and the laws of no ufe; a word from your mouth, a fignatute from your hand, fhall deprive us of our liberty, of our goods, of our wives, of our children, of the very right of defending ourfelves:" were fome men to hold fuch language they would certainly pafs for madmen. The people's confent, therefore, to the power of uling lettres de cachet is incompatible with the ufe of reafon; reafon is the natural state of man, as well as of fociety; the practice, therefore, of fuch letters is repug nant to the nature of man, both as a rational and a focial being. Will they fay, that this practice is founded on the nature of monar chical power? The answer could eafily be found. Kings reign either in virtue of conqueft, or by law if the couqueror abufes his conqueft; if he ftrikes at the rights of man; if the conqueft is not changed into capitulation, force, that difpofes of the fruits of victory, does not retain fubjects at the conqueror's feet, but flaves. Whatever reason forbids the people to confent to, kings have it not in their power to ordain. Befides, how could reafon bear to see the whole fyftem of morality overturned? The tutelary maxims of mankind, happily, want no proofs. They fupport themselves by their own evidence. It is evident that justice muft equally hold the scales between the poor and the rich; and it is evident that hame and punishment are due to the guilty, and to them alone. If there existed a power that could interrupt the course of laws, and partially defend the guilty, by preferving the one and abandoning the others, it is evident, that this power, in compromiling justice in the punishments he has already pronounced, would add to the idea of a precedent, that likewife of preference and if the preference granted by this power

were to be constantly referved for a particular clafs of citizens, and refufed to all others, it is evident that the law not allowed to punish such and fuch a crime, but fuch and fuch a clafs of fociety, would invariably keep in a state of terror and difgrace all thofe claffes that are profcribed, without any regard for innocence or juftice. The application of these inconicftible marks is very appofite to the practice of lettres de cachet. Two men, for instance, meet; one is weak, the other strong; one poor, the other rich; the poor may say to himfelf-" if this man offends me, if he attacks my honour, my liberty, my life, the laws aflure me that they will grant me their fupport-the laws deceive me-authority may difpofe of it otherwiseauthority will prevail-but should I offend him, I fhall be purfued, imprifoned, abandoned, difhonoured and punished-this very authority will be filent for me-thefe very laws inexorable-where then is juftice? Is mifery a crime? Is humanity alone no longer a title? A poor man, friendless, without any credit, is he no longer a citizen ?”

The orders of the state are no lefs contrary to the practice of lettres de cachet, than the principles themfelves. Ambition, revenge, flattery, and avidity-in a word the most violent and the most abject paffions have besieged at all times the monarch's throne; but at all times too the laws have forewarned the fovereign, and protected the fubjects, and if not with equal fuccefs, at least with equal energy; and this continual ftruggle of arbitrary power against liberty has not prevented liberty from triumphing in the people's and the monarch's minds. The laft ftates of Blois have intreated his majefty to confine the ufe of lettres de cachet, to thofe who had the ho

nour

nour to dine at his royal manfion, not to feclude them from their occupations, or deprive them of their household gods, and of their families-but to prevent their being admitted into the palace of his royal prefence, without depriving them however of his juftice. It it a max im in our monarchy that no citizen can become a prifoner without an order from the judge. All the kings of the two first races have acknowledged it. Hugues Capet found it at his acceffion to the throne. All orders and decrees iffued under the third race have confirmed it. It is this maxim that became the foundation of the only distinction we find in our laws between the prifoners for crimes and thofe for debts; and the claufe in the edict of 1670, agreeable, in this point, to all the preceding ones, has ftamped it with the feal of validity, by requiring, that prifoners for crimes fhould be examined within four-and-twenty hours after imprisonment: but how ineffectual fuch a wife difpofition; how ridiculous fuch a precaution, as long as the practice of lettres de cachet fhall fubfift!

Thus the rights of mankind, the fundamental principles of fociety, the most brilliant lights of reafon, the dearest interests of lawful power, the elementary maxims of morality, the laws of the conftitution--all, in fhort, unanimously rife against the practice of lettres de cachet. By what fatality, fire, has it been introduced and continued in your dominions? We are not astonished to fee that men, jealous of a tranfitory, but perfonal power, and greedy ambitious courtiers, regardless of time to come, fhould colour this practice with the fpecious motives of public fafety, or of the tranquillity and honour of many families. The fervile mind follows the train of am

bition with avidity: but that there fhould be citizens, blind enough nos to fee, in every letter they folicit or acquiefce in, the dreadful danger that awaits them, fills us really with the greatest aftonishment, and caufes in our breafts the deepest affliction. It is time to combat an error fet off with the appearance of difinterestednefs; it might make an impreffion on the mind and heart of your majestv.

Evidence wants but few words. The intereft of those who chufe to be inactive, out of temper, or refentful in the place they enjoy, does not by any means contribute to the public fafety. Public fafety has two certain bafes, the terror of wickedness, and the fhelter of innocence the terror of wickedness, the more exalted it is, and the thel ter of innocence in proportion to its weakness.

We have had the honour to prove to your majefty, that the ufe of lettres de cachet is pofitively contrived for abetting the powerful criminal, and intimidating the feeble innocent.

Where no perfonal fecurity exifts, public fafety is but an imaginary blifs; and where the practice of let tres de cachet fubfifts, perfonal fecurity cannot exift. Public fafety is then but an imaginary blifs, where the practice of lettres de cachet subfifts. If there are circumstances, fire, that require the fudden exercife of your authority, there are, none that can authorise the secret detention of a prifoner, who folicits his trial-there are none that can prevent his claims to juftice; not his filence itself, nor even his format confent to the lofs of his liberty, could be fufficient to do it.

Your majefty's answer in 1777, has given an indelible fanction to these national maxims. You declare,

fire,

fire, that you will never fuffer any attacks on the liberty of your fubjects; but that there are circumftances in which public fafety requires that your authority fhould appear in fupport of juftice, to prevent a culprit's evafion. How remarkable and how conforming were thefe words for the caufe of juftice! They conciliated liberty with power, and it is thus that your majefty has fixed upon this point, and with your own words, the principle, the object, and the limits of your power.

The honour and tranquillity of a family*, is the last objection to the abolishing the practice of lettres de cachet, but they do not reflect that this objection, the grand battery of the partifans for arbitrary power, owes all its pretended confequence to the Jettres themselves, the practice of which, once admitted, deceives honour itfelf, and arms it against liberty.

Your parliament, fire, will agree, that the prejudice may exit; but they will never agree that a falfe prejudice of honour fhould, for the fake of a few individuals, be contrary to reafon, and affect the public intereft, our morals, and our laws. And if fhould please your majefty, after having permitted the law to act indifcriminately on the guilty, without any distinction of rank, or birth, to fend for their relations at your court, to employ them in your tribunals, in your councils, and in your armies, would any perfon dare to fay, that a prejudice, that is fub. fifted and nourished only by fuccefs, would refift fo noble and fo auguft an example?

: Many facts, pretty well known, can prove to your majefty, that the nation, more fenfible of their true

intereft, even in the most elevated fpheres, are disposed to receive from your hands the greatest bleffing a monarch can heftow on his subjects, the gift of liberty: it is a bleding that renders authority more firm, and the laws more endearing. It is this bleffing which nobly rewards virtue, encourages the afpiring ge nius, and puts a bridle on turbu lent licentioufnefs: this your parliament come to reclaim, fire, in the name of a generous and faithful nation. They most respectfully entreat you to abolifh for ever the ufe of lettres de cachet. They conjure you effectually to reject all ambitious. counfels, and frivolous motives, and that perfidious intelligence, which is as much difowned by reafon, as it is refuted by facts. How cruel, that your majefty cannot enter into the minute details of fuch intelligence, generally made up by fubaltern officers, on fome pretence, always kept fecret, or on informations always clandeftine! Oh fire, could you but interrogate thofe victims of arbitrary power, confined, abandoned, and forgotten, in thofe impenetrable dungeons, where filence and injuftice ever dwell, how many of them would you find who never threatened to disturb the tranquility of the ftate, nor ever meant to difhonour the refpectable name of their family? Unhappy victims! foon would your majefty be convinced, that intrigue, avidity, luft of power, thirst of revenge, the dread or hate of justice, humour, caprice, and the mere whim of a man of credit, prefide by turns at the diftribution of lettres de cachet. You would then know to what torments is condemned the wretch for whom the fun rifes, without any hopes, and the night

returns,

by fuch means as the court of parTiament could not oppofe; their duty being to ftand firmly against all plans contrary to law, and to the welfare of the nation. The court further confidered, that the fyftem of complying with the king's abfolute will, as expreffed in his different anfwers, proves the minister's destructive project of annulling the principles of the national govern ment, which parliament is bound to maintain, and from which it will never depart. It declares, that France is a kingdom governed by a king according to the laws: that moft of thofe laws are fundamental, and are formed to maintain the reigning family on the throne in the male line, excluding female fucceffion that the nation has the right of raifing fubfidies by the vote of the ftates-general duly convened and affembled.

That the court of parliament has a right to confirm the king's orders in every province, and to order them to be enregistered, in cafe they are conformable to the laws, the conftitutional rights of the province, and to the fundamental laws of the kingdom. They have alfo the pri vilege of not being arretted by any order whatever, without being immediately put into the hands of thofe judges to which they are connected by their fituation. The court protest against any act of violence attempted against the principles herein mentioned, and unanimoufly declares they cannot deviate from them by their oath; that each member is refolved to oppofe all in novations, nor will he adminifter juf tice in any place but the court itself, compofed of the fame perfons, and empowered by the fame privileges. -And in cafe by force they fhould be compelled to difperfe themfelves, and rendered unable to act in their

proper capacities, they each declare they will return their privileges and rights into the hands of the kinghis family-the peers of the realm

or the ftates-general.-The court have given orders for the present refolutions to be fent to all the courts of the kingdom.

Address of the Parliament of Paris to the King, on the Arreft of Mef fieurs d'Efpremevil and Mon{ambert, two Counsellors of their Court, delivered May 7, 1788.

SIRE,

YOUR parliament is confirmed, by every proceeding, of the entire innovation which is aimed at in the fytem of monarchy. At the mo ment even when your parliament were offering their fufpicions and rem nftrances at the foot of the throne, an act of abfolute authority is excreifed in your name against two magistrates, whofe conduct is irreproachable, and who should rather deferve your majefty's protection for their fupport of the rights of monarchy. At the time that the deputies of parliament were foliciting an audience at the foot of the throne, which public circumflance feemed to require, the feat of fovereign juftice was invefted by a body of armed people, who committed acts of violence in the middle of the night, and at the time your parliament were fitting.

Your majefty has been advised not to receive the deputation of your parliament, becaufe you had not been made acquainted of their coming by a fpecial meffage. The efforts that have been made to conceal truth from your knowledge but too plainly indicate the changes in the conftitution which the enemies of magiftracy have endeavoured to ef

fect