PARIS. 
however, has nothing in common with univerfal fuffrage, 
for the bails of the qualification of a voter is property; it 
being an indifpenfable requifite that every voter (hall pay 
12I. a-year in direft taxes. This fum feems a very proper 
medium. From the nature of French taxation, it com- 
prifes a vaft number of petty proprietors worth from 6ol. 
to 150I. a-year. In like manner, the payment of 40I. the 
qualification fora member, implies only the pofleflion of 
200I. or 300I. a-year. 
The right of voting for members of parliament in France 
was long exercifed by delegation, the voters choofing a 
committee (college electoral) compofed of perfons paying 
40I. in taxes, with whom relied the choice and nomination 
of the member; but this cold and indirect courfe was 
abrogated by the law of 5th February, 1817 ; fince which 
the voters have made a direft nomination of their mem¬ 
bers, as in England. In this manner took place the two 
elections (each of a fifth of the houfe) in 1817 and 1818. 
The predilection fhown in them to the liberaux, or mode¬ 
rate revolutionifts, excited the fears of the royalifts ; but 
the king refilled all attempts to modify the eltablifhed 
law, until a third trial in 1819, which, by giving another 
powerful addition to the liberaux, induced both him and 
his counfellors to project a change. In 1820, therefore, 
it was again propofed to extend the number of members 
to 430, and to confine the election of the additional 
number (172) to electoral committees on the old plan. 
Another part of the change was to difpenfe with annual 
elections, and to declare the whole houfe of commons en¬ 
titled to fit for five years, as it is in England for feven. 
The new law propofed no change in the qualification 
of voters. The number of the latter is of courfe very 
different in different departments ; the medium is from 
1500 to 2500 ; but in the department of Paris they exceed 
10,000. The king is bound to convoke the chamber an¬ 
nually ; he has, as in England, unlimited power to pro¬ 
rogue or diflolve ; but, in that cafe, a new chamber mull 
be called in the courfe of three months. 
Hitherto, a's we have before noticed, the members have 
always delivered written fpeeches; but they are coming to 
a fenfe of the inconvenience of that practice; and the 
count de Polignac has given notice of a propofition for 
the abolition of the ufe of written fpeeches, (Mar. 1821.) 
except on matters of finance, where numerical calculations 
mult neceflarily occur. But a fimilar propofitions was 
rejected in the chamber of peers, Nov. 5, 1816, by a ma¬ 
jority of 87 to 50. 
Connected with this fubjeft, a curious ordinance ap¬ 
peared in July, 1816, which tends to (how the very dif¬ 
ferent notions of liberty that exift in that country and in 
England. Many of the deputies having, by their patri¬ 
otic and loyal conduft, obtained the applaufe and admi¬ 
ration of their conllituents, the latter thought fit to tef- 
tify their elteem by various honorary prefents, fuch as a 
piece of plate, a fword, or the like ; while the minifterial 
members had not been very fortunate in obtaining thefe 
marks of public elteem. A decree was promulgated, pro¬ 
hibiting any fuch prefents being received in future, with¬ 
out the king’s content previoufly obtained ! 
And in November latt (1820), a royul proclamation ap¬ 
peared, addrefled to the electors throughout France, re¬ 
commending to them fuch a choice of deputies at the pre- 
fent election “as (hall bed preferve the monarchy from 
the aflaults of faction, and fecure to France the continu¬ 
ance of freedom, peace, and profperity.” In fliort, a 
direft inftrudtion, from the king himfelf, to influence the 
elefticn of members devoted to the court and miniftry. 
In England, we have not yet feen fuch open and diredt 
interference in eledtions; but in France, though their re- 
prefentative conflitution is fo recent, the pradtice we have 
alluded to is not fo new as to have been then reforted to 
for the firfltime: for on the 23d of November, 1816, at a 
dinner at the Britifli ambaffador’s, where M. Pafquier, pre- 
iiden t of the chamber of deputies, was prefent, Talleyrand 
declared, that the influence employed in eledlions was an 
affront offered to the nation, and that the minifter of the 
591 
interior fhould be the only medium through whom the 
king fhould communicate his fentiments. M. Pafquier 
grew warm in his reply; and the end of the affair was, 
that the next morning Talleyrand received a note for¬ 
bidding him, in the name of his majefty, from appearing 
at court. This certainly fmacks a little of the old French 
fchool, where every thing was de par le roi. 
About this time, the king acknowledged, or adopted, 
the order of the legion of honour; ordering, however, 
that it fhould be called royal, and that its anniverfary 
fhould be kept on the 13th of July, the birth-day of Henry 
the Fourth. 
On the 22d of November, 1817, the minifter of the in¬ 
terior prefented to the chamber of deputies the projet of 
a law for carrying into effeft a Concordat which had been 
entered into between the Pope and the Gallican church. 
By this Concordat, feven new archiepifcopal and thirty- 
five epifcopal fees are eltablifhed in France. In the French 
newfpapers a lilt is given of the archbifhops and bifliops 
inftituted by his holinefs on the nomination of the king. 
Of thefe the molt confpicuous is Talleyrand Perigord, 
gland almoner; who, having obtained a cardinal’s hat, 
is promoted to the rank of archbifhop of Paris. M. de la 
Luzerne, formerly bifhop of Langres, and M. de Beauflet, 
formerly bifhop of Alais, have alfo been created cardinals. 
The duke of Berry, in whom the hopes of Louis for the 
long continuance of his dynafty feemed to be centered, 
was married to the princefs Caroline, grand-daughter of 
the king of Naples, on the 16th of May, 1816. On the 
13th of July, 1817, flie was delivered of a daughter, 
which died the next day ; and in September 1818 fhe mil- 
carried of a male infant, after only four months’ preg¬ 
nancy ; and thus for the fecond time difappointed the 
hope of feeing a Bourbon heir to the throne. The duke 
of Bourbon, at that time the laft male of his illuflrious 
branch, and the father of the late duke d’Enghien, was 
born in 1756. Ever fince the murder of the duke d’Eng¬ 
hien, the exiftence of the duke de Bourbon has been a 
fcene of unvaried melancholy; and the recent death of 
his venerable parent, the prince de Conde, in neceflitating 
his return to France, did but vary the objefts, without 
diminilhing the weight, of his forrow; and he has hitherto 
declined alfuming the title of his deceafed father, the 
Prince of Conde. The reafon affigned for his refufal is 
fo honourable, that it ought to be generally known: 
being, by the murder of the duke d’Enghien, the laft of his 
illuflrious race, he modeftly holds himfelf unworthy of 
being called The Laft of the Condes, and lets the name 
reft with his noble fatherlately deceafed, who, as he fays, 
had fo long commanded the French nobility in their glo¬ 
rious exertions to defend the caufe of the monarchy. 
On the 21 ft of September, 1819, the duchefs was fafely 
delivered of a princefs. This was a third difappoinvment, 
as a female cannot inherit the crown of France. But the 
greateft fhock was to follow. On the 14th of February, 
1820, at.eleven o’clock at night, his royal highnefs the 
duke de Berry was aflaffinated on leaving the opera-houfe, 
by one Louvel, a journeyman faddler, formerly a foldier in 
the old imperial guard, who appears to have been impel¬ 
led to this dreadful aft by political fanaticifm. He was 
immediately arrefted ; not having, indeed, made any 
effort to efcape. He declared that he had meditated the 
crime for four years. The duke was immediately carried 
into one of the faloons of the opera-houfe, where all the 
afliftance the medical art could fupply was adminiftered to' 
him, but without eft'eft, the weapon having penetrated 
too deep not to inflift a mortal wound, and he expired 
at fix o’clock in the morning ; all the princes of the royal 
family, and even the king himfelf, being prefent with 
the duke in his laft moments. 
Political fanaticifm armed the hand of this wretched 
aflallin, as formerly religious fanaticifm armed that of 
Ravaillac. When examined by interrogatories in the 
ufual manner, he at once confefled the alfaflinaiion, of 
which indeed there was overwhelming evidence. He did 
not evince the leaft appearance of regret. 
4 
When 
