and by an enemy. In 1816
the _Nain jaune refugie_, a French paper published at Brussels by
Bonapartist and Liberal exiles, began to speak of M. Royer-Collard as
the "doctrinaire" and also as _le pere Royer-Collard de la doctrine
chretienne_. The _peres de la doctrine chretienne_, popularly known as
the "doctrinaires," were a French religious order founded in 1592 by
Cesar de Bus. The choice of a nickname for M. Royer-Collard does credit
to the journalistic insight of the contributors to the _Nain jaune
refugie_, for he was emphatically a man who made it his business to
preach a doctrine and an orthodoxy. The popularity of the name and its
rapid extension to M. Royer-Collard's colleagues is the sufficient proof
that it was well chosen and had more than a personal application. These
colleagues came, it is true, from various quarters. The duc de Richelieu
and M. de Serre had been Royalist _emigres_ during the revolutionary and
imperial epoch. MM. Royer-Collard himself, Laine, and Maine de Biran had
sat in the revolutionary Assemblies. MM. Pasquier, Beugnot, de Barante,
Cuvier, Mounier, Guizot and Decazes had been imperial officials. But
they were closely united by political principle, and also by a certain
similarity of method. Some of them, notably Guizot and Maine de Biran,
were theorists and commentators on the principles of government. M. de
Barante was an eminent man of letters. All were noted for the doctrinal
coherence of their principles and the dialectical rigidity of their
arguments. The object of the party as defined by M. (afterwards the duc)
Decazes was to "nationalize the monarchy and to royalize France." The
means by which they hoped to attain this end were a loyal application of
the charter granted by Louis XVIII., and the steady co-operation of the
king with the moderate Royalists to defeat the extreme party known as
the Ultras, who aimed at the complete undoing of the political and
social work of the Revolution. The Doctrinaires were ready to allow the
king a large discretion in the choice of his ministers and the direction
of national policy. They refused to allow that ministers should be
removed in obedience to a hostile vote in the chamber. Their ideal in
fact was a combination of a king who frankly accepted the results of
the Revolution, and who governed in a liberal spirit, with the advice of
a chamber elected by a very limited constituency, in which men of
property and education formed, if not the wh