The Diplomatists of Europe

by M. Capefigue

A conciliatory system was predominant in the whole of M. Pasquier's ministerial conduct at this period, and he was the first to enlarge at the tribune upon the principles of the liberty of the press and the responsibility of editors. There was still too much irritation in people's minds, and the country still too much overwhelmed, to allow the independence of the newspapers to be safely established as a principle; books and pamphlets only were free, for a gradual approach was making towards liberty, and the opinions laid down by M. Pasquier are still considered as law upon the subject. The degree of responsibility was perfectly well regulated, and the minister's motives are clearly explained, and expressed with an elevation of principle and closeness of reasoning which distinguish the true parliamentary style. In England statesmen are in the habit of publishing their speeches, because they form the record of their lives.

When the Duc de Richelieu's ministry was dissolved in the latter part of the year 1817, M. Pasquier had no hesitation in retiring from office with the noble negotiator of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. M. Dessolle was at the head of the new ministry, and M. Decaze naturally filled a post of the highest importance in it; but the movement which was about to incline them towards the ideas of the parti gauche was too decided to make it possible M. Pasquier should join them; and it soon became apparent to him that the law of elections, although commendable for its simplicity, was still liable to produce evil results. He possessed very remarkable influence over the course of affairs, in spite of his having retired from office; and one of his political habits was always to compose a memorial upon every situation that occurred, for he liked to observe men and circumstances as from an eminence, so as to enlighten those in authority. In the month of October 1819, he presented a memorial to Louis XVIII. upon the proceedings of the ministry, calling attention to the faults they had committed and the bad effects of the law of elections; and he considered the situation of affairs to be such as to render an immediate change necessary in the government of the country.

Accordingly when the ministry of M. Decaze decided upon modifying the law of elections, M. Pasquier was offered an appointment; he did not resume the situation of keeper of the seals, but undertook the direction of foreign affairs; our situation with regard to our foreign relations having assumed a serious aspect, it was necessary they should be under the charge of a minister quite resolved to resist any tendency towards a spirit of revolution. M. Decaze lost office after the assassination of the Duc de Berry; and on the formation of the second Richelieu ministry, M. Pasquier retained the situation of minister for foreign affairs, only with the proviso that he was to consult the noble duke upon points relating to diplomatic matters. The Duc de Richelieu, from his connexion with the various cabinets of Europe, must have inspired great confidence in diplomatic proceedings of importance.

From this period the existence of M. Pasquier was divided into two distinct portions, the one being passed at the tribune, and the other devoted to business. I am not acquainted with any session when the debates were more violent or more contested than that of 1820; the speeches were remarkable for their eloquence, the names of General Foy, of Camille Jordan, and Benjamin Constant, appeared, beside those of Casimir Périer and Lafitte; each question was decided by a small majority, and it was necessary to modify the law of elections, and determine upon measures rendered indispensable by the circumstances succeeding the death of the Duc de Berry. The superiority of M. Pasquier's abilities was evident during this long session, where he was incessantly in the tribune, opposing, in the most decided and authoritative manner, the orators of the liberal party. When an alarming tumult took place in the public square, M. Pasquier appeared at the tribune to denounce the instigators of the disturbances, undismayed by the threats and vociferations of the revolutionary parti gauche. He spoke without disguise or circumlocution, and as to the phrase with which he has been so much reproached, sur l'arbitraire,[29] is it any thing beyond a simple declaration of what the government was desirous of obtaining, and requested from the power authorised to grant it? Every thing that was obtained had demanded incredible efforts, and whatever may have been said of the session of 1820 by those under the influence of party spirit, it was undoubtedly the finest period of the representative system, recalling the times of Pitt, Grenville, and Dundas, opposed to Fox, Erskine, and Sheridan.

M. Pasquier's situation was not less difficult as minister for foreign affairs; for the revolutionary spirit had declared itself almost simultaneously in Spain, Naples, and Piémont. France, it is true, adopted the repressive system, and in this respect agreed with the plan suggested at the congresses of Laybach and Troppau; nevertheless the minister for foreign affairs could not overlook the material interests of France; the Austrians, desirous of marching upon Piémont and Naples, wanted to occupy definitively both these places, and how was it possible France should not feel uneasy at the sight of the German standards unfurled beyond the Alps, and extending even as far as Savoy? A series of notes passed on this occasion between M. Pasquier and Prince Metternich; and it was positively decided between the two ministers, that if the Austrian occupation should be necessary, it should be strictly limited to such a period, as would neither affect the consideration nor the importance of France. Metternich faithfully fulfilled this engagement, and the evacuation of Piémont took place at the stipulated time.

If you consult any of the persons employed in the foreign office, they will speak of M. Pasquier's assiduous attention to his work, and of his perfect capability of bringing a negotiation to the termination he wished; and they will also tell you he shewed extreme judgment, in all the great difficulties incident to a situation so liable to constant change of circumstances.

A complete rupture had taken place with the old liberal system; and to insure success in this enterprise, the Richelieu ministry had been obliged to apply to the ultra-royalist party. At the commencement of the session of 1821, the council decided upon adding MM. de la Corbière, de Villèle, and Lainé, to the cabinet; it was a great mistake, it was either granting too much or too little; for, in fact, what figure could they make in the cabinet as ministers without appointments, and yet chiefs of the majority? And what was the consequence? secret dissensions, as might naturally be expected, arose from the very commencement of the attempted coalition; consultations were held in the king's council, after which, MM. de Villèle and Corbière privately expressed their dissatisfaction, and revealed the designs of the ministry to their colleagues on the côté droit in the Piet society; quarrels naturally suceeded, which eventually led to the rupture that took place after the session of 1821.

The royalists, in general, entertained an extreme dislike to M. Pasquier, and a great part of the côté droit could could not endure him.[30] All the opposition towards the end of the session was directed against him, till, at last, his patience was exhausted, and he assumed a high tone with the Ultras by openly and unhesitatingly declaring his inclinations and his repugnances, expressing himself with so much boldness and freedom that the whole of the parti droit declared war to him. M. Pasquier wanted to have done with the whole business; his situation fatigued him, and, foreseeing the downfall of the ministry, he obtained a seat in the upper chamber, being made a peer of France in the course of the month of November 1821. The ministry of the Duc de Richelieu had resigned office on the occasion of the address, and the Duc de Montmorency assumed the charge of foreign affairs.

M. Pasquier took his seat in the upper chamber, at that time a powerful institution possessed of hereditary rank, property, and the majorats. The prospects of the young peerage were very great, and evidence was soon afforded of what they were capable of doing, by their constant opposition to the faults and ill-judged proceedings of the restoration. M. Pasquier, placing himself on the same benches as the statesmen of the Richelieu party, made a point of speaking upon every subject that came before the house, and the judgment and deep thought which characterised his discourses, caused them to exercise great influence over the chamber. He spoke against the rights of primogeniture, the creation of the three per cents, and the law of sacrilege; and his speeches were often the means of deciding the question by their influence on the majority obtained. He placed himself in constant and direct opposition to the Villèle cabinet, which occasioned a strange advance in revolutionary ideas, by the constant injury it inflicted upon the interests and affections of modern France.

There was not quite the same vehemence of debate in the chamber of peers as in that of the deputies, but it attained to more certain results. There was a degree of quiet, and at the same time great political judgment, in the discussions, not allowing themselves to be carried away by the spirit of party, but continuing so steadily to advance towards the downfall of M. de Villèle's ministry, that we may safely assert, the retirement of the royalist cabinet of the restoration was owing to their efforts. It must be confessed, this opposition was rather against the order of things; an aristocratic power which opposed the elements of an aristocratic constitution, was not in good keeping; but the fault lay with the party of the restoration, which interfered too hastily with the new ideas and prejudices prevalent in France.