The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-07-09 00:00:00

THE EXILE OF THE ORLEANS
PRINCES.

On Siturday last the galleries of the Corps liAgielatif
were crowded to suffocation to hear the debate on the
petition for the removal of the interdiction acainst the
residence in France of the Princes of the Orleans
'The report drawn op by M. Dreolle said that
several petitions on the subject had been presented,
but that the direct and personal expression of some
members of the Orleans family to return to France
alone called for serious attention. While admitting
that the conduct of these Princes had been ex-
ceedingly discreet, he was unable to see, under the
circumstance., any adhesion in their present applica-
tion to the evtnts of the last twenty years. Their
presence in France might be a Cause of disorder and
acitmion. A family which had occupied the throne of
France could not easily descend to the rank of simple
citizens. Every Government had maintained the
proscription of former reigning families. It was an
imperative necessity, which could no more bs denied
to-day than in 1816, 1830. or 1848. It was a melan•
choly necessity, he admitted ; but strong and deeply•
rooted as the Empire was, it would not be wise to take
a step which might necessitate the restriction of
newly•born liberties. lie therefore, on the part of the
Committee, moved to pans to the order of the day.

Count de Keratry, M. Estancelin, and M. Esquiros
made speeches in support of the petition. AL Mattsl
called upon the Government for an explanation, saying
he would not refuse his vote if the Minister would de-
clare his positive opinion that public safety demanded
the maintenance ot the law f banishment, the abroga-
tion of which was now &shod for.

Thereupon M. Emile 011ivier mounted the tribune.
He said he would speak respectfully sif the authors of
the petition, but at the same time with great firmness.
It was a delicate question, and one to he decided by
principle, and not by considerations of personal Mends
ship and esteem, such as had been put forward by M.
Eittancelin. The law, the repeal of which was asked,
was not a law of proscriptis n, but one of necessity
and social justice. No government had been able
to escape from this social necessity, aml it
would be an unworthy course now to seek to
evade the necessity by any dilatory promises.
He adopted the words of • report of the Duke
de Broglie in 1832, when the law of expulsion
against the elder branch of the House of Bourbon was
proposed. The Euke de Eroglie said that the presence
of those Prince, might be a cause of disorder in France,
whether they wished it or not. He would not say
that their exclusion must be perpetual ; but it must
last as long as there was a pretender to the Crown.
There was no word in the petition to show that the
Princes renounced these titles, and desired to come to
France as simple cirizene. Even if they wished to do
so they could not, for people about them wouli treat
them as pretenders. The pleibisciteim had given a
mandate to the Emperor; not merely on account of his
name; he Was commissioned to preserve order and
peace. Neither he (111. 011iviet). nor the Government
had any hatred in their hearts against the Orleanist
Princes; but he must echo thefeelitiga of the peasants,
who, by their plaiscitum, had said "Peace, peace,
peace."
M. Jules Favre supported the petition ; and against
one argument of M. Ofiivier be cited she words of the
present Emperor who demanded to return to France
sea" simple eitiasn." The Marquis de PirB warmly
supported the petition. lie said he had been a friend
of the Emperor when in exile. The Emperor feared
nothing ; but he had a Ministry which was afraid of
everything. He was the last of the Pirst's, and would
never he the man to support a law of ostracism.
General Lehreton also supported the petition, an I said
he did not believe the return of the Princes could
menace order.

M. Picard gait' he and several of his friends would
abetain from voting. He saw in the petition an
evidently dynastic character. M. Grevy adhered to
M. beard's views. He was not going to be a dupe
or an ae,omplice in the recall of the monarchy of 1830.
M. F. Arago spoke Intbeame sense.
M. Gustave bad, the °lily member of the Corn•
mittee who had recommended that the petition should
be taken into consideration, was absent inconsequence
of the deaqs of his mother.
In a diviaion the anticipated result was achieved by
the rejection of the petition by 174 v.ites to 31. 't'here
'snow an end of the matter for some time.

The split in the Left on the sulijec-7hOws that no
agitation in favour of the Orleanist claim is likely to
take place. M. Jules Payee has a mere platonic
affection, not for them, hut for what he considers their
rights as citizens. MM. Picard and Grevy, with
Republican logic, sternly refuse to support a dynasty
of pretenders, however much they dislike the dynasty
now reigning.
The Times observes that the best proof of the at-
tachment of the Orleans Protect to their country is
that the family should have addressed the Imperialist
Chamber for leave to return, though they well know
that by living in France ad the subjects of Napoleon
they inu-t concede much and would probably looe
more. The debate brought out clearly this ni c,-riary
incident of the case. It will be readily felt that a
Pretender, a S ivereign claiming to reign de lore, can-
not live under the jurisdiction of one whom he and his
party regard as a usurper. It is in vain for him to de-
clare that for the present he refrains from prosecuting
his claim, and desires to live as a private citizen. He
is not a privaie citiz•-n, and to make hirnsilf so is simply
to abdicate. Apply this principle to the Orleans Princes,
and see what guarantees they give that the peace of the
State should rem sin undisturbed. There remains, how-
ever, another and a moreimportant point tobe considered
—how far their presence in France would affect its
tranquillity independently of their own will. They
might, nay the Imperialists, not conspire, and yet be
the cause of conspiracy. No one who knows France
will doubt that this would be the case. Other faotions
besides the present Orleaniats would use the names of
the Princes for the porpose of annoying the Imperial
Government. A Government knows beet what foes
it hes to dread, and The Times considers the enforce-
ment of the present law against the Princes a sincere
hough unwilling compliment to their merits.