If
any such remains, why is not this confiscated? I remember to have been
in Paris during the time of the old government. I was there just after
the Duke d'Aiguillon had been snatched (as it was generally thought)
from the block by the hand of a protecting despotism. He was a
minister and had some concern in the affairs of that prodigal
period. Why do I not see his estate delivered up to the municipalities
in which it is situated? The noble family of Noailles have long been
servants (meritorious servants I admit) to the crown of France, and
have had, of course, some share in its bounties. Why do I hear nothing
of the application of their estates to the public debt? Why is the
estate of the Duke de Rochefoucault more sacred than that of the
Cardinal de Rochefoucault? The former is, I doubt not, a worthy
person, and (if it were not a sort of profaneness to talk of the
use, as affecting the title to the property) he makes a good use of
his revenues; but it is no disrespect to him to say, what authentic
information well warrants me in saying, that the use made of a
property equally valid by his brother,*(2) the cardinal archbishop
of Rouen, was far more laudable and far more public-spirited. Can
one hear of the proscription of such persons and the confiscation of
their effects without indignation and horror? He is not a man who does
not feel such emotions on such occasions.
Pages:
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183