Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Revolution and Reaction - A (very) French Victoria II Interactive AAR

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
«Monsieur Président de la Chambre,»

«Again, the oratory of the Revered Deputy clouds both his own judgement and his sense of reality, for although the Deputy claims to accept the legality of His Majesty's actions, he seems to insinuate time again that His Majesty has no right to sell the land and His Majesty's actions towards the forests are immoral, since a predeccesor state previously legally, although without the approval of the Revered Deputy, acquired them.»

«Regarding the Revered Deputy's equation of forests to the Notre-Dame-de-Paris, I see it as evidence for his skills in rhetoric, but also a failure in assesment of the financial state of France.»

Victor Durand,
Préfet et Député du Nord
 
Reminder: PP is no longer rawly calculated. It is calculated on a party basis.
 
4eQ3kJT.png

​
Lustration of Public Offices Act: Oui

Oath of Allegiance Act: Oui

Loyalist Pensions Act: Oui

Budget: Non

[Peer of France]
[Emigré Historian +1PP]


VhwirFs.png
​
 
Last edited:
Open letter to the inhabitants of the Gers by the Bishop of Montauban​

Brothers and sisters,

Following the most recent election to the Chamber of Deputies, I have had the tremendous honour to carry your voice in Paris on affairs of national importance. I wish to appeal to you directly today, because the Budget proposal for 1815, which has been submitted by the King’s Government, is both morally and financially unsound.

While all understand the most grievous situation our kingdom faces, being under the most damaging occupation by foreign powers and having to deal with the collective debt of years of warfare, we must refrain from having recourse to sinful and wrong policies which, far from helping us claw our way back toward the light, would add moral to financial bankruptcy.

The most recent scheme devised by the Government would have one-million acres of forest lands, which were once part of the Patrimony of the Church, be sold to the highest bidding private interests. I am well aware of your feeling toward the illegal seizing of Church property during the Revolution. It has hurt us in the South very hard and the vague promises of relief from previous governments were naught but words.

In a more concrete manner, this budget proposal will hurt you close at home. While we certainly agree that the dire situation of our finances requires the levy of new taxes, the liquidation of these forest will deny you access to vast tracts of lands which the clergy always held in trust for the faithful. Near Auch, the Boisé de Saint-Criq will be auctioned. I remember playing in these woods as a child, and I am sure you remember too. I have heard from a Parisian merchant that he desires to purchase it to establish some hunting grounds, closed to all but to a few rich patrons. Near Saint-Jean-le-Comtal, the wooden hilltops of Lasséran will also be dispatched. Moneyed interests from Lille are seeking to purchase them and raze the entire forests. These are but two examples of the tragedy unfolding at the national level, should this proposal be carried on.

But fear not, brothers and sisters, for every day that passes, more and more deputies are standing in opposition to such a foul proposal. Courageous man speaking their minds and uttering a resounding “No! You shall not sell the land devoted to God!”. I call upon you, faithful men of the South, to spread the word to the neighboring departments, so that the good people shall pressure those who would so eagerly put their souls at risks by profiting from a sinful act. We must pray that the King puts an end to this most shameful idea promoted by his Government.

Let us remember and ponder upon the Psalms, 37:16-17, which teach us that “Better the little that the righteous have than the wealth of many wicked; for the power of the wicked will be broken, but the Lord upholds the righteous”.

Pace e bene,

Henri-Charles Victorin du Bourget
Bishop of Montauban
Deputy for the Gers
 
Devate on Budget for 1815.

Lothaire listened to the various arguments and read splendid articles in the papers. He had decided to regroup and re-orgamize. He saw that there was no changing the opinions of the Ultras but would make one last statement.

"M.President, King and honored Deputies.

The end of this session is closing in and I will make a brief closing statement before I retire for the day.

Again there are certain political realities we need to take into account. First the Deputy of Gers claim that the lands that are to be sold are Church property and that the state will take more lands. That is false. By the Charter and decree of our King Louis the Desired those lands are state property. They are for the state and King to sell and they are not the property of the Church.

Reality number 2: He further claim the General population want these lands to go back to the Church. Yes, if the general population is top clergy and former exiled aristocrats. Let us not forget that it was popular among the masses to confiscate the lands. The King did not want to change the status of said lands as it would be massively unpopular among the general population. In stark contrast to what the Bishop claim.

Third: If we revert back to the Ancien Regime we do so on our own peril. A condition for Bourbon restoration among the coalition are that we would not revert back to the Ancien Regime. If we do that, as the Ultras wish, and are not able to pay war reperations what will the Coalition take on that? It would certainly not improve our diplomatic standing.

Then he claim I am too young. Perhaps. But he can be said be too old then. That he have not adopted to the winds of change and the current situation.

Also this is a chamber for government policies. Not a class for theological debates. And we can't strictly follow the Bible in these matters - or rather what suits the Ultras. Then we can't have any rich men. Wage war. Collect taxes. And think of all the aristocrats who lay with other women. Also where is the temperance? The Church should be content and not greedy. The Church should forgive, rather than avenge. They should help the poor man rather than neglecting them. Also the Bishop are fond of saying this and that Deputy should donate money. Do so yourself then Brother! As you are a Deputy you are obviously among the very richest. Set an example buy land and donate it to the Church.

Thank you for your time M.President and King".

Lothaire sat down and would pray for that the stubbornes of the Ultras would not usher France into yet another age of despair.
 
Last edited:
Liberalism after the French Revolution: Benjamin Constant and the Two Liberties​


It was without question that the French Revolution had far-reaching effects on an number of subjects and ideas, one of it which it arguably affected the most was Liberalism, and it was the duty of Liberal writers in the latter half of the 1810s to define what Liberalism would mean in the shadow of Revolution and Restoration. Claude Artaud, writing from London for most of the decade, was only one of the many scrambling to answer questions risen by the the Reign of Terror, the Sans-Culotte, and the Napoleonic Grand Empire. One of the most influential thinkers of the time concerning this subject was a man who occasionally would exchange letters and ideas with Artaud, the Swiss-French writer Benjamin Constant (1767-1830).

Constant's family were Huguenots whom had fled to Switzerland from Artois during the turbulence of the French Civil Wars of the 16th century. Henri-Benjamin Constant de Rebecque was born the 25th of October, 1767 in Lausanne, Switzerland to an officer in the Dutch army. Constant received a healthy education, studying at even the University of Edinburgh, and served for several years as chamberlain for the Duke of Brunswick. In the midst of the Revolution, in 1794, he divorced his young wife, and began a passionate relationship with the Madame de Stael. The two intellectuals, influenced considerably by the works of Rosseau, would be noted as well for their opposition to Napoleon's regime, and Constant would follow de Stael into exile where they spent much of the Grand Empire in her salon in Coppet, Germany.

However much disdain Constant had for the Corsican General, he was even less enthusiastic about the first restoration of the Bourbons. Constant would subsequently come to term with the return of Napoleon in his Hundred Days, and Napoleon would even invite Constant to prepare a constitution for his new regime. The resulting Charter of 1815 was much more liberal and limited than the previous Napoleonic documents had been, with Constant's admiration for the English system manifesting itself in the Charter' principles. Unfortunately, the Charter would very quickly become a dead letter, and following another Bourbon restoration Constant would sail to England where he stayed in exile for a couple of years. Returning back to France he would sit in the Chamber of Deputies and become an eloquent speaker for the Liberal blocks.

aiiyG0U.jpg

Benjamin Constant​

Although in literary circles he is remembered for his semi-psychological and autobiographical novel Adolphe, Constant stands as one of the greatest contributors to modern Liberal thought. Some have argued that he is originator of the concept of "negative liberty," although this is not the focus of this piece. He is well noted for his distinct separation of the freedoms associated with ancient Rome and Greece, those ancient liberties, from those freedoms of his own time, the modern liberties. His seminal work De la liberté des Anciens comparée à celle des Modernes (c.1816), compares these ancient and modern liberties. Ancient liberties were most associated with the public sphere, with so-called political liberties. The ancient citizen found his freedom in participating in the collective exercising of the sovereignty of the state which he was subject to. He would be found frequently in the public square, debating and deliberating on the matters of state, voting on laws, checking the powers of magistrates, trying, interrogating, examining, exiling, sentencing, and even censoring citizens including those which he were inferior to. In contrast, the modern citizen had only nominal sovereignty in political affairs, and they did not posses the same power which the ancients did.

However, in exchange for this high degree of political power, the ancient citizen would offer make several sacrifices of individual liberties. This resulted in "the complete subjection of the individual to the authority of the community." The ancient citizen could not take refuge in the private sphere, as he was under a "severe surveillance." The rights to free association, to express one's own opinion, to freely elect a profession, to believe in a religion were all smothered under the collective power of the community. The modern citizen however, almost enjoys the exact converse, possessing himself a great deal of private and individual liberties while at the same time having his political sovereignty very restricted.

Constant asserts the French Revolution made the grave mistake of believing that liberties of the ancients could be applied to modern citizens, but to Constant these ancient liberties are no longer a realistic option. The ancient state was very different to that of the modern state. Ancient states were much smaller, in both territory and in population, than modern states, and thus they were driven to aggressive, war-like natures. Security was threatened regularly, as ancient citizens lived in constant fear that they would be conquered. Modern states, on the other hand, are much larger and broader. Peace and Commerce, not war, was the natural tendency of modern states. War and Commerce were two means to the same ends. It was in the interest of states to always choose Commerce first, as War often leads to "a variety of obstacles and defeats." Through the experience of War, men will be more and more likely to choose Commerce first when next presented with the option. Modern wars brought much less spoils to the victors and were much more costly, while ancient wars often reaped to the conquerors "slaves, tributes and lands." Eventually, Commerce would replace War, as the primary instrument of states in diplomacy. Constant believed that he was living in the time in which Commerce had replaced War, thus further distinguishing the modern state from the ancient. It should be noted, however, that Artaud objected to this, claiming that the example of Napoleon immediately contradicted it.

It was Commerce that resulted in the increase of individual liberties which the moderns now enjoyed. The ancient citizen, being apart of a much smaller and less populous polity, could have much more influence and could exercise much more power on the community. This community in turn smothered the individual liberties of the ancient citizen. Modern states, much larger and with enormous populations in comparison to that of ancient states, thus leave little room for the individual to exercise much power on the state. Thus, the modern citizen possesses individual liberties to content himself with this lack of political power. Constant thought therefore the idea of applying collective sovereignty to the modern state ought to be discarded. This naturally pitted him in opposition to the Enlightenment heavyweight Jean-Jacques Rousseau, but more fervently to one of Rosseau's successors, the Abbé de Mably.

7om69Yf.jpg

Gabriel Bonnot de Mably​

In Constant's view, Mably was the "representative of the system which...demands that the citizens should be entirely subjected in order for the nation to be sovereign, and that the individual should be enslaved for the people to be free." Mably was articulating the idea that the liberties of the ancients should be transported to modern times. Constant thought this misguided, as we have already seen why he believes that ancient liberties can no longer be applied to the modern citizen. Mably "detested individual liberty like a personal enemy," instead opting for the political liberties of the ancients. Constant was rather appalled by Mably's attitude towards individual liberties, stating that "whenever in history [Mably] came across a nation totally deprived of [individual liberties], even if it had no political liberty, he could not help admiring it." Mably was the epitome of those who were not able to comprehend the chasm of difference between the ancient and modern liberties as Constant understood them.

The French Revolution was a result of men who shared in the misinterpretations of Mably and his views on liberties. In endeavoring to oppose what he saw as despotism, Mably encouraged a different, and indeed much more dangerous form of it. Individual liberties would have to "give way before collective will." Mably believed that arbitrary power was preferable to the tyranny of laws, but to Constant arbitrary power could often be more tyrannical than any law could be. Individual liberty ought to be the first priority of the modern citizen. He should not sacrifice any of his private liberties in exchange for political ones. Constant best sums this belief here:


"Individual liberty, I repeat, is the true modern liberty. Political liberty is its guarantee, consequently political liberty is indispensable. But to ask the peoples of our day to sacrifice, like those of the past, the whole of their individual liberty to political liberty, is the surest means of detaching them from the former and, once this result has been achieved, it would be only too easy to deprive them of the latter."​


Although Constant thought that individual liberties should precede political liberties for modern citizens, this did not mean that he was advocating for the abolition of political liberties, or that the two could not peacefully coexist. Indeed, liberty itself was inherently preferable to no liberty at all. However, Constant predicted that the loss of individual liberty would inevitably lead to the loss of political liberty, and that it is much easier to acquire political liberty when in possession of individual liberty than it is the other way around. Commerce and credit, and the ability of property to take on many forms, meant that individual liberty was becoming more and more difficult to usurp.

In addition, political liberties can often distract from the enjoyment of individual liberties. The ancients, in order to fully take advantage of their political power, had to be engaged constantly in the affairs of the state, and would often spend most of their time in the public square debating. This was no longer possible in modern times, as men now had to focus their exertions on their labors and their private affairs. Thus, the best mode of government to ensuring that the modern citizen would not have to divert considerable energies from their private affairs was a representative system. "Poor men look after their own business; rich men hire stewards." Of course, the modern citizen would have to watch over the representatives to ensure that they are running the state properly, but they would not have to spend as much time as the ancients once did.

Finally, Constant finished with a warning. While the ancients, so focused on defending and using their political liberties, were thus vulnerable to loss of their individual liberties. For the modern citizen, the converse was much truer. The modern may be so absorbed in the enjoying of his individual and private liberties, that he would too easily and too quickly cede his political liberties. Although individual liberty took priority, this did not mean that political liberty should be surrendered. Constant argued that there was a need to find a working combination of the two. Individual and political liberties were necessary for the modern citizen.

Constant's views would be rather influential in shaping the course of Liberalism. However, they were not universally accepted by Liberals. Although he concurred with much of what Constant argued, Claude Artaud would produce his own variant of Liberalism which would distinguish himself from Constant and other European thinkers...

 
Last edited:
ebA6OrO.png

To his Christian Majesty
From Maréchal de Moncey, Minister of War
((Secret - @99KingHigh))
​
Your Majesty,

After many days of thought in who I should present for your Majesty as my candidate for Chief of the General Staff, and I have found several candidates who are able commanders and loyal to his Majesty. After looking at the list of generals we have in our kingdom, the two I wish to nominate for the positions are: François Paul Bournier, comte de Pontécoulant and Laurent de Gouvion Saint-Cyr, both of proper military standards whose loyalties and willing to serve has been proved numerous times. The one who is not appointed should, in my view, be appointed to the second in command of the General Staff to serve as counterbalance to the Chief of the General Staff, to ensure that the Staff serves France as a whole.
The Chief of the General Staff, once appointed should get to work by assembling the best officers to the General Staff.

Forever Loyal
dI9oKnI.png
​
 
Things had calmed down an Lothaire would retreat to his office in the chamber, light up a cigar and enjoy a well deserved break. Lothaire would drift away thinking of former adventures and glories - and horrors. Soon he would think of his child, hus unborn child. Were his child to grow up in a free France or one where the clouds of reaction suffocate the life? He would make one last plea to politicians he knew were of favorable leanings to the Doctrinaire wing. He would draft up two seperate letters. One were to go all the way to Tolouse. Hopefully it would go down to the once beautiful town, now tainted in blood and reaction, before the session were to end. The other letter were to be written in two different copies. As there was no easy task to write three letters at once (and Lothaire would rather spend time smoking cigars and later going to a café with his fellow liberals) he would summon his secrataries. All of them were young girls ripe for marriage, but they were all chaste as nuns. He would prance around like the Officer he still believed himself to be. He would dictate it's wording with utmost precision (however, the actual abilities of the Deputy were debatable) and said the words as if he were making an order that would liberate France. But again he saw this as his mission to make France a liberal monarchy or rather prevent it to fall into an absolute one. Once he were done he would thank his secretaries and order them to the instructed offices. And out of lust or seeing himself as a Commander, he would slap each girl on their behind to set them off while yelling "Charge!"

((Private, letter to @Cloud Strife ))

Marshal,

I'll be brief. I read your articles and I must say that they are well written. Now I wonder, as a member of the Chamber of the Peers have you used your rights to vote on the Budget?

-Capitaine Lothair Lécuyer.

((Private letters to @Ab Ovo @LordTempest ))

Honorable Monseuir,

Pardon my intrusion, but I write to you regarding a most serious subject. I do not if you have voted yet or not, but I do know that you hold Doctrinaire leanings. As I get you are keen on gradual reforms and to make France a stable nation in our times of traversy. I would then humbly ask you to review the proposed Budget and vote for it's implementation. Now I would also ask for you to vote no to the Oath of Alligiance Act and Lustration of Public Offices act. But these are for me of secondary concern and will most be passed. But please do find it in your hearts to support the Budget. If you have any concerns or questions don't hesitate to seek me out or write to me. May God bless you and guide you!

-Capitaine and Deputee Lothaire Lécuyer.
 
((A letter, penned anonymously, is circulated among the major newspapers in September 1815))​

Considerations on the Most Recent and Public Hypocrisy of the Marshal Laurent de Gouvion Saint-Cyr
​
All of France has already heard, no doubt, of renowned military commander Laurent de Gouvion Saint-Cyr’s unexpected entrance into the heated political debate which has consumed our halls of power. In two letters circulated among our most prominent serial publications, the good general has seen fit to publicly comment on the ongoing discourse over the proposed national budget, using his name and the weight it carries to influence what is an objectively political matter. This is a development which is greatly disquieting to both myself and many of my fellow officers -- we think it unseemly for a soldier of the Crown to indulge in such behavior, not to mention potentially detrimental to the execution of our serious and solemn duties. Ironically, this is a sentiment which the dear Marshal seems to share (at least officially), as seen by the guidelines he has issued forbidding active duty military personnel from “publicly commenting on political or social matters” despite their personal opinions or beliefs. Therefore, it becomes evident that Marshal Saint-Cyr has done one thing and said another -- is this any way for such a high-ranking general to acquit himself? Are we, the rank-and-file officers of His Majesty’s royal army, expected to hold our tongues whilst our superiors display their allegiances openly and without consequence? I think not.

Make no mistake, I have no wish to mingle in matters much better left in the hands of practiced politicians, and desire nothing more than to abide by the aforementioned guidelines set by the Marshal. However, I only think it just that the man himself be held to his own standards of conduct, and for his open political partisanship to be revealed in the same public forum in which he has spoken not once, but twice. For this reason alone am I willing to commit the same sin of which I accuse him. As to why this is an anonymous critique, I can offer no justification other than my personal belief that I would be punished should my name and rank be affixed to this letter. It is my earnest desire to continue my faithful service to His Majesty, not to have my commission ignominiously rescinded.

In the Marshal’s first letter on the matter of the national budget, he attempts to excuse what can only be seen as political commentary by appealing to the budget’s military relevancy. While one could argue that he merely has the solvency of the nation and the financial well-being of French servicemen at heart, as any good citizen and officer should, I wonder as to the reason why the Marshal felt the need to circulate his letter among the most widely-circulated newspapers if not to loudly lend his name to the budget’s supporters, or to attempt to influence popular opinion. Neither escapes the taint of partisanship, leaving one with the conclusion that the Marshal is in violation of the principle he himself has sought to apply to all active duty military personnel. No matter his personal opinions on the budget, he has no right to attempt to sway the vote one way or another, nor to advocate (even generally) for his ideal fiscal policy as he is attempting to do.

The Marshal’s second letter is even more damning, making not one mention of France’s armed forces throughout its entire body, and thereby shedding the flimsy protection of military relevancy that the first possessed. Instead, Marshal Saint-Cyr lends his quill to a general indictment of the Church’s argument against the budget as well as a rather peculiar examination of the property rights established by our nation’s Charter. Not only does he effectively endorse the budget (“I beg the members of both chambers to speedily pass a budget for France”), a highly inappropriate and political act, he also seems to have assumed the mantle of ultimate political mediator, espousing a desire to “calm the passion” that debate over the budget has produced. On what basis has the good general seen fit to take up this role, and for what reason does he so obviously seek to mire himself in the realm of politics whilst immediate matters of peace and security demand his attentions in the south? While Marshal Saint-Cyr’s behavior may be inappropriate, his hypocrisy is nothing less than disgraceful.

Let it be known that this loyal officer does not believe it right for any officer to engage in political matters while wearing the uniform, whether he be a Marshal or a lowly sergeant. With this in mind, I do not intend for this piece to be construed as support or criticism of the proposed national budget, for it is not the place of the soldier to comment on such things -- we obey the orders we are given and execute them, nothing more. Marshal Saint-Cyr should acknowledge his transgressions in this regard and step back from public affairs to resume his duties as a soldier, or else he should resign his commission post-haste and seek election as a deputy to the Chamber where his political leanings might be more appreciated.
​
Signed,
A Loyal Officer of the Crown​
 
Last edited:
((Small comment on the article regarding the Marshal, circulated to those papers)).

In Defense of the Marshal.

Let it be known that the Marshal who were critised is indeed a member of the Chamber of Peers. As a Peer it is his duty to be part in voting over proposals regarding taxes and an essential part of the Legaslative Power. This is written in the Charter. In that regard it is in his full rights to take part in the debate.

((And that is literally the truth. Look up the Charter, the chamber of peers and the historical person)).
 
Last edited:
((Private letter to @ThaHoward.))

Salutations,

I am indeed distressed that the budget may be held up. I have tried to gently persuade the politicos to move on the budget quickly. We mustn't have monies for pensions or for defense held up. I will continue to do what is required as a Peer for the betterment of France, and to remind certain elements that there are some issues above politics and faction.

Sincerely,
M. Saint-Cyr
 
Chamber of Deputies, Paris
Debate on the Budget of 1815

The Deputy for the Gers, after hearing the latest diatribe from the Deputy of the Seine, took it upon himself to whip up the last remnants of his oratory for the night to carefully untangle the web of lies that were sputtered by the young deputy, whose last lines of rhetorical defenses had been breached earlier in a shining testimony to the most acute need for educational reforms.

“Monsieur le Président,

I must beseech you to be patient, for yet again; the old Bishop will have to bore the Chamber in, what I am now led to believe, a quite futile but eminently necessary correction after the previous speech pronounced by the Deputy of the Seine.

Let me first reiterate that at no time have I ever said that the King, his government or the State would take more land from the Church. While my mind is old, I would fail to see the possibility for such a thing, given that the Revolutionary Government already spoliated the Church of its earthly possessions. For the education of the young Deputy of the Seine, who I assume derive his political tenets from the Bonapartist propaganda he involuntarily was submitted to in his upbringing, let me reassure him that there is quite nothing left to seize, which settles the question.

Secondly, I have never based my arguments on the legality of such sale. Indeed, the said lands are now the property of the King. It has never been disputed. But let me ask the Deputy of the Seine a question. If his father was to murder several of his neighbour and pillage their homes and estates, would he feel a little tickling of his conscience upon inheriting the profits of such infamy upon his father’s death?” My point has always been on the morality of a sale which, is quite simply, devoid of any moral justification.

I am quite puzzled about the view in which our esteemed colleague keeps the population, for he certainly assimilates them to the happy accomplices of the crimes committed against the Church. He certainly remembers the reaction of the people from the high perch of his cradle, which is quite a feat of the mind.

I also keep hearing from the Gentleman opposite that we are in the middle of a Reversion to what he calls the Ancien Régime. While I do support the return to the most righteous order in the affairs of the Government, I must remind him that the Monarchy has led France to the highest peaks of glory. It took the Usurper only a decade to leave her destitute. One might say that what is ancient might not necessarily be bad when compared to the track-record of the novel. As regards the War reparations, I stand assured that there must be better ways for its repayment than jeopardizing the moral stature of France by resorting to sinful propositions.

Speaking of ancient, I will certainly not hold him rigour from his latest quip about my age. I shall however warn him, that if he deems me too old to adopt the winds of change, he is grievously unfair to his Majesty the King, who by my quick calculation, is several years my senior. Like I said, I am quite certain the Deputy for the Seine meant no offense.

I welcome the lecture of my own colleague about the depravities he sees all around him. Should he be aware of aristocrats living in sinful ways, I pray him to let me know so I can certainly denounce such misconduct. As for the Church needing to be content and not greedy, I will remind him that far from asking these lands to be returned fourfold to the Church as the Scriptures prescribe, my position has been one of opposition to the dilapidation of this patrimony. If that is the definition of greed for our colleague, then he is quite inexperienced in the ways of the world.

Finally, I will inform the esteemed colleague that if I am one of the wealthiest deputies, then this Assembly is quite bankrupt. I believe it must be practical for him to invent me some riches as to fit the mold of his preconception, but I am simply a man of the people, and we, men of the Gers, seek not earthly riches but the eternal salvation of our soul.

Merci, Monsieur le Président.
 
((Private - @m.equitum))

Letter from the Bishop of Montauban to the Prince of Polignac​

Votre Altesse,

I was quite humbled upon receiving a letter from such an esteemed person as yourself, that it took me the best of two days even to pen the beginning of an answer to your most excellent questions. The inquiries which you confided to the paper delineate the finest of minds, and it certainly took me many prayers to find answers worthy of their wisdom.

Let me first being by saying that I do not have a window set upon men’s hearts and souls. Only the Almighty God himself can judge the content of one men’s heart and the purity of his motives. We, mere mortals, are left with our understanding of God’s commands and are tasked with living a virtuous life, rejecting the temptation of sin, which can take many forms and disguised as to look even palatable and desirable.

Therefore, while the views I have expressed in the Chamber of Deputies are, I am quite confident, shared by the vast majority of the population, I must object quite vividly to the notion of any forms of official directives coming from the clergy upon state affairs. We priest are merely guides, and to proceed in such a fashion as to dictates one’s vote would certainly cast us of a very different cloth.

It is up to every man to look at the policies proposed, to gather information about them and to ask himself, in the tribunal of his own conscience if he feels them to be worthy and honourable, or if he finds them distasteful and sinful.

In these days were compromise is being preached by men of many political aspirations, I stand forth to my personal belief that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.

Let me conclude this humble letter by hoping not to have let you down in your own thoughts on these important matters. Should you wish to discuss these issues further, it will be my pleasure to render myself available for discussion at your convenience.

Avec vous dans la Foy,

Henri-Charles Victorin du Bourget
Bishop of Montauban.
 
ThaHoward said:
((Small comment on the article regarding the Marshal, circulated to those papers)).

In Defense of the Marshal.

Let it be known that the Marshal who were critised is indeed a member of the Chamber of Peers. As a Peer it is his duty to be part in voting over proposals regarding taxes and an essential part of the Legaslative Power. This is written in the Charter. In that regard it is in his full rights to take part in the debate.

((And that is literally the truth. Look up the Charter, the chamber of peers and the historical person)).
Click to expand...

((Small comment on the comment regarding the article on the Marshal, circulated to the press))

A Comment on the Defense of the Marshal
​
Let it be known that, while indeed a member of the Chamber of Peers and thus entitled to be involved in voting on proposals regarding taxation and the like, the Marshal had no need to make his political opinion known to the entire nation, let alone to approach the most prominent newspapers in France to ensure his words were heard far and wide. Having done so, the Marshal is in violation of the very restrictions which he himself laid out for the soldiers of France to abide by. I will now quote the pertinent passage in its entirety, so that the man I am addressing -- and the citizens of France -- might better understand it:

"While on active duty, all enlisted soldiers and their officers are to refrain from publicly commenting on political or social matters. While we all have our opinions, and may have even penned them publicly before, while you wear the uniform and are deployed in the King's service you will kindly refrain from making public such opinions. The military must stand above these debates, in service of King and of France."
​
It is true that Marshal Saint-Cyr resides in the Chamber of Peers, and thus is afforded all the privileges invested in that body; this is a point I do not dispute, and one which I am thankful the author has seen fit to mention. However, it is also true that Marshal Saint-Cyr is an officer in the French Royal Army who is currently on active duty, deployed in the King's service to bring order to the south of France. While I would be perfectly understanding -- as would, I expect, most others of sane and rational mind -- if the Marshal had privately expressed his opinions on the budget to his colleagues, in making his views public he stoops to the level of a base politician and soils his uniform with blatant hypocrisy. Surely all must recognize this as true?

Signed,
A Loyal Officer of the Crown​
 
(Private letter to the King - @99KingHigh)

WGa2d4D.png

To His most Christian Majesty, the King​


Your Most Gracious Majesty,

I write to you on this day in regards to the subject of the General Staff in which you have decided to impose on the army for the betterment of its training, officers and efficiency. In my now long life, I have served three kings before I served your Majesty, all of them related to me by blood, all of them who I would give my life for, just like I would give my life for you, your Majesty. You are not only my King, you are my blood, and as such we share a bond that is greater than any other, therefore our friendship and love shall never be in question.

It is due to this that I now write to you. I have served in the military my entire life, first under your Grandfather, Louis XV, where I served during the Seven Years War. After which I served your older brother who made me Colonel général de l'infanterie in 1780, one of the proudest moments in my life and the first to hold such an honour in 40 years, and the only one since.

Your Majesty has always had loyal support amongst his family and the nobility, and many of us have bled and given our lives for you. The creation of the General Staff, while no doubt it can improve the efficiency of the military, the duty of the Minister of War to select the chief of the General Staff can by no doubt cause greater rift. It must therefore be your Majesty and your Majesty alone who decides upon the first to hold such an honour in your reign and the restored monarchy. Not the decision of a Minister while the politicians argues and fights amongst themselves. Your Majesty has decided in his government to appoint men of every faction, a compromising move which has allowed the government to gather wide support on my issues, the budget aside.

The selection of the first Chief of General Staff is therefore the most important to signal the new tides within both the government, and the kingdom as a whole. It is therefore that I plead with your Majesty to appoint a member of the old aristocracy, one who has always served you and the family, even if it be one from the family. Such as your brother or nephews. The Minister of War himself is a man who was made during the tyrants regime. As such in the continued spirit of unity, and that of your Majesty’s policies, an older member is advised for the position as Chief of General Staff. Not a man who was made by Napoleon, or a man who has only risen recently. Sadly there are so few left in France who has not garnered criticism and as such I fear that your Majesty may be in a tough position to find an agreeable candidate. Angoulême may be one of the few worthy of this position, who would not split the waters.

I plead with your Majesty to take charge and direction in this matter, not to let the Minister decide upon the first candidate. For the tranquility, peace, prosperity and stability of your Kingdom, our family and the Crown, select a man of respect from the nobility. One that may work with the Minister of War in a show of unity, rather than a show of partisanship and selection of a political creature. Your Majesty more than ever needed honest, true and loyal council, France stands at the edge of the cliff as it has often done before, but we must stand firm just as Charles VII against the English.

As always, I along with the rest of my family, stand at your Majesty’s service should you so decide to call upon it.


As always, your loyal cousin
- Louis Joseph, Prince of Condé
 
Having used all means that could somehow create resolve the problem with the budget, his letter to the President of the Council left unanswered, the Duc de Saint-Aignan very reluctantly casts his vote in the Chamber. Then he stands up and speaks.

((Chamber of Peers - Debate on the Budget 1815))​

"Monsieur le President de la Chaimbre des Pairs."

"While I can only with greatest disdain vote against a budget drafted by the member of the cabinet, especially Duc de Richelieu, a man I greatly respect... Nevertheless, I cannot support it, as it does not correspond with neither my moral convictions nor with the principles of legality that His Christian Majesty has charged me to defend."

"During the years of the revolutionary and bonapartist tyranny the men of the Church became victims of most vile abuse. Priests were killed and thrown into prisons and intimidated into breaking the holy vows, monasteries and convents were plundered and their property robbed. Now that the rightful government has been resotred, its moral obligation is not to bless such heinous crimes, but to correct the wrongs of the past, demonstrate that law, order and justice have returned to France, demonstrate the difference between the cabinet of the Most Christian King and the previous regime."

"However, the budget proposed to these Chambers does not correspond with such principles. It suggests that the forests, that were stolen from the Church during the revolution and are now part of national property, are to be sold from auctions - and yet no guarantee is given that the Church would receive any compensation for these woods and many harms caused to it by the sans-cullotes. Such approach is not only lacking in fairness, it is also not pragmatic, since it is clear that such decision would cause great harm to the ties between the Altar and Throne, the two sacrosacnt entities that should always stand together, One must not forget that Roman Catholicism is the state religion of France and HIs Christian Majesty is a Catholic monarch and a defender of the faith and a first son of the Holy Mother Church. And if a son would let his mother to be defiled, it would cause only great discord in the family,"

"For this reason I cannot endorse the adoption of the budget. While the matter does not relate directly to my office, I believe that it is my duty not only as a Peer of France, but as Minister of Justice, to warn of the сonsequences of such decision. For, as the esteemed President of the Council has said, ignorance of the rule of law leads to great harm for the Kingdom - and by not seeking redress for the clergymen for what has been illegally and violently seized for them, we undermine the legalistic principles that the state should be based on, and the right to property that should be respected in every civilized society."

"I must express pity that my respectable colleague, Duc de Richelieu, has not chosen to discuss his plans regarding the budget with the other ministers of the royal Council, before presenting them to His Christian Majesty, so that such a situation could be perhaps prevented."

"Therefore, since His Christian Majesty has chosen to create the two Chambers with the function of consulting and advising his Crown on the legislation presented for its analysis, I believe that, as a Peer of France, I would vote against this budget. Should not the assurances regardiing future indemnities towards clergy - indemnity that may happen not even now, but that should happen one day, - be issued by responsible persons or should not I receive an affirmative Royal command to take a different course of action, I would have to continue to defending the idea that the remedies as stated above should be promised."

- SAINT-AIGNAN

Lustration of Public Offices Act: Oui
The Oath of Allegiance Act: Oui
The Loyalist Pensions Act: Oui
The Budget: Non

[Peer of France]
[Minister of Justice, + 1 PP]
 
Last edited:
Eid3r said:
((Private - @m.equitum))

Letter from the Bishop of Montauban to the Prince of Polignac​

Votre Altesse,

I was quite humbled upon receiving a letter from such an esteemed person as yourself, that it took me the best of two days even to pen the beginning of an answer to your most excellent questions. The inquiries which you confided to the paper delineate the finest of minds, and it certainly took me many prayers to find answers worthy of their wisdom.

Let me first being by saying that I do not have a window set upon men’s hearts and souls. Only the Almighty God himself can judge the content of one men’s heart and the purity of his motives. We, mere mortals, are left with our understanding of God’s commands and are tasked with living a virtuous life, rejecting the temptation of sin, which can take many forms and disguised as to look even palatable and desirable.

Therefore, while the views I have expressed in the Chamber of Deputies are, I am quite confident, shared by the vast majority of the population, I must object quite vividly to the notion of any forms of official directives coming from the clergy upon state affairs. We priest are merely guides, and to proceed in such a fashion as to dictates one’s vote would certainly cast us of a very different cloth.

It is up to every man to look at the policies proposed, to gather information about them and to ask himself, in the tribunal of his own conscience if he feels them to be worthy and honourable, or if he finds them distasteful and sinful.

In these days were compromise is being preached by men of many political aspirations, I stand forth to my personal belief that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.

Let me conclude this humble letter by hoping not to have let you down in your own thoughts on these important matters. Should you wish to discuss these issues further, it will be my pleasure to render myself available for discussion at your convenience.

Avec vous dans la Foy,

Henri-Charles Victorin du Bourget
Bishop of Montauban.
Click to expand...

(( @Eid3r -- Private ))

9WmU6GU.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back