative portion of

the Whig party. He never went further than Earl Grey, and would have been delighted to see England governed by Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, and Sir James Graham.

Before we turn to the Revolution of 1830, and the subsequent life of M. Casimir Perier, we must be allowed to say a word on the ordinance of July, 1830, and on the labours, parliamentary and otherwise, of the subject of this sketch during the Restoration.

The Polignac Administration was not an isolated event. After three years of concession, the Opposition had become audaciously anti-monarchical and impudently revolutionary. We do not mean to comprise Casimir Perier in this censure. But, as to the Opposition generally, the fact cannot be doubted. The cry for "the Charta, the whole Charta, and nothing but the Charta," was Jesuitical and false. The chiefs of the Opposition have since admitted it. This cry was raised in order that France might not be alarmed. If France had had an idea that a revolution and change of dynasty had been intended, the Opposition would not have had a single representative in the Chamber, even in 1827. The Chamber of 1828 acted most unworthily. The Opposition acted most dishonestly. The commercial and departmental laws of 1828, which the Chamber of Deputies would not pass, as proposed by the Government, were the greatest concessions ever made by any monarchical Government to any people; and the very men who asked more in 1829 would, in 1831, have been delighted to have granted less. The opposition of the Opposition to the Martignac Ministry we call disgraceful. It was senseless, unprincipled, and anarchical. It alarmed the throne, disturbed the country, and agitated the whole of Europe. Well might M. Martignac exclaim, "We march in the midst of anarchy." What was to be done? To make further concessions was impossible. Towithdraw those which were made would be imprudent. Yet something must be done. The Government could not remain stationary. The priest party was then called on for its counsels. They were listened to. A return to a counter-revolution was advised, and the Polignac Administration was named. The opposition, even to the creation of that Cabinet, was mad,

monstrous, revolutionary; no professions were attended to-no assurances were regarded-no measures were examined-no proclamations were even read; but one deep tremendous howl was set up by the press, the clubs, the schools, and the Opposition Deputies; and "Down with the Polignac Administration!" was the order of the day.

What was to be done? The Throne said, "I have the right to name my own Ministers." The Ministers said, "Wait and examine our acts." The Opposition said, "N'importe, n'importe, à bas le Ministère !" and Charles X. dissolved the Chamber and appealed to the Electoral Colleges. The Chamber met. A majority of forty voted an insolent address to the King. It was an infringement on the royal prerogative, a direct and palpable infringement. The Chamber was dissolved again. The same men were returned. Associations had been formed by the Opposition of an illegal character: some to control the elections, and others to refuse the payment of taxes; but Casimir Perier stood aloof from all. He looked with sorrow and sadness to the approaching conflict. But still the question returned, What was to be done? The Charta of 1814 contained a special article, which provided that, in special cases, and to meet special difficulties, the Charta might be suspended by the Throne. No article proved more clearly than this that the Charta of 1814 was essentially monarchical. The King now felt that a temporary suspension must take place; but we know that we assert a historical truth when we declare that Charles X. had no intention of permanently suspending it, but only of meeting pressing evils by a special and pressing remedy. He might, indeed, have allowed the new Chamber to meet, proposed the budget, and have dared it to refuse the ways and means to the Government. Though Casimir Perier was a member of the 221 who voted the address to Charles X., he always declared that he for one would not refuse the budget. So the ordinances of July 1830 were made, but how they were enforced we shall see in another portion of this history. They were made in virtue of a direct, special, and positive clause of the Charta of 1814, and they were made with no other intention than that of meeting a pressing and growing

VOL. XLIV. NO, CCLXXIII.

evil, which threatened the total overthrow of the French monarchy. When the evil had been met and remedied, it was always intended by Charles X. to restore the Charta unchanged to the French people.

Let us now return to Casimir Perier. In the Session of 1817 M. Perier made eight speeches, but the most remarkable were two which he delivered

-one against the bill for the repression of the abuses of the press, and the other in favour of an amendment, tending to establish the necessity for the contracting of public loans by public tenders, and, as in England, openly, and in the face of the world, and to the best bidders.

In 1818 he pronounced ten speeches, nearly all of a financial character; but those which attracted most attention were his speeches relative to the floating debts, and as to the caution money to be supplied by journals, as a security for the payment of the fines which might be imposed upon them for breaches of the law.

In the Session of 1819 he made twenty speeches. He attacked the censorship; opposed the coal-tax; opposed the electoral law; opposed the double vote; opposed the gamblinghouses; and defended the rights of French shipping in American ports.

In the Session of 1820 he made fifty-six speeches, and addressed the Chamber, in the course of that year, on the subject of the Naples Revolution; the charges made against the Côté Gauche by M. de Serre; the right of the Chamber of Deputies to amend laws; the question of dotations and majorats in favour of persons who had rendered essential service to the State or the King; on the accusation brought against the Gauche of making anarchical speeches; on criminal justice; on the commercial difficulties between France and America; on the functions of the director of the police of the kingdom; on a new censorship; on the budget; on the beer laws; and on other questions of a financial character.

In the Session of 1821 he spoke forty-two times. Sometimes on the necessity of adopting a permanent financial position; at another time on the position of the colonists of St Domingo; on the legislation of the press; on the censorship; on the Ministerial responsibility resulting from the frauds

D

committed by Matthéo, the sub-cashier of the Treasury; on the alleged irregularity of certain financial operations at the Bourse by the Covetto Ministry; on the expenses attendant on the collection of taxes; on pensions to the widows and orphans of soldiers in active service; and, as usual, on other subjects of a financial character.

In the Session of 1822 he only spoke twenty-two times; and in the Session of 1823 only nine. In that of 1822 the question of the negotiation of new rentes was debated by him with talent, and he distinguished himself by his conflicts with M. de Peyronnet. He defended, also, General Bertin against M. Maugin, and opposed some reductions in the budget proposed by the Finance Commission. The Session of 1823 was that in which Manuel was excluded from the Chamber.

M. Perier spoke frequently on this question, and but seldom on any other. It was one of the errors of the Restoration, and the recorded protest of Casimir Perier is an unanswerable "morceau" of logical argumentation.

During the Session of 1824 M. Casimir Perier delivered twenty-eight speeches. The principal topic of dispute was the proposed conversion of the 5 rentes, which M. de Villéle proposed, and M. Perier opposed, with so much of sense and of truth. Casimir Perier was a decided and energetic enemy to every system which tampered with the public credit; and he was, undoubtedly, one of those who most powerfully contributed to the subsequent rejection of that measure by the Chamber of Peers.

In the Session of 1825 he spoke very frequently. No less than fifty-six speeches did he deliver that Session; and the subjects which most occupied his attention were the law of indemnity to the emigrants-the new bill on the public debt and sinking fundthe conversion of the 5 per centsthe expenses of the Spanish war-the debt due by Spain to France-the consolidated debts-and the recognition of the new states of South America.

In the Session of 1826 he addressed the House fifty-two times, and on a variety of interesting topics. Amongst them were the questions of the gam bling at the Stock Exchange-the citation of the director of the Journal du Commerce to the bar of the House

the right of petitioning-the indemnity to the St Domingo Colonistsas to the right of the King to modify a law by an ordinance-as to the contracts for the Spanish war-the sinking fund-and the foreign corn bill, During this Session, also, the ecclesiastical budgets, and the conduct of the "congregation" and the "Jesuits," came under debate; as likewise an interesting debate on the right of the Chamber of Peers to intervene in the discussion of the budget. The financial situation of the country, the postoffice, and the immorality of the lottery, also furnished him with materials for very good and useful addresses.

In the Session of 1827 M. Casimir Perier spoke forty-four times. The Session commenced by an attack on the then new tariff of the post-office, and on its operation on the journals of the country, as well as on the transport of gold and silver by means of the post-office. Then came a discussion on the laws as to the press, which occupied much of his time and attention. The whole question of the securities to be given by, and to be offered to the press, was debated with talent and energy, and M. Perier had to contend with two able antagonists in the persons of M. de Corbiere, and M. Dudon. The repression of the slave-trade was also debated, as well as a proposal of a member of the Opposition to appoint a commission to watch over the prerogatives of the Chamber, and to see they were not infringed on. The whole question of the woods and forests of the Crown, and the complaints urged against the civil list for having felled too great a quantity of timber, were examined, and led to angry and personal debates. The financial situation of France was likewise discussed by M. de Villele as by M. Perier.

In the Session of 1828 M. Casimir Perier abstained nearly entirely from appearing at the Tribune. The Martignac Ministry had been named, and a new era commenced for France and her King. Its glorious but unsuccessful mission was to keep within bounds the exaggerated pretension of faction-but to satisfy all the just exigencies of real public opinion. Two great measures marked this Sessionone was destined to prevent electoral frauds, and the other to abolish the censorship. The character and sen

timents of the majority were now changed. The priest party was defeated. The true royalist party for 1828 was represented by M. de Martignac. No one felt this more strongly than Casimir Perier, and no one acknowledged it more honourably. He belonged, then, no longer to the Op. position, and was placed on the list of candidates for the post of President of the Chamber of Deputies, and named member of the commission of the budget. He spoke but eight times during the Session, and would even have lent to the Government his important aid, but that his health was much affected, and required repose. The Session of 1829 was the last for constitutional France and the old race of the House of Bourbon. M. Perier spoke but three times during that Session; and, on each occasion, on the same subject-the debt due from Spain to France. He had Count Roy for an antagonist, but he sustained the conflict with great talent and spirit. On all other questions he was silent. He perceived with sorrow that the Martignac Ministry was not supported by the majority, and, to avoid the appearance of being factious, he did not oppose the passing of the law coufer, ring on the Crown the right to grant "dotations" to poor peers. The closing of the Session of 1829 was pronounced the 31st July, and eight days afterwards the Martignac Ministry existed no longer.

The Session of 1830 opened the 2d March. The Polignac Ministry had been appointed. The general elections had taken place. The Chamber of Deputies voted, on the 15th March, the memorable address of the 221; but, though M. Casimir Perier voted in that number, he did not once address the House. He was no rebel, no exciter of sedition, no lover of

tumult. He voted what he believed to be right; but he even did that, on this occasion, with fear and trembling. He was no infringer of the royal prerogatives, but he had an energetic hatred for the priest party. The reply of Charles X. to the address of the 221did not surprise M. Perier, but the dissolution of the Chambers on the 16th May was a great fault on the part of the Crown, and was felt to be so by the subject of this memoir. No one knew better than did Casimir Perier that the Chamber was not prepared to refuse the budget to the Polignac Administration, but that, on the contrary, having satisfied its convictions or its passions, by the passing of the address, it would have voted the ways and means, and even have passed other laws which the Government was prepared to submit. The dissolution of the Chamber on the 16th May, 1830, was then a capital fault-and the result of the next general elections demonstrated its folly. Of course, the same men were returned; of course, they were exasperated at having been put to the vast trouble and expense of two recent elections; of course, they returned to Paris with hostile intentions; and it now did become rather questionable whether the Chamber would vote the budget if presented by the same Ministry.

M. Casimir Perier felt, however, little doubt upon the subject; he thought to the end that, notwithstanding the result of the two elections, if the King resolved to maintain his Ministry, the Chamber could not refuse the means for carrying on the Government, so long as the acts of the Government were not illegal. But the King was persuaded to take another course-10 act upon the 14th article of the Charta of 1814, and to make the memorable and fatal ordinances of July.

« PreviousContinue »