happen soon; yet no one seemed to know why. The Minister Villèle was extremely unpopular; but this appeared to be rather on account of something he was expected to do, than from any thing he had yet done. The financial statement of the session was very favorable. It came out afterwards that it was delusive, and that the condition of the people in the Provinces was deplorable; but this was not yet understood in Paris. From some unknown cause, every thing seemed thrown out of its course, so that events were no longer calculable, nor political bodies reliable. In the preceding session, the Minister had been perplexed by the new Chamber of Peers, where he had supposed he might have altogether his own way.1 The Peers had rejected his project of a kind of law of primogeniture, and had refused to tolerate the presence of the Jesuits in establishments of public instruction. The other Chamber sank in the national estimation from day to day; and, in proportion, the Liberal party within it rose into strength and influence. The newspaper press harassed the Minister by its unremitting hostility; while the journals, which he held at his disposal, had scarcely any readers. The Minister saw that he must either resign, or put down the press. Unhappily for himself and his trust, he chose the latter course; and here was the first thunder-clap of the tempest whose distant mutterings had held the nation in dread.

Law of the press.

But this

During the preceding year, the bishops had been urgent with the government to restrain the licentiousness of the press, and the ministerial majority of the Chamber of Deputies had carried addresses for the same object; and now, at the opening of the session, a Bill was brought in, which must have gratified the expectations of the bishops and the Tory deputies to the utmost.2 This Bill was the production of Peyronnet, Keeper of the Seals, and Minister of Justice. Hitherto the law had provided that five copies of every new work should be deposited in the appropriate government department. deposit was made at the moment of publication, allowing no time for revision by the police, a purpose never contemplated in the arrangement. Now, it was to be enacted, that no work of twenty sheets and under should be exposed for sale, or be allowed, in any portion, to leave the printing-office, till five complete days had elapsed from the period of deposit; nor any work of above twenty sheets, till after the expiration of ten days. The penalties were fines and confiscation of the edition. So much for works not periodical. As for periodicals, cheapness was to be done away with by the imposition of heavy stamps. The publication of the political journals was to be rendered almost impossible by 2 Annuaire, 1827, p. 53.

1 Annuaire Historique, 1827, p. 1.

restrictions as to proprietorship and editorship; and all proprietors whose case did not come within the conditions of the new law - all women, minors, and partners, beyond the number of five · were to find their property in journals extinguished within thirty days from the passing of the law, unless they could previously accomplish a forced sale. Fines and other punishments, and stamp-duties, were heavily augmented. A fine of five hundred francs (about 217.) was ordained for every article relating to the private life of any Frenchman living, or any foreigner resident in France, without express permission being obtained from the individual noticed; and, lest there should be any remissness in such individuals, from a dislike to bringing their private affairs under the notice of the courts, it was provided that the public prosecutor might take up the case, if the aggrieved party did not.1

It is worth while giving this brief sketch of Peyronnet's atrocious law of the press, to show what the Bourbon government of France was in its latter day. The wickedness of bringing forward such a law in the nineteenth century can be equalled only by the folly and blindness of the venture. The King and his ministers might as reasonably and hopefully have proposed to put a padlock on the tongue of every Frenchman.

The Chamber would hardly listen to the description of the law when it was proposed. One of the deputies, M. Casimir Périer, quitting his seat, exclaimed, "You might as well propose a law for the suppression of printing in France, for the benefit of Belgium." Shouts of surprise and indignation burst forth at intervals; and, at the close of Peyronnet's speech, there was too much confusion to permit the continuance of business. Of course, the journals all came out furiously the next day; all except the ministerial papers, which nobody read. which nobody read. At the earliest possible moment, petitions began to pour in from the remotest of the Provinces. The most striking, however, of the myriad of remonstrances called forth by the occasion, was that of the French Academy. It was particularly striking on account of the undue subservience to royalty for which that great society was notorious. But this law was too obviously injurious to the interests of science and literature to be allowed to pass without the strongest protest that could be offered by the association which represented the science and literature of France. Of the 28 members who attended the discussion as to what should be done, 18 voted for the remonstrance, and 4 went away without voting; leaving only 6 in favor of keeping quiet under the infliction. M. Michaud was one of the speakers who exposed the consequences of the law; and the three members who were charged with the preparation of the remonstrance were MM. Chateaubriand, Lacratelle,

1 Annuaire, 1827, pp. 70–77.

and Villemain. The next day, Villemain was deprived of his office in the Privy-council; and the government newspaper announced that M. Michaud was no longer one of the readers to the royal family, nor M. Lacratelle dramatic censor. Crowds immediately assembled before the houses of these three gentlemen, thus dismissed from office; and subscriptions were set on foot for the publication of works which it was known that they were preparing.1 The Director of the Academy requested an audience of the King, to present the memorial; and the King refused to see the Director of the Academy. He could not yet, however, prevent the French nation seeing the remonstrance; for it was published, and spread far and wide.

Though the government was more powerful in the Chamber of Deputies of which it had controlled the elections than anywhere else, it had a severe struggle to obtain a majority in the committee which was to consider the Bill; and, after all, the provisions of the law were so altered and softened that the Minister hardly knew his own Bill when it came forth from committee. He obtained the restoration of some of its original clauses; and the Bill was sent up to the Peers by a majority of 233 votes to 134. It was commonly said, that, if it passed the Peers, not more than three or four journals would continue to appear in Paris; and the ministers took no pains to conceal that this was exactly what they wished.

While the Peers were occupied with the Bill, the deputies were invited to pass a measure to secure themselves against newspaper reporters. Speech was to be repressed in every direction. Men were not silenced yet, however; and they made the King aware of their opinions. The committee of the Peers began their work by calling before them the chief printers and booksellers of Paris, to give evidence as to the probable operation of the law, if passed.2 Putting this together with the fact, that, of the seven who composed the committee, four were of liberal politics, the government must have seen pretty clearly what the result was likely to be. Just at that time (April 16), the King reviewed some of his troops and the National Guard; and the ominous silence with which he was received seems to have struck upon his heart. He called his ministers to council the next day, and declared his will that the Bill for the regulation of the press should be withdrawn. It is said that Peyronnet's appearance in the Chamber of Deputies on this 17th of April was really forlorn. He was embarrassed; his voice faltered; and the listening members could scarcely catch the words of the royal ordinance. They were immediately repeated loudly enough, however. The thirty thousand journeymen who would have been deprived of 2 Annuaire, 1827, p. 147.

1 Annuaire, 1827, p. 61.

bread by the passage of this law, caught up the news, and spread it over Paris; and the whole city was presently blazing with illuminations and fireworks. The rejoicings of the people were regarded by the ministers as manifestations of revolutionary tendencies; and no one member of the Administration as yet offered to resign.

Review of the
National
Guard.

It had been arranged, before this issue, that the King should review the National Guard on the 29th of April, "in token of his satisfaction at their zeal in his honor, on the anniversary of his return to Paris." Some doubt had arisen in regard to the loyalty of a portion of this popular force; and there was a question whether the review should take place in the court of the Tuileries, which was not the most popular locality. The King, however, declined to alter the announcement given; and the occasion was prepared for, as a great fête-day. When the King appeared, surrounded by his brilliant staff, and followed by the whole royal family, none but loyal cries were heard; but, after a time, a voice here and there from the ranks shouted, "Down with the ministers!” "Down with the Jesuits!" 1 The officers and comrades of those who thus shouted, strove to silence them; but in vain. The King was heard to say, in a tone of great dignity, "I came here to receive homage, and not admonitions." Upon this arose a great shout of, "Long live the King!" but the disloyal cries were renewed and multiplied. The King would have borne with them, as is known by his having formally signified his satisfaction with the state of the Guard, and the ceremonial of the day; but his ministers could not forgive their share. The cries were uttered, with great rage, under their windows: they went to the King, to hold council, and sat late into the night. Before daylight, the royal and ministerial order for the disbanding of the National Guard was received by its commandant; and, before seven in the morning, all the posts of the Guard were occupied by troops of the line.

Censorship

Two days after the close of the session, in June, the old censorship of 1820-21 was brought into action. Every revived. one expected this; but nobody was the less angry. In August, government took offence at the orations and ceremonies which signalized the funeral of a deputy who had been expelled from the Chamber in 1823, and prosecuted the printers and publishers of the report of the funeral. The speakers and reporters came forward to acknowledge their share in the matter. All the parties were prosecuted; and all authors, speakers, publishers, and printers were acquitted, and the confiscated copies of the pamphlet ordered to be restored. Lafayette, who was one of these parties, made a kind of political progress through France; and

he damaged the government, at every stage of his journey, by a plain narrative of its policy of the year. The King was travelling at the same time. He visited the camp at St. Omer; was loyally received; enjoyed the spectacle of the improved condition of his people, which was, in truth, very miserable, since he visited the same regions in his younger days; and returned to Paris, fancying that all was well.1

Dissolution

The next proceeding of the government remains inexplicable. The Chamber of Deputies was more devoted to them than any future one could be expected to be; yet they of the Chamdissolved it this autumn. They spared no effort to ber of manage and control the elections; and their power of Deputies. doing so was very great. But they had brought on a crisis which was too strong for them; and the new elections were fatal to the Villèle Ministry. The Ultra-royalists and Liberals made a junction for the occasion, and returned a motley assemblage of deputies, whose only point of agreement seemed to be hostility to Villèle and his comrades. In Paris itself, every ministerial candidate was thrown out. At the moment of dissolving the Chamber of Deputies, the King had declared the creation of seventy-six new Peers in a batch. The Peers, having been unmanageable, were now to be swamped. In the new batch were found the only archbishops (five) who were not Peers before, and the most slavish of the creatures of the government who had been thrust into the late assemblage of deputies.

Resignation

The King and his Minister were among the last to perceive that these measures would not do, that they were intolerable: but they discovered it at last; and, on the 4th of January, Villèle resigned.

of Villèle.

The people of Paris were on the watch. On occasion of the election returns, towards the end of November, there had been serious troubles in Paris; and it was at this time, as far as we are aware, that the first mention of barricades occurs.2 Some of the rioters, we are told, pursued by the patrol, raised barricades by means of the masons' tools and hewn stones which they found near the Church St. Leu, where some new houses were in process of construction. It is two years and a half after this that we find, in our own "Annual Register," the first mention of barricades, and of something else: "As a detachment advanced, it was stopped by a new obstacle, a barricade formed across the street by one of those long coaches to which the Parisians have given the name of omnibus.”

The people of Paris were, as has been said, on the watch. The countenance of every Minister was examined as he came

1 Annuaire, 1827, p. 252.

3 Annual Register, 1830, p. 188.

2 Annuaire, 1827, p. 261.