banished, except in cases provided for by the law, and according to
the forms prescribed.
ART. 62. Freedom in religious worship is guarantied to all.
ART. 63. All property possessed or acquired agreeably to the laws, and
all debts of the state, are inviolable.
ART. 64. Every citizen has a right to print and publish his opinions,
he signing them, without any previous censorship; saving that he is
legally responsible, after publication, to be tried by a jury, even
though the application of a correctional punishment only should be
requisite.
ART. 65. The right of petition is secured to all the citizens. Every
petition is that of an individual (_est individuelle_). These
petitions may be addressed, either to the government, or to the two
chambers; nevertheless, even the latter must be superscribed "to his
Majesty the Emperor." They must be presented to the chambers under the
guarantee of a member, who recommends the petition. They are read
publicly; and, if the chamber take them into consideration, they are
carried to the Emperor by the president.
ART. 66. No place, no part of the territory, can be declared in a
state of siege, except in case of invasion by a foreign power, or of
civil disturbance.
In the former case, the declaration is made by an act of the
government.
In the second case, it can be made only by the law. However, if the
case occur, when the chambers are not assembled, the act of
government, declaring the state of siege, must be converted into a
proposal for a law in the first fifteen days after the meeting of the
chambers.
ART. 67. The French people declare farther, that, in the delegation it
has made, and now makes, of its powers, it has not intended, and does
not intend, to confer the right of proposing the re-establishment of
the Bourbons, or of any prince belonging to that family, on the
throne, even in case of the extinction of the imperial dynasty; or the
right of re-establishing either the ancient feudal nobility, or feudal
and seigniorial rights, or tithes, or any privileged and predominant
form of worship; or the power of making any infringement of the
irrevocability of the sale of national domains: it formally prohibits
the government, the chambers, and the citizens, from every proposal
in respect to these.
Done at Paris, the 22d of April, 1815.
(_Signed_) NAPOLEON.
By the Emperor,
_The minister secretary of state,_
(_Signed_) The Duke of BASSANO.
* * * * *
This additional act did not answer the general expectation.
The public had hoped, to receive from Napoleon a new constitution,
freed from the faults and abuses of the preceding constitutions; and
it was surprised, grieved, dissatisfied, when it saw, by the very
preamble of the additional act, that it was nothing but a
_modification_ of the former constitutions, decrees of the senate, and
other acts, by which the empire was governed.
What confidence, people cried, can such a production inspire? What
guarantee can it afford the nation? Do we not know, that it was by
means of these decrees of the senate, that Napoleon sported with our
most sacred laws? and, since they are now maintained and confirmed,
may he not employ them, as he formerly did, to interpret after his
own fashion his additional act, alter its nature, and render it
illusory?
It had been to be wished, undoubtedly, that the additional act had not
revived the name, and borrowed the assistance, of all the senatorial
acts, become on so many accounts objects of the public contempt and
derision: but this was impossible[7]. They were the basis of our
institutions; and they could not have been proscribed in a body,
without arresting the progress of government, and subverting the
established order of things from top to bottom.
[Footnote 7: Notwithstanding the charter, and the laws
daily passed, it is found necessary, to recur every day
to rules established by the ancient legislation of the
senate.]
Besides, the fear of Napoleon's putting them in vigour was founded
only on vague suppositions. The oppressive arrangements of the decrees
of the senate were annulled, both in fact and in law, by the
principles, which the additional act sanctioned: and Napoleon had
rendered it impossible for him to augment his authority, or to abuse
it, by the immense power, with which he had invested the chambers, the
responsibility he had thrown on his agents and ministers, and the
inviolable guarantees he had conferred on freedom of opinion and
personal liberty. The slightest attempt would have betrayed his secret
intentions; and a thousand voices would have been raised, to say to
him: "We, who are as good as you, have made you our King, on
condition, that you keep our laws: if not, not[8]."
[Footnote 8: The well-known words, in which the cortes
of Arragon address the kings of Spain at their
coronation.]
The re-establishment of the chamber of peers, imported from England by
the Bourbons, excited no less vividly the public discontent.
It was clear, in fact, that the privileges, and peculiar jurisdiction,
which the peers exclusively enjoyed, constituted a manifest violation
of the laws of equality; and that the hereditary state of the peerage
was a formal infraction of the right of all Frenchmen, to be equally
admissible to the offices of the state.
Accordingly the friends of liberty and equality with reason reproached
Napoleon for having falsified his promises; and given them, instead of
a constitution bottomed on the principles of equality and liberty,
which he had solemnly professed, a shapeless act, more favourable than
the charter, or any of the preceding constitutions, to the nobility
and their institutions.
But Napoleon, when he promised the French a constitution, that might
be termed _republican_, had rather followed the political suggestions
of the moment, than consulted the welfare of France. Restored to
himself, ought he to have adhered strictly to the letter of his
promises, or interpreted them merely as an engagement, to give France
a liberal constitution, as perfect as possible?
The answer cannot be doubtful.
Now the testimony of the most learned civilians, the experience of
England for 125 years, had demonstrated to him, that the government
best adapted to the habits, manners, and social relations of a great
nation; that which affords the greatest pledge of happiness and
stability; in fine, that which best reconciles political liberty with
the degree of power necessary to the chief of a state; is a
representative monarchical government. It was Napoleon's duty,
therefore, as a legislator, and a paternal sovereign, to give this
mode of government the preference.
This point granted, and it is incontestable, Napoleon was under the
necessity of establishing an hereditary and privileged chamber of
peers; for a representative monarchy cannot subsist, without an upper
chamber, or chamber of peers; as a chamber of peers cannot subsist
without privileges, and without being hereditary.
None therefore but the insincere; or men, who, though good patriots,
unconsciously substitute their passions or prejudices in the place of
the public welfare; can reproach Napoleon for having introduced this
institution into our political organization.
The re-establishment of an intermediate chamber, perhaps, would not
have wounded them so deeply, if care had been taken, to give it a name
less sullied by feudal recollections: but the revolution had exhausted
the nomenclature of public magistracies. Besides, the Emperor thought,
that this was the only title answerable to its high destination.
Perhaps, too, as Louis XVIII. had had his peers, he was not
displeased, to have his also.
A third accusation bore hard on Napoleon. He promised us, it was
urged, as a natural consequence of the fundamental truth, _the throne
is made for the nation, and not the nation for the throne_, that our
deputies, assembled at the _Champ de Mai_, should give to France,
jointly with him, a constitution conformable to the interests and
wishes of the nation; and by an odious breach of faith, he grants us
an additional act, after the manner of Louis XVIII; and this he
forces us to adopt in the lump, without allowing us to reject those
parts, that may wound our dearest and most sacred rights.
Napoleon had proclaimed, it is true, on the 1st of March, that this
constitution should be the work of the nation: but since this period
circumstances had altered. It was of importance to the preservation of
peace at home, and to the relations between Napoleon and foreign powers,
that the state should be speedily established and that Europe should
find in its new laws those safeguards against the ambition and despotism
of the Emperor, _and perhaps too against the re-establishment of a
republic_, that it might deem desirable.
Literally to comply with the words of Napoleon, it would have been
necessary, for the electoral colleges to give their deputies written
instructions, as in 1789. The assembling of these colleges, the
drawing up of their instructions after discussion, the choosing of
delegates, their journeying to Paris, the distribution of the labour,
the preparation, examination, and discussion of the bases of the
constitution, the disputative conferences with the delegates of the
Emperor, &c. &c., would have consumed an incalculable portion of
time, and left France in a state of anarchy, that would have deprived
it of the means or possibility of making peace or war with foreigners.
Thus, then, far from blaming the Emperor for deviating at the moment
from this part of his promises, he on the contrary deserves credit for
having voluntarily resigned the dictatorship, with which circumstances
had invested him, and placed public liberty under the protection of
the laws. Had he not been _sincere_; had he not been _honestly_
disposed, to restore to the people their rights, and confine his own
within proper limits, he would not have been in haste, to publish the
additional act: he would have been for gaining time, in hopes that
victory or peace, by consolidating the sceptre in his hands, would
have enabled him to dictate laws, instead of subjecting himself to
them.
In fine, the additional act was reproached with having re-established
the confiscations abolished by the charter.
The majority of the counsellors of state and ministers, and M. de
Bassano more particularly, strongly opposed this renewed provision of
our revolutionary laws. But the Emperor considered the confiscation of
estates as the most efficacious means of bridling the royalists; and
he persisted obstinately in not giving it up; reserving the power of
relinquishing it, when circumstances would permit.
Upon the whole, the additional act was not without blemishes; but
these blemishes, easy to be removed, no way affected the beauty or
goodness of its basis.
It acknowledged the principle of the sovereignty of the people.
It secured to the three powers of the state the strength and
independence necessary, to render their actions free and efficacious.
The independence of the representatives was guarantied by their
number, and the mode of their election.
The independence of the peers, by their being hereditary.
The independence of the sovereign by the imperial _veto_, and the
happy establishment of the other two powers, which serve him mutually
as a safeguard.
The liberties of the people, solidly established, were liberally
endowed with all the concessions granted by the charter, and all those
subsequently claimed.
The trial of all libels (_délits de la presse_) by a jury, protected
and secured freedom of opinion. It defended patriotic writers from
the anger of the prince, and the complaisance of his agents. It even
assured them of impunity, whenever their writings are in harmony with
the secret opinions and wishes of the nation.
Personal liberty was guarantied, not only by the old laws, and the
irremoveableness of the judges, but also by two new provisions; one,
the responsibility of ministers; the other, the approaching abolition
of the impunity, with which public functionaries of all classes had
been invested by the constitution of the year 8, and afterward by the
regal government.
It was still farther guarantied by the insurmountable barrier opposed
to the abuse of the right of banishment, by reducing the jurisdiction
of military courts within their natural limits, and by restricting the
power of declaring any portion of the country in a state of siege; a
power hitherto arbitrary, and by help of which the sovereign suspended
at will the authority of the constitution, and placed the citizens, in
fact, out of the pale of the law.
The additional act, in fine, by the obstacles it opposed to the
usurpations of supreme power, and the innumerable guarantees it
secured to the nation, established public and private liberty on
foundations not to be shaken; yet, from the most whimsical of all
inconsistencies, it was considered as _the work of despotism_, and
occasioned Napoleon the loss of his popularity.
The writers most celebrated for their understanding and patriotism
took up the defence of Napoleon: but in vain did they quote Delolme,
Blackstone, Montesquieu; and demonstrate, that no modern state, no
republic, had possessed such liberal and beneficial laws: their
eloquence and their erudition were without success. The contemners of
the additional act, deaf to the voice of reason, would judge of it
only from its title; and as this title displeased and alarmed them,
they persisted in blackening and condemning the work on the score of
its name, according to the vulgar proverb, _Give a dog a bad name, and
hang him_.
Napoleon, far from foreseeing this fatal result, had persuaded
himself, on the contrary, that he should receive credit for having so
promptly and generously accomplished the hopes of the nation; and he
had prepared a long proclamation to the French people in his own hand,
in which he sincerely congratulated himself and them on the happiness,
that France was about to enjoy under the sway of his new laws.
This proclamation, as may easily be guessed, came to nothing[9]. In
its place came a decree for convoking the electoral colleges, in which
Napoleon, informed of the public rumours, excused himself, on the
ground of the pressure of circumstances, for having abridged the forms
he had promised to follow in composing the constitutional act; and
announced, that this act, containing in itself the principles of every
improvement, might be modified in conformity to the wishes of the
nation. By the terms of this decree, the electoral colleges were
called on to choose the members of the approaching assembly of
representatives; and Napoleon excused himself afresh, for being
compelled by the state of affairs, to require them to proceed to the
election of deputies previous to the acceptance of the constitution.
[Footnote 9: The Emperor had ordered this proclamation
to be burned; but I found it so excellent, that I
thought it my duty to preserve it. At the moment when
Napoleon set out for the army, I was not in Paris; and
one of the principal clerks of the cabinet, M. Rathery,
having found it among my papers, had the courage to
throw it into the fire.]
It was at the _Champ de Mai_, that the electors of all the departments
were to assemble, and proceed to the collection of votes for its
rejection or adoption.
The idea of renewing the ancient assemblies of the nation, as it was
first formed by the Emperor, was no doubt a grand and generous
conception, and singularly calculated to restore to patriotism its
energy and lustre; but at the same time, it must be confessed, it bore
the stamp of imprudent daring, and might have given Napoleon an
irreparable stroke. Was it not to be feared, that, in the equivocal
situation in which he was placed, the electors, having every thing to
dread from the Bourbons and foreign powers, would not accept so
hazardous a mission, and leave the assembly unattended?
Was it not also probable, that no one would covet the dangerous honour
of making part of the new national representation, the first act of
which must necessarily be, to proscribe for ever the dynasty of the
Bourbons, and acknowledge Napoleon, in spite of the foreign powers,
the sole and legitimate sovereign of France?
However, so true it is, that with Napoleon events always belied the
most sagacious conjectures, the electors hastened in crowds to Paris;
and men most respectable for wealth and character entered the lists to
be chosen deputies, soliciting votes with as much ardour, as if
France had been tranquil and happy[10].
[Footnote 10: I speak generally: I know there were
departments, the electoral colleges of which, from
various causes, were composed only of a small number of
individuals.]
And why was it so? Because, in the eyes of the electors and of the
deputies, the object at stake was not the fate of a particular man,
but of their country. It was because the critical situation of France,
instead of intimidating the partisans of the revolution, awakened in
their hearts the most courageous sentiments of patriotism.
They, whom I here call the partisans of the revolution, were not, as
certain persons endeavour to persuade the world, those sanguinary
beings, who were branded with the title of Jacobins, but that immense
body of Frenchmen, who, since the year 1789, have concurred more or
less in the destruction of the feudal system, with its privileges and
abuses; of those Frenchmen, in fine, who are no strangers to the value
of liberty, and the dignity of man.
But was the assembly of the _Champ de Mai_ to be deprived of its chief
ornament, the Empress and her son? The Emperor was not ignorant, that
this princess was carefully watched; and that she had been surprised
and threatened into an oath, to communicate all the letters she might
receive. He knew, also, that she was surrounded by improper persons:
but he thought, that he owed it to himself, and to his affection for
the Empress, to exhaust every means of putting an end to her
captivity. At first he attempted by several letters, full of feeling
and dignity, to move the justice and sensibility of the Emperor of
Austria. Entreaties and reclamations proving ineffectual, he resolved,
to despatch an officer of the crown to Vienna, to negotiate, or demand
publicly, in the name of nature and the law of nations, the
deliverance of the Empress and her son. This mission was entrusted to
the Count de Flahaut, one of his aides-de-camp. No person was more
capable of fulfilling it worthily than this officer. He was a true
Frenchman, spirited, amiable, and brave. He shone equally in the field
of battle, in a diplomatic conference, and in the drawing-room
pleasing every where by the agreeableness and firmness of his
character.
M. de Flahaut set out, but could not advance beyond Stutgard. This
disgrace converted into painful regret the joy, to which the hope of
seeing again the young prince and his august mother had already given
birth.
The people who resided near the road they would pass had already made
preparations for testifying their love and their respect.
The return of Napoleon had been celebrated by enthusiastic shouts,
that resembled the intoxication of victory: that of the Empress would
have inspired only tender emotions. Acclamations tempered by tears of
joy, the roads strewed with flowers, the village maidens adorned in
their best attire and happy looks, would have given this sight the
appearance of a family festival; and Marie Louise would have seemed,
not the daughter of the Cæsars returning to her territories, but a
beloved mother, who, after a long and painful absence, is at length
restored to the wishes of her children.
Her son, over whose head such high destinies were then depending,
would have excited transports not less vivid, or less affecting. Torn
from a throne, and from his country, while yet in his cradle, he had
not ceased to turn his eyes and his remembrances toward the land that
had given him birth: a number of bold and ingenious expressions had
disclosed his regrets and his hopes; and these expressions, repeated
and learned by heart, had rendered this august infant the object of
the dearest thoughts and affections.
With strange inconsistency, the French had deplored the imperious
temper and warlike disposition of Napoleon; yet they loved the son,
precisely because he gave promise of possessing the genius and
audacity of his father; and because they hoped, that he would at some
future day restore to France "the lustre of victories, and the
language of a master[11]."
[Footnote 11: The following anecdote of the young
Napoleon I have never seen published. When he came into
the world, he was believed to be dead; he was without
warmth, without motion, without respiration. M. Dubois
(the accoucheur of the Empress) had made reiterated
attempts, to recall him to life, when a hundred guns
were discharged in succession, to celebrate his birth.
The concussion and agitation produced by this firing
acted so powerfully on the organs of the royal infant,
that his senses were reanimated.]
The Emperor was deeply afflicted at the arbitrary detention of his
wife and her son. He felt all the importance of it. Offers had been
made him several times, to carry them off: I myself was employed, by a
very great personage, to make him an offer of this nature. But he
obstinately persisted in listening to no proposal of the kind. Perhaps
his affection, or his pride, forbade him, to expose to the hazards of
such an enterprise persons so dear to him, and whom he felt assured of
obtaining in a manner more worthy of him by victory, or by a peace.
Perhaps he was apprehensive of endangering their fate, should he
succumb in the struggle, that was about to take place between him and
Europe; for unhappily this struggle, that had so long remained a
matter of doubt, had now ceased to be questionable even to himself.
The indirect overtures made to foreign cabinets, and those renewed in
every form by the Emperor, and by the Duke of Vicenza, had completely
miscarried.
The efforts made in favour of France in the British parliament, by the
generous defenders of the independence and rights of nations, had
remained without success.
M. de St. L.... and M. de Mont...., who were returned from Vienna, had
announced, that the allies would never depart from the principles
manifested in their declaration and treaty of the 13th and 25th of
March.
M. de Talleyrand, on whom Napoleon had depended, convinced of the
triumph of the Bourbons, had refused to betray or abandon them.
M. de Stassard had been stopped at Lintz, and obliged to return. His
despatches, which were seized and sent to the Emperor of Austria, had
been shown to the foreign monarchs; and these monarchs had unanimously
decreed, that they should not be taken into consideration, and that
they adhered anew, and more formally than ever, to their declaration.
The Princess Hortense had received from the Emperor of Russia this
laconic answer: "No peace, no truce, with that man: any thing except
him[12]."
[Footnote 12: The Emperor Alexander, at the time of the
affair of Fontainebleau, had guarantied to the Duke of
Vicenza, for Napoleon, the possession of the island of
Elba. M. de Talleyrand and the foreign ministers
remonstrated to him strongly, on the danger of leaving
the Emperor on a spot so near to France and Italy; and
conjured him, not to oppose their compelling him to
choose another place of retreat. Alexander, faithful to
his engagements, would not consent to this. When the
Emperor returned, Alexander made it a point of honour,
to repair the noble fault he had committed; and became,
rather from duty than from animosity, the most
inveterate enemy of Napoleon and of France.]
The agents maintained by the Emperor in foreign countries informed
him, that the troops of all the powers were in arms; and that the
arrival of the Russians alone was waited for, to commence the
campaign[13].