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

[Lyonessian]

The sun drew the most fascinating shadows in the schlössel's walls, and Hélène had awoke in good spirits. She greeted the servants in a more pleasant way than usual; using a type of broken German, half newly acquired, half owing to M. Calhoun's tutelage from decades ago - he was a nasty man with a temper, that she could notice even being so young, and somehow he formed the image of these Germans and their descendants in her mind. Damn these thoughts! She embraced that broken German, and the pretty housemaid's smiles served only as a confirmation she could achieve some peace in Vienna. Someday, somehow.


Mon cher ami,

I have delighted in your correspondence, as always. It brings me joy to see your simpler passions be fulfilled in life again, even if under the distressing conditions they had to come about. However, I do consider my Jean-Paul: would you not let it go? Was this your fate fully thrown to the winds the moment the cursed revolution began, or did you have the agency I seemed to expect from such a man? Forgive me; my words are too passionate, but they do reflect my mullings over the subject. I hope to not burden your days with thoughts of my feelings, yet here am I, doing just so. I simply miss you.

Nevertheless, things have proceeded in the usual fashion. Isidore misses you more than I do, I suspect. He has been swayed by moods more frequently since we occupied our new home. I do suspect this has also to do with the usual temper of the age. He still obeys, however; accompanying me to the balls, taking in the different airs of Vienna. The soirées have been of a different sort. Count Schönborn and wife have met me and Isidore in one of them; he asked of you, I nearly teared up, and it proved a great manner to draw them into a more private conversation - the matter of it should be clear to you, since we have discussed this in Paris.

It takes time to acclimate to the Austrians and their manners, particularly when we are, in full, people of the Languedoc, with such a passion and sprightly demeanor. Language has not been such a trouble; as expected, the Austrian nobility has satisfactory command of French, and I have been able to pick up some German words from the émigré court, a few of them who even recall the days at Frohsdorf.

My own correspondence goes well. I take care of your aspirations, as always. Doubtlessly, I expect, some of your political affiliates have already given you note of the King's passing of the Legitimacy's command to the Comte de Paris; I hope these news bring you joy since I could, in our last days together, sense in you the doubt and relief you had over the future of Fusion. Our friends in France remain steadfast on their resolve. Worry not over our common objectives, even if my own methods may differ from yours.

I shall drone on my thoughts no longer, my love. You remain, as always the foremost object of my affection. I hope to receive another letter from you soon, for your scribbles on the pages are the sacraments I take, and lose myself in.

Love,
H.L.​

---

On the same day, a set of instructions also left the schlössel addressed to M. Cahuizac, former prefect of the Aude, and a couple of old friends in the parishes:

Vote: Conservative (non-manifesto)
President: Vallée (write-in)

[SAD!]
[Aude]

 

[99KingHigh]

Voting closed. Update whenever, I'll try and keep it on the shorter side.

 

[m.equitum]

To the Prince de Rohan

((@Michaelangelo))

((@DensleyBlair))​

Most High and Potent Prince, ​

I should be pleased by way of this letter to introduce to you its esteemed bearer, the Vicomte de Bessin, who has communicated to me a desire to make your acquaintance. ​

​

You will, I am sure, be familiar with the Bessin name, on account of the viscount's long service to the former regime. I regard the viscount as a dear friend, and upon his request to be introduced to you, I have written this letter unreservedly, knowing Bessin to be a man of upright and honest character, and of considerable ability and achievement. ​

I bring to your attention forthwith certain political considerations which the good viscount is likely to broach should you agree to meet: to wit, the matter of preserving legitimism within the framework of the present republic. I am myself intrigued as to your opinion on the subject, and hope to benefit from your views at the occasion of our next meeting. As ever, veuillez agréer, monsieur, l’expression de mes sentiments distingué.​

​

​

​

 

[99KingHigh]

Chapter 2: Liberté, égalité, fraternité
(March 1867 - July 1867)

​

The Republic, attained by force and then by plebiscite, proceeded in the spring towards the challenge that had damned the Second Republic. Memories were long, and those républicains de la veille still remembered with grave apprehension the républicains du lendemain and their flimsy fealties. To accomplish the Republic, and then assert it as the irrevocable polity of the nation, required not only the institution of democracy but also the popular sanction of its republican conditions. Failing this qualification threatened to invite reaction, for the looming presence of the notables ensured that a competing vision of political organization always remained at hand, patiently awaiting its substitution back into power. Certain advantages, however, could be employed to arrest the apparition of 1852; the name of Bonaparte, the municipal “sixty-five,” the disgrace of the monarchy, the removal of royalist prefects, and the general fear of clerical reaction. And if dangers arose that threatened to revive a party of order, such as the assassination of La Marche, they were excised without hesitation. Such was the fate of the revolutionary Left, crippled in the April repressions; Bonaparte would not allow his movement another humiliation by its least devoted attachés. He purged the Republican Union of its impurities, and placed it on a course glowing with moderation. Throughout the country, local electoral committees formed under the distant, if diligent, oversight of Charbonneau. Under his leadership the electoral lists were beyond reproach, the republican conquest of France an inevitability.

The army receives its colors. ​

The coalition of the third estate that scored its electoral triumph in the National Assembly as well as in many mayoral, municipal, and departmental elections deserves its fair analysis. In one sense, the cause of the notables' defeat was obvious. The Vicomte de Meaux summed up the reasons in a short sentence: “We were monarchists and the country was not.” The peasants in Haute-Loire, Ardeche, or Seine-et Marne feared the direction of the Restoration—absent the indefinite power of the Liberal Union, they worried about the return of the tithe and feudal rights. They were determined to defend the egalitarian society based on the Civil Code, and found allies among ‘the new layers of society.’ The republican lists appealed to the upper middle classes right down to the peasantry, the latter of which formed the ‘infantry of the Republic.’ A significant section of the well-to-do bourgeoisie from the banks, business, and industry were in happy acquiescence, such as Léon Say, Henri Germain, the founder of the Crédit Lyonnais and representative from the Ain, Dorian, an iron-master from the Loire, Raymond de la Rhone, an arms manufacturer, Maginin, an iron-master from Cote-d'Or, and Ferray, the paper-maker from Essonnes. Dubochet, a former carbonaro who had managed to attain the status of a great magnate in the gas industry, was the poet of the Republican cause; he put his mansion in the faubourg Saint-Honoré at the disposal of the republican committee. Even the radical republicans did not fail to address themselves favorably to the “real ruling classes, that is, those who think, who work, and who amass wealth and know how to use it judiciously, liberally, and in a way profitable to the country.” They took the view, shared with the President, that their entry into the Republic in conformity with the “traditions of the bourgeoisie of 1789 and 1830” would mend the antagonism between capital and the workforce. From the upper middle classes several “producers” went over to the Republic, those who saw no contradiction between devotion to order and faith in progress, who remained devoted to liberal optimism and expounded a political view that proclaimed an upsurge of the economy improved everyone’s condition, and that it was best to forge an open society that rewarded talent and ability.

Monet, the Stream of Robec at Rouen​

Even so, it would be incomplete to attribute to this social section responsibility for the republican advance, for if their views on the Church diverged, they were just as likely to prefer the républicains du lendemain. Thus they must be distinguished from the ‘new social stratum,’ a vague ‘new strata’ that stretched from the small-scale industrialists, the merchants and the liberal professionals to that enormous ‘virtually bourgeois’ mass squeezed between the obvious middle-class and the working or peasant population and consisting of self-employed craftsmen, small building contractors, clerks, junior civil servants, and especially, shopkeepers. This extremely diverse social band was animated by common aspirations, principally the desire for social advancement (and here all faith was placed in education), and the desire for political station, which was expressed through their effective seizure of the local assemblies by democratic expression. Within the municipal councils and the general councils an entirely new set of people, empowered by universal suffrage, began to establish themselves. The nobles, the grande bourgeoisie, the notables, and the landlords were succeeded by the party of chemists and veterinary surgeons. At long last, lawyers, doctors, and teachers had their revenge on the “conservative society” of the chef-lieu. They liked to distinguish themselves from the latter, and claimed representation of the common people, for they were very much better equipped to satisfy their collective aspirations than the conservative landed gentry.

318, Republican Union lists (17 democ-socs, 131 radicals, 177 moderates)
139, pro-manifesto conservatives, républicains du lendemain (of various shades, liberal royalists, etc.)
108, non-manifesto conservatives (of various shades, Catholic legitimists, etc.)​

The alliance between the section of the upper middle class, the “new strata,” the working people of the towns, and the countryside carried the victory. The support of the peasantry, however, could not be taken for granted. In some areas the peasantry had a revolutionary past; in 1850, in the south-east and the Midi, they had voted for the social democrats. But apart from the hotbeds of social radicalism and the reservoirs of legitimist loyalty—western France, the eastern fringes of the Massif Central—the rural areas desired neither revolution nor reaction. Domadeaux realized that it was essential to establish the Republic upon their loyalty, even with the safeguards of the sixty-five prejudicing the towns. He managed to create the image of a Marianne who was both wise and fraternal, conservative and egalitarian; this reassured the small and middling landowners without humiliating them. Through their symbolism, as well as by the Bonapartist label, they commenced the ‘town hall revolution’ that crippled the influence of the traditional notables. They succeeded in raising fears of clerico-royalist reaction, celebrated the liberation of mayors from prefectoral appointment, and demanded free, secular, education and universal military suffrage to end the exemptions enjoyed by the middle class. L’Univers, somewhat in despair, wrote: “The rural population, the country’s reserve, hitherto intact, has now been tapped.” The workers, meanwhile, formed only a contributory element. While loyal to the Republic, the industrial proletariat remained very much a minority, and socialist militants were effectively silenced by the April suppressions. In any case, the workers voted for the advanced republicans, the radicals, and only rarely ventured further (Bonhomme in the Seine was the limit of electoral radicalism). In Paris, the success of four candidates of the radical committee, including Corbon, author of the Secret du peuple de Paris, demonstrated their satisfaction with the republican direction. Yet their social program remained modest, distinguished from the moderates by their rhetorical egalitarianism and by their appeals for a reform of taxation and social meliorism. When forced to pick between a moderate republican and a conservative, the workers tended for the former, even voting for their bosses if he had been won over to the republican cause. Ideological preferences were rising above social antagonism; the myth of the Republic sweeping out the bad taste of the 1850 experiment.

Marianne, upon the crown of tyrants.​

Such was the coalition that made the Republic victorious. Its heterogeneous nature is testimonial to the role of one man, to the political acuity of Bonaparte, to his tactical sense and flexibility, setting the seal upon the union of the third estate. Only the general councils retained a majority for the conservatives, and even that group was subdivided again into Catholics, legitimists, Orléanists, grand notables, rallies, and further shades and overlaps. The Church, while not a political force, was a formidable social one, and it leaned towards the conservative right. Nevertheless, it could not yet advance, preferring to consolidate its position under Bonapartist lenience, rather than invite enmity by associating with the monarchy. If there was any consolation for the conservatives, patching themselves under disparate flags, beyond the representative advantages afforded by the electoral system of lists, it was that men such as Montvicq, Bessin, Rohan, and Polignac retained influence through their wealth and social prestige. Only the prefects and the procurators-general had endured a thorough post-revolutionary purge—the notables retained their integrity and their links with the world of business. Their essential difficulty remained. When the republicans hardly thought of questioning the social order, it was a fearsome task to inspire the majority against revolution, or perhaps more honestly, towards reaction. They managed to rally themselves, haphazardly, for Jean-Michel Antoine de la Vallée, the former Minister of the Marine, but Bonaparte was unassailable, and he carried the day with seventy-four percent of the national vote.

Republican vote by department. ​

-
Everyone who stood is elected. The assembly convenes, elects its Speaker, and should then proceed to proposals. Diplomacy forthcoming over next few days.

 

[Andre Massena]

Domadeaux addresses the Paris chapter of Coalition Napoléonienne during a raucous celebration of the election results.

"As the emperor said to the Army of Italy: 'We have more forced marches to make, more enemies to conquer, more laurels to win, more wrongs for which to claim revenge.'"

 

[etranger01]

The Bonaparte Ministry
​

Chairman of the Council of Ministers - Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte (@etranger01)
Minister of Foreign Affairs - Adelle Pauwels (@Carol-Niko)
Minister of War - Francois Achille Bazaine
Minister of Interior - Jean Francois Domadeaux (@Andre Massena)
Minister of Finance - Leon Say
Minister of Justice - Jules Favre
Minister of Labor and Industry - Henri Germain
Minister of Commerce and Agriculture - Patrice Auberjonois (@Luftwafer)
Minister of Navy and the Colonies - Charles Rigault de Genouilly
Minister of Education and Public Enlightenment - Jean-Eloi Charbonneau (@Fingon888)
Minister of Public Works and Transport - Pierre Sarrien (@Jackbollda)

 

[ThaHoward]

Jean-Bernadon Sémen Clary's first speech. National Assembly.
​

"Citizen-Representatives of France,

"This is truly a day of historic gravity. Not only do this mark the first truly representative body since the Tyrant's fall, but also a democratic assembly that reflect all of France; our General Will; Popular Sovereignty. For the first time since 1850 we have had a free and universal election, our National Aspiration, Democracy. Now we must maintain our Republic from the excesses of extremism. Citizens, we have a sacred duty to represent all of France; our mandate is sacred that of National Sovereignty, and not false divine right.

... now we must elect a President to this National Assembly. A position of great responsibility, to represent all French and safeguard our institutions ... one man come to mind. A fellow Citizen of principle and great integrity. A man who sat in the Chamber of Deputies for years without end and advocated for a liberal-kingdom, universal suffrage, and a liberal-democratic society. He advocated tirelessly for legalistic and democratic reform.

... it goes without saying that I in discussion with fellow representatives in the Republican Union propose our candidate as the Speaker of the National Assembly: Olivier Émile Ollivier! Vive la France! Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité!"

 

[Carol-Niko]

Adelle Pauwels
(Minister of Foreign Affairs)​

(Private -- @99KingHigh)

From the Office of the Minister

Lucien-Anatole Prévost-Paradol
Citizen of France

Monsieur,

It is my honor to present this commission to the ambassadorship of the United States of America to you. I know fully that you possess a patriotic heart to represent France capably in that luscious nation. I eagerly await your reply.

Yours,
Adelle Pauwels
​

Édouard Alphonse
Citizen of France

Monsieur,

It is my honor to present this commission to the ambassadorship of the Papal State to you. I leave in your capable hands the delicate task of reattaching the deep bond between the Holy See and the Republic through the reestablishment of the Concordat of 1801. I know that you will not fail France in attaining this supremely desired reunion. I eagerly await your reply.

Yours,
Adelle Pauwels​

Charles-Jean-Marie-Félix
Citizen of France

Monsieur,

It is my honor to present this commission to the ambassadorship of Great Britain to you. Once you have reached that luscious nation, notify the British on our willingness to discuss the topic of free trade. Reassure them of our pleasant relations and the unforgettable attachment of the Republic to Albion. I eagerly await your reply.

Yours,
Adelle Pauwels​

 

[99KingHigh]

Supplement 6: Eldest Daughter

Though fusion provided the political framework of the Third Restoration, French society as a whole was not mollified by recourse to national royalism or anti-revolutionary repression. These measures were certainly impressive to elites and effective in subduing insurrection, but among the popular classes it was questionable whether such a program could score enduring acquiescence. Devoid of revolutionary-revisionist designs, or an innovative program of reaction, the Restoration depended on the Catholic Church as the centerpiece of its ideology. This was evident enough from the Lièvremont laws, which had embedded the Church in French education, and by the Catholic reputation of its consequent institutions, such as the Superior Council on Public Instruction. The de-secularisation of French society therefore was the self-evident outcome from the inevitable alliance between Church and Throne. Clerics were predominantly legitimist, even if their parishioners were not, and this Bourbon adherence accelerated the satisfied (if somewhat disappointed) clergy to buttress the regime. State officials and clerics inaugurated and sanctified railway stations and royalist monuments; civil authorities reciprocated by presenting themselves for the sanctification of new and restored churches, such as the first stone of the new cathedral in Marseille. Despite the attainment of these strategic coalitions, Catholic political elites retained a harsh pessimism that projected empty pews and rampant amorality onto the masses. Clerico-legitimists went further, and thought the status quo corrupted the Church as liberal parliamentary governments gave it superficial support without undertaking the Moral Order. They presumed popular secularism was imminent unless a determined program of social reconstruction could rescue the Kingdom from modernity. Yet the fatalistic projections of Catholic elites should neither obscure the upturn in Catholic observation nor Catholic activity. The decoration of French institutions in Church benediction was not a cover for growing disbelief. In fact, the formal representation of a Catholic mission in official discourse came to predominate the royalist ideology, and bound the devout closer to the Monarchy. But the Catholic revival was also a precursor to a less sanguine outcome: the gross polarization of French society.

Mgr Pie, the Bishop of Potiers, asserted that “Just as the Church is a monarchy...so each diocese is a monarchy of which the chief is the bishop, the bishop alone, under the dependence of the universal pastor.” This was no exaggeration. The arrival of a new bishop into his episcopal city was an occasion of celebration and pomp, worthy of a supreme holiday. They made clear their new power by giving religious processions, once closely controlled during the June Monarchy as to not offend Protestant and anticlerical sentiment, an official character. The Prefect of the Aisne warned his deputy that a bishop could “either be an excellent auxiliary or a serious embarrassment.” In this regard they therefore formed a vital component of the church-state structure, and the Monarchy took care to promote appropriate candidates. Generally, the government appointed ultramontane bishops, though the majority of bishops retained misgivings about the further extension of Papal centralization. Restoration appointments also reversed the trend away from aristocratic bishops and accelerated the shift towards peasant appointments, mostly at the cost of the bourgeoisie. Compared with the June Monarchy, the change in the social composition of the French bishops can be observed by noting that 23 percent of French bishops were aristocrats (up from 14 percent), 40 percent were bourgeois (down from 41 percent), 13 percent were petite bourgeois (down from 17.9 percent), and 24 percent were peasants (up from 17 percent). Nevertheless, by the time of their appointment most bishops were assimilated into the ruling class of notables. Immersed in the service of diocesan administration or seminary teaching and therefore distinguished from most parish priests, the bishops developed a tendency for administrative conservatism and parochialism. For example, they shirked the establishment of the Abbe Affre of the Ecole des Carmes as an institution for advanced religious studies, preferring instead to send their best priests to the French seminary in Rome where they hoped to create a romanized clerical elite. The Cardinal-Archbishop of Lyon (and later the Cardinal-Archbishop of Paris), the reactionary Mgr de Bonald, was described as a rather “dull, listless character, of limited intelligence.” Though a favorite of the King, he was extremely unpopular in Paris after his 1863 translation to succeed Mgr Morlot. He had harsh critics in the Paris theological faculty, particularly from the Abbe Maret and his nationalist Gallican party.

The reconstruction of the French clergy, commenced during the First Restoration, continued apace in the Third Restoration. Whereas in 1821 there had been one priest for every 814 inhabitants by 1865 that ratio had eased to one priest for every 700 inhabitants. Clerics were not only more numerous, they were also younger. The Church boasted its ability to identify prospective students in the local primary school and service the ecole presbytere, the essential links between primary and secondary instruction for the sons of peasants and artisans. They also operated some of the most prestigious educational institutions in France, such as the petite seminaries of Notre-Dame-des-Champs, attracting the scions of the haute bourgeoisie and the aristocracy into its corridors. By 1860 only about 12% of diocesan priests were over 60 years old while new ordinations of secular priests outpaced deaths. In the same year there were around 65,000 secular priests, active in 36,000 parishioners and strengthened by 30,000 monks and 130,000 nuns, living in 16,000 religious houses, The 1753 peak of ordinations was again accomplished by 1865. As the shortage of priests left by the Revolution was finally ended, growing selectivity led to an improvement in the quality and commitment of students in the petit seminaire. The next step in preparation for the ministry, the grand seminaire, which the Concordant provided for the establishment of one in each diocese; 33 of them were directed by the diocesan clergy, 22 by Lazarists, 24 by Suplcians, and 10 by Jesuits. The most prestigious institution, its instruction widely imitated, was the Sulpician order in the Place Saint-Sulpice, containing between 7,500 and 9,000 students based on intellectual ability and piety. This instruction inculcated a socio-political outlook into their students; hatred of the Revolution, opposition to “modern ideas” of secularization and social change, and a fervent preference for a further restoration of the Bourbon monarchy. In general, though, the quality of education varied, tending towards the intellectually undemanding, conditioned by the meek cultural levels attained by most students. Discipline and surveillance was ferocious, particularly in the Lazarist orders, where independence of mind was certainly not encouraged. At no stage in the training of the priest was personal curiosity incentivized; instead, the object was to forge a pious, docile, and zealous cleric, forever identified with the suffering of Jesus Christ. Cardinal Lambruschini insisted that such instruction provided for “an elementary and practical character,” warning that a “more extensive education would fail to achieve that goal, because it would not be adapted to the ability of most of those to whom it is addressed, and would be suitable only for the small number of more able students.” The establishment of the Ecole des Carmes was shown as a small sign of growing awareness of the shortcomings of priestly instruction, though bishops remained wary of centralizing ambitions of the archbishops of Paris and were reluctant to send their best priests to that institution. All in all, approximately 20 to 30 percent of seminary students failed to complete their students, drawn away by secular society or alternative ambitions; the remainder proceeded to ordination, appointed to parishes around the age of 25, where they came to view themselves as a special group distinguished from the rest of humanity.

Recruitment was generally easiest in the West, in Flanders, in the Franche-Comte, Massif Central, and segments of the Midi, and harder in central France, in Bourgogne and especially Champagne and Ill-de-France. Population density, celibacy rates, variable access to land, and the sustained impact of missionary activity all contributed to the distinction of discrete cultural zones. Many regions, like the diocese of Montpellier, depended on nearby dioceses to supply it with a sufficient number of priests. Elsewhere, in areas of strong recruitment, most priests came from the countryside. As a result, ‘good’ parishes tended to receive the best priests and the less religious or more radical parishes tended to receive the incompetent, the indifferent, or the plebeian. The distribution of priests was also a matter of Church consideration. In 1840, Paris was divided into 37 parishes, and this was later increased to 46 in 1858. Given that priests could remain in their parishes for decades, most priests hoped to secure a position in the prestigious city centre, and to avoid the chronically underfunded parishes of the suburban working-class. The 1863 inquiries of the Abbey Darboy revealed that while the Paris diocese had one priest for every 2,956 inhabitants, in working-class Montmartre and Belleville the distribution was closer to 4,000 inhabitants. Understaffed and underfunded parishes were doomed to cursory observation of ceremonies, which would only incite resentment against the Church. Similarly unequal distributions existed throughout the cities and towns of France, and there was rising concern that for the first time the demographics of clerical promotion would eventually work against the Church. Younger clerics absorbed this pessimism and became especially attached to the intransigent ultramontane L’Univers. Civil administration, in general, abstained from the interference in the nominations of desservants and vicaires; around 90% of parish priests were therefore movable at their bishop’s behest, though petitions from mayors, councillors, and citizens requesting transfers were not infrequent.

Religious orders, enclosed and contemplative, were another beneficiary of the Church’s revival. The Jesuits, for example, tripled their numbers from 1,209 to 3,632 adherents. More favorably regarded by the public were the ‘useful’ orders, which primarily conducted educational instruction and healthcare. The 1861 census estimated that 14,000 of the 20,000 members of male congregations were teachers. They were heavily concentrated in the under-educated localities in the south and west where literacy was low and the regional teaching culture had not been laicized. But the real resurgence was enjoyed by the female orders, when seven out of every 1000 women in France were religieuses. From less than 13,000 members in 1808 their ranks rose to 90,000 by 1865 with the great majority actively enlisted in their communal congregations. As their priestly brethren, the participants were often adolescent and energized by opportunities for personal fulfillment and self-expression. Orders offered an escape from social norms that might emphasize unquestioning obedience to paternal figures, as well as a means to procure material security and intimate piety. The idealization of chastity supplied additional consolation to the large numbers of unmarried women (one-quarter of the female population over 20) and widows (one-half of the female population over 60). Governed by female superior generals, the Catholic societies formed a vital link between the Church and society as the religious regions (the West, the Massif Central, Loraine, and the Alps) provided sisters for less zealous parishes in Paris, Potiers, Limousin, Charentes, and Provence. As a result, it was common for a higher density of nuns to be found in the irreligious Beauce than in Brittany. In Paris they dominated the bourgeois western quartiers around Saint-Sulpice, and formed a sort of religious ghetto.

While most sections of French society recognized their integrity, secular parts of France in working-class districts were more likely to resist the activities of these bonnes soeurs. They were, however, responding in part to a mass demand for instruction, and the rapid expansion of the teaching order evinces the Church’s capacity to satiate that demand. The religious orders benefitted from the public funding of buildings and plentiful teaching resources; municipal councils repeatedly requested sisters to direct the foundation of girls schools as was their exclusive privilege under the Lièvremont laws. It was their achievement to make an exceptional contribution to female literacy and a closer equality between the sexes. Their grasp could extend down civil society through hospitals, poor relief, education, orphanages, and elder-care, usually with practical assistance from local notables, the local bureaux des bienfaisance, and the parish priests who served as their confessors and spiritual guides. The expansion of female religious orders, augmented by the dissemination of the Marian cult, solidified the ‘feminization’ of the Church. Elites preferred to send their daughters into clerical service, and therefore leadership in strict religious orders were appropriated by cultivated women. The teaching and charitable orders, by contrast, tended to recruit from the better-off sections of the bourgeoisie and the peasantry; poor education was less an impediment to the entry of women into religious orders than for their male counterparts. Louis Veuillot accordingly argued that in the fight against socialism and revolution that there would be a permanent and insatiable need for “teachers, gardes-malades and Petites Soeurs des Pauvres.”

In the work of advancing the ‘Catholic reconquest,’ the Church embarked on an unprecedented wave of church reconstructions or enlargements throughout France. Almost 7,000 churches, nearly a quarter of the total, were built or revised with state encouragement and assistance. As the clergy reflected on aesthetic principles, the neo-gothic and neo-Romanesque styles were judged to be immaculate models of beauty and inspiration worthy of emulation. Bishops appointed in the 1840s and 1850s committed to their neo-gothic art forms, which represented, at least in their minds, the ideals of the age of St. Louis. Leon Gautier, the Catholic historian, affirmed in 1864 that the Middle Ages were the era when “truth and Goodness on earth” prevailed before all. The affirmation of the neo-Gothic style, carried out by the conservative graduates of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, confirmed the lineage of a prized tradition in opposition to secularism. The clergy were not oblivious to the aesthetic force of their monuments; the Bishop of Metz was so dissatisfied with the condition of a church in Aumetz that he withheld appointing a priest until the municipal council voted for funds. However, state subsidies generally flowed to the cathedrals, leaving much of the financial burden in smaller municipalities on local communities. Bitter differences of opinion were often evident between the conservative architects, anxious about the threat to ancient monuments, the clergy, interested in the creation of a practical pastoral and spiritual space, and the municipal officials, worried about costs. The latter concern was not misplaced. In the Vendee, 142 churches were built and 107 profoundly modified; new churches in the 1860s were estimated to cost around 80,000 francs at a time when the building that housed the mairie and primary school might require another 25,000 francs. For priests, especially those with ultramontane sympathies, the embellishment of the temple of God and the spiritual needs of the community were given obvious priority. The object of almost every parish priest was to “spend sufficient money to make the church worthy of the God who inhabits it.” Official subsidies represented about 20% of the total cost of constructing and reconstructing parish churches, although more was provided for prestigious projects. From 1.2 million francs in 1862, the value of the subsidy rose to 5 million francs by 1860—enough to satisfy about 20% of requests. [1] The parish councils (made up of between five and nine members and including the priest and the mayor of the commune, together with devout, local notables quarreled frequently with communal councils. Parishioners very much resented repeated appeals for funds, for the priest would promise all the blessings of those families which made contributions, and threatened “divine vengeance” on the remainder, usually with the accompaniment of a local landlord.

In the battle between good and evil, the distinction increasingly came to depend upon a doctrinal innovation that asserted in matters of faith and morals that the Pope, inspired by God, and thereby protected from error, provided definitive leadership. The systematic expression of Papal authority, licensed by bureaucratic centralization and the communications revolution, ensured the creation of a spiritual response to mount a response to the challenges posed by revolution and modernity. Priests were encouraged to draw upon the lessons of history in their contemporary battle against heresy and secularism, reinventing hagiography and forging new weapons for the intellectual struggle against modernity. Catholic writers adored an idealized rural and hierarchical ‘golden age,’ characterized by law, justice, stability, and harmony. The authority of the Church had been weakened first by Reformation, then by Enlightenment, and then by socialism—each one a step towards the reign of the Anti-Christ. Mgr Delalle summarized this conception as the three negations: Protestantisme, philosophisme, socialisme. Popular anti-semitism, widespread, and supplemented by socialist anti-materialism, condemned the “financial tyranny” supposedly exercised by Jews. Little was done to prevent the publication and preaching of anti-semitic diatribes by the Catholic clergy, as it remained a central feature of the Catholic vision of the universe, providing an essential link between simple prejudice and ideological hatred. A popular catechism asked, ‘Who caused the death of Our Savior,’ to the response, “the Jews, our sins, and the love which Our Lord bears for us.” The Mortara affair in 1858 clarified clerical anti-semitism and enlivened Catholic priests to work for the conversion of Jews. Veuillot and L’Univers did much to accelerate the prejudice, and exercised a direct influence on the virulent anti-semitism of Edouard Drumont.

It was assumed that most problems could be laid before the Revolution, a sort of divine punishment, to which his people and the Church would have to urgently seek atonement. In the presence of moral disorder, the Church needed to reinforce the spiritual infallibility and temporal sovereignty of the Pope. Lamennais had insisted in 1814 that “without the Pope...there is no religion, no society,” and that the ultimate source of life for Europe was pontifical power. Ultramontanes, increasingly supported by the religious press and the parish clergy, deferred to the authoritarian guidance of the Papacy as the essential basis for the community of faith. These precepts had been expounded and politicized already by counter-revolutionary theoreticians, such as Joseph de Maistre. In the aftermath of 1850 the cause had accelerated; the Bishop of Amiens proclaiming that “Rome is the centre of hope for Catholics, it is from Rome that the movement to regenerate human society begins.” To accomplish their ambitions, the Gallican alternative had to be overcome. Archbishops of Paris, on legitimist initiative, drifted from neo-Gallicanism towards ultramontanism, championed by L’Univers against the Sorbonne theology faculty, the Ecole des Carmes, and the seminary of Saint-Sulpice. But neo-Gallican resistance was strong, resisting Papal infallibility and affirming the superior character of the General Council of the Church, but their champions were undermined by Pius IX, who formally condemned the concept of the “liberties of the Gallican church” in 1853. Perfecting the tridentine reforms, he insisted, required the rejection of particularisms through the imposition of the Roman missal and ceremony, as well as removing differences in the mass order. The move was favored by the Vatican Sacred Congregation of Rites and championed in France by ultramontanes like Parisis, Bishop of Arras, the missionary Maris Emmanual d’Alzon, and of course, Veuillot in L’Univers. Between 1849 and 1853, when 15 provincial councils were held, 11 of them declared for the Roman liturgy in favor of diocesan liturgies, all closely aligned with the renewal of vestments and the practice of grand pilgrimages and ceremonies. By the mid-1860s, despite delaying tactics by neo-Gallicans, the “traditional liturgies'' had virtually disappeared. Veuillot encouraged flowers to “without hesitation to attack dogmatic liberalism and Gallican indiscretions with equal intensity.” Most priests appear to have been attracted to the vitriolic language, and were further drawn to the affirmation of the supremacy of Holy Church above compromise. Pius IX was a frequent reader.

The Pope, still safe in his temporal power, hesitated from outright denunciations of the “modern errors.” Instead, he moved through the Civilta Cattolica, the authoritative expression of Papal policy. L’Univers was only the most popular representative of devotional literature, emerging from cheap printing and organizational coordination. In the diocese, pastoral messages were printed and read aloud by parish priests, serving to reinforce the sense of devotion. Catholics were reminded through these outlets that prayer was the strongest weapon in the struggle against Satan. With growing frequency, the Pope announced that regular worship and good works would be rewarded with days of indulgence and the remission of sins. As the communications revolution accelerated, papal efforts at imposing greater uniformity across the Church were facilitated. The visits that required bishops to report in person to the Pope once every five years became a much easier task. In 1862, 300 bishops attended the canonization of 26 Japanese martyrs, while in June 1867, the Comte de Sartiges, the ambassador in Rome, estimated that over 400 bishops hoped for an audience during the anniversary of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. He explained that the intensification of contact between Rome and the provinces of the Church, as well as the triumph of ultramontanism, could be best explained by “the railways, no doubt.” For the first time in history, the Church was becoming truly uniform; the forces of modernity, ironically, accelerating the eternal ambitions of the Holy See.

The exceptionality of Mary, and the sensational proclamation of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, went hand-in-hand with the reforming processes of the Church. This had occurred before 200 bishops in Rome on 8 December 1854, the largest gathering since the Council of Trent. Forever a devotee, Pius had asked in 1851, following the dearth, revolution, and cholera of the mid-century crisis, for the opinions of his bishops. Over 50 French bishops responded enthusiastically, and paved the way for a Papal Bull announcing the ‘reign of Mary.’ Armed with a history of rich representations, the mass production of Mary Immaculate left an enduring impact on Catholicism. Following the Revolution, the revival of Marian shrines was stimulated by the (re)-discovery of statues of the Virgin which had survived the revolutionary disaster, prompting. Thrice-daily recitations of the Angelus and prayers on the rosary became common practice. Sightings were frequent. In 1830, the Virgin appeared to Catherine Laboure at a convent in the rue de Bac, and made two further appearances that year; Mgr de Quelen, the Archbishop of Paris during the June Monarchy, was convinced of the veracity of her vision. The beatification of the visionary in September 1864 crowned Papal sanction onto the potency of the vision. The rapid spread of Marian spirituality was manifested in the dedication and re-dedication of churches and monumental status (usually placed in prominent locations overlooking towns), the naming of children, the creation of Marian religious fraternities, the publication of numerous books and pamphlets, as well as its intrusion into religious instruction. The Virgin appeared again at La Salette in 1846, and again at Lourdes in 1858, sustaining a powerful popular sentiment; the Pope’s decision to extend this vevotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, adopted by counter-revolutionary insurgents, in 1856 was warmly received. The cult, together with the devotion to the Sacred Heart and the crucifix, and the sacrifice they symbolize, contributed to the reconstruction of the faith as well as to the sustained impact of ultramontane Christianization.

In most areas the influence of the clergy reached a peak during the Third Restoration when prosperity allowed for massive church construction, inspiring the devout to take pride in their communities. High levels of religious enthusiasm, practice, and loyalty actually were characteristic of areas in the north and east with good communication, advanced economic development, and high levels of literacy; all conditions that religious sociologists attributed to the alleged “de-christianization,” but in which the ultramontane clergy were ably to build upon missionary zeal. Hierarchical social structures, in which landowners or manufacturers lent support to the Church, was characteristic of these societes d’encandrement. The Church also served as the central focus of community life the bocage areas of Laval and Mayenne, the western part of the Sarthe, in most of Brittany, western parts of Normandy, and the southern Massif Central, afflicted with dispersed settlements, high hedge fields, and poor rural roads; areas also defined by large families, delayed marriage, and sexual restraint lent to familial solidarity and traditional hierarchies, as well as an isolation from the flow of new ideas. Religious particularism, preserved by physical and cultural isolation, flourished among the Bretons, Basque, Catalans, Flemish, German, and French dialects. Though Latin was employed for the religious services and French for business, the local dialect might remain in use for confession and daily intercourse. This was true, for example, in the Flemish-speaking Nord, but also of French-dialects around Lille and other industrial centers. In Central France, such as the Haute-Loire, where parish priests were drawn from the poorly educated, bastions of faith flourished in these “backward” upland areas for their persists were invested with a near-despotic authority over their parishioners. Supporting elites, distributing charity, reinforced clerical influence; the growing numbers of teaching sisters from their patronage enabled Mgr Dupanloup to affirm in 1867 that “young girls are brought up on the knees of the Church.” In the best circumstances, such as in rural Brittany, daily life was consumed with Christian practices and religious observation was practically universal. In many communes, even the mayors deferred to the clergy, attending with required diligence to religious ceremonies, missions, pilgrimages, and processions. In Morbihan and Ille-et-Vilaine the clergy receive regular offerings in kind, almost akin to the tithe, from their parishioners. Western France shared memories of the chouannerie and empowered a domineering clergy; in the south-east, like Gard, Tarn, and Tarn-et-garonne, in the north-east, religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants, and in Alsace, hostility towards the Jews, helped maintain devotional solidarity.

Social elites were not invulnerable to the advance of the Church. They too participated in the process of re-christianization. Accommodation with members of the local and national elites was normally quite easy for the clergy. They replicated their conservative viewpoints and mixed together seamlessly. Major administrative centers and Cathedral cities were the social locale for senior members of the elite to regularly meet the bishop and his leading clerics in effective networking processes. Within aristocratic circles, and certainly among those attracted to ultramonatone and traditional ideas of the social order, the projection of the Christian gentry committed to his patriarchal role had serious appeal. Respect for religion was inseparable from their self-identity, even if many nobles did not regularly attend, or even believed. The conservative bourgeoisie—the landowners, rentiers, businessmen, and sympathetic lawyers and officials—were anxious to provide a model lifestyle to “moralize” their labour forces. When order was threatened by the progress of materialism and secularization the “chief duty of ministers of religion ought to be to preach resignation and calm.” Faith, and fear of judgement, encouraged public engagement. A frenzy of philanthropy consumed the notables; it was considered “good form” to enrol in the Societe de Saint-Vincent de Paul, to attend ostentatious service in fashionable churches, to belong to the conseil de fabrique (the administrator of parish funds), to donate to private chapels, to provide donations for construction and restoration, and to support the clergy with their money and their prestige. In Toulouse, well-to-do families considered themselves, and were regarded, as comprising the “Catholic elite.” Christian teaching legitimized the existing social order and sanctified inequality, and notables expected to enjoy visible manifestations of deference, including leading processions, receiving the processions first, sitting in a prominent position in church, and respectful address. Death was not excluded; funerary arrangements, charitable bequeaths, and memorials offered opportunity for further celebration of social status.

Were they simply more clerical than believing, as Jean Maurain argued? Age played a factor, with marriage marking the line between indifference and religious commitment. Mgr Pie distinguished between the support provided by rich legitimist landowners and the “enriched bourgeois, the entire merit of whom is to give me a good dinner when I visit their parish.” But notables had their own standards. The Marquis de Falendre, mayor of Maheru, decided that the priest was “so uncouth...it is simply impossible to have relations with him.” The Bishop of Seez agreed with the prefect that a breakdown in relations between priest and the most important local family required transferring the offending clergyman. More generally however, the clergy was educated to esteem social hierarchy, and given their dependence on elite benevolence, they were likely to be accommodating.

In the most commercialized areas, however, religious indifference was spreading; the entire diocese of Orleans, for example, was a wasteland of faith (only 7 percent of men and 30 percent of women received Easter communion), and nearby Chartres was not much better. In these areas the parish priest restricted himself to spiritual duties and avoided “interference” in the management of the community. One priest in Loiret complained in 1850 that his parishioners entertain “certain habits linked to religion...they recite prayers, but they do not pray…” Growing absenteeism weakened support for the clergy, as the competing bourgeois rural leadership preferred anti-clericalism. In the Limousin, uneducated populations proved unresponsive to missionary activity, and continued to identify the parish priest with the ancien regime. Between the zones of fervour and those of indifference, there was a large area of intermediate opinion, stretching from the north-east to the south-west, including the Meditteranean coast. In the Var, there were “good parishes,” such as Correns (23% of men and 96% of women were Easter communicants), while a bad parish, like Mazaugunes boasted attendance at 3.5% and 21% respectively. As shown, women were more likely to attend church, and were therefore more vulnerable to clerical influence; women and men therefore became subject to a sexual dimorphism that had them identify with distinctive subcultures. Nationally, approximately 30% of men and over 70% of women were likely to receive Easter Communion, and in those regions of true devotion, virtually every woman was expected to regularly attend mass, make confession, and receive communion, while in the zones of “indifference,” they provided the vast majority of worshippers, along with their children. The feminization of religion was well underway, and the clergy were not despairing of this fact; after all, the women reared the children. They believed they held the keys to France in their hands.

Source: Religious Renewal in France, 1789-1870, Roger Price

 

[Andre Massena]

Jean-Bernadon Sémen Clary's first speech. National Assembly.
​

"Citizen-Representatives of France,

"This is truly a day of historic gravity. Not only do this mark the first truly representative body since the Tyrant's fall, but also a democratic assembly that reflect all of France; our General Will; Popular Sovereignty. For the first time since 1850 we have had a free and universal election, our National Aspiration, Democracy. Now we must maintain our Republic from the excesses of extremism. Citizens, we have a sacred duty to represent all of France; our mandate is sacred that of National Sovereignty, and not false divine right.

... now we must elect a President to this National Assembly. A position of great responsibility, to represent all French and safeguard our institutions ... one man come to mind. A fellow Citizen of principle and great integrity. A man who sat in the Chamber of Deputies for years without end and advocated for a liberal-kingdom, universal suffrage, and a liberal-democratic society. He advocated tirelessly for legalistic and democratic reform.

... it goes without saying that I in discussion with fellow representatives in the Republican Union propose our candidate as the Speaker of the National Assembly: Olivier Émile Ollivier! Vive la France! Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité!"

Deputy Ernest Picard addresses the Assembly

"I second the nomination of Monsieur Ollivier for Speaker of the National Assembly. I implore my fellow deputies to make it so."

 

[Lyonessian]

On the question of prostitution​

An unrecognized enemy haunts the well-being of France in this present age: it is the pratice and conditions associated with prostitution in our cities, towns, harbours and railway stations. The question of prostitution is one which few dare, and are willing, to cast an eye upon. This author hopes to lay the question as honestly as possible, in order to initiate a discourse within polite society regarding the conduct of prostitution in France, its victims, its enablers, and a focused response to the dangers it presents.

The common prostitute, in her nightly walkabout, is seen by few, and taken note of by even fewer, perhaps only her potential clients or the innkeepers of those most destitute neighborhoods. In the practice of vice, she strives for things to remain so. Surely the situation of many of these girls and women have cast them into the pit of unfortunates who must recourse to this activity in order to survive; while her own sins may not be taken lightly, how to condemn blindly one whom this society, calling itself progressive and free, binds in the chains of vice and poverty? What to say of her clients, many of them men of resources and standing, whose speeches are heard equally in the halls of France by day and in the ramshack alcove by night? Would their sin be lesser? Would their position not be condemnable?

The efforts to bring this issue (in metaphor and literal senses both) to the light of day are some which must be attended to. This author has cast upon herself a part of this burden. The question of prostitution is to be attended to by many points of view. Among those, two central issues reign: the moral and the political.

Addressing the moral issue, as perhaps the reader may have already noticed, is not a simple task. There is no doubt that the practice of prostitution presents a moral harm to society. However, one may expand upon this point to cast light on to the conditions which compel the sinner to her sin, and those who would gladly enable her to do so. Herein lies the problem: the common prostitute who night-wanders is one of the lesser culprits of her own situation. Her troubles may come from many situations, familial or societal, and exert pressure on her own agency to decide and behave morally. When presented with such a choice, one wonders just how many of these women would have chosen their current plight. Has the sinful woman not been forgiven, as tells us St. Luke? Just as that prostitute in the Pharisee's abode, thousands of women are imprisoned in a life of wretchedness in France right this moment, bound simply by the chains of debt, poverty, servitude and the wickedness of those who blind themselves to their plight, pushing them into the night, and darkness of sky and soul alike. Should they not be provided the Saviour's presence, upon whose feet their libations and miseries fall to be forgiven?

Where must the blame fall, then? The author does so consider: who could be the agents of such misfortune? The answer is quick. The owner of the bordello reaps incomes from her work, when he or she could have invested such sums in honest enterprise, for instance. The establishment of such organizations in the midst of civilized society is threatening in itself, but it becomes even larger an issue upon consulting on the living and working conditions of these dens. In Paris, the narrow suburban streets and their perches hide alleys with rotten doors and rusty handles, upon which a few gentlemen descend, along with the Sun, and conduct their "meetings" in a manner not distinct from the lowest of criminals. An owner of a bordello in Lyon declares that for her "business" to continue afloat, its wretched girls must have the smallest of allowances, providing little for survival and absolutely nothing for dignity; either for them, or, in some cases, also for their children, who as soon as they can clean a table, find themselves as indentured servants, born into the pit of darkness.

What to say of these clients? They take recourse in the vices of their base instincts and exploit, voluntarily and perhaps even in adjutant manner, those vulnerable women and girls who find themselves unable to find another path from their quandary. The bordello and its shame would not be except for their patronage; the dark cloud of grave sin would not provide cover for the poor or notable alike.

Hence, one must arrive at the political issue to determine if there is a path from this current situation, and what are the requirements of it. There is one thing clear: the greatest sham of this Republic has been to produce the appearance of progress while providing absolutely no improvement to this social ill, or many others, as will be discussed in the near future. While the regime seems to concern itself fully with the corridors of the Louvre and the well-lit salons of West Paris, inviting the provincial into a dazzle, they exacerbate the situation of vice in France by either negligence or cooperation. Negligence, for the masses and their needs are cast aside; cooperation, for one must wonder who are those gentlemen who patronize the activities this author has narrated about.

A course of action to deliver France from this sin would be to promote the widening of opportunities for women and girls, through education and more ample protections for those who must, due to financial hardship, endure the hustle of work. The access to education has only become more important since the Lièvremont reforms; a full revision and expansion of their boons in regards to the women of France is needed, though one must be careful of entrusting these men of current power, the same men who turn a blind eye to women's fates, to attempt and mold the French youth according to their faithlessness and disregard for the idea of social good. As for the provisions in workplace safety and labour rights for women, the legacy of Bessin's reforms is to be expanded upon, similarly to the education system, in order to accompany the changing social realities. During the past decade the wages of men and women alike have provided familial prosperity: it must be our goal to protect such victories.

One warning must be heeded, however: let there be no condoning of the part which the prostitute and her activity play in society. It is one which the laws of God, His Church, and men all equally disown. Provided our God-given free will, it would be a matter for shame in any community. However, the political path to light must recognize that the system of unspoken rewards and incentives pushing these imperfect humans to their disgrace is one which remains, and runs the risk of becoming even more grave in the future, if one is to take seriously the regime's push to deprive our young of morals in their education, coupled with their well-established surrender to the whims of those who have plenty of conditions to protect their own daughters from the fate of whoredom, and seem to ignore all others.

To seek a future with an amelioration of conditions for women, then, is to also ensure that this and other generations may not fall prey to sin and harm. The actions heretofore discussed are of a fundamental sort in solving that. The issue to be resolved finally is how to counteract the current situation of prostitution. In regards to the State, this neglect has been well proven; what is society to do, then? There are initiatives under way which establish exclusive women's shelters in some major cities. They are mostly ran by women themselves, ensuring a proper conduct and providing opportunity for honest work. The shelters are tasked with providing refuge to downtrodden women in whatever situations they may find themselves, with the services of room, board and a service of mediation, done by women with professional experience and connections, who might be able to find them a dignified job.

Limited as they may be, the author expects the raising of questions within this article to call forth the women of France, from Paris to province and salon to village home alike, to take heed of the necessities of our sisters in Christ, and promote by gentle and caring means the attention and action to unburden them from their destitute conditions. The building of a moral France rests upon our efforts: let us rise to it.

Gouges la Française​

---
Her article finished, the Duchesse de Fleury contemplated the gardens. The succcessful notice from the pamphlets commissioned in France arrived earlier that day, setting her mind at ease. The Viennese suburb sparkled in full summer. Isidore rested on the small pavillion. Oh, to be born a man and to be young! To have all this life to savour and take hold of. To rule and command, to enjoy the fullest passions of life. Would womenfolk ever feel this way? Would this summer ever really come?

​

 

[Firehound15]

*Hector de Montvicq rises in the National Assembly*

"There can be no question as to the necessity of this position in ensuring discipline within this chamber. The Speaker of the National Assembly must be a man of immaculate professional distinction, with a background that casts no doubts whatsoever on his capacities to ensure neutrality and the perseverance of good, honest debate in this Chamber. Contrary to what has been suggested by some among us, the Speaker ought not be an individual dedicated to political causes. He must be a person of honest moral character who will ensure that the most serious issues are taken seriously, while giving ample room for debate. While I hold nothing against Monsieur Ollivier, I do not believe his political record addresses these concerns, nor does the speech in favor of his nomination. The first Speaker of this body should be an individual of impeccable credentials who will endeavor to foster a spirit of community among us all. For these reasons, I nominate Charles Ignace Plichon as Speaker of the National Assembly.

"Merci."

 

[Nax24]

*Hector de Montvicq rises in the National Assembly*

"There can be no question as to the necessity of this position in ensuring discipline within this chamber. The Speaker of the National Assembly must be a man of immaculate professional distinction, with a background that casts no doubts whatsoever on his capacities to ensure neutrality and the perseverance of good, honest debate in this Chamber. Contrary to what has been suggested by some among us, the Speaker ought not be an individual dedicated to political causes. He must be a person of honest moral character who will ensure that the most serious issues are taken seriously, while giving ample room for debate. While I hold nothing against Monsieur Ollivier, I do not believe his political record addresses these concerns, nor does the speech in favor of his nomination. The first Speaker of this body should be an individual of impeccable credentials who will endeavor to foster a spirit of community among us all. For these reasons, I nominate Charles Ignace Plichon as Speaker of the National Assembly.

"Merci."

Father Le Roux stands

"I second M. Pilchon for the Speaker position"

 

[99KingHigh]

Émile Ollivier is elected Speaker by the Majority; proceed to legislation.

 

[Firehound15]

ASSORTED CORRESPONDENCES OF THE VICOMTE OF MONTVICQ
~~~
Part Two: 1866-1871 - Fire and Brimstone, Summer 1867
[Hector de Montvicq, trans. James Crawford (2001)]
___________________________________________________________________________________________

((Private - @Cloud Strife)​

Monseigneur,

It is an honor to receive such correspondence, but perhaps also a sign of the complete overturning of our political society. While in better times it ought to have been I introducing myself at the Monseigneur's invitation, it seems that there is less room now for such formalities. The thought saddens me, it must be said. But so too does the thought of what is to come if those Caeasarians do have their way. I know not which is worse--a France without a king, which though it will be hurt by its want of stability, at least preserves the pretenses upon which it has built itself; or a France with a "king" in all but name, whose reign is purely the contrivance of his public reputation and thirst for power, rather than a matter of law and the desire to ensure the tranquility of the whole realm.

I have no disagreements with Your Royal Highness's assessment of our present affairs. While the question of how we might reintroduce monarchy should not be ignored, today's battle is over the spirit of the country itself. Our new Caesar has not yet had ample opportunity to reveal the tenuous foundations upon which his power rests and the choice between radicalism and order will increasingly present itself to him. If he chooses the former course, then I have no doubts that the cause of monarchy will be strengthened at the expense of the condition of the country. If he chooses the latter, then the reverse will occur. The question with which I am currently concerned is how to ensure the best combination of both, such that when monarchy again governs, it will be in a country that is still governable.

As for the Manifesto co-signed by MM. de Rohan and Valée, I must admit that I am increasingly concerned that my emphasis was misunderstood as placing policy ahead of principle. On most matters--aside from that of the Church, which must possess some measure of establishment in any functional French government--there is a great deal of room for negotiation as far as the Manifesto is concerned. My hope had been to avoid the disagreements between the various legitimist parties that exist at the foundations of monarchy, but I am now increasingly convinced that the fusion of the royalist cause must be connected with a fusion within the theory of the monarchy itself.

At this time, the people of France are at the mercy of M. Bonaparte. But if we are truly thoroughbreds, he will be outrun. Indeed, every month in government is another month for his project to become discredited and another of his allies turned against him. If the energies of royalism are not expended before then, I have no doubts that there will someday come a time when the Tuileries will be home to its most appropriate occupants.

Je vous prie de croire, Monseigneur, à l'assurance de mes salutations distinguées,

MONTVICQ.

 

[ThaHoward]

*Hector de Montvicq rises in the National Assembly*

"There can be no question as to the necessity of this position in ensuring discipline within this chamber. The Speaker of the National Assembly must be a man of immaculate professional distinction, with a background that casts no doubts whatsoever on his capacities to ensure neutrality and the perseverance of good, honest debate in this Chamber. Contrary to what has been suggested by some among us, the Speaker ought not be an individual dedicated to political causes. He must be a person of honest moral character who will ensure that the most serious issues are taken seriously, while giving ample room for debate. While I hold nothing against Monsieur Ollivier, I do not believe his political record addresses these concerns, nor does the speech in favor of his nomination. The first Speaker of this body should be an individual of impeccable credentials who will endeavor to foster a spirit of community among us all. For these reasons, I nominate Charles Ignace Plichon as Speaker of the National Assembly.

"Merci."

The Debate on the Speaker of the National Assembly
​

"Monsiuers et Messiuers,

"I rise to answer the latest address by Citizen Montvicq. While we are in agreement the Speaker ought to be a person of immaculate professional distinction, of honest moral character, et cetera, I fail to see how Citizen Ollivier fails to meet those credentials. A lawyer of education and former profession where he was most diligent, at the age of only 22 he was appointed a Commissar, and have ever since the fall of the Second Republic and throughout the Third Restoration had the confidence of his constituency in the Chamber of Deputies and once more in the National Assembly, I fail to see how Citizen Ollivier does not meet your criteria.

"Indeed, as I see it, it is Citizen Montvicq who do not believe in Citizen Ollivier's political beliefs and instead seek to elect one close to his conservative ideology. That is within his rights, however, Citizen Montvicq's hypocrisy is exposed, and he ought to instead be honest that he would rather have a conservateur to represent the old oligarchy of the aristocratic gentry. So is within his rights, but it is unreasonable that he attack the moral character of Olliver. I ask that Citizen-Representative Montvicq come forth and further elaborate on his untactful attacks that should not take place in this sacred Assembly.

"Merci, that would be all."

 

[Firehound15]

LAW ON RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE, 1867
________________________________________________________​

PREFACE.​

The historic church of France is the Church of Rome. From the conversion of Clovis, the majority of our country's people have followed the Church and its moral teachings. It holds an esteemed position in our communities as an institution that unites men of differing social statures. Thus, the unique role of the Church must be recognized formally by the legislative power of France--not to the disparagement of other faiths, which ought to retain certain freedoms of practice, but only to ensure the continued longevity of our national spirit through those institutions that most unite it. Blind animosities cannot be allowed to proceed. The majority faith of France is and ought to remain the Christian Church under the guidance of its Holy Father in Rome.

ARTICLE I.​

The Church of Rome is the Church of France, as it has been for over a millennium. It historically unites the people of France and offers a firm but gentle regulation of our moral climate. It demands good principles of charity, temperance, and love for one's fellow man. Consequently, the Church of Rome under the authority of the Holy Father shall be recognized as the national religion of France. It will be given primacy in the nation's laws and respected as such.

ARTICLE II.​

The right of religious practice, so long as it belongs to the Christian or Judaistic faith in their commonly observed forms, i.e. Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Rabbinism, shall not be abridged. The State shall not intervene against them, demand specific expression except where mandated by the relevant religious authority, appropriate their property, nor impose taxes upon them.

ARTICLE III.​

Annual allowances for religious ministers shall be increased by one-fifth of their current amount. Payment will be guaranteed to such important individuals and the right to redress will be available to all those who do not receive pay through fault of the government, who shall be eligible to apply to a newly created "Bureau on Religious Allowances," which will deliver their back pay.

ARTICLE IV.​

The Feast of St. Francis de Sales, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Ascension Day, Whit Monday, the Feast of the Assumption, the Feast of St. Louis, All Saints' Day, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, and Christmas Day shall henceforth be recognized as public holidays.

 

[Nax24]

LAW ON RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE, 1867
________________________________________________________

PREFACE.​

The historic church of France is the Church of Rome. From the conversion of Clovis, the majority of our country's people have followed the Church and its moral teachings. It holds an esteemed position in our communities as an institution that unites men of differing social statures. Thus, the unique role of the Church must be recognized formally by the legislative power of France--not to the disparagement of other faiths, which ought to retain certain freedoms of practice, but only to ensure the continued longevity of our national spirit through those institutions that most unite it. Blind animosities cannot be allowed to proceed. The majority faith of France is and ought to remain the Christian Church under the guidance of its Holy Father in Rome.

ARTICLE I.​

The Church of Rome is the Church of France, as it has been for over a millennium. It historically unites the people of France and offers a firm but gentle regulation of our moral climate. It demands good principles of charity, temperance, and love for one's fellow man. Consequently, the Church of Rome under the authority of the Holy Father shall be recognized as the national religion of France. It will be given primacy in the nation's laws and respected as such.

ARTICLE II.​

The right of religious practice, so long as it belongs to the Christian or Judaistic faith in their commonly observed forms, i.e. Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Rabbinism, shall not be abridged. The State shall not intervene against them, demand specific expression except where mandated by the relevant religious authority, appropriate their property, nor impose taxes upon them.

ARTICLE III.​

Annual allowances for religious ministers shall be increased by one-fifth of their current amount. Payment will be guaranteed to such important individuals and the right to redress will be available to all those who do not receive pay through fault of the government, who shall be eligible to apply to a newly created "Bureau on Religious Allowances," which will deliver their back pay.

ARTICLE IV.​

The Feast of St. Francis de Sales, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Ascension Day, Whit Monday, the Feast of the Assumption, the Feast of St. Louis, All Saints' Day, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, and Christmas Day shall henceforth be recognized as public holidays.

Father Le Roux rises

"For centuries France and the Holy Church have been entwined. This relationship has been beneficial to all of France, as the Church's charity, educational tools, and skills, have allowed all Frenchmen and women to benefit. Let this Republic recognize that fact, and embrace the Lord's Church as such a beneficial institution, and let it not repeat the dangerous mistakes of the prior Republics and reject it in favor of atheistic and sometimes hedonistic values. I second the proposal by M. Montivq, and I implore all good Catholics in this Assembly to support it as well."

 

[Firehound15]

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION ON APPORTIONMENT, 1867
_______________________________________________________

PREFACE.​

In the pursuit of the principles of representation demanded by the Constitution and the principles it espouses, it is necessary to reorganize the National Assembly in advance of its next election. This is not a decision taken lightly, but one that must proceed if we are to honor our commitment to the principles of fair representation under the law.

ARTICLE I.​

The forty-fourth article of the Constitution shall be struck.

ARTICLE II.​

The forty-third article of the Constitution shall be amended to read "565 seats in the National Assembly shall be elected from among the various departments. All arrondissements will be granted representation."

ARTICLE III.​

A referendum on this amendment will be held prior to the next legislative election, such that the election of 1870 will be conducted according to the new apportionment.

 

[ThaHoward]

LAW ON RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE, 1867
________________________________________________________

PREFACE.​

The historic church of France is the Church of Rome. From the conversion of Clovis, the majority of our country's people have followed the Church and its moral teachings. It holds an esteemed position in our communities as an institution that unites men of differing social statures. Thus, the unique role of the Church must be recognized formally by the legislative power of France--not to the disparagement of other faiths, which ought to retain certain freedoms of practice, but only to ensure the continued longevity of our national spirit through those institutions that most unite it. Blind animosities cannot be allowed to proceed. The majority faith of France is and ought to remain the Christian Church under the guidance of its Holy Father in Rome.

ARTICLE I.​

The Church of Rome is the Church of France, as it has been for over a millennium. It historically unites the people of France and offers a firm but gentle regulation of our moral climate. It demands good principles of charity, temperance, and love for one's fellow man. Consequently, the Church of Rome under the authority of the Holy Father shall be recognized as the national religion of France. It will be given primacy in the nation's laws and respected as such.

ARTICLE II.​

The right of religious practice, so long as it belongs to the Christian or Judaistic faith in their commonly observed forms, i.e. Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Rabbinism, shall not be abridged. The State shall not intervene against them, demand specific expression except where mandated by the relevant religious authority, appropriate their property, nor impose taxes upon them.

ARTICLE III.​

Annual allowances for religious ministers shall be increased by one-fifth of their current amount. Payment will be guaranteed to such important individuals and the right to redress will be available to all those who do not receive pay through fault of the government, who shall be eligible to apply to a newly created "Bureau on Religious Allowances," which will deliver their back pay.

ARTICLE IV.​

The Feast of St. Francis de Sales, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Ascension Day, Whit Monday, the Feast of the Assumption, the Feast of St. Louis, All Saints' Day, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, and Christmas Day shall henceforth be recognized as public holidays.

​

"M.Speaker,

"Citizen Montvicq I have but one question, your proposed law clearly states 'The majority faith of France is and ought to remain the Christian Church under the guidance of its Holy Father in Rome.' I have this question for you. As the law points out, the Catholic Church is the majority Church, and no laws or proposals have been made to forcefully convert good Catholics, why do we then need a legalistic reform to make it so? Is your belief in the state so absolute that only the State can define what is and what can be the majority creed? If we pass this law or not, the majority faith of France will remain Catholic. However, I and my colleges place our faith in the individual. It is up to them to decide what makes up the majority faith. The Catholic Church has been our 'historic' Church and is our majority faith. We need no law to confirm that. In the absence of such a law atheistic and hedonistic values, as Citizen Roux says, will not be rampant. Do you have so little faith in your common French? I certainly do not, perhaps Citizen Roux's demagoguery is something we should reflect upon and what he might say during his sermons.

"Merci."

------------------------
​

"M.Speaker,

"I call upon Representative Henri Rohan ((@Michaelangelo )) to the floor", Jean said and waited for Henri to limp up to the floor. "Representative Rohan, I thank you for your time. First, my deepest condolences on your late father-in-law.

"However, I must confront you with insidious rumors I have heard. Apparently your brother, Citizen Beau Rohan, has raided French citizens and murdered French soldiers in cold blood in Algeria. Now, if the rumors are correct, he is in the Spanish Foreign Legion? Can you deny or confirm said rumors? If so, would you be willing to condemn your brother's actions against the Nation and the People?

"Merci."