• 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.
The Law on Elections: Oui
Amendment to the Law on Elections: Oui
The Law on the Census: Oui
The Law on the National Guard: Abst
The Law on the Reserve: Abst
The Law on Provocation, Libel, and Slander: No
The Law on Press and Political Offenses: No
Law on Public Criers:/No
Law on Private Associations: No
The Law on Banking: Abst
The Law on Gaming: Oui
Amendment no.2 to the Charter of 1830: No
The Budget of 1831/2: No
Amendment on the Foncière: Abst
Amendment on the Pig Iron Tariff: Abst
Amendment on the Paper, Leather, and Clothing Tariff: Abst
Faction: Parliamentary Republicanism
 
The Law on Elections: Oui
Amendment to the Law on Elections: Abst
The Law on the Census: Oui
The Law on the National Guard: Oui
The Law on the Reserve: Oui
The Law on Provocation, Libel, and Slander: Oui
The Law on Press and Political Offenses: Oui
Law on Public Criers: Oui
Law on Private Associations: Oui
The Law on Banking: Oui
The Law on Gaming: Oui
Amendment no.2 to the Charter of 1830:Oui
The Budget of 1831/2: Oui
Amendment on the Foncière: No
Amendment on the Pig Iron Tariff: No
Amendment on the Paper, Leather, and Clothing Tariff: No
Ministerial General Amendment to the Budget: Oui

Faction: Centre Gauche

[Figurehead: +1.25 PP]
 
M. Merivée learns of the ministry's plans after a delay, thanks to his being in London. When finally he reads in the newspapers about the laws proposed, in particular that of provocation, libel and slander, he is compelled to have a letter sent back to France voicing his objections. He gives instruction for it to be read out in the Chamber, and also sends a copy to the editors at the Journal des Débats, for them to publish should they wish.


M le Président,


The Chamber will, I hope, forgive the unorthodox nature of this intervention, whenever it may arrive. I trust that my colleagues will recognise that, even in London, I must continue as best I can to act on the behalf of my constituents, both in the Calvados and throughout France, wherever I feel that their interests may be at risk of compromise. In addition to this letter, I have sent copies to the editors of the Journal des Débats, giving them the option of publication should they be in agreement with my argument.

The proposed law on provocation, libel and slander is a worrisome piece of legalisation. Such worries may stem from a paranoid mind, yet I believe them to be valid nevertheless. Through this law, the Ministry demonstrates its true intention not to govern for all of France, but rather to act for the good only of their partisan, perhaps under the false assumption that these men do indeed comprise all of France.

Practically, the bill is deleterious in that it forbids the public discussion of necessary questions not considered by all of France to be settled; namely, the succession. What is and what is not a valid question to be put to the examination of the law is a matter occupying some higher authority than government. The ministry may not decide what is and what is not natural; and any instance where there exists doubt to this effect, where one might question the inevitability of the natural state of things, is deserving of public examination; and in the same way, any matter deserving of public examination is deserving of free and honest discourse in the public forum.

The ministry and its adherents may be of the belief that the matter of the succession is settled in law, having been settled de facto; yet a confusion of the two realities is dangerous, for one represents the legal reality, whereas the other represents no more than the wishes of the ministry. No question of law may be taken as having been settled de facto where there still exists confusion as to the current settlement, and a man might say with some accuracy that there are many in France still who do not understand why Philippe is their king; which they may do freely and loyally without questioning that he is or should be their king. One must not confuse the finality of one man occupying the throne with the settlement of any question of his rights to this occupation. Such false syllogisms are the playthings of tyrants, who must turn to the law to compensate for a want loyalty and legitimacy. I have faith that King Philippe is possessed of confidence enough in his people that he would fear a want of neither. His ministry, perhaps, takes a less optimistic view of affairs.

For what can a man conclude from the actions of a ministry that legislates for its own survival but that it feels itself vulnerable? Dire be the circumstances that compel a man to entrench his security in law, unconvinced that it may stand naturally; unconvinced that his security might withstand any questioning by cynics, without predisposition to abandon a matter of legal dispute on the grounds that it may have received practical resolution. I have long argued that the law must be useful practically just as it is useful in theory, but this does not extend to an endorsement of the declaration that: As it is in life, so must it be in law! For a regard only for praxis is symptomatic of just as blinding a commitment to prejudice as a regard only for theory; the actors' names may change, but their intransigence remains; an any man who rules by prejudice alone cannot be said properly to govern, so will he be motivated purely by a desire to reach his imagined utopia, and not by a desire to improve that topos he finds himself in already. Recognising that to legislate explicitly for the exclusion of the Bourbon claim would be nothing less than a coup d'état, unfounded in any bases of broken contracts, the ministry have attempted a solution by covering up its problems. This is reckless government; for whilst a man who ignores his ailment may grant himself peace of mind, he loses all knowledge of the spread of his malady.

For the price we pay for imagined stability, in truth the furthered security of the ruling class, is true settlement; such as can alone bring true stability in the long-term. If France is to redeem the full legitimacy of the monarchy, it must be allowed a discussion of the current rift so that resolution may be found. It may be uncomfortable for the ministry, allowing talk that assaults the legitimacy of its popular monarchy; but it cannot be afforded impunity in declaring that the legitimacy of the monarchy is beyond question. Such palliatives will only mask the worsening of France's division, aggravating those same ills they are employed to heal. This is not cure, but theatre; under the direction of the ministry, every Frenchman becomes an actor in a national fantasy, which so pleases its directors that they, too, succumb to its diversion.


~ Chelsea, 1831
 
The Law on Elections: Non
Amendment to the Law on Elections: Abstain
The Law on the Census: Oui
The Law on the National Guard: Abstain
The Law on the Reserve: Non
The Law on Provocation, Libel, and Slander: Non
The Law on Press and Political Offenses: Abstain
Law on Public Criers: Oui
Law on Private Associations: Non
The Law on Banking: Abstain
The Law on Gaming: Abstain
Amendment no.2 to the Charter of 1830: Non
The Budget of 1831/2: Non
Amendment on the Foncière: Abstain
Amendment on the Pig Iron Tariff: Abstain
Amendment on the Paper, Leather, and Clothing Tariff: Abstain
Faction: Légitimistes Ralliés

[Renaissance Légitimiste: +1PP]
[Calvados]
 
Dear Chairman of the Société étudiante libérale, ((@ThaHoward))

I must express my intense interest and fondness to the news of the propagation of your recent society. I myself was a student at La Sarbonne, and can fully sympathise with the students of Paris in their plight. Furthermore, your platform of democracy, reform, and brotherhood among Frenchmen are traits that I hold dear myself. As such, I ask that I may apply as a member of your Societe, so I may assist where I can and when I can in the uplifting of students within Paris. Furthermore my law office, the Nadeau Maison du Loi, is willing to take on qualified volunteers in which to learn the esoteric realm of French law.

I do so look forward to your reply,

F.O. Nadeau,
Avocat du Nadeau Maison du Loi

Dear M.Nadeau,

Your letter is foumd in good health. You are of course welcome in our society - all reformist men of the academia. Your offer to have volunteers in your office is appriciated too. Perhaps I myself will volunteer or send a brother of mine. Could you accept me during my studies? I have been thinking of further studies following my graduation as an officer and six years of mandatory service, perhaps the law might be my future.

Meanwhile feel free to write in either Libertas or Minerva. Currently I intend to focus on ending child labor and send them to education insteaf. You are of course free to say your own opinion.

Kind regards,
Duc Joachim-Philippe Lothaire de Lécuyer.
Chairman of the Société étudiante libérale.
 
Last edited:
Libertas

Use the freedom of thought, do not surpress it.

One of the most potent munition against hatred and offenses is the freedom of thought, freedom of expression, of speech - human rationale. It is our strongest again tyranny.

Recently the ministry proposed legislation which limit freedom of expression and organization. If these legislations are passed law abiding citizens of France run the risk of being prosecuted for using their God given right. The ability to express themself and organise themself. Let us not forget the tyranny of Charles X and his ministers. Let us not fall for the temptation of restoring their highly reactionary laws.

Central rights.
However is it morally justifiable to prosecute people who simply express their opinion or organise themself? We should be careful to lay more restrictions on the freedom of expression and organization than those who are already in place. Those freedoms is absolutely one of the central and most important aspects of a liberal and modern society.

Instead of silencing controversial expressions with tolerance, debate and liberal values, the ministry seek to silence them through prohibition and restrictions. It seems as if one no longer believe in the Three Glorious Days and that liberal values prevail over those of hatred and reaction.

It seems as if the ministry believe we can combat hatred and intolerance with power and intolerance. That they can secure their own position by silencing the people and the opposition. Let us ask Saint-Aignan if this is true.

Authorian direction.

Freedom of expression etc etc are rights secured by our Charter and human rights. Logically some human rights must sometimes be restricted to guard other central rights. However the line should drawn at expressions and organizations that are directly threatening and may lead to injury or death. Contrary history show us when the central authority gain expanded power to restrict various freedoms and rights, it often develop in a more authorian direction. Often because such lines remain largely arbitrary and discretionary. As a consequence of this the state may hinder its people to put forth arguments and expressions, correct or false ones, which should have a legitim place in the public political debate.

Loud, peaceful counterarguments.

One might remember the riots in Paris. A tragic event. Most of us agree upon that such groups is not an enrichment for society, but do the society showcase itself from its best side and a moral highground when it answers with restrictions on the freedoms of all French, or when it counter hatred and ingorance with rationale? All of us who disagree with violent and radical Legitimism, republicanism and ceasarism should organise ourself. Use our rights to counter them in demonstrations, clubs and circulations. And show them such attitudes are not welcome in a liberal and free society anno 1831. We should use our organizational freedom and freedom of thought.

The only way to silence such groupings and demagouges is not prohibition and restriction, but loud, peaceful counterarguments.

Lest we run the risk of falling into the same mistakes as Charles X. And in the process dishonoring the martyrs if liberty and all those who stood by the barricades. Making Marianne shed tears over the lost revolution.

Say NO to the law on public private associations. Say NO Law on Press and Political Offenses and the Law on Provocation, Libel, and Slander. Say YES to a liberty and a modern and tolerant society.

Signed, Paris 1831,
M.Civitas.




 
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs under Durand
1831 - Present

When Durand returned to the Foreign Office following the 1831 General Election, he recognized few faces from his service not two years ago, from 1827 to 1830. Few of the most senior administrators had survived the administrative enpuration enacted by Durand as Prime Minister, while those that were allowed to stay on had become closely-aligned with the moderatism of the new Cabinet. As he reassumed his old post, Durand saw it as his greatest and most important task to restore France's position of legitimate great power, rather than using it to extend its influence and affect change in Europe, as he had done in his first term. Although never as interventionist as his previous Monarch, Charles X, the cooperation between Russia and the United Kingdom on Greece did at various point nearly stave of into unilateral action, as he secretely sought out all options, even supporting Ali Pasha of Epirus, who had openly persecuted Christians, to guarentee final victory. Durand would now have to traverse the thin line of cooperative interventionism with the United Kingdom to on the one hand protect and stabilize the legitimate constitutional governments in Spain and Portugal, while on the other seeking to secure favour with the United Kingdom through this and other areas of cooperation, all while at the same time seeking to reassure the reactionary powers of Europe that France respected the Concert and the existing Balance of Power and wished to cooperate through diplomatic channels with them, while at the same time not risking the support and friendship of Constitutionalists in- and outside France, most notably Palmerstone.

Thus, Durand took up this mission with what had become his usual aloofness from party politics - indeed he appeared less than any Minister before the Chamber of Deputies; however, this was quite usual for the Minister of Foreign Affairs - and began to actively correspond with the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, while maining healthy ties with the Spanish and Portuguese Constitutional Governments. The British and Durand agreed that the maintance of stable Constitutional Monarchies on the Penninsula, and thus set out to strengthen them. Firstly through the extention of credit and secondly through direct deployment, the Foreign Offices agreed to keep the latter as minimal as possible, to prevent any undue interests from Vienna, while acting in conjunction with one another, to guarentee the best possible outcome for both Nations - while also preventing either power from bailing out on the joint operation.

Furthermore, Durand extended a hand towardsthe Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmonte, both to guarentee stability of the border and to increase trade and economic cooperation with both nations. On the one hand gaining valuable allies that testify of France's peaceful and non-jingoistic policies, while on the other hand creating a possibility for economic growth, especially for French merchants and industrialists, the backbone of the French capital economy.

The ultimate goal of these policies were ultimately threefold, growth, legitimacy and security. Through cooperation and increased trade with neighbouring nations, the Kingdom of France will find new opportunities of growth, guarenteeing border security and insuring the recognition of those border nations of France's new regime. Through the protection of Iberian Monarchies, the same three are achieved, while bringing France closer to the United Kingdom. For all three could only be fully insured if the United Kingdom, currently the Great Power most cordial to French interests and her situation, is willing to cooperate, something that was the overarching aim of the Ministry of Durand in 1832.
 
The Law on Elections: Oui
Amendment to the Law on Elections: Abst
The Law on the Census: Oui
The Law on the National Guard: Oui
The Law on the Reserve: Oui
The Law on Provocation, Libel, and Slander: Abst
The Law on Press and Political Offenses: No
Law on Public Criers: No
Law on Private Associations: Oui
The Law on Banking: Oui
The Law on Gaming: Oui
Amendment no.2 to the Charter of 1830: No
The Budget of 1831/2: No
Amendment on the Foncière: Oui
Amendment on the Pig Iron Tariff: Oui
Amendment on the Paper, Leather, and Clothing Tariff: Oui
Faction: Doctrinaire


[None]

- Bon-Marie de Moncey, Comte de Moncey
 
M. Merivée's concerns are ones that I share and must have overlooked when considering the strengths and weaknesses of the laws presented before the Chambers. While I do not dispute that Philippe is our king, the question of why is still in doubt. There are valid arguments that if the natural order of succession is considered, Henri V could be considered king. No one is certain if a child is capable of abdicating or if leaving the country constitutes an act of abdication, if a child can even be considered as having willingly left the country to begin with. The Law on Provocation, Libel, and Slander thus has dubious interpretations for Article IV, for what is the order of succession for the throne? Perhaps the Ministry may want to consider the answer to these questions before making it illegal for men to speak their mind on the matter, for they may find there are those who have a different opinion that is still entirely valid.

The Law on Provocation, Libel, and Slander: Oui -> Non

- Louis de Rohan, Prince de Guémené
 
The Law on Elections: Oui
Amendment to the Law on Elections: Abst
The Law on the Census: Oui
The Law on the National Guard: No
The Law on the Reserve: Oui
The Law on Provocation, Libel, and Slander: Qui
The Law on Press and Political Offenses: Qui
Law on Public Criers: Qui
Law on Private Associations: Qui
The Law on Banking: Oui
The Law on Gaming: Oui
Amendment no.2 to the Charter of 1830: No
The Budget of 1831/2: Qui
Amendment on the Foncière: Oui
Amendment on the Pig Iron Tariff: Oui
Amendment on the Paper, Leather, and Clothing Tariff: Oui
Faction: Politique
 
”It’s not used for anything at the moment, other than a large grassing area, it’s close to the Château, right next to the Grand Stables and there is nothing else planned here. I thought it would be the most obvious place to begun construction.” Philippe said, rather happy with his own assessment and plans, walking through the field together with Mr. Asbury, the estate manager his father had hired a bit over half a decade. The same manager that had so pushed the Old Condé towards modernization.

“It won’t be cheap. Having to construct the track itself, along with a smaller house if this is to be a proper race track.” Asbury said, assessing the land on which they walked. “But you are right, young master; we have no immediate or important plans for this area. Your father back in his time wishes for it as an extension of the mansion. A place for the horses to ride and grass.”

“So you agree with the plan?” Philippe eagerly asked as they kept walking, rather excited that finally someone showed an interest.

Asbury simply smiled, but shrugged slightly, “As I said it won’t be cheap, but it could prove to be a worthwhile investment if handled properly. “

Philippe just nodded, not really having considered the financial benefits, or that he had really cared, at least not in this project. Truth be told, it was never something that either his father or stepfather had ever brought up before. “How much?”

“175.000 francs, or there about should be able to give you what you wish.” Asbury responded with Philippe raising an eyebrow.

“175.000 francs for a racetrack?” he uttered in disbelief.

“And the house, I remember a smaller one in the plans you sent me.” Asbury responded, with Philippe just slightly nodding. Asbury stopped in his track, looking at the young man who was in fact his new boss, considering if he should ask at all before he decided that he may as well. “Has the council approved of this project?”

“No.” Philippe quickly reacted. “I asked them a few months ago, but they have ignored the request.”

“I see.” Asbury pondered for a moment, “Are you sure you wish to go ahead with this expansion in such a case. You will need their approval to release the funds.”

“I take their silence as acceptance; they have yet to deny the request, so why bother asking twice.” Philippe’s grin wide and cocky as he said it.

“Aha.” Asbury just responded.

“Its easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.” Philippe said with a slight chuckle. “Especially as they didn’t respond to me asking permission. So let us begin building, should they still deny it then it we shall simply have a half finished race course.”

Asbury on the other hand only sighed, lacking the confidence of the young master. “As you wish. I will get in contact with the builders and designers early tomorrow morning, I shall aim to have it completed by the end of 1832 as you wish for.”

Philippe smiled in return. “Thank you.” As they kept walking until Asbury decided, either for the better or worse, which was yet to be decided, to approach Philippe on an entirely different matter.

“I am rather glad that we have this chance to talk, sir.” Asbury began, “For I was hoping that, if you agree, that we may discuss some other matters in regards to your estates.”

“Oh?” Philippe muttered, raising an eyebrow as he looked at his estate manager.

“You see, sir, your father, during his last years began to allow me to modernize his lands. The truth is that as he passed, the modernization process stopped as well.” Asbury began, “The estates are now yours, and it pains to tell you that while the extend of your land is impressive, then the productivity is not nearly so. Many of your estates lack modernization, and their output shows it. You still earn plenty, but should this modernization be forsaken during the coming years, especially after you come of age, and if that trend be set. Then I fear most of the estates will not be maintainable by the time you are old. Especially as the new government seem set to increase taxes on land with little restraint.”

“That sounds bad.” Philippe said, frowning, not really sure how else to respond.

“It is.” Asbury confirmed, “Your father, in his wisdom, saw the need for change coming and began slowly, and I hope that you will follow his example so that our modernization can continue. Farming, especially here in France, is changing. If the large estates are to survive in the future, it will need proper care, an actual interest from the people who own it. As the government continues to favour the cities at the expense of the countryside, it will only add to the problems. In the future, many of these estates will need to be run with a much more business minded approach if they are to survive the storm.”

“Are you not able to handle it?” Philippe asked the agent, starting to doubt if he was the right man for the job, despite his father’s trust in him.

“I can, but I am hoping that you as the future owner will also take an interest. In the people, the farms, the animals, the forests. All of it, to take part in the management of your estates.” Asbury commented making Philippe turn to him with a wide smile.

“Would that not leave you without a job?” The younger asked in jest.

“Perhaps, but most likely no, your lands are too vast for you to personally manage. But it would do us all well if you were to understand what was happening, the value and the problems facing you in the future. How to maximize profits, how to handle a proper crisis. To take part in the future directions of the estates with a proper understand so that you can make the right decisions.” Asbury stopped as they stood outside Chantilly, Philippe ready to go inside.

“Has the Baron approved?” Philippe asked as he looked at Asbury with an intrigued smirk.

“I do not believe he would see it as proper. Or allow it.” Asbury commented on the opinions of one of his superiors.

“I see.” Philippe responded, pacing back and forth for a bit. “So what do you suggest?”

“The new construction gives us the perfect excuse to meet more often, allow me to bring some books from time to time, some ledgers and show you how the estate runs around.” Philippe nodding at Asbury’s suggestion, “But apart from that, take your time riding around the estate, meet the farmers, see the land, observe how it all works. When do they farm, how do they sow, and what tools do they use for gathering. All these sorts of things.”

“Very well.” Philippe just said as he nodded to the old estate manager, shaking his hand as the manager left and Philippe return to the Château, once again to resume his Latin studies.
 
UkUwhTR.png


Sur la liberté religieuse
In the Charter of Government, it states that the Catholic Church is simply the religion "professed by the majority of the French", as well as the fact that each Frenchman may "profess his religion with equal liberty, and shall receive for his religious worship the same protection". This change from the old 1814 Charter allows for all men in France to worship as they so chose, only acknowledging Catholicism as the religion the majority of France practices. It is indeed a profound change from the Restoration Regime, which saw Catholicism as the state religion and aimed to enforce that belief whenever it could via laws and ordinances, and it is a much better belief than that of the anti-Jewish Republicans. The Ministry in itself has greatly succeeded in promoting the ideals of religious freedom in its inaugural year by choosing to appoint men of non-Catholic religions based

The Orleanist adherence to the right of all Frenchmen to practice what they wish without fear of persecution is a belief that stands alongside that of such freedoms like that of speech and press in this new age. All major religions of France, whether it be Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish, are free to worship as they please without the government favoring one of them over the other. In terms of political inclusion, this means that France shall see a rise in Protestant and Jewish Deputies within our government. We have already seen a Jewish minister take his place in a government with Jacques de Rothschild as Minister of Finance, and now Thibaut Duval, a Christian of Jewish blood, inheriting the same position. These men earned their positions based on merit, and were not denied based on the religions of their ancestors or the religion they currently practice. Under the regime of Charles X, this would not have been possible. The regime had tried to implement policies favoring the Catholic faith, the "State Religion" of France. Catholic priests would have been able to adjust their own tax rate while Protestant ministers and Jewish rabies would have had to pay the same taxes as everyone else. It was a mistake that the Three Glorious Days succeeded in correcting.

But what of the Republicans? What of the men who clamor so hard for freedom in the extreme? What do they have to say about the various religions within France? Allow me to share with you a campaign pamphlet that circulated during the election of 1824 from a known Verdet supporter who was running against a man who married a Jewish woman:

Would a good Catholic marry a Jewess?

Would a good Catholic sire a Jew?

Would a good Catholic slander the devout?

Do you prefer a good Catholic?

Vote [Insert Opposing Candidate's Name]


The Verdets, and affiliates to the Verdets, have repeatedly slandered our Jewish population, utilizing the most vulgar of speech to denounce them as inferior to the "good Catholics" of France. While their anti-Jewish rhetoric has died down following the Three Glorious Days, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that their distaste of the Jewish population, a population that stood side by side with their Christian brothers on the barricades in the name of the same freedoms the Verdets clamored for, still lingers within their ranks. If one of the most known Republican institutions insults those of the Jewish faith at ease, what would they do if they were to receive power? Would they cast down the Jewish people, distancing them from society? Would they follow in the same footsteps as the Reign of Terror did, murdering men of clergy regardless of faith? Would they even go as far as to reinstate their insane cult-religion? Would they allow men to worship freely within France, or cast down religion as a whole, murdering all those who hold firm to their spiritual nourishment?

I hope that it has become clear, dear reader, that the Orleanist government is the best form of government to ensure the protection of worship against reactionary state-religions and Republican destruction of religion as a whole. The current ministry has done a grand job in ensuring these freedoms are maintained. The Orleanist system allows for men to worship as they see fit, whether it be in the name of a Catholic God (like so many in France do), or a Jewish one. It allows men to be judged based on their skill, not based on if they believe in God or Yahweh.

-Alexandre, Baron Descombes
 
The Law on Elections: Oui
Amendment to the Law on Elections: No
The Law on the Census: Oui
The Law on the National Guard: Oui
The Law on the Reserve: No
The Law on Provocation, Libel, and Slander: Oui
The Law on Press and Political Offenses: Oui
Law on Public Criers: Oui
Law on Private Associations: Oui
The Law on Banking: Oui
The Law on Gaming: Oui
Amendment no.2 to the Charter of 1830: Oui
The Budget of 1831/2: No
Amendment on the Foncière: Oui
Amendment on the Pig Iron Tariff: Oui
Amendment on the Paper, Leather, and Clothing Tariff: Oui
Ministerial General Amendment: Oui
Faction: Doctrinaire

[No Bonus]

- Clément Larousse, Député pour Isère
 
From the memoirs of Esmé Merivée

Book VI; Chapter 3: Mr. Carlyle—Life at the King's Cross—Chateaubriand—Dinner at the Literary Fund—Lord Melbourne—Sydney Smith


Living in those days with Mr. Carlyle was not without turbulence, for he complained daily of various ailments of the stomach, which so often put him in a disagreeable mood. We worked nevertheless on our respective labours, some independent and some, eventually, a twin effort. Carlyle had extended his invitation of hospitality to me on the basis of his appreciation of my History, and by way of payment for my lodgings he insisted that I offer no more than my services in his own study of the Revolution. In this way, the two of us being of similar mind in various matters of philosophy, I believe I was spared the worst excesses of his distemper; but no labour of love can quell completely the wildest passions of a Scot!



I walked daily past that curious monument, the King's Cross, for which the road upon which Mr. Carlyle lived was named. Atop this edifice is a statue of George IV, who presides over a rising accumulation of Classical motifs mish-mashed together in the strangest way; at the base Doric ordering surrounds an octahedral chamber, in which can be found a public house; yet as the monument climbs this Puritanism gives way to designs far more Baroque in their nature. In such a way, I could not help but think, the course of the Hanoverian regime was given life in stone! But even here there is modesty in ornament; for it is famous that the English have built themselves no Versailles to rebel against. Their institutions of power are possessed of that self-assuredness that allows them to function quietly, without pomp or mignonerie. Such is the strength of the English aristocracy.



I had spoken briefly before my departure to my friend Chateaubriand, who had apprised me of the existence of a Literary Fund in this city, whose make-up was of the most noted men of letters of the day, and who came together in their purpose to assist the many poor writers whose dedication to their craft had not brought with it financial reward. In his time of exile, Chateaubriand had come before the Fund and received the acclamation of that most learned gentleman, the late George Canning; I had enquired of the society to Mr. Carlyle, who received with enthusiasm the suggestion that I, too, make myself known to the learned gentlemen. He was confident that my History would have assured my reputation such that I might be received warmly, and in the main he was proven right; my translation has been more readily received by the English than the original was by the French, and as such I have been introduced on several occasions as “Merivée, the French historian”, which is gratifying, if not an exaggeration. Nevertheless, my credentials as an historian have somewhat strengthened my diplomatic mission; even the hardest of Englishmen cannot resist the chance to indulge a learned Frenchman come to take lesson from the Mother of Parliaments!

The Literary Fund had on one occasion gathered for their annual fund-raising dinner, and through Mr. Carlyle's intervention I was fortunate enough to have been invited. The purpose was, of course, the soliciting of donations, and give I did! but not without having also made use of the chance for making social connections. Many a minister was in attendance, and I was introduced to a few, not wholly accurately, although I was a commissioner of King Philippe, as a diplomatist. I spoke at some length with the Lord Melbourne, who was then Home Secretary, and who had made his name in politics as a man of sober and selfless temperament; before serving the Earl Grey, he had served honourably under both Canning and the sorry Goderich. Now his charge was the quelling of a country on the edge of frenzy, and his humours seemed to bode well for him in his task. I apprised Melbourne of the nature of my stay in London, and he graciously advised me of certain persons I should contact, and of connections he might be able to arrange on my behalf; and chief amongst these figures he mentioned Lord John Russell, a Reformist of some zeal whose enthusiasm, I must confess, repulsed me at first; but I soon met him, and found him to be an agreeable man of some principle, even if certain of these were not my own.



We had been that evening for a dinner in Regent-street, where I first encountered the figure of Sydney Smith, a clergyman of the Old Whig prejudice, by which I mean to say that he was a man of justice and the Constitution, who knew the value of judicious reform before times of tumult; and who knew that a state functioned best not when every man had a say with which he might best shout over his neighbours, but when the institutions of government were such that each might have his voice heard and echoed by the noblest of men. Mr. Carlyle was little interested in the Reverend, whom he disparaged in one of his bilious moods as being all fun and no humour; but I found him agreeable company once we were able to converse freely after dinner, without the necessary gaiety that coats all discourse in London, and which differs in its légèreté from the politicking of the wit of the Salon; and by the end of the night Anglican wag and Catholic alien alike had been united by a love of good government.
 
The Law on Elections: Oui
Amendment to the Law on Elections: No
The Law on the Census: Oui
The Law on the National Guard: Oui
The Law on the Reserve: Oui
The Law on Provocation, Libel, and Slander: Oui
The Law on Press and Political Offenses: Oui
Law on Public Criers: Oui
Law on Private Associations: Oui
The Law on Banking: Oui
The Law on Gaming: Oui
Amendment no.2 to the Charter of 1830: Oui
The Budget of 1831/2: Oui
Amendment on the Foncière: No
Amendment on the Pig Iron Tariff: No
Amendment on the Paper, Leather, and Clothing Tariff: No
Ministerial General Amendment to the Budget: Oui

Faction: Politique


[+1.25 bonus]

- Barante
 
The Law on Elections: Non
Amendment to the Law on Elections: Oui
The Law on the Census: Oui
The Law on the National Guard: Oui
The Law on the Reserve: Oui
The Law on Provocation, Libel, and Slander: Oui
The Law on Press and Political Offenses: Oui
Law on Public Criers: Oui
Law on Private Associations: Oui
The Law on Banking: Oui
The Law on Gaming: Oui
Amendment no.2 to the Charter of 1830: Non
The Budget of 1831/2: Oui
Amendment on the Foncière: Non
Amendment on the Pig Iron Tariff: Oui
Amendment on the Paper, Leather, and Clothing Tariff: Oui
Ministerial General Amendment to the Budget: Oui

(Faction: Parti Tiers)
(Bonus: A voice crying in the wilderness 0.25PP)

None of the proposed amendments to the Tariffs have reduced the impost to an acceptable level, but I have voted for all such amendments in the hope that at least some of them will get up. I am unsure how the Government proposes to square to circle if a number of amendments are successful which approve different levels of reduction although as a matter of logic, the lowest level approved should apply.
 
Voting closed.
 
((Private letter to @Qwerty7 ))

M.Artraud,

Your ideological and philosophical knowledge is known throughout all universities and academies. We extend to you an invitation to hold lectures for us or schooling in general.

Regards,
Liberal Student's Society.

((Private letter to @Sneakyflaps ))

Hi,

Have you moved back to France? And if so have you attended to an academy or university? If so I would be honored to join into the Liberal Student's Society established by some friends of mine and I.

Kind regards,

Joachim Lécuyer.
 
((Private - @Cloud Strife ))

Addressed to His Majesty, Philippe VII, by the Grace of God, King of France,
courtesy of His Majesty's Household;

Your Majesty,

I hope this letter finds you well.

As it stands, the General Staff is composed of the following:

* Marshal Claude Victor-Perrin, duc de Belluno
* Marshal Nicolas Jean-de-Dieu Soult, duc de Dalmatie
* Marshal Étienne MacDonald, duc de Tarente
* Marshal François Bournier, Comte de Pontecoulant
* General Gabriel Jean Joseph Molitor
The composition of the body has is notably small, considering the deaths of a number of individuals over the past decade. Nonetheless, it is my belief that the body needs a total re-organization in light of the Revolution of 1830, and the corresponding failure of the French Army to act in any notable capacity - and said failures can be noted to originate from the inaction of the General Staff, which is the guiding body of the French Army.

It is my recommendation that Marshal Perrin, Marshal MacDonald, and Marshal Bournier be retired effective immediately. It is further my recommendation that Marshal Gérard, General Clausel, General de Grouchy and General Mouton be added to the body to replace those that have retired, and to fill the body with more agreeable and sympathetic individuals.


I beg to remain your most humble servant,

qn8fqGO.png
 
From the memoirs of Esmé Merivée


Book VI; Chapters 4&5: News of Rioting in Bristol—Mr. Carlyle Speaks on Democracy—Considerations of France and England—Wellington is Recalled—A Meeting with the Earl Grey

The English disposition is not to revolution, and as such London was greatly shocked that October by news of rioting in Bristol, on the occasion of the visit of a magistrate, one Sir Charles Wetherell, who had served under Wellington and was known as a vocal opponent of the Reformist cause. This was some weeks after the Lords had rejected Grey's reform bill, and as such the mood amongst the bourgeoisie across the country was febrile; there was frenzy also in Nottingham, where the castle, home to the Duke of Newcastle, was set alight; and such was the damage that the Duke was of a mind to turn the castle's ancient cannons upon the people! In Bristol, the mob was so incensed by the presence of the Tory magistrate that they threw stones at the Mansion-house and did a great deal of damage also; Wetherell was forced to take flight in disguise.



The general opinion amongst my friends at this time was that Grey would have his way in the end, for the King was of sensible and sympathetic mind, and would soon knock sense into the recalcitrant Lords. Nevertheless, the ministry found itself in difficulty, and its efforts at reform were frustrated continually by the wrecking amendments of opposition members. Mr. Carlyle, who is of my mind on the dangers of democracy, has supported the efforts of reform insofar as they ward off all talk of revolution; but this is not to give the impression that he was a friend of change for its own sake! The industrialist, capitalist class, he believed, would profit well from the passage of the reform bill, which I did not doubt, for their ascendancy would be cemented in the Constitution; gone would be the binding ties of trust between the aristocratic ministers and the people of England, to be reforged by the individual and the materialist, inheritors of the revolution in industry. In such a way, the condition of England would be exposed to the vulnerabilities of the modern world.

I was reminded by this of the opposing nature of France's problems, where, having suffered our cycles of Revolution already, the new man has emerged on top. The nobility has been neutered, having shown itself to have been effete; for the English aristocracy was always more inclined to public service than the French; and here duties were borne, rather than assumed. We in France were therefore advanced in our course of history relative to the English; or, rather: our process of change had been altogether more violent, more abrupt, such that we had come further in a shorter space; and how much the worse we were for it! The condition of France was that of the town and the country; of the bourgeoisie and the peasantry; of the légitimiste and the Orléaniste; everywhere, two nations! Our ministers had corrupted their victory in Revolution such that, as England lingered on the verge of Reform, France was a nation ruled for the benefit of its rulers. England was no Paradise, and its problems were many; but its high age of patronage had ended with the eighteenth century; ushered in by Walpole and shown out by Peel. Under the ministers of Philippe, one had to ask at that time: had we traded the patronage of Charles' tyranny for a new patronage, of finance and ambition?



Spring brought with it the movements of a new ministry, for the King had grown tired of Grey and his inability to navigate the Reformist impasse. Truthfully, the King was not entirely without mal-agency of his own, for Grey had presented a means of circumventing the objections of the Lords: to create sufficient peers that the bill be passed; but the King, rightly, had balked at this measure as excessive, and injurious to the political order. The King and his ministers were united in their ends, but disagreed as to the means, and as such the union fell briefly.

Amidst wild disturbances, Wellington was recalled. Perhaps the most notorious of the anti-Reformists, having only the year before killed his own ministry with an ill-advised speech in the Lords in the favour of an absolutist system, Wellington's was a generally unpopular appointment, and provoked rioting in London at last, to the extent that the public attempted a run on the banks so as to deny the ministry its supply! “Stop the Duke, Go for Gold!” cried the mob, who raised amongst the political class such fear of Revolution as had not been felt in England for centuries, and as such Wellington resigned his commission and Grey was back in favour. King William, sensing the public mood, was now ready to enact the creation of the peers; and elderly, childless candidates for ennoblement had been found, so as to avoid any lasting disruption to the order of the Lords. But Wellington also saw, finally, the need to bow to public opinion, and as such instructed his opposed Tories to relent to the passage, and in so doing forestalled any need for creation. By such means …



Only after … did I come to meet Lord Grey himself, only some days before I was due to leave London for Paris. Some weeks earlier I had dined with the Lord Dover, who had introduced me to certain fellows of the Royal Society of Literature, and also to Lord Grey. The prime minister was much taken with my commission, although we discussed more general themes of history, for Grey had read my History. I found him a sympathetic character, taken from the Old Whig tradition of aristocratic duty, and I learned later that, before he died years after, he came to despair of the direction in which his Whig inheritors had led the country. Progress, he understood, was a means and not an end. …
 
Last edited: