By his order le Moniteur published an article in praise of the 35th. This was nothing: from the point of view of the Government the 35 th had merely done its duty. But, simultaneously with these praises, which had been allowed to pass, the article added that the military had only resisted aggression: that many were already wounded when they charged, whilst, on the contrary, the injuries of the agitators had been exaggerated. These inaccuracies were common knowledge; but one knows that the Government of King Louis-Philippe did not shrink from that sort of thing. MM. Duboys-Aymé and Félix Réal, deputies of the arrondissement of Grenoble, wrote to le Moniteur to give the real facts of the case. Le Moniteur refused to put in their letters. In the sitting of 20 March, M. Duboys-Aymé asked leave to speak, mounted the rostrum and questioned the minister upon the subject of the occurrences at Grenoble. Garnier-Pagès, an advanced leader of the Republican party in the Chamber, supported him.
"How can the Government bestow blame or praise without previous inquiry? How can it be satisfied from the préfet's report that the préfet did right; from the report of the military commandant how decide that the armed-force acted rightly; from the report of the procureur-général how be satisfied to extol the procureur-général?"
"I," the orator said, "do not judge harshly like that. Although I may say that the correspondence and the two newspapers of Grenoble—papers of absolutely opposite opinions—relate the facts in the same way; although we have a thousand proofs to one that the rioters were not summoned to disperse by the town authorities, I should but speak hypothetically, and I say: If those orders were not carried out, still the citizens were killed!"
At these final words the Centres took up the dubious phrase and turned it into the affirmative; they shouted loudly, so that the speaker could not go on.
M. Dupin ascended the rostrum; the Centres quietened down. They knew that, under any circumstances, M. Dupin was the King's advocate, both in the law-courts and in the tribune.
Here is a specimen of the speech of the deputy for la Nièvre—
"How can you expect a government to progress," asked M. Dupin, "when at the very heart of the national representation itself—a microcosm of the population, among the trustees of its power—the first movement is not in favour of the authorities and the instruments of law, and the first impulse is to put authority in the wrong and reason to flight? It is said that the Riot Act was not read; but when should it be read? When public gatherings become disquieting by their outcries and by their presence, but not when a violent aggression displays itself by methods of action and open attacks."
At these words the president of the Council rose; though pale, he had a fiery and energetic soul in his sickly, debilitated body, and he exclaimed—
"That is the question; speak!"