and that there was much danger of inspiring by severity, the idea "que la perfidie est noble envers la tyrannie." As the whole nation had offended, the selecting of individuals for execution, had something odious in it, and seemed to convert criminals into martyrs. The fate of Labedoyere in particular, excited the deepest sympathy. His wild enthusiasm and romantic valour had delighted his countrymen; and as he died to expiate their influence over him, his offence was ascribed to youth, gratitude, and the illusions of an ardent mind. For the conduct of Ney there was no such apology as youth. His treason was flagrant, but not premeditated; for he had been trained in the school of the Revolution, to consider allegiance due to France, and not to a monarch. The public did not approve his conduct; but he had obtained the appellation of the "bravest of the brave," by his indefatigable gallantry, and had saved thousands of Frenchmen in the dreadful flight from Moscow. It could scarcely have been thought necessary to prove that the government had nerve enough to shoot such men, when a million of foreign bayonets were stacked in France; but if it was, a sham execution would have answered that end; and if the individuals had been concealed in prison for some time, and then brought out, it would have electrified the people with pleasure, by showing them that the government had dared to punish, but had indulged in clemency. The extraordinary escape of Lavalette delighted the French nation, and his late pardon and permission to return to France, show that his death would have been of no service to the state. The other victims of this brilliant but unlucky rebellion were executed in the provinces; and did not therefore, with the exception perhaps of Cæsar and Constantine Fouchers, attract such universal sympathy and regret. These two young officers of Bourdeaux were twin-brothers, and were not at first proscribed, but were tried and condemned. They heard their sentence with firmness; walked to the place of execution with their arms locked in each other; refused the bandage for their eyes; gave the signal, and fell dead together. Their heroism, fraternal love, and fate, touched more hearts with compassion than with fear. The many executions too, which took place at Grenoble and Lyons, only angered the public mind, and have caused a more implacable spirit of discontent to pre

vail in those parts than elsewhere. Louis is said to have been disinclined to this severe policy, and to have yielded in some instances with extreme reluctance to the importunities of his friends. In the case of Ney in particular, he is said to have been deeply touched by a report of his repentance, and to have shown by his hesitation in signing the death-warrant, "qu'une ame genereuse a de peine à faillir."*

The country around Toulouse, Nismes, and Marseilles, is the least civilized part of France. Thirty years of confusion have not destroyed the religious and political feuds that disgraced Languedoc, in particular, before the revolution. Gangs of high church men and ultra-royalists, animated by the spirit of persecution and revenge, collected about Nismes, to assassinate all whom their malignity or caprice pleased to consider protestants or Bonapartists. The rage which murdered Marshal Brune, at Avignon, and which spread death and despair in Marseilles, was more transient than that at Nismes, where even the king's officer, General Lagarde, was assassinated in attempting to preserve the peace. D'Argenson, the wealthiest proprietor in France, denounced these crimes in the Chamber of Deputies, but the ultra-royalists stifled his voice by a general clamour.

When more than a year had elapsed after the second restoration; when the foreign troops, with the exception of the army of occupation, were gone,-the ring-leaders of the late disaster either dead or banished, and all the posts of government filled by ultra-royalists, the king discovered that the French, instead of being appeased, were more violently hostile than ever against his government; and that a spirit of insurrection pervaded all France. The rash and furious conduct of the emigrès and their friends, was evidently hurrying on the nation to a dreadful explosion, which must have occurred in the autumn of 1816, but for the good sense of the ministry. The royal ordinance of the 5th of September, which dissolved the Chamber of Deputieslaid the foundation of public credit-recommenced the reign of the law-and saved the monarchy-was the result of the influ ence of Mr. Decazes the minister of Police. From that day a gradual improvement has been going on in France, although it has been much retarded by excessive caution. The king was

* Corneille.

aware of the general displeasure with his government, and in making that sacrifice to public opinion, reminded the nation that the advantages of amelioration were closely connected with the dangers of innovation. For this reason, he determined to retain the old electoral colleges, but suffered his ministers to exert all the influence of government, both against the ultra-royalists and the violent constitutionalists. The chamber was again reduced to two hundred and fifty-eight members, which is certainly too small a number for a great kingdom, in which a numerous house of commons is indispensably requisite to counterbalance the weight of the crown. To the largeness of her representation, England owes the independence and wisdom of her parliament, as well as what is not, at first sight, so evident, the dispatch of business. In an assembly of one or two hundred, there is a disposition to indulge every garrulous blockhead, who chooses to harangue himself out of breath and his auditors out of patience. But in a body of five or six hundred, this indulgence becomes impossible; and, therefore, none are suffered to worry the house, by beating about after nothing. Those who cannot condense their observations, and speak to the point, soon cease to take part in the debate.

The return of the French government into the track of the charter, diffused a pacifying gladness over all parties except that of the infuriated royalists. Their antipathy to liberty is so strong, that whenever she sheds a beam upon them, it causes them to give out, as the rays of the rising sun are fabled to have caused the statue of Memnon, a sound of lamentation and regret.

·

LETTER XVI.

Paris, April 3d, 1820.

THE new Chamber of Deputies could not, my dear sir, from the mode and circumstances of its election be a fair and candid representation of the nation. But as the ultra royalists lost the majority in it, France began to breathe, and the people, in the language of the king, "to bear their hardships with touching resignation." The overthrow of the faction which was then panting to restore royalty to its ancient plenitude of prerogative and pageantry, caused such an immediate restoration of tranquillity that the government deemed it safe to invite the allies to diminish the army of occupation; and thirty thousand troops were accordingly withdrawn. Vaublanc, the minister of the Interiour, who was odious to the nation, was dismissed, and M. Lainé, an ardent, but not furious friend of the king, appointed to fill his place. Dubouchage and Clarke, however, still continued to interrupt the harmony of the ministerial deliberations, by their despotical habits until the summer of 1817, when they were discharged. After this change, slight differences of opinion only existed in the cabinet.

The Electoral Colleges were so notoriously corrupt, that a majority of the members elected by them heartily concurred with the liberal part of the ministry in the necessity of abolishing them. Hence originated the law of elections, which annihilated those colleges, and extended the elective franchise to every individual of thirty years of age, who paid to the state a direct contribution of 300 francs, (or $60.) This law, although it only gave the right of voting to a hundred thousand men in a nation of thirty millions, or to one person in three hundred, was vehemently opposed, of course, by the violent monarchists, who stigmatized it as democratic, and subversive of the principles of legitimate government! These new electors were to assemble in the chief

town of the department when summoned by the king; their presidents were appointed by him, in order to enable him to present a royal candidate for their favour; and the electors were required to deliver their votes to the president and four scrutators without public deliberation. Half the members to be elected were obliged to be residents of the electing department—all were required to be forty years of age, and to pay a direct tax of 1000 francs, (or $200;) and agreeably to the charter, one fifth of the chamber was to be renewed annually. Now, this law was a great blessing to France, although it excluded from the privilege of voting all small proprietors of land, and limited the right to a body which must diminish in number, whilst the present testamentary laws remain in force. It also discarded a principle, that of the double election, which will, if I mistake not, be found of vital importance to the respectability of public assemblies in those nations of Europe in which an extensive suffrage is to be enjoyed. The double election prevents the necessity of canvassing with the canaille, which is often disagreeable and irksome to men of rank, and takes away any undue advantage from those cajoling and hypocritical demagogues "who seem the innocent flower, but are the serpent under it." Unhappily, all sovereigns are liable to be deluded by flattery, and the people as much as any other. The French have an idea, that by two degrees of election, the affectation of vulgar manners, and the licentious habit of drinking with the canaille for popularity, may be prevented; inasmuch as the candidates would only have to make interest with those numerous electors, who, in all probability, would be men of some education, talent, or property.

In Europe, for a long time to come, popular elections will probably be attended with some tumult and danger, because they occur so rarely. In America we have disarmed them of their terrors, by the frequency of their recurrence; and we therefore smile at the fine rhapsodies of Mr. Burke, on the evils he imagined inseparable from even triennial elections; on the "drunkenness, idleness, law suits, litigations, prosecutions, triennial frenzy, dissolution of society, interruption and ruin of industry; the rendering immortal the personal hatreds, feuds and animosities, until public morals should be vitiated, and gangrened to the vitals." Besides this gang of terrors, that great