§ 600.Parliamentary principle in France

19th century:
§600. Parliamentary principle in France (1830): VIII-61.

Never in the open of daylight
Shall he arrive at the sceptred sign,
So that all his postures will not be resident.
A gift of the amicable parliament shall bring him to the throne of the French.

(Jamais par le decouvrement du jour
Ne parviendra au signe sceptrifere
Que tous ses sieges ne soient en sejour,
Portant au coq don du TAG amifere.)

Keys to the reading:
Decouvrement: = N. m. découvert, the open;

Par le decouvrement du jour: In the open of daylight;

Sceptrifere: Sceptre-portant, sceptre-carrying, sceptred;

The sceptred sign: The throne;

Resident: proper to himself;

Le coq: = France or the French, or the crown (crest) of France, coq in Latin gallus suggesting Gallic (French). Cf. §610,VIII-5;

TAG: PARLIAMENT in German, and also DAY (= the light of convention), as contrasted with the open of daylight (= legitimacy);

Amifere: Ami-portant, friend-carrying, friendly, amicable;

Portant au coq don du TAG amifere: The construction is as follows: Un don du TAG amifere [le] portant au coq.

Never in the open of daylight shall he arrive at the sceptred sign: « The blond hair (the duke of Bordeaux) shall be deserted by Ferdinand of Orleans, the eldest son and presumptive successor as Ferdinand Ier of Louis-Philip entrusting him with a regiment. He shall leave with his force the fleur-de-lis to follow Philip of France, marvelously resembling that Philip of Macedonia, who, tutor of his nephew, deprived him of his throne. Philip shall abandon the way he should follow when the blond hair is wanting most the aid of the Orleans. He shall make march the revolt toward Rambouillet against the little king God-Gift and child of miracle.» (Torné-Chavigny, 1860, p.14) (cf. §601,IX-35).

So that all his postures will not be resident: « Placed as Louis Philippe was between the past and the future, between the ancient monarchy crumbled without hope of return and the republic brought forward, then adjourned, his position was complex and his spirit contradictory. He was at the same time a prince at heart and a bourgeois in form; revolutionary by his memories, and reactionary, or at least stationary, from the fear which these very memories inspired in him, as well as by his royal memories. " King-citizen," promenading Paris in round hat and with an umbrella, not only by calculation, but by taste as well, he was at the same time a descendant of Louis XIV - the issue of the brother of Louis XIV, on the male side; he descended on the female side from the Grand Monarch himself and Mme. de Montespan. He had kept from Voltairianism sentiments of humanity and religious scepticism, but nothing more from that great breath of the eighteenth century which had for a moment animated his youth and inspired the entire life of La Fayette.» (HH, XIII, p.54)

A gift of the amicable parliament [ = a detestable one dissolved by the king] shall bring him to the throne of the French: « Fort Emperor once taken, Algiers could no longer hold out; Hussein signed a capitulation [July 4 1830]. The victory, however, was little heeded at home and war was declared between France and monarchy. The struggle had been desperate on both sides. The opposition brought out a new paper, the National, edited by Thiers and Mignet, the two historians of the Revolution, and Arman Carrel, who had begun his public career as leader of an armed conspiracy. This paper propagated the views of the opposition with extreme ardour. On the other side the king vainly threw his name and his influence into the scale. The result was a crushing defeat. The opposition had fought for the 221 deputies who had condemned the Polignac ministry, as in 1877 they were to fight for the 363. They were all returned again and fifty more elections were also gained. The defeated ministry prepared a coup d'état. Taking as a pretext the wording of Article 14 of the charter, they resolved to suppress the liberty of the country. Three ordinances signed by all the ministers formed the reply of Charles X to the French nation. One of these dissolved the chamber before it had ever met; so that the country had been consulted and had given its answer, but that answer was treated with contempt. Another abolished liberty of the press. Henceforth every paper would be forced to obtain the royal sanction; otherwise, it would not only be forbidden to appear, but its plant would be destroyed. The third created a new electoral system. It would no longer be a sufficient qualification for a vote to pay 300 francs in taxes; patents were no longer to be taken into account; all electors who were engaged in commerce or manufactures were deprived of their votes. The last two ordinances were manifestly unconstitutional: they violated the laws and usurped their functions. The king's pleasure was substituted for the votes of the chambers. This was a return to absolute monarchy. This attempt at violence was made in incredible ignorance of the actual situation. Up to the time of the elections the ministers had thought themselves certain of a majority, and, even after the results were known, seemed to have an inexplicable confidence in the measures they were preparing. They had only 19,000 men at their command to subdue Paris. Secrecy was most carefully observed. Nobody, except those who had drawn them up and signed them, knew the contents of the ordinances, when, on the evening of Sunday, 25th July, they were handed over to the chief editor of the Moniteur for publication the following morning. The editor glanced over them, and turning pale said to the minister: " I am fifty-seven years of age; I have passed through all the revolutions, but I now withdraw overwhelmed with fear." On the morning of the 26th of July, 1830, the ordinances published in the Moniteur burst on the nation like a thunderbolt. At first people seemed stupefied. The press had the honour of setting an example of action. It has already been said that one of the edicts suppressed all the opposition papers. That very day all their editors signed a protest of which the following words contain the gist: To-day the government has lost that constitutional character which alone commands obedience. And they added that they would use every possible means to publish their papers in defiance of the authority of the government. Among the young writers who perhaps risked their lives by affixing their signatures to this bold protest, were some who were destined to play an important part in public affairs. The protest was signed by Thiers, Mignet, Armand Carrel, Rémusat, and Pierre Leroux. This intrepid action of the press was the first reply to the coup d'état. Their actions were as bold as their words; and when on the following day the police attempted to carry out the provisions of the ordinance, the commissary of police found the proprietor of the paper, with the law in his hand, threatening the agent of the government with the punishment due to theft aggravated by housebreaking. A crowd collected and protested loudly. The locksmith who had been summoned to break up the plant refused to do so, and was heartily applauded. Another was sent for, who also refused. Not a workman could be found who was willing to raise his hand against the instrument of public liberty. It was found necessary at last to have recourse to the wretch whose duty it was to affix the fetters worn by convicts. Such was the lawful resistance which most politicians of that time, whether journalists or deputies, considered the only possible course.» (HH, XIII, p.44-45)

« The duke of Orleans made lieutenant-general of the kingdom. Those who had taken no part in the fighting wished to take advantage of the victory. Most of them had already begun to think of the duke of Orleans. As often happens in reigning families the Orleans branch, the younger branch, was always in a state of rivalry with the elder branch of Bourbons. Since 1789 the duke of Orleans had supported the revolutionary party; whilst his cousins were amongst the émigrés, he, a member of the convention, having given up using his title and assumed the name of Philippe Égalité, voted in favour of the death of Louis XVI. His son, duke of Orleans in 1792, had fought under the tricolour with Dumouriez at Jemmapes. Though he had emigrated afterwards, yet on the restoration he had again declared himself a liberal. The family has always maintained this variable attitude, sometimes supporting, sometimes deserting the revolutionary party. After 1815 the duke of Orleans was sometimes a prince of the blood, sometimes the hope of the revolutionists. He alternately claimed the largest share of the indemnity paid to the émigrés, or openly took the part of Béranger and General Foy; he at one time obtained from Charles X the title of Royal Highness, and at another would pose as a citizen-prince. The example of England was in everybody's mind. It was by dethroning the lawful king and putting in his place a prince of a lateral branch that the English had gained their liberties in 1688. For a long time many people had been hoping that a similar change might bring about a similar result in France. On the 30th Thiers and Mignet hurried to Neuilly where the prince lived, but he was not there. In the morning the deputies met at the house of Laffitte, and decided to hold a session at noon at the Bourbon palace. There it was decided to offer the " lieutenancy of the kingdom " to the duke of Orleans. He hesitated, tried to gain time, and was finally, it is said, persuaded by the advice of Talleyrand. On the 31st he accepted.» (HH, XIII, p.49)

« Hillebrand's parallel between the revolution of 1688 and 1830. The French 1688 was accomplished: the kingdom of God's grace [the open of daylight] had made way for a kingdom of conventions [TAG]. Whilst the " Glorious Revolution " had sealed the representative system in England, the " Great Week '' forever put an end to it in France. Instead of the balance of power between the crown, the house of peers, and the house of commons, the real or seemingly unlimited authority of the latter stepped in. The victory of the 221, that is to say the majority of the house, was like that of Pyrrhus, as is every victory which is only due to the assistance of uncertain confederates. Their leaders would infallibly have come into power, even if the throne had not been overturned, and they would have taken over the government under circumstances far more favourable to themselves and the land, if the irresponsibility of the throne had been regarded, and the dangerous support of the street riots disdained. Be that as it may, Charles X was the last monarch of France who attempted to oppose his will to the majority of the House. From henceforth not only did the minister require a similar majority so as to retain his office, but also the leaders of the state - king, emperor, or president - were dependent on Parliament, the fiction of an irresponsible leader of the state was forever ended, and the upper house was practically a thing of the past. According to this it was only natural and right that from henceforth all leaders of the state should, if only artificially, seek to assure the majority in the Commons and to accustom themselves to consider every opponent of their minister as their own opponent, views which the nation shared and still shares. At times the capital which helped the parliamentary majority to win in 1830 may have fought and conquered this majority, as in the years 1848 and 1870, but only to withdraw her taxes after a short interregnum. In England, the House of Commons only became all-powerful a century after the Revolution, and the irresponsibility of the crown is still undisputed to-day. The convention of 1688 was the voluntary agreement of two equally powerful contractors; the convention of 1830 was a one-sided and conditional offer to which the one party submitted and which the other simply signed.» (HH, XIII, p.50)
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2011. All rights reserved.


Koji Nihei Daijyo

Author:Koji Nihei Daijyo
We have covered 143 quatrains (§588-§730) concerning the World Events in the 19th century after Napoleonic ages [1821-1900] in the Prophecies of Nostradamus, and 218 in the 20th [1901-2000] (§731-§948).

Latest journals