• 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.
((I shall be arriving at my own country château soon; whenever I do I'll close voting and start an update. Get any last revisions, posts, or new votes posted. @Firehound15 can you start to tally the votes?))
 
(( Private - @Marschalk ))

Letter from the Metropolitan Archbishop of Reims to the Duke of Saint-Aignan


My dearest Saint-Aignan,

Let me first express my thanks for the warm feelings of congratulation you have expressed toward my humble person on the occasion of my elevation to the See of Reims. While I am indeed heartbroken to be separated from my fellow parishioners of Montauban – I will confess that I have almost refused the promotion – I made my mind to have faith in the wisdom of his Majesty who saw fit to appoint me to such a daunting task.

As regards the cause of our most beloved Majesty Louis XVI’s canonization, I am certainly most familiar with the proceedings of the Congregation of the Rites, which will be most concerned with such a business. However, I feel that there are many challenges on the road to canonization which will make this endeavor quite difficult. While certainly undeterred by such difficulties, I shall without losing time, begin drafting a memorandum for the cause and I shall lobby the Archbishop of Paris, whose jurisdiction would oversee such procedure at first, to open up a procès en canonisation.

Should you be so kind to put me in contact with the good men working on the canonization of Louis XVI, I would be most appreciative in order to coordinate our efforts. Mark my words, do not assume that the Vatican shall be a natural ally in this cause.

Pace e bene.

Henri-Charles Victorin du Bourget

Metropolitan Archbishop of Reims
 
(( Private - @Sneakyflaps ))

Letter from the Metropolitan Archbishop of Reims to His Serene Highness the Prince of Condé

Most valiant prince,

I must admit that I was quite disheartened when I received your letter, which has just found its way into my possession. Sparing you the details of this most clerical error, it would appear your secretary forwarded your instructions to my attention at my former see of Montauban, while I was on my journey to my new home of Reims. Now, I do not need to entertain you on the weakness of our postal system, which has yet to be addressed, but suffice to say that I was terribly shocked to receive your instructions after having cast my vote on the most contentious issues of the day.

However, I find solace in our common opposition to many of the financial bills proposed by this most despicable minister, mainly on the ground of their sinful nature, for you know, I have in horror gambling and usury, and such bills wreaked of those.

I feel quite depressed that we are found publicly in opposition on the Budget, which I honestly find of the lowest quality. I have no doubt that the new taxes will find little support through the chamber, and as I lent my personal support to the budget, I certainly did not lobby in its favour among gentlemen of our political persuasion.

Quite frankly, I believe that good shall come from this situation, which in the end, shall serve us both ways, depending on the political winds to come.

Avec vous dans la Foy,


Henri-Charles Victorin du Bourget
Metropolitan Archbishop of Reims
 
newarkcourtedit_orig.jpg

Publications de la Maison d'Herbe
The latest publication by Cazal was proudly printed by Maison d'Herbe for distribution in the rural south, where the book was set.
 
(( Private - @99KingHigh ))

Letter from the Metropolitan Archbishop of Reims to His Eminence, Cardinal Alexandre Angélique de Talleyrand-Périgord, Metropolitan Archbishop of Paris


Dearest Eminence,

It is with much distress that I have heard the wildest tales about your health of late, which were quashed away in from mind by the recollection of your most vigorous constitution. Most aware that in these days, even the smallest cold is gossiped as life-threatening in the good société of Paris, I shall be most appreciative if your Eminence could quell the most normal and affectionate worries holding my heart at the idea of your distress.

As your eminence might certainly be aware, there is much agitation coming from the heart of his Majesty the King, his regal brother the Count of Artois and his august niece, the Duchess of Angouleme, last remaining child of the late and beloved King Louis XVI, about the canonization of the Martyr King.

While to all true royalists such as ourselves, the saintly character of Louis XVI is inherently apparent, I remain quite skeptical that such a sentiment is shared and present in the Roman Curia, which will ultimately be called upon to decide on such a question. Having, in my youth, visited Rome and taken an acute interest in the proceedings of the Congregations for the Rites, which oversees the cause of the Saints, I believe we must be very careful in our approach to such an endeavor.

First, as your eminence will recall, the process toward canonization can be done in a twofold manner. Firstly, one could take upon itself the long and arduous process of ordinary causes, which is to prove in genere the reputation of sanctity and the miracles, and then proceed to discuss in specie with the utmost rigor the manifestation of his virtues, elevated to an heroic character, particularly during his last ten years of life, and the validity of God’s miracles through his intercession following death. Not only is this first way most treacherous to the objective we bear, but also most arduous and time consuming with only the slimmest perspective of success, given that the opponents to our endeavor will raise objections to the heroic virtues displayed during his last mortal decade on the grounds of his acquiescence of the civil constitution of the clergy and the favors shown to Minister Necker. It is needless to remind you that such arguments, quickly brushed aside by the love of France for his lost King, might certainly hold sway in the byzantine proceedings of Rome.

However, one must put to light the very words of the King, in his testament, in which he renounces the signature of this most dreadful legislation, in such terms: “Not being able to obtain the ministration of a Catholic priest, I pray God to receive the confession which I feel in having put my name (although this was against my will) to acts which might be contrary to the discipline and the belief of the Catholic church, to which I have always remained sincerely attached. I pray God to receive my firm resolution, if He grants me life, to have the ministrations of a Catholic priest, as soon as I can, in order to confess my sins and to receive the sacrament of penance.”

A second way might prove itself more amenable, which is, the canonization for martyrdom. Keeping in mind the rule established by Saint Augustine and adopted by the Church, that “it is not the torture and death, but the cause of it, which constitute the true martyrdom”, we shall have to deploy our energies in building a convincing case that his late Majesty was condemned to death because of his Catholic Faith. Any arguments for this nature must be based, in my humble opinion, on increasing the importance of three of the thirty three charges which were brought against him, being (and it pains me to reproduce here such vile words);

- His protection of fanatical internal enemies of France, aristocrats and “non-juring” clergy so that he can restore the Ancien Regime.

- His veto of the November 29, 1791 decree by the Assembly to the effect that “non-juring” priests would no longer receive state funds.

- His veto against the May 27, 1792 decree by the Assembly on the deportation of “non-juring” clerics.

Keeping in mind that His Majesty Louis XVI argued is ignorance of the first charge, our case will have to be crafted in a way protecting our cause from this argument sure to be made by the adversaries of his beloved memory.

The main obstacle, if we are to go down the martyrdom route in order to obtain the canonization we seek, will be the relationship between various causes, such as the cause of the murder of the Carmélites, which is gathering much support both in the Vatican and in Rome. We must at all cost avoid competition between such causes, for the brutal murder of the Carmélites is so explicit in its anti-clerical character that it begets almost immediately the conclusion of sainthood through martyrdom. I strongly believe that a way around this obstacle would be to tie the cause of the Carmélites to the cause of the King, and to seek the canonization of both in the same process, under a more general denomination such as “all clergymen persecuted” which could be added to King Louis XVI’s cause.

While building our case, it will also be imperative to keep in mind the words of the late Holy Father, Pius VI, made on the aftermath of the death of the King during a ceremony dedicated to his memory. The Holy Father spoke is those terms: “If Louis, seduced by lack of thinking or by mistake, really approved the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, would we be forced to change our sentiment on his martyrdom? No, without doubt, and should we harbor such intention, we would be drawn away from it by his subsequent retractation, as certain as solemn, and by his Death which was voted “in hatred of the Catholic religion”. It appears difficult to challenge the glory of his martyrdom.” Such were the words of the Holy Father, which must effectively be put in relation with the cause of the canonization of Mary Stuart.

Your Eminence shall certainly remember that during the process for the canonization of Mary Stuart, it was admitted that it suffices, to admit martyrdom, that a tyrant be determined to kill a Christian in hatred of religion, notwithstanding the fact that he might obfuscate his true motive under the guise of other pretexts. Thus lies the key in dismissing the 29 others charges which were brought against the late Louis XVI.

Finally, I shall remind any bearer of our cause, that any appeal directly to the Congregation of the Rites, as I am led to understand that some ambassadors of our causes have been sent to Rome, would fall on the procedural hurdle that the procès en canonisation must first be instructed by the ordinary clergy, in our case, of Paris. It thus fall under your purview, your Eminence, to formally instruct this process, for it to be carried afterward by the Congregation.

Let me conclude by saying, your Eminence, that I pray daily for the success of such endeavor and that I am, as always, entirely devoted to you.

Avec vous dans la Foy,

Henri-Charles Victorin du Bourget
Metropolitan Archbishop of Reims
 
Voting is closed. Update, if not tonight, tomorrow.
 
Liberalism after the French Revolution: Artaud, Constant, Cottu, Tocqueville, and Safeguards against Despotism (Part One: The Protestant Pluralism of Constant)

The excesses of the French Revolution, manifested at its worst in the mass executions and decapitations, were cause for alarm among many. And it would be a mistake to think that it was only conservatives who were appalled by Revolutionary rule; liberals too were alarmed by the extents to which the Revolution went in order to preserve the revolutionary spirit. There were a variety of liberal answers to the question of how to prevent another Reign of Terror while not having to default to the typical conservative position.

Perhaps it is most appropriate that when events on Earth disgust a person that they should turn to Heaven for guidance. It would not be entirely incorrect to say that this was the idea that men such as Benjamin Constant (1767- ) and Alexis de Tocqueville (1805- ) had when they were writing in post-Revolutionary France. The two liberal thinkers both agreed that religion has many qualities which would aid in protecting against despotism. As opposed to many of the most fervent anti-clerical Revolutionaries during the Reign of Terror, they thought that religion supported liberty. And it should be noted these men were not known for their piety; Constant was an agnostic and Tocqueville had lost his faith after being exposed to irreligious writings in his schooling years. To them, whether or not God did in fact exist was not important to how beneficial religion could be to society. However, the two men differed substantially on how religion helps and how religion should be used.

0GcDIGy.jpg
qsgEtWd.jpg

Benjamin Constant (Left) and Alexis de Tocqueville (Right)

The most important thing to understand when examining how Constant and Tocqueville differ in their views on religion is their religious upbringing. Constant was born into a Calvinist family, his ancestors having fled to Switzerland during the French Civil Wars of the 16th century. Despite no evidence that he was raised in a pious household, Constant's views on religion were colored by the Protestant framework through which he worked in. As one will see, Constant's view of the benefits of religious pluralism are a result of his Protestant roots. Tocqueville, on the other hand, was born a Catholic, and this can be seen in his admiration of Christianity's fixed dogmas, and of his explicit belief affirming that Catholocism was the best religion for democracy.

From these two different and somewhat opposing sources can these two men's philosophical differences best be understood. At the time of writing, Constant was living in a France which had in the past century become increasingly atheistic, or at the very least irreligious. However, he thought it to this be only temporary. Attempts at disestablishing religion through the Civil Constitution of the Clergy among other methods were doomed to fail. In Constant's eyes, religion was a "sentiment inherent to man." Conversely, the efforts of the Ancien Régime to enforce religious observance had produced the opposite effects. The Old Order had turned people away from religion. As a liberal first and foremost, Constant advocated the separation of Church and State. However, the Ancien Régime had seen an alliance between the two which proved to do more harm than good.

Constant was famous for his work "De la liberte des anciens comparee a celle des modernes" which separated the liberties enjoyed by ancient societies in Greece and Rome - ones which were based on political power and sovereignty - to those wielded by modern citizens - private and individual freedom. However, Constant noted that the rabid individualism that may result from this could have harmful effects on society. Modern men was "dominated by egoism and softened by luxury," and religion help to combat these through the "power of sacrifice." Christianity prevented the excessive individualism which had so often driven the French Revolution through the use of religious feelings and sentiment, which are at the heart of Constant's admiration of religion.
Sentiment was perhaps the most useful component of religion. The different forms which religion may take, and the different principles and dogmas which they mad adhere to are of little importance in society. Sentiment is what is compels modern to improve himself, and to pull him out of his private sphere.

Rivaling in importance to sentiment was religious pluralism. A fixed set of religious dogmas which were not to be questioned was something which Constant opposed. It was debate and inquiry of religion which allowed both religion and man to be perfected and improved. And Constant didn't think that doing so would be sacrilegious. It was God who had given man an "invincible inclination for investigation and examination," and by using these abilities one was acting in accordance with God's wishes. Of course, blind religious obedience would also inevitably lead to blind political obedience. By thinking for oneself, a person was not only helping his religion and himself, but he was also helping protect society from descending into tyranny. It was this constructive pluralism which helped to move human progress forward.

It is in this context that we can see how Constant's religious thought was perhaps just as liberal and progressive as his political thought. Although, it shouldn't be mistakenly believed that his religious thought did not form an integral part of his political thought. As it has already been said, both Constant and Tocqueville that religion aided liberty. However, Constant was in particular talking about Protestantism which he thought contributed to the democratic spirit of a nation through its employment of inquiry, debate, and pluralism.

"Variety is life, Uniformity is death." - Benjamin Constant

 
Last edited:
CHAPTER 6: L'Orde Ancien
(Feb. 1820 - September 1821)


The departure of Decazes from the Presidency of the Council spelled a foregone conclusion for the apotheosis of the Left-Center. The king had been forced, on the pressure of circumstances and relations, to concede to the whims of political machinations a dear friend and colleague. For whatever the causes of Decazes’ downfall, the king made sure that the name Élie-Louis Decazes would not be consigned into oblivion; Decazes was made a Peer of France, and in addition to his incumbent title, duc de Glücksberg, the king gave him the title duc Decazes. Louis XVIII was not so over-encumbered with grief for Decazes — the king had spent enough of his time in a sorry state of heartache for Decazes — but apprehensive of what action providence now commanded. Artois’ intervention in support of the Foreign Minister had all but guaranteed that the esteemed royal favourite was the only alternative to uphold the stability of the country. King Louis XVIII doubted not for a moment that Valence would resist the appointment; the architect of the “purview principle” was known to prefer the palaces of European capitals over the domestic dealings of French politics. For the past six years, Valence’s position had been secure abroad; and he was all too aware that the only thing that could taint his career would be entanglement in the party politics that he had taken such lengths to avoid. Sure enough to the king’s premonitions, Valence proved reluctant when the king offered the Presidency of the Council, but Louis XVIII knew that his brother would accept no other (bar an Ultra-Royalist) in the aftermath of his son’s assassination. Valence attempted to suggest the prince de Polignac, but Polignac had retired to the countryside and was also known the king as “more reactionary than Artois.” Presented with the entreaties of the king, Valence relented, and took up the mantle as the king’s Prime Minister. As compensation for the compulsory acceptance of the governance, the king afforded Valence free-reign on the appointment of his ministers.

Kb1iAQH.jpg

The Royal Favorite; ever the fop.
Valence’s appointments were not without their controversies. The most sensational element of the commissions was the appointment of the astute Jew, Mayer de Rothschild, as the Finance Minister. Aside from his relative juvenility, Rothschild was a clear concession to the Liberal Doctrinaires and Independents, and an outrageous intolerance to the Ultra-Royalists. To make matters worse for the cautious Valence, Rothschild made no attempts at confronting the hostility with humility, and planned for aggressive reforms that seemed out of place. When the anti-semitic Archbishop of Reims, the former Bishop of Montauban, demanded the presentation of the Budget before the Chamber of Deputies, the “Proud Jew” responded “I realise that as a member of a mendicant order, having taken a vow of poverty, the concepts of modern finances can be quiet daunting to come to grips.” Artois was known to have remarked: “Any other surname and he would be ridiculed. Unfortunate that the Crown of France owes our Minister of Finance such great sums.” The government was also markedly divided by age; three of the ministers were quinquagenarians or older [Marquis de Valence, Comte de Pontécoulant, and the Duc de Saint-Aignan], whereas others ministers were no more than thirty years old [Monsieur Henri Bourbon, Monsieur de Rothschild, and the prince de Polignac]. The divisions in age and in temperament ensured that the cabinet was never dull; gone were the days of begging the royal favourite for the attention of the Council! It was known throughout haute-societe that the Council was an invigorating locale of political discourse and a theater for the clashing of supercilious personalities. Doctrinaires and Ultra-Royalists presented before King Louis XVIII twice a week in what the king described as an “affair that gave me happy nostalgia for earlier days, and equal apprehension about the solidity of the Kingdom.”

MCCVGlw.jpg

Prior to his rightward shift, Decazes had tried a policy in line with the formula of the Left-Center by depending on leftist support; and that policy, as has been shown, led inevitably to the domination of the extreme left. Valence, once more in office (if one is to consider the Ministry of Dhuizon as de facto the Ministry of Valence), was to try to formulate a policy of the Right-Center by depending on the support of the Right; and by taking this opposite direction, he was confronted with the supremacy of the extreme Right. What Valence required was the achievement of parliamentary equilibrium, and the attainment of a government that could prove it was more than a stopgap team. The take-over by the Right came in several steps; up to the month of September 1820, the new government’s situation being precarious, the Right, deferring to the wisdom of Artois, and the inclusion of its leader, supported its reactionary program without demanding much for itself. With the exception les impatients, the Right allowed Valence to keep in office whoever he pleased, and was pleased to present three of its own representatives to the government. Saint-Aignan, the Ultra leader of les circonspects, would have preferred that the ministry not propose the exceptional laws prepared by Decazes; it was embarrassing for the Right to abandon its position of defending the liberties that it had adopted as a tactical necessity since 1816. But the king insisted on these laws because, if they withdrew them not, the people would be justified in saying that Decazes had wanted them less for the safety of the state than for the perpetuation of his own position. Saint-Aignan thus took upon his person the mantle of the security laws — albeit according to his own designs — in order to appease the proclivities of the king. In this regard he disposed of the Ultra-Royalists’ former endearment to decentralized liberty and replaced it with attachment to the state, particularly regarding his proposition for the ‘Law of General Security’ and the formation of what amounted to a state security police. In the formulation of these laws, Saint-Aignan found a staunch adversary in his liberal colleagues, predominantly in the Minister of the Interior, Monsieur Henri Bourbon, who objected to the draconian length of arbitrary detention without trial. A tennis match of personalities thus emerged in the cabinet between young and old, between Doctrinaire and Ultra, between noble and bastard, between Interior and Justice, between experienced and green, between Henri and Saint-Aignan.

Cabinet debates reflected the ideological divide between the two foes; Henri preferred the deployment of the traditional Surete as the protector of the king’s peace, while Saint-Aignan agitated for the establishment of the “Direction Royal de Sécurité de l'État” as a secret police force under the purview of the Minister of the Interior. Valence desired compromise, but the king was growing impatient, and demanded the production of the Law of General Security before the expiration of the 1820 session. The suggestions for policing were cleaved from the Law of General Security, and the king presented both Saint-Aignan and Bourbon’s propositions for the police force as separate royal ordinances. Henri Bourbon, however, was not successful in moderating the tones of the legislation; the law that Valence and the king would bring before the Chamber of Deputies and the Chamber of Peers was the production of Saint-Aignan. To move faster, Valence appealed to the Chamber of Peers to take up the press law, which tightened publications to a requisite authorization of the government, and strengthened the consequences against breaches of the code, while the Chamber of Deputies was considering the controversial Law of General Security. It appeared right away, after Valence’s inaugural appeal to the Chamber of Peers and his adulation of the less consequential upper chamber, that the upper house would go along without any difficulty, so the struggle would be in the Chamber of Deputies. The speakers on the left — Constant, Lafayette, General Lamarque, Lécuyer — gave vent to their feelings in violent language and issued scarcely disguised appeals to insurrection. Lamarque declared: “Today we have been asked to vote on a set of bills aimed at depriving this country of an opposition. Aimed at creating an all powerful tyranny, capable of striking down any and all opposition at a whim,” La Fayette argued that the bills “violate the Charter and dissolve the mutual guarantees of the nation and the throne” and thus liberated France from the obligations of the incumbent regime, while Lécuyer declared the government of being “chained up by the forces of reaction.” The two bills were finally passed, before the end of the session, but the opposition to the Ministry was clarified and its strength increased. The new law allowed the government to arrest and detain any person in internals of one-year, six-months, and three-months depending on the degree of detaining authority. As for the Press Law, all papers and magazines had to obtain prior authorization to publish; political articles would be reviewed by the Ministry of Justice's committees. In case of a violation and a court trial, the government could suspend the publication immediately, even before a verdict, and for as long as six months thereafter.

NDZG7Bl.jpg

General Lamarque; the speeches of 1820.
The Press Law was to cause the early disappearance of many papers which had sprung up under the liberal regime of the Serre Laws. Chateaubriand himself had to close down the Conservateur because he objected to being submitted to censorship. The liberal papers which tried to survive, like the Constitutionnel, attempted to get around the censorship in various ways, such as leaving significant blank spaces where passages had been censored, changing the typing arrangement of accepted article so as to give certain words a meaning which the censors had not noticed, publishing forbidden articles in pamphlet form under the title of “censorship rejects,” and issuing miscellanies as continuations of suppressed papers. But the courts put an end to these subterfuges and eliminated all the opposition’s means of expression by imposing fines and prison sentences. Under these conditions the Left had only one relief to reach public opinion, and the debates in the chamber whose publication in the press could not be prohibited was thus the only alternative. The radicalizing of the Left, and the cold break of many of the Left-Center to the Independents, produced a sort of violent and aggressive spoken newspaper on the floor of the chamber. It was for this reason that the proposed candidate law allowed the Minister of the Interior to review and deny candidates for election based on certain specifications. There was a feeling, that if this law was attached to a wider electoral law, as Saint-Aignan had wanted with Decazes, that the fate of the throne or of liberty would come into the general debate, but Henri Bourbon managed to limit the reform to the matter of candidature, rather than any revision of the incumbent electoral franchise and rules, which continued to favor the liberal factions in the department capital. [1] The end of the parliamentary session, particularly the passage of the exceptional laws, and the birth of the duc de Bordeaux, seemed to give new hope to the ministry. Internal disaffection had never seemed far behind, but the Ministry had avoided any disastrous afflictions before 1821. Nevertheless, some of the Right remained opposed to the ministry. The lodge of the Chevaliers de la Foi, which supported Valence’s policy in the chamber, were not quite half the rightist deputies; and at the extreme Right, les impatients, led by the comte Berstett and the clumsy La Bourdonnaye, refused its support to Valence. Obliged to be disagreeable toward their colleagues if they wanted to retain the confidence of their part followed, and forced to disprove the accusations of weakness hurled at them from the extreme Right, les circonspects found themselves becoming distrusted by some government people.

Among the measures likely to rally the Right to the support of the government — in addition to — it became necessary to strengthen the support and means of the Catholic clergy. The most significant advances towards that cause was the adoption of measures to increase the salaries of the general clergy by ten percent, but the inclusion of these conservative clauses inspired the government liberals to counteract the force by standardizing certain elements of the education system, and thereby naturally limiting the arbitrary inclusion of the church. The consequence was that the dissolutions of the University of France and other Napoleonic constructions were not wholly replaced by clerical institutions, but these losses were prudently off-set by the pay-rise and the practical hegemony of the bishops in general educations. The session of 1821 had thus gone on without much excitement as the quid pro quo compromise of Church and Education pacified the passions of the Chamber; the countryside violence had settled and the difficulties which had previously occupied the nation were tempered by stern repressions and political compromises. France now confronted the realities of her social constitution, and politics took a brief, if much required, back-seat. The king now considered the dissolution of the Chamber, but opposition attacks on the government regarding Spain, and the eagerness of the extreme Right for warfare, and the hostility of the extreme Left to the concept of intervention, produced what the king considered to an attack on his own person, and on the back-seat foreign policy of Troppau and Laibach. When he presided over the Chamber, Louis XVIII responded to these motions with his own declaration of indignation: “I am familiar with this address you are presenting. During my exile and persecution I defended my rights; the honor of my family, and that of the good name of France; now that I hold the throne and am surrounded by my people, I become indignant at the very thought that I could ever sacrifice the honor of the nation and the dignity of the crown…” The king, in spite of the spasm of indignation he had at the address, was in no mood to defer his government to the people in election. Physically declining, the king would sometimes doze off in the middle of audiences with ministers, and he was also in an intimate (albeit platonic relationship) with Mme du Cayla, who sought to replace Valence as the royal favourite. For two hours on Wednesday, the lady would come to the Tuileries to play a game of chess with the king. And every other day Mme du Cayla was expected to write the king letters on foreign affairs; Sosthenes de la Rouchefoucauld worked out with Saint-Aignan what could be written and helped his female friend compose her daily bulletins.

pwehuJ8.jpg

Mme du Cayla, the female favorite.
By the fall of 1821, Louis XVIII was ready to accept whatever would come from an election, even one of the Right, in line with his brother’s wishes, but was confident nonetheless that the incumbent Ministry would assure him peace in his old age. Valence, for his own faults, made the preservation of this pease uneasy by remaining above the clouds of domestic deliberations. He was too distracted by his Foreign Minister’s duties to predict the forthcoming controversy over the Finance Minister’s budget and ancillary economic reforms. Even when a prince du sang, Louis VI Henri de Bourbon-Condé, began to emerge as the patron of les impatients in reaction to the Finance Minister and his reforms, Valence refused to gauge the issue. There was a plentiful of controversies in Rothschild’s reforms; the “death-tax,” contested tariffs revisions, new duties, and unpopular expenditures. Opposition to the budget — and by extension to the confidence of the Ministry — reached inside and outside the Ministry. A patchwork alliance of certain Liberals, Ultra-Royalists, and Doctrinaires crafted an impressive coalition opposed to Rothschild’s reforms. Supported by Condé and Orléans, the opposition looked poised to destroy the budget and bury Valence in the ruins of his ministry; the initial vote tied the Chamber 150-150. Presented with political confrontation against France’s second most-affluent landowner, Valence appealed to the first. King Louis XVIII made what could only be described as a heroic entrance; he would consent to the incumbent ministry of Valence or to the substitute ministry of Artois, but any conspiracy against his ministry by Condé and Orléans could threaten to destabilize the equilibrium that the new ministry had managed to achieve. Valence, with the tacit support and resources of the king, lobbied the Chamber of Deputies to support the budget; Henri Bourbon was swung back to the side of the government, and several Ultra-Royalists, pressured by King Louis XVIII, returned to the side of the President of the Council. The second round of voting swept opposition aside and safeguarded the potency of the Ministry, despite the abstentions of Polignac and Saint-Aignan.

Dr7Jq1r.jpg

King Louis XVIII now believed that Valence’s ministry had captured the moment, and secured the equilibrium of governance; it thus became his intention to dissolve the government after the passage of the budget, and prolong the dominance of his royal favorite. Thus on the second day of September, in the year of our lord, eighteen-hundred and twenty-one, the King dissolved the legislature, and called forth fresh elections.

[1] Indefinite +5% bonus to Doctrinaires and Liberals until electoral repeal; +5% PP to Minister of Interior’s party.

--
Elections begins; a quick note. The election balloting will be organized differently (i.e. Ultra-Royalists (impatients), Ultra-Royalists (circonspects), Doctriniaires (pro-ministry), Doctrinaires (anti-ministry), etc)

36 hours for debate; 48 hours for voting+debate.
 
Last edited:
Hôtel de Crillon, 2nd September.

The Marquis de Valence was commiserating in his study. Most men dreamed of one day being the chief magistrate; Valence could not think of a more damnable prison. He could see now why Dhuizon (whom he had not spoken to for years, owing to his disgrace) had spent so much time at the spa.

As expected, given the close shave of the budget and security legislation, the King had dissolved the Chamber. It was well past its expiry date, having been elected in altogether more happy times, before the Spanish crisis and the bloodbath at the opera. Truthfully, Valence could not care less about the election. Far more important to him was the matter of Mme de Caya, who was by degrees establishing a sort of gynocracy over the government. She had one weapon that Valence could never deploy against Louis: femininity. For a man as cynical as Valence, it appeared extraordinary to him that the King was not actually bedding her, but this seemed plausible enough of Louis. Even more dangerous, Mme de Caya was apparently being used as a proxy for a certain Vicomte de La Rochefoucauld, aide-de-camp to the Comte d'Artois. Although Artois and Valence were now, at least in theory, united in similar purpose, that did not prevent the usual court games from being played.

When the wife learns of a mistress, she can either raise havoc, and thereby push the exasperated husband closer to the mistress; she can remain silent, and bear the indignity; or, she can bargain. The rules of politics were much the same.

---

((Private - @99KingHigh ))

Addressed to His Most Christian Majesty, Louis XVIII, by the Grace of God, King of France and Navarre,
courtesy of His Majesty's Household;

Your Majesty,

Given the dissolution of the Chamber, and the interruption to the government occasioned by this, I pray His Majesty shall indulge me on a matter of minor significance. I am writing to His Majesty to make a plea on behalf of an acquaintance of mine, the Vicomte de La Rochefoucauld, who is presently engaged in service of your royal brother. The vicomte, as I understand, is very desirous of the office of Director-General of Fine Arts, Royal Theatres and Manufactures, which is within His Majesty's gift to bestow. Therefore, I thought I should make a recommendation on behalf of the vicomte to this office, should it become available. Of course, it is entirely His Majesty's decision, and I shall understand if he considers alternative candidates to be more qualified.

I beg to remain your most humble and obedient servant,

Valence
 
a5e68024394605d45264e85ff9064114.jpg


Partant pour l'Italie.

Lothaire felt as he had lost all. At home his family had left him for safety in Switerland. In Italy the progress of liberty were on the retreat. Moreover the failure to stop the Budget might be what would fuel the forces of reaction in Spain. But the worst crime were commited at home. The personal and political liberties of the French were being suffocated for each day. As he feared years prior the flame of liberty and hope were being strangled by the thick smoke of reaction and despair. Even worse were the fact that this was moslty done due to liberal Doctrianaires and moderate Doctrinaires who had all but retired from the political life, even the once so active radical liberals were qiuet. Were they all silenced by fear, or planning something in the shadows? But now they had even less possibility to air their opinions and counter the poison the Austrian doubleheaded serpent had infected France with. Yet the new electoral laws had some benefits for those of Liberal ideas.

Lothaire looked to the past for inspiration. And he found it. La Fayette had stood up in defense of liberty and the Charter during the past year, heroically. Heroic as when he volunteered and led the Americans to freedom, and later served to protect the liberties and rights of the French. Lothaire were often inspired by action over words. A reason why he looked up to the Duke of Orleans and also La Fayette - a true soldier who in times where most cowered stood up for his fellow men. It was this that inspired the decision of Lothaire.

However, before Lothaire would put his decision into action he would stay in France - a little longer. Here he would lead the Election Campaign for liberal Doctrinaires. For liberty and against the current ministry. He would, however, not write many articles as he feared the censorship of the government. But he would attend to many public meetings, universities and theatercafés to air his opinion and critique of the current ministry. He would stay back in France for a little while longer, before he would depart.

But where would he depart? The official story were that he were to move to his family in Switzerland. That he were to take a pause from public life to make up for the years they had been apart. From there they would visit the different parts of the world, as Cuba, USA, England and more.

But what would he really do? He would depart for the Italian alps. In truth he would go to Switerland and settle down near Chur. A beautiful mountain landscape, but also in control of the vital mountainpasses of Oberalp-, Bernardino-, Splügen-, Julier- andAlbulapass. From here he would contact his volunteer forces he had set up years prior, and command forces once more in the field. His headquarter would be here in Chur where he would send equicment and inspect his troops and issue orders. But if he were revealed he were prepared to join his men in Italy and live in the hills and mountains of Northern Italy. As La Fayette had volunteered to fight for American liberty, Lothaire would fight for Italian liberty. Or so he told himself.

His plans were ready, and he would go around in France, after the election, to muster several men of potential who would go to Italy and fight for freedom and liberty. He had also spoken with many former officers who had compelled lists of potential candidates. When Lothaire went to Chur, he would invite his "friends" over for dinner parties, and there he would send them to the Italian alps.

But for now he would lay low. He had announced that he would run as a Deputy - in order to not invoke suspicion - and would campaign for his cause. It was not until the end of the election he would take his other plan into effect and depart for Italy. To once more be on the frontlines for liberty and freedom. The Capitiaine had prevailed over the Député.

((OOC the reason I'm doing this is I'll be busy from Monday on due to work. And that will make me unavaible for a period of anything from 1 day to basically the whole month or most of the year. I do not know yet, so it's in order to keep the character around while giving him a reason for a dissaperence)).
 
(( Private - @Syriana ))

Letter from the Metropolitan Archbishop of Reims to the Marquis de Valence

Dearest Marquis,

It is with great pain that I voted in favor of the budget presented by Mr. Jacques de Rothschild, which contained measures of taxation which will not only prove, I am quite certain, the summum of unpopularity, but will also do great harm to the country.

I fear I shall never understand why such an odd fellow has attained such an elated position in the Ministry, given his moral inclinations towards sin and his lack of wisdom. However, I shall quite simply reiterate my public comments to the effect that for the first time in many years, there felt an actual sense of direction coming from the Ministry, which is in no doubt the result of your personal industry.

Realizing now that my vote was certainly most decisive in the issue of the budget, I certainly hope that you will understand it as a token of my personal appreciation for your efforts rather than an endorsement of the despicable fiscal policy presented. However, should Mr. De Rothschild continue to serve in the Ministry, I shall find it near impossible to continue supporting your endeavors.

Avec vous dans la Foy,

Henri-Charles Victorin du Bourget
Metropolitan Archbishop of Reims
 
Lothaire had travelled all around France since the inception of the current ministry. There had gone wide and low (mostly to Universities, Cafés and military areas) to find people who might be of his persuasion. Some were radical liberals, others were Bonapartists but most were Doctrinaires as him. He had set himself the goal of uniting various political people under a more common platform in the coming election. He were now at his personal Parisian apartment in his study, and before he would enjoy cigars with his secretaries he would make them write several letters. Lothaire would try to unite them under the slogan of "Reforms and Preservation; not Reversion and Perversion".

((Private letter to @G.K. ))

Professor,

During my travels and attendance to lectures at Universities I have heard many kind words regarding you and your disposition - from students and professors alike. It have come to my attention that you made an active stance toward what was right and against what was wrong during the last session. I commend you for that. Even if we were defeated we have to look forward. I would like to hold a guest-lecture at your University. Remember I have a degree in Political Science and have much experience in the practical political circles. Perhaps you would also run for Deputy? To run for the Doctrinaire cause, that is the ones who are for reforms and for the Charter and not lackeys of the Ultras.

Remember: Preservation; not Reversion and Perversion.

-
-Capitaine and Député Lothaire Lécuyer.

((Pirvate letter to @MadMartigan ))

Friend,

While the last sessions were a defeat, we must not be dissauded from our just cause. I ask for you to continue your support for what is right. I figure if you use your position of an accomplished financer and Jew you could extert your influence on the current Finance Minister. Do know that I could not care if you were Catholic, Protestant or Jew, but many of the reactionary only believe one religion have a place in France - which I do not. Perhaps you could invite him over and discuss future economical policies? To steer him into a desired direction, you're of course to decide what that is. If that's not working, or to your liking, I advise you to make up economical plans, reforms and budgets already. That way when the Election are over you can immidiately petition for your reforms and dominate the debate that way and hopefully the Ministry will look to your budgets and reforms for inspiration.

Remember Preservation; not Reversion and Perversion.

Your friend,

Lothaire.

((Letter to @ManuelD'Garkia - private))

M.Reynard,

Let me introduce myself. I am Lothaire Lécuyer Deputy of the Seine. Now I do know that you're not part of the Chambers, but I have ehard rumors of that you're somehow political active and a writer. I must admit I'm not sure whether or not you're of Doctrinaire or Liberal leanings, but I assume you are of opposition to the current political turn of events. I would like for you to perhaps make a run for the Chamber of Deputies to strenghten the cause of Liberty. Perhaps we could discuss it all over a cup of caffé or a glass of cognac?

Remember: Preservation; not Reversion and Perversion.

-Capitaine and Député Lothaire Lécuyer.

((Private letter to @Plank of Wood ))

Fellow Officer!

I am Capitaine Lothaire Lécuyer. I've heard many stories of you from fellow Veterans. Stories of your unfound bravery and brilliance in the field of battle. It's a shame that you're now exiled in Switzerland, however I doubt this exile is needed. I urge you to come back to France. To do your duty as a French Officer and serve your country again. Perhaps you could make an active contribution to the politics of France? Do not hesitate to write me back or meet me. I hope that we can find common ground, and that you will vote (and bring forth men of similar persuasions) in the current election.

Remember: Preservation; not Reversion and Perversion.

-Capitaine and Député Lothaire Lécuyer.

((Private letter to @Shynka ))

Gracious Comte,

I will not lie. Your father and I were not on the best terms due to the troubled past. However we need to lay the past behind us and move forward. I've heard you're a young and competent Officer and like me you care about your fellow soldiers with your drinking club - or what it can be called. Perhaps we could have a drink one day and discuss the current political climate? I've heard you're more liberal than your father, and hope I can make my case for you.

Remember: Preservation; not Reversion and Perversion.

-Capitaine Lothaire Lécuyer.

((Private letter to @Qwerty7 ))

M.Artraud,

I do not know if you've heard of me, but I admire your political writings. As I also admire and find inspiration of the works of M.Constante and the likes. I will however be down to bussiness. The last Chamber saw great reversion in many political and civic liberties. I ask for you to make a more profilic stance. Either by writing or perhaps by running as Deputy? It would be of great assisstance if a great thinker and theorist as yourseld would join the Doctrinaire (that is the ones opposed to the Ministry) or the Independent-Liberal cause. We need a man of your caliber and knowledge on political science. I hope to see you and that you will vote for what is just.

Remember: Preservation; not Reversion and Perversion.

-Capitaine and Député Lothaire Lécuyer.

((Private letter to @Noco19 ))

Honored Peer,

Your absence in the last sessions were felt. We need a man of your convictions for what is just and right and to preserve liberty. I hope you will stand behind the cause for reforms and liberty and against the Ultras and Ministry.

Remember: Preservation; not Reversion and Perversion.

-Capitaine and Député Lothaire Lécuyer.

Lothaire were exhausted from all the dictating he had done to his secretaries. He would now do other stuff that were just as exhausting with his secretaries - but which he enjoyed much more.
 
Reims, Marne et Oise
On the campaign trail once again


The Metropolitan Archbishop of Reims had lost no time following the dissolution of the Chamber. He had quickly settled his affairs in the capital, before setting on the path to his see, which was located much closer to Paris than his former southern one. From all accounts, the road to Reims was most pleasant and well maintained a thought that, if voiced, would certainly please the Count of Berstett and the Deputy of the Nord, two men most dedicated to the issues of infrastructure.

The electoral laws were still heavily tilted against the ultraroyalists and this time around, the prelate felt his position more precarious, given that he could not count on his native son status to gather a wider support than realistically possible. He would need all his craft to manage to be elected, but he was certainly a crafty man.

Having arrived in Reims, a rather large gathering of moneyed interests had been set up for the ecclesiastical to impart his first impression on his new parishioners and would be constituents. As he mingled through the crowd, avoiding the pontification of a long speech, he certainly engaged in what would later be called “retail” politics.

“Quite certainly, Monsieur Barlin. While I had solid grounds to oppose the most recent budget, I also felt that the realm was in need of much stability after the sordid murder of the Duke de Berry and the attempt on many deputies’ lives. Let us call it pragmatism and it is what I certainly bring to the table. After all, the realm would have lived a crisis if the budget had failed and provisions for the improvements of our schools, the development of crown lands and the revalue of the clergy had gone unfunded. There was quite simply too much at stake for France at that moment to succumb to the comfort of irreproachable ideology.”

The words seemed to please the merchant, who was rather of a conservative ideology but always guided by his interests. This was no surprise or luck, for during the trip to Reims, the Archbishop had been extensively briefing on the men gathered that day and their personal inclination by his secretaries. That was called tipping the scale.

“I do agree, Monsieur le Comte de Cassel, that this ministry had a smell of impurity about it. I certainly have my qualms against the Minister of Finances, whose moral constitution I find personally questionable, in light, of course, of his eagerness to burden the country with taxation. The inheritance tax would have been for me much insufferable, had it not be limited to two years, which means, in the fact, that one simply will litigate is inheritance long enough for the tax to expire.”

The prelate smiled at the Count, which he knew from prior affairs in Paris and on which he counted most. A meeting would be arranged later, it was already in the works. But for now, so many people to greet.

“ I must admit that, unlike many in the Chamber, I have kept my thought to myself on the Spanish question. There are certainly those who would wish to jump to conclusions and have our army march to Madrid, while other would favour complacency. It is a difficult question, and for me, who abhors war, I must say that we have to draw conclusions from the past thirty years. An evil growing unchecked might certainly become too great to be stopped at small cost. Containment is the key, but by arms or by trade, I am most eager to hear your thoughts about.”

And the courtship continued...
 
Reims, Marne et Oise
A Meeting with the Count of Cassel


The gathering was finally over, and the Archbishop of Reims felt a powerful urge to wash, having exchanging so many pleasantries, as was requested by politics, with so many men he truly despised but of whom he needed to court the support. If there was one quality in the long disciplinarian life offered by the clergy, it was this capacity to clothe one’s disgust with deceptive eyes and mellifluous voice. Retreating to his archiepiscopal palace, which luxury he certainly would need to deal with given his most ascetic virtues, he was informed by his secretary that the Count of Cassel had called upon him, as planned.

Meeting the man in his study, which was full of books he hadn’t got the chance yet to peruse, he greeted him most cordially and spoke frankly, for he was in the presence of a vehement royalist who abhorred anything that was liberal. Yet, the Count maintained the most efficient figure of a moderate, for such were the times.

“My dear Cassel, we find ourselves in a difficult predicament. As you certainly know, the electoral laws are tipped heavily in favour of the liberal bourgeoisie, much to the detriment of the landed gentry and small nobility, which are the bastion of our ideology. While I exerted myself to convince the Minister of the Interior of the much-needed reforms to be brought to deal with this issue, I am afraid that he is less a Condé than an English fop. The apple seemed to have fallen far from the tree, alas. Let us blame his education, for deep down, I feel we could make a proper man of him given time. This being said, Monsieur Bourbon did not rise above party, and I suspect he was chained by his superiors, to address this much needed issue.”

The count agreed with much that was said, although reproaching to the prelate of not being persuasive enough on the issue.

“I believe, if we play our cards right, that we might find the next Chamber in the hands of true royalists, eager to advance our agenda. But for that to happen, I must admit that we need to get the gentry and nobility to the polls. I count on your support to rally the north of the department, my dear Cassel, for I fear that only a split in the votes and a powerful showing on our part might tip the scale enough for us to carry the department.”

The nobleman spoke at length, explaining the difficulty of getting the small estate owners away from their lands, at a time where the harvest was to be brought in, a most fateful turn of event.

“My dear Cassel, while we may not have a strong control over their exchequers, I do believe that these men are the most pious ones. I shall certainly find a way to bring them to Reims in time to vote, on a motive of religion. And should they come en masse, their business might certainly keep the liberal bourgeoisie in their shops, peddling their goods, rather than attending to the boring Electoral College.”

Both men smirked then kept discussing.
 
(( Private - @Firehound15 ))

Letter from the Metropolitan Archbishop of Reims to the Count of Berstett

Most gracious and dearest friend,

It is with the utmost alarm that I take to the quill to write you this letter. With the opening of a new electoral campaign, I fear that the brave men of our faction might find themselves much divided in the wake of what I perceive to be a growing chasm among true royalists. Let us not lure ourselves and forget that despite our differences, they are but petty compared to what separates us from the engeance libérale.

I beseech you to find common ground with the Duke of Saint-Aignan, before we witness a public rift in the campaign, with candidates of both persuasions fissuring our electoral bloc and opening the way for liberaly inclined candidates to win with a simple plurality.

It is my strong belief that we must quickly unite around a list of demands from the Ministry, whose acceptance or rejection should condition our support in the upcoming legislature, unless we do win a majority, a feat only obtainable by a united campaign quickly launched with strengt, conviction and passion.

I personally voiced my discontent to the Marquis of Valence and my refusal to support his ministry further unless the Minister of Finances is removed from office. I also believe we must pressure the Ministry on the issues of electoral reforms and compensation for the émigrés, now that the finances of the realm have recovered.

Avec vous dans la foy,

Henri-Charles Victorin du Bourget

Metropolitan Archbishop of Reims
 
(( Private - @Firehound15 ))

Letter from the Metropolitan Archbishop of Reims to the Count of Berstett

Most gracious and dearest friend,

It is with the utmost alarm that I take to the quill to write you this letter. With the opening of a new electoral campaign, I fear that the brave men of our faction might find themselves much divided in the wake of what I perceive to be a growing chasm among true royalists. Let us not lure ourselves and forget that despite our differences, they are but petty compared to what separates us from the engeance libérale.

I beseech you to find common ground with the Duke of Saint-Aignan, before we witness a public rift in the campaign, with candidates of both persuasions fissuring our electoral bloc and opening the way for liberaly inclined candidates to win with a simple plurality.

It is my strong belief that we must quickly unite around a list of demands from the Ministry, whose acceptance or rejection should condition our support in the upcoming legislature, unless we do win a majority, a feat only obtainable by a united campaign quickly launched with strengt, conviction and passion.

I personally voiced my discontent to the Marquis of Valence and my refusal to support his ministry further unless the Minister of Finances is removed from office. I also believe we must pressure the Ministry on the issues of electoral reforms and compensation for the émigrés, now that the finances of the realm have recovered.

Avec vous dans la foy,

Henri-Charles Victorin du Bourget

Metropolitan Archbishop of Reims

Letter to the Archbishop of Reims
(( Private - @Eid3r ))

My Dear Monsignor,

While I do indeed share your disposition regarding the matter, I do not believe we would at all be well-served by abandoning our beliefs in the face of a government which is supposedly amicable. It is well-known, I believe, that I am neither an admirer of Valence nor of Saint-Aignan, and being presented with a government headed by one and guided by the other, I would immediately hold reservations - as I did. Moreso, in the presence of some of the most liberal Ministers since the fall of Napoleon, I would naturally have concerns.

What I mean to suggest is not that I am irreconcilable with any faction or individual, but that reconciliation should not come with such a significant sacrifice. At the present, we would be poorly served by sustaining this government. I do not trust in this Ministry, Monsignor, for I believe they have done nothing to earn that trust.

Rather than allowing ourselves to be led astray, we would be better served by specifically refusing support for this Ministry - and biding our time until a more complete Ministry may emerge. It is just as the Lord said - "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."

Amitiés,

Xxf2xFL.png
 
(( Private - @Firehound15 ))

Letter from the Metropolitan Archbishop of Reims to the Count of Berstett

Most gracious and dearest friend,

In the wake of your most recent letter, I felt it necessary to share with you my more elaborate thoughts on the matter.

First, I would not, in my wildest dreams, describe the Valence Ministry as amicable to our cause. However, the predicament in which the ministry found itself – needing our support rather than the liberals – forced him to be more disposed to several of our ideas. I believe that you will agree that some measure of progress was realised, notably on the salary of the clergy, the humble beginnings of education reform and on the development of Crown lands.

This being said, the pursuance of this Ministry past these elections will most likely depend on the composition of the next Chamber, in which I hope we shall find more principled royalists like yourself. However, keeping in mind that the electoral law is most unjustly unfavorable to our cause, I believe that only a strong campaign, will all our allies exerting themselves to the maximum could turn the tide in the Chamber and deliver a strong Royalist majority.

As regard trust in the Ministry, I will concur with you and add that only a fool could trust the Marquis de Valence, who like an eel, wiggles out of every situation. While we may not trust him, the reality of politics shall inform us of his next moves and ulterior motives. For, we may have trust in his most uncanny hability to survive.

In closing, let me reiterate the urgent need for you and the Duke of Saint-Aignan to bridge your differences in order for our faction to deploy all its energy to resist the seeping tide of liberalism that awaits to engulf our beloved realm.

Avec vous dans la foy,

Henri-Charles Victorin du Bourget
Metropolitan Archbishop of Reims





 
Dijon, (Côte d’Or)
Jardins D’Arcy


The Metropolitan Archbishop of Reims traveled to the city of Dijon, capital of the former province of Burgundy. Now in the Department of Côte d’Or, a bland and generic name unable to convey the power and prestige that once was Burgundy, the city still retained some of its former glory. The Jardins D’Arcy has, of all times, been at the center of much discussion, given that they are the best and most discrete place for the good society to meet and discuss while strolling around.

Traveling the gardens with the Archbishop of Reims was the coadjutor bishop of Dijon, Gilbert-Paul Aragonès d’Orcet. The conversation was all about recruiting the later for the upcoming election.

“My dear Monseigneur d’Orcet, I must say that more than ever, we need good men such as you to take a larger role in the affairs of the State. The shameful election, providentially avoided, of the Abbé Grégoire serves as a gaunt warning. If we do not assert our own place at the table, our enemies will.”

Both men kept speaking, the interest of the bourguignon being piqued.

“Now, I certainly understand that you have your eyes set on the Bishopric of Langres, should Monseigneur de La Luzerne not recover from his illness. Already, you have showed not only skill, but strong conviction in the office. This being said, the King nominates the Bishops, and I certainly believe that should you be elected to the legislature, you shall be showered with occasions to better acquaint yourself to the Parisian society and have your name whispered to the royal ear.”

They kept walking, having crossed the gardens twice during their discussion.

“The bottom line is, Monseigneur d’Orcet, are you ready to once again see a middle-of-the-road candidate panders to your parishioner avec his catholic bona fide and then disappear into the night, along with his religious convictions? Or rather, wouldn’t you prefer to be the one bringing a much needed dose of morality back to the government in Paris? I believe you are that man, and I also believe that, should you jump in the fray, you shall be unstoppable given your reputation in Dijon. And when comes the time for the king to choose a new bishop ...”
 
Address to the Chamber of Peers

There are many in the Chambers that oppose the notion of an intervention into Spain, that it would echo back to the age of Bonaparte, that it would cost many lives for so little, that it would be much easier just to negotiate with the new Spanish government. I say these claims are nothing more than appeasement to a revolutionary order and would lead to further chaos in France should Spain be left to its own devices.

We would not be like the Empire in invading Spain if we were to mobilize into that Kingdom. When Napoleon marched into Madrid, he did not rescue Charles IV from revolutionary imprisonment, he instead kicked him off his throne and installed his brother as King of Spain to make Spain into a puppet for his own purposes. We would not be aiming to remove Ferdinand VII, we would be rescuing him from those who imprison him in his own palace. We would not make Spain our puppet, we would allow it to act independent of revolutionary sentiment and radical chaos. The claims of this Kingdom intervening in Spain being equal to Napoleon’s invasion of Spain are absurd, and the idea of negotiating with this radical government occupying Madrid is Republican appeasement!

Monsieur President, I would like to state that as a man from the Department of the Gers, the threat of revolutionary overflow across the Pyrenees is of great concern to the people of not only my department but of all departments bordering Spain. These regions, which had suffered the instability and chaos caused by both the Verdets and the Veterans League, would not wish to experience Spanish radicals exporting revolutionaries across the mountains into their departments. Southern France would not be able to handle the rising instability caused by these revolutionaries sent by radical agencies in Spain. As we have seen, they were not afraid of exporting their radical system of government to nations like Portugal and the Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies, so why wouldnt they try to export their system to their eastern neighbor?

As a Peer of the Gers, I do not wish for another period of instability and chaos plaguing the southern departments of our great Kingdom, and I do not intend to see the Spanish revolutionaries try to bring said chaos and instability across the Pyrenees into France. I applaud the Minister of War for taking the necessary steps in securing our borders to prevent the influx of Spanish revolutionaries destabilizing our southern departments, but to defeat a cancer, we must cut it out at its source. Spain’s existence as a revolutionary state has caused too much chaos in Europe, and cannot be allowed to create more of it. That is why the great powers of Europe need to band together and defeat these revolutionaries before Spain goes down the same road France did thirty years ago, and before another Napoleon rises out of the ashes this revolution will surely bring to that Kingdom.

-Nathanaël Barrande, Comte de L'Isle Jourdain