PROPOSA

CHAP. XXVI.

PROPOSAL TO CREATE BONAPARTE EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH-ORGANIC SENATUS CONSULTUM-PROTEST OF LOUIS XVIII.-SPEECH OF THE EMPEROR PREVIOUSLY TO THE CORONATION—CEREMONY OF THE CORONATION AND INAUGURATION.

NEITHER internal conspiracies, nor external war, appear to

have in the least diverted the mind of the first consul from the prosecution of his schemes of inordinate ambition.The chief magistracy was conferred on him, in the first instance, for ten years. To secure the permanent exercise of sovereign power, he afterwards obtained an extension of this supreme authority for life. The executive power, although in reality concentred in himself, was apparently divided with two individuals, who held in common with him the title of consul, qualified with a slight distinctive denomination of subordinate rank. The title of first consul was, besides, too simple to convey an adequate idea of the dignified elevation to which he had been raised by fortuitous circumstances combined with his own exertions. Equally ambitious of undivided power and titular splendour, he aspired to imperial distinction. Thus, a soldier of fortune, who, at the commencement of the French revolution, was an obscure individual serving in the armies of the republic, was successively promoted to the highest military rank, and, after having usurped the supreme authority of the state, was invested with the title of emperor of the French!

The conferring on Nopoleon Bonaparte the rank and title of Emperor of the French,' and making them hereditary in his family, according to the laws of primogeniture, was first

agitated on the 1st of May, in the tribunate. Curee submitted a proposition to this effect. Carnot, with singular courage, maintaining an unshaken adherence to republican principles, opposed the motion made by Curee. He ascended the tribune, and began by declaring that, in opposing the motion, he should endeavour to preserve the same moderation in delivering his opinion, which had been exhibited by other tribunes in supporting it. He referred those who might be disposed to put a bad construction on his sentiments, to the conduct which he had pursued since the commencement of the French revolution. With respect to the question of conferring on Bonaparte the dignity of emperor for life, and making it hereditary in his family, he asked if it was to grant the first consul a reward for his services to offer him the sacrifice of liberty? He demanded, whether it was not to destroy Bonaparte's own work, to make France his private patrimony? He had voted against the consulate for life, and he would not that day follow a different course. He was determined to pursue consistency of conduct; but the moment that the order of things which was proposed should be established, he would be the first to conform to it, and to yield to the new authority proofs of his deference. He wished all the members of the community might follow his example.

He then proceeded to examine the form of government proposed to be established. He cited a number of examples from the history of Rome, and drew as an inference from them, that a government by one individual was not in the smallest degree a sure pledge of its stability or its tranquillity. He applied the same inference to the history of France, where intestine commotions, and civil discords, had so often existed under the government of weak or unworthy princes. After the peace of Amiens, Bonaparte, he asserted, had the choice of confirming the republic, or of establishing a monarchy; but he had sworn to defend the former, and to respect the wishes of France, which had made him her guardian. It was now proposed to make of that power a property,

of which, at present, only the administration is possessed. The Romans were most jealous of their liberty. Camillus, Fabius, and Cincinnatus, saved the republic by relinquishing, after having rescued the state, the power with which they had been intrusted. But when Cæsar usurped absolute power, the liberty of Rome perished. Citing the example of the United States, it was reserved, he said, for the New World to shew to the Old the practicability of national liberty, and the rising prosperity of the people.

He then asked, whether the opinion of the public functionaries would be the free wish of the whole nation, and whether no inconveniences would attend the expression of an opposite sentiment? He demanded if the liberty of the press would be so much restrained and degraded, that it would be impossible, in the public prints, to make the most respectful remonstrances against the proposed arrangement? Considering the question in another point of view, he asked if the expulsion of the Bourbons at all involved the necessity of a new dynasty; if the establishment of that dynasty would not place obstacles in the way of a general peace; if it would be recognised by foreign powers; and if, in case of a refusal to recognise it, arms would necessarily be resorted to, and, for an empty title, the security of the French nation endangered? The existing government, he observed, had other means of consolidating itself. The means of this consolidation, in his opinion, consisted in adherence to justice. By this remark, he had no intention to make any particular application, or to cast any blame on the operations of government. 'Is liberty, then,' he exclaimed, disclosed to man, only that it may never be enjoyed? No! I cannot consent to regard it as a mere chimera; for my heart tells me that its government is easy. I am ready to sacrifice my personal opinion to the interests of my country. My respect for the law will remain unalterable." He concluded by voting against the motion, expressing at the same time, in the language of invective, a

false accusation against this country, which he charged with meditating universal oppression.

A number of tribunes supported the motion; but their speeches have not been given at sufficient length to furnish materials for any particular observations. The course of argument which they generally adopted was, that a monarchical government was the original wish of the French nation at the period of the existence of the constituent assembly; that the republican revolutionary governments had been productive of nothing but public calamities; and that permanent tranquillity could only be effectually secured by intrusting the reins of government to an individual, whose merits and services entitled him to the diguity of supreme ruler of the French nation. Among those who supported the motion, Fayard appears to have employed several arguments of considerable strength, blended with no small portion of that fulsome adulation which characterized all the speeches on this subject, with the exception, however, of that delivered by Carnot.

Fayard commenced his speech by declaring that he knew the first consul, the august head of the government, had the wishes of the French people. The pens of the eloquent, he said, are employed in celebrating his glory, and 'posterity, the judge of great men, will only re-echo the language of the age in which he lived. He also knew all the rights which his eminent services gave him to the dignity of emperor, and to retain it hereditarily in his family. It is in the nature of things, he asserted, that a country of vast extent, whose security is not guaranteed by its physical position, and whose relations with its neighbours incessantly menace its tranquillity, ought to be governed by one head. Rome, at its birth, had kings, because the states which surrounded were governed by kings. Rome, after conquering her neighbours, expelled the kings, and created consuls. When her power exceeded the limits of her territories; when she had to combat nations far removed from the centre of her dominions, even the excessive love of liberty could not prevent the ruin of the republic, and

emperors were elevated to the throne. The tribune then remarked, that Rome would have been happy if the first of their emperors had, as was in his power, made the government hereditary in his family. The scenes which covered the throne with blood, the wars which desolated that vast empire, and precipitated its downfal, would not have sullied the page of the history of these masters of the world. But one great error led to dreadful abuses. On the ruins of a monarch destroyed, an attempt was made to raise a monarchical government. France must have been destroyed, if the genius of Bonaparte had not created the consulship, to precede, for a few years, the creation of the imperial dignity. He is called to this elevated post by the unanimous wish of the French nation. It is in the nature of things, that if empires prosper under a great man, the moment which deprives them of his services, menaces some dreadful explosion, if the same moment does not substitute in his place him who is to be his successor. It is then that ambition becomes inflamed, and long before, ambition prepares in secret the means of supplanting rivals. Long disputes, succeeded by civil wars, agitate the minds of men, disturb for ages the union of citizens, and the people are often unable to see who, among the rival candidates, is most worthy of the sceptre of which death has bereaved the object of their regret. What then, he asked, can prevent these orders? A constitutional law which fixes the line of succession, and which gives to the family of the chief a new dynasty. This, he said, was the object of the motion under discussion; and he assented to it, under the persuation, that if the empire is the price of the virtues of the great man who is called to the imperial dignity, the succession to it by the family guarantees to France ages of glory and repose.

On the third of May the tribunate passed a decree conferring the imperial title on Bonaparte, and on the following day laid it before the conservative senate, who immediately coincided in the measure. On the 18th of May the senate, un