PARIS, September, 1805.
MY LORD:--I can truly defy the world to produce a corps of such a
heterogeneous composition as our Conservative Senate, when I except the
members composing Bonaparte’s Legion of Honour. Some of our Senators
have been tailors, apothecaries, merchants, chemists, quacks, physicians,
barbers, bankers, soldiers, drummers, dukes, shopkeepers, mountebanks,
Abbes, generals, savans, friars, Ambassadors, counsellors, or presidents
of Parliament, admirals, barristers, Bishops, sailors, attorneys,
authors, Barons, spies, painters, professors, Ministers, sans-culottes,
atheists, stonemasons, robbers, mathematicians, philosophers, regicides,
and a long et cetera. Any person reading through the official list of
the members of the Senate, and who is acquainted with their former
situations in life, may be convinced of this truth. Should he even be
ignorant of them, let him but inquire, with the list in his hand, in any
of our fashionable or political circles; he will meet with but few
persons who are not able or willing to remove his doubts, or to gratify
his curiosity. There are not many of them whom it is possible to
elevate, but those are still more numerous whom it is impossible to
degrade. Their past lives, vices, errors, or crimes, have settled their
characters and reputation; and they must live and die in ‘statu quo’,
either as fools or as knaves, and perhaps as both.
I do not mean to say that they are all criminals or all equally criminal,
if insurrection against lawful authority and obedience to usurped tyranny
are not to be considered as crimes; but there are few indeed who can lay
their hands on their bosoms and say, ‘vitam expendere vero’. Some of
them, as a Lagrange, Berthollet, Chaptal, Laplace, Francois de
Neuf-Chateau, Tronchet, Monge, Lacepede, and Bougainville, are certainly
men of talents; but others, as a Porcher, Resnier, Vimar, Auber, Perk,
Sera, Vernier, Vien, Villetard, Tascher, Rigal, Baciocchi, Beviere,
Beauharnais, De Luynea (a ci-devant duke, known under the name of Le Gros
Cochon), nature never destined but to figure among those half-idiots and
half-imbeciles who are, as it were, intermedial between the brute and
human creation.
Sieges, Cabanis, Garron Coulon, Lecouteul, Canteleu, Lenoin Laroche,
Volney, Gregoire, Emmery, Joucourt, Boissy d’Anglas, Fouche, and Roederer
form another class,--some of them regicides, others assassins and
plunderers, but all intriguers whose machinations date from the beginning
of the Revolution. They are all men of parts, of more or less knowledge,
and of great presumption. As to their morality, it is on a level with
their religion and loyalty. They betrayed their King, and had denied
their God already in 1789.
After these come some others, who again have neither talents to boast of
nor crimes of which they have to be ashamed. They have but little
pretension to genius, none to consistency, and their honesty equals their
capacity. They joined our political revolution as they might have done a
religious procession. It was at that time a fashion; and they applauded
our revolutionary innovations as they would have done the introduction of
a new opera, of a new tragedy, of a new comedy, or of a new farce. To
this fraternity appertain a ci-devant Comte de Stult-Tracy,
Dubois--Dubay, Kellerman, Lambrechts, Lemercier, Pleville--Le Pelley,
Clement de Ris, Peregeaux, Berthelemy, Vaubois, Nrignon, D’Agier, Abrial,
De Belloy, Delannoy, Aboville, and St. Martin La Motte.
Such are the characteristics of men whose ‘senatus consultum’ bestows an
Emperor on France, a King on Italy, makes of principalities departments
of a Republic, and transforms Republics into provinces or principalities.
To show the absurdly fickle and ridiculously absurd appellations of our
shamefully perverted institutions, this Senate was called the
Conservative Senate; that is to say, it was to preserve the republican
consular constitution in its integrity, both against the; encroachments
of the executive and legislative power, both against the manoeuvres of
the factions, the plots of the royalists or monarchists, and the clamours
of a populace of levellers. But during the five years that these honest
wiseacres have been preserving, everything has perished--the Republic,
the Consuls, free discussions, free election, the political liberty, and
the liberty of the Press; all--all are found nowhere but in old, useless,
and rejected codes. They have, however, in a truly patriotic manner
taken care of their own dear selves. Their salaries are more than
doubled since 1799.
Besides mock Senators, mock praetors, mock quaestors, other ‘nomina
libertatis’ are revived, so as to make the loss of the reality so much
the more galling. We have also two curious commissions; one called “the
Senatorial Commission of Personal Liberty,” and the other “the Senatorial
Commission of the Liberty of the Press.” The imprisonment without cause,
and transportation without trial, of thousands of persons of both sexes
weekly, show the grand advantages which arise from the former of these
commissions; and the contents of our new books and daily prints evince
the utility and liberality of the latter.
But from the past conduct of these our Senators, members of these
commissions, one may easily conclude what is to be expected in future
from their justice and patriotism. Lenoin Laroche, at the head of the
one, was formerly an advocate of some practice, but attended more to
politics than to the business of his clients, and was, therefore, at the
end of the session of the first assembly (of which he was a member),
forced, for subsistence, to become the editor of an insignificant
journal. Here he preached licentiousness, under the name of Liberty, and
the agrarian law in recommending Equality. A prudent courtier of all
systems in fashion, and of all factions in power, he escaped
proscription, though not accusation of having shared in the national
robberies. A short time in the summer of 1797, after the dismissal of
Cochon, he acted as a Minister of Police; and in 1798 the Jacobins
elected him a member of the Council of Ancients, where he, with other
deputies, sold himself to Bonaparte, and was, in return, rewarded with a
place in the Senate. Under monarchy he was a republican, and under a
Republic he extolled monarchical institutions. He wished to be singular,
and to be rich. Among so many shocking originals, however, he was not
distinguished; and among so many philosophical marauders, he had no
opportunity to pillage above two millions of livres. This friend of
liberty is now one of the most despotic Senators, and this lover of
equality never answers when spoken to, if not addressed as “His
Excellency,” or “Monseigneur.”
Boissy d’ Anglas, another member of this commission, was before the
Revolution a steward to Louis XVIII. when Monsieur; and, in 1789, was
chosen a deputy of the first assembly, where he joined the factions, and
in his speeches and writings defended all the enormities that dishonoured
the beginning as well as the end of the Revolution. A member afterwards
of the National Convention, he was sent in mission to Lyons, where,
instead of healing the wounds of the inhabitants, he inflicted new ones.
When, on the 15th of March, 1796, in the Council of Five Hundred, he
pronounced the oath of hatred to royalty, he added, that this oath was in
his heart, otherwise no power upon earth could have forced him to take
it; and he is now a sworn subject of Napoleon the First! He pronounced
the panegyric of Robespierre, and the apotheosis of Marat. “The soul,”
said he, “was moved and elevated in hearing Robespierre speak of the
Supreme Being with philosophical ideas, embellished by eloquence;” and he
signed the removal of the ashes of Marat to the temple consecrated to
humanity! In September, 1797, he was, as a royalist, condemned to
transportation by the Directory; but in 1799 Bonaparte recalled him, made
him first a tribune and afterwards a Senator.
Boissy d’ Anglas, though an apologist of robbers and assassins, has
neither murdered nor plundered; but, though he has not enriched himself,
he has assisted in ruining all his former protectors, benefactors, and
friends.
Sers, a third member of this commission, was, before the Revolution, a
bankrupt merchant at Bordeaux, but in 1791 was a municipal officer of the
same city, and sent as a deputy to the National Assembly, where he
attempted to rise from the clouds that encompassed his heavy genius by a
motion for pulling down all the statues of Kings all over France. He
seconded another motion of Bonaparte’s prefect, Jean Debrie, to decree a
corps of tyrannicides, destined to murder all Emperors, Kings, and
Princes. At the club of the Jacobins, at Bordeaux, he prided himself on
having caused the arrest and death of three hundred aristocrats; and
boasted that he never went out without a dagger to despatch, by a summary
justice, those who had escaped the laws. After meeting with well-merited
contempt, and living for some time in the greatest obscurity, by a
handsome present to Madame Bonaparte, in 1799, he obtained the favour of
Napoleon, who dragged him forward to be placed among other ornaments of
his Senate. Sers has just cunning enough to be taken for a man of sense
when with fools; when with men of sense, he reassumes the place allotted
him by Nature. Without education, as well as without parts, he for a
long time confounded brutal scurrility with oratory, and thought himself
eloquent when he was only insolent or impertinent. His ideas of liberty
are such that, when he was a municipal officer, he signed a mandate of
arrest against sixty-four individuals of both sexes, who were at a ball,
because they had refused to invite to it one of his nieces.
Abrial, Emmery, Vernier, and Lemercier are the other four members of that
commission; of these, two are old intriguers, two are nullities, and all
four are slaves.
Of the seven members of the senatorial commission for preserving the
liberty of the Press, Garat and Roederer are the principal. The former
is a pedant, while pretending to be a philosopher; and he signed the
sentence of his good King’s death, while declaring himself a royalist. A
mere valet to Robespierre, his fawning procured him opportunities to
enrich himself with the spoil of those whom his calumnies and plots
caused to be massacred or guillotined. When, as a Minister of Justice,
he informed Louis XVI. of his condemnation, he did it with such an
affected and atrocious indifference that he even shocked his accomplices,
whose nature had not much of tenderness. As a member of the first
assembly, as a Minister under the convention, and as a deputy of the
Council of Five Hundred, he always opposed the liberty of the Press. “The
laws, you say” (exclaimed he, in the Council), “punish libellers; so they
do thieves and housebreakers; but would you, therefore, leave your doors
unbolted? Is not the character, the honour, and the tranquillity of a
citizen preferable to his treasures? and, by the liberty of the Press,
you leave them at the mercy of every scribbler who can write or think.
The wound inflicted may heal, but the scar will always remain. Were you,
therefore, determined to decree the motion for this dangerous and
impolitic liberty, I make this amendment, that conviction of having
written a libel carries with it capital punishment, and that a label be
fastened on the breast of the libeller, when carried to execution, with
this inscription: ‘A social murderer,’ or ‘A murderer of characters!’”
Roederer has belonged to all religious or antireligious sects, and to all
political or anti-social factions, these last twenty years; but, after
approving, applauding, and serving them, he has deserted them, sold them,
or betrayed them. Before the Revolution, a Counseller of Parliament at
Metz, he was a spy of the Court on his colleagues; and, since the
Revolution, he served the Jacobins as a spy on the Court. Immoral and
unprincipled to the highest degree, his profligacy and duplicity are only
equalled by his perversity and cruelty. It was he who, on the 10th of
August, 1792, betrayed the King and the Royal Family into the hands of
their assassins, and who himself made a merit of this infamous act. After
he had been repulsed by all, even by the most sanguinary of our parties
and partisans, by a Brissot, a Marat, a Robespierre, a Tallien, and a
Barras, Bonaparte adopted him first as a Counsellor of State, and
afterwards as a Senator. His own and only daughter died in a
miscarriage, the consequence of an incestuous commerce with her unnatural
parent; and his only, son is disinherited by him for resenting his
father’s baseness in debauching a young girl whom the son had engaged to
marry.
With the usual consistency of my revolutionary countrymen, he has, at one
period, asserted that the liberty of the Press was necessary for the
preservation both of men and things, for the protection of governors as
well as of the governed, and that it was the best support of a
constitutional Government. At another time he wrote that, as it was
impossible to fix the limits between the liberty and the licentiousness
of the Press, the latter destroyed the benefits of the former; that the
liberty of the Press was useful only against a Government which one
wished to overturn, but dangerous to a Government which one wished to
preserve. To show his indifference about his own character, as well as
about the opinion of the public, these opposite declarations were
inserted in one of our daily papers, and both were signed “Roederer.”
In 1789, he was indebted above one million two hundred thousand
livres--and he now possesses national property purchased for seven
millions of livres--and he avows himself to be worth three millions more
in money placed in our public funds. He often says, laughingly, that he
is under great obligations to Robespierre, whose guillotine acquitted in
one day all his debts. All his creditors, after being denounced for
their aristocracy, were murdered en masse by this instrument of death.
Of all the old beaux and superannuated libertines whose company I have
had the misfortune of not being able to avoid, Roederer is the most
affected, silly, and disgusting. His wrinkled face, and effeminate and
childish air; his assiduities about every woman of beauty or fashion; his
confidence in his own merit, and his presumption in his own power, wear
such a curious contrast with his trembling hands, running eyes, and
enervated person, that I have frequently been ready to laugh at him in
his face, had not indignation silenced all other feeling. A
light-coloured wig covers a bald head; his cheeks and eyelids are
painted, and his teeth false; and I have seen a woman faint away from the
effect of his breath, notwithstanding that he infects with his musk and
perfumes a whole house only with his presence. When on the ground floor
you may smell him in the attic.