« AnteriorContinuar »
Tureau, for their frightful cruelties in La Vendée. Legendre demanded his arrest after the insurrection of the zoth of May 1795: but Bourdon (de l'Oise) silenced him by calling out, " You accuse the man who has organized victory in our armies." He was next appointed a member of the Directory; and in 1797 he dissented from his colleagues, but declined to join the royalists. He was condemned to banishment after the 18th of Fructidor, but escaped into Germany, where he published his well known answer to the charges against him; an answer which exposes all the baseness of his brother-directors. After the 18th of Brumaire, Bonaparte recalled Carnot, and appointed him inspector of reviews and minister at war : but he subsequently resigned, and lived in retirement with his family; whence he was recalled to fill a seat in the tribunate. In that situation, he voted against Bonaparte's appointment as Consul for life, and as Emperor; yet he afterward accepted the cross of the Legion of Honour, and commanded at Antwerp, which he refused to surrender, except to Louis XVIII.
• Sieyès was a canon and vicar-general of the Bishop of Chartres, and was well known as a member of the Constituent Assembly, for it was of him that Mirabeau said, “ His silence is a public calamity." Being returned to the Convention by the department of the Sarthe, he continued a silent observer during the early debates : but, at the time of the question in the King's trial respecting an appeal to the people, he broke silence by voting against it, and in support of the sentence of death. Having failed in a motion relative to new modelling the war-department as far as the minister was concerned, his pride was mortified, and he resumed his former taciturnity. In 1795 he
ade some speeches against the crimes of Robespierre, and urged the recall of the proscribed deputies. He next became a member of the Committee of Public Safety, and negociated with Rewbell, in the spring of 1795, a treaty between France and the Dutch republic. Being nominated a member of the Directory in the end of 1795, he declined the appointment. On the election of the new third to the legislative body, he watched carefully its operations, and said nothing. The 18th of Fructidor filled France with sorrow : but Sieyès voted against the exiled deputies, particularly against Boissy d'Anglas. In May 1798 he was re-elected to the legislative body, and sent ambassador to Berlin, where he remained till May 1799 ; when he was appointed a member of the Directory, and returned to Paris. He is said to have planned the Revolution of the 18th of Brumaire with Talleyrand, Ræderer, and Bonaparte. He was now named one of the consuls, and was afterwards made president of the senate. An act was passed for forcing him to accept the estate of Crosne. He was in the senate during the whole of Bonaparte's reign, but the King has not deemed it proper to call him to the House of Peers, and he
in , · Amid the scenes of depravity presented by the French Revolution, it is a consolation to find at least one upright character, on whose career the advocates for liberty may dwell with confidence, and who has afforded in our day a practical exemplifi. cation of the virtues of Cato.
• Lanjuinais was an advocate and professor of canon-law at Rennes, member of the Constituent Assembly, and deputed to the Convention by the department of Ille and Vilaine. He was much shocked on seeing the authors of the September massacres occupy seats in the Convention; and, as early as 24 September 1792, he supported
the motion of Kersaint for a law against the instigators of plunder and assassination. He demanded also that a departmental guard should be raised to maintain the independence of the Convention; a motion which alarmed the terrorists. On the 5th of November he joined Louvet, and Barbaroux, who pointed out Robespierre as aiming at the dictatorship. On the 15th of December, he contended that Louis XVI. should be allowed the same means of defence which were granted to other accused persons ; and, on the 26th of that month, he attacked with surprizing courage the act of accusation prepared against the King. “Louis XVI. may be guilty,” he said, « of violating the constitution which he has sworn to maintain : but have you the right of passing sentence on him ; you, who stand here in the situation of accusers, witnesses, jurymen, and judges; and who bring to his charge crimes committed by members of your own body, such as that of shedding the blood of the people on the roth of August ? We hold our deliberations under the knives of assassins ; give the King the security which the penal code allows to accused persons, and pass an act requiring the votes of two-thirds of this assembly to condemn him.” The party called the Montagne were outrageous at this conduct. - Lanjuinais finally gave his vote as follows : « I consider Louis as guilty of violating the constitution, but cannot go so far as to deem myself intitled to be his judge. As to the appeal to the people, I am for the affirmative if you condemn him to death : but, if your sentence be different, I am not for the appeal. With regard to the punishment to be inflicted, I must say that the people have not a right to put to death a prisoner lying at their mercy; and I act according to the wish and right of the people, not according to the opinion which some among us would dictate, when I vote for. his confinement until a peace, and for his banishment.”
• In March 1793, Lanjuinais opposed the plan of a revolutionary tribunal ; and, seeing that his opinion was not supported, he at. tempted to get its jurisdiction confined to Paris. On the 27th and 28th of May he pointed out the machinations of the Jacobins, defended the committee of twelve, and denounced Chabot as at the head of a plot for decimating the deputies. On the second of June, he spoke so many truths and pointed out the intrigues so clearly, that Drouet, Legendre, and other followers of Marat, drove him by main force from the tribune. He was subsequently put under arrest at his own house, and at last yielded to the intreaties of two friends, who found means to elude the vigilance of the two gens d'armes stationed to watch him. He afterward lived retired in his department, and was recalled to the legislative body on the 8th of March 1795. He there came forwards and spoke in favour of the exiled priests, of the relations of emigrants, and of the freedom of public worship. In May and October 1795 he again shewed surprizing courage against the Jacobins. He was named successively by Bonaparte a commandant
of the Legion of Honour, a Count, and a senator, but has never been induced to swerve from the path of integrity. The repeated levies of conscripts, and other senatus-consulta, which are monuments of mean condescension towards Bonaparte, together with instances of oppres. sion in various shapes, forced his conscience to speak the truth to the tyrant, at the hazard of his life. Bonaparte is said to have told him one day, “ I should send you to Vincennes, did I not know your patriotism : but a man of worth who views things erroneously deserves to be excused.” Lanjuinais possesses the advantage of enjoying the friendship of his colleagues, the esteem of the people, and the favour of the King, who has appointed him a member of the Chamber of Peers.'
Though the author gives only his initials in the title-page, he subscribes his name at full length, ROBERT Avocat, in his dedication to the Duc de Pienne, first gentleman of the bed-chamber to Louis XVIII. That nobleman, with the ordinary complaisance of a Frenchman, returns an answer, saying that he has read the book with much interest, and that he accepts with satisfaction the dedication of a work which is written with impartiality and moderation. Next comes a preface, containing a few general remarks on the horrors of the Revolution, and declaring the National Convention to have been the focus of the conflagration which consumed the throne, the altar, the castle, and the cottage ;' expressions calculated to dazzle a French reader, and to give an appearance of originality to a production which, though on the whole well executed, does not deserve to hold any higher rank than that of a compilation.
ART. XVI. Rapports et Discussions, &c. ; i.e. Reports and Dis.
cussions of all the Classes of the Institute of France, on the Works admitted to the Competition for the decennial Prizes, 4to. Paris, Imported by De Boffe. Price il. Ios. W HATEVER may have been his motive, it is manifest that
Bonaparte embraced all opportunities of patronizing and encouraging the arts and sciences, during his former occupation of the imperial throne of France ; and in such a manner, also, as to gratify the taste and prejudices of the people over whom he ruled. In conformity, therefore, with the fashion of antient times, every thing was made a matter of public display and parade. On this principle, he established some years ago a system of prizes, which were to be distri, buted every ten years, and to be publicly awarded to the competitors by a jury and commissioners chosen from the Institute. The first period for delivering these prizes occurred in November 1810, and a quarto volume of nearly 500 pages is the result of the transaction.
It is well known that the Institute is divided into the two classes of science and literature, and under each of these a number of distinct subjects for competition is selected. The first great prize was destined for the best work that had been published, during the allotted period, in geometry or pure analysis ; and we begin with the report of the jury, who give a very brief account of the best mathematical publications that have appeared in France during the last ten years. They mention several with approbation, but their decision is in favour of Lagrange's “ Calcul des fonctions ;" which they describe as the work most distinguished for the precision and profoundness of its views, and the importance of its subject, that has appeared for ten years in the science of analysis. They also present to the Emperor, as worthy of particular distinction, Lacroix’s treatise on the Differential and Integral Calculus.- After the report on the geometrical prize, we have that of a commission, composed of MM. Laplace, Monge, and Prony, on the same subject: whose remarks, which are very short, entirely coincide in the former decision.
The second great prize was to be given to the author of the best work on the mathematical sciences, such as astronomy and mechanics; and here we have first the report of the jury and afterward that of a commission composed of MM. Delambre, Burck'hardt, and Lacroix. These are, like the former, very concise ; the subjects on which they treat not admitting of being presented in an abridged or popular form. The prize was decreed to Laplace for his Méchanique Céleste, as well for the importance and extent of its subject, as for the discoveries which it contains, not only respecting analysis and astronomy, but also natural philosophy, in the theory of capillary attraction; the phænomena of which are for the first time explained by calculation in the first two supplements to this work.' The solar tables of Delambre, Bouvard's tables of Jupiter and Saturn, and the Hydraulic Architecture of Prony, are selected as intitled to honourable mention.
The third great prize of the first class was for the best work on Natural Philosophy properly so called, Chemistry, Mineralogy, &c.' The jury point out several publications 'of considerable merit in these departments ; viz. Fourcroy's System of Chemical Knowlege ; Berthollet's Chemical Statics ; Haüy's Elementary Treatise of Natural Philosophy; the Mineralogy of the same author; Brochant's Mineralogy; Lacépède's History of Fishes; Daudin's History of Reptiles; Latreille's two works, the History of Insects, and the Genera Insectorum et Crustaceorum; Lamarck's Account of Animals without Vertebræ; the Flora of Desfontaines and that of Decandolle; and Mirbel's
Chemical Researches on Vegetation. The reporters thus conclude:
In bringing into one general point of view all the books of which mention has been made, the jury observe that many of them are distinguished by their utility, by the number of facts which are found collected in them, by the spirit of criticism and discernment with which these facts have been selected, and by the sagacity which has been called forth in discovering some of them: but they do not hesitate to pronounce that the one which bears the stamp of originality, which presents most new views, and which must have the greatest influence on the progress of an important science, is the “ Chemical Statics" of Count Berthollet. Consequently, they propose to your Majesty this publication as worthy of the great prize destined for the best production in natural philosophy. The work which appears next to offer the most qualities of the same kind, in which is equally displayed the creative spirit, and which is the most completely guided by a correct and fruitful mind, is the Mineralogy of M. Haüy, ta which the jury regret that they have no second prize to award. They cannot dispense, also, with making very honourable mention of the system of chemical knowlege by Count Fourcroy, and of the History of Fishes by Count Lacépède, as very complete collections ; in great part filled with new facts, discovered or observed by the authors, and each forming a satisfactory whole on the iniportant branches of the natural sciences.'
Of the commission that was appointed to consider the report of the jury on the third prize, the members were MM. Lelievre, Haüy, Vauquelin, Charles, and Desfontaines ; who were commanded by the original decree of the Emperor to draw up a critical examination of the works which received the sanction of the jury, which they accordingly perform at some length. The remarks which they offer on the publications of Berthollet, Haüy, Fourcroy, and Lacépède, are judicious and correct; illustrating very aptly the object of the writers, and the degree in which they have accomplished their design. The critique oca cupies eleven 4to. pages, and the commissioners conclude by giving their entire concurrence to the decision of the jury.
The fourth great prize is allotted for the best work on medicine, anatomy, and the other connected sciences; and the jury decree it to the “ Lectures on Comparative Anatomy" of Cuvier, on account of the number of new facts which they contain, the importance and difficulty of the discoveries, and the order and method which are conspicuous through the whole performance. They also pass very high commendations on the Nosographie Philosophique of Pinel, and make honourabla mention of the works of Corvisart, Bichat, Portal, and Alibert. The commissioners appointed to revise the report of the jury were MM. Sabatier, Pelletan, and Hallé, who enter very fully