L. Appendix L
The immutability of the constitution of France is a
necessary consequence of the laws of that country. To begin with
the most important of all the laws, that which decides the order
of succession to the throne; what can be more immutable in its
principle than a political order founded upon the natural
succession of father to son? In 1814, Louis XVIII had
established the perpetual law of hereditary succession in favor
of his own family. The individuals who regulated the
consequences of the Revolution of 1830 followed his example; they
merely established the perpetuity of the law in favor of another
family. In this respect they imitated the Chancellor Meaupou,
who, when he erected the new Parliament upon the ruins of the
old, took care to declare in the same ordinance that the rights
of the new magistrates should be as inalienable as those of their
predecessors had been. The laws of 1830, like those of 1814,
point out no way of changing the constitution: and it is evident
that the ordinary means of legislation are insufficient for this
purpose. As the King, the Peers, and the Deputies, all derive
their authority from the constitution, these three powers united
cannot alter a law by virtue of which alone they govern. Out of
the pale of the constitution they are nothing: where, when, could
they take their stand to effect a change in its provisions? The
alternative is clear: either their efforts are powerless against
the charter, which continues to exist in spite of them, in which
case they only reign in the name of the charter; or they succeed
in changing the charter, and then, the law by which they existed
being annulled, they themselves cease to exist. By destroying
the charter, they destroy themselves. This is much more evident
in the laws of 1830 than in those of 1814. In 1814, the royal
prerogative took its stand above and beyond the constitution; but
in 1830, it was avowedly created by, and dependent on, the
constitution. A part, therefore, of the French constitution is
immutable, because it is united to the destiny of a family; and
the body of the constitution is equally immutable, because there
appear to be no legal means of changing it. These remarks are
not applicable to England. That country having no written
constitution, who can assert when its constitution is changed?