Page:Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography Volume 1.pdf/583

BER  it from Louis, allied himself with the comte de Charolais, surnamed Charles le Téméraire, and others, from whose intrigues sprung the famous "Ligue des bien public," by which the tranquillity of the kingdom was long disturbed. Charles was at first apparently successful in his ambitious schemes. By the aid of able auxiliaries, and particularly of Thomas Basin, he succeeded in getting himself recognized as duke of Normandy, where he for a time maintained himself in opposition to the royal authority. At length, however (January, 1466), he was driven from Normandy by the royal troops, and was, by a decree of the king, deprived of his title. Louis, however, who seems to have acted with moderation and even generosity, in April, 1469, invested his brother with the duchy of Guienne, whither he sent him into a sort of honourable exile. In the government of that province he was under the control of his mistress, a young woman named Colette de Chambes Montsoreau. This woman was slowly poisoned by his almoner, Jean Favre, abbé of Saint-Jean d'Angely, who shortly afterwards put an end to Charles himself by the same means. Louis himself was regarded as the instigator of these crimes, and the presumptive evidence against him is so strong as to leave a permanent blot on his memory.

, duc de, third son of Louis, dauphin of France, and Marie Christina of Bavaria, born 31st August, 1686, died at Marly, 4th May, 1714. He was a prince of amiable qualities, but so ignorant in consequence of his aversion to study that he became timid and awkward in the society of persons of his own rank. In 1710 he married the eldest daughter of Philippe of Orleans, afterwards regent of France. He was so passionately fond of this princess, that, for a time, he remained blind to her scandalous intrigues, which were well known to all who frequented the court. Having at last, however, surprised her at Rambouillet, he was so overcome with rage, that he gave her a blow with his foot, and threatened to shut her up in a convent for life. He then hastened to lay his complaint before the king, but his career was cut short by a fall from his horse, which he concealed, until the injury was past remedy.

, duc de, second son of the comte d'Artois, afterwards Charles X, born at Versailles, 24th January, 1778; died at Paris, 13th February, 1820. He was one of the numerous emigrants at the time of the Revolution, and having joined the army of Conde, assisted in 1792 at the siege of Thionville. That army having been disbanded in 1801, the duke repaired to London, where he married Miss Brown, a young Englishwoman, by whom he had two children, but whom he afterwards abandoned under the pretence that Louis XVIII. disapproved of their union. In 1814 and 1815 he entered France with the allied armies. In 1816 he married the princess Caroline of Naples, sister of the queen of Spain. Four years after this event he perished by the hand of an assassin, as he was retiring from the opera.

, duchesse de, born 20th August, 1695, died 21st July, 1719. She was the eldest daughter of Philippe, duc d'Orleans, afterwards regent of France, and Françoise Marie (mademoiselle de Blois), daughter of Louis XIV by madame de Montespan. Reared during childhood between a severe mother and an indulgent father, the training she received was none of the best. Her principal companions during infancy were femmes de chambre, and it is not surprising, therefore, that unaccustomed to restraint, she should have acquired the wilful disposition she evinced in after life. She does not appear to have been destitute of accomplishments, however, and although the ravages of the small-pox had deprived her countenance of all pretensions to beauty, her graceful figure, amiable and refined manners, and natural eloquence of address, combined to render her peculiarly attractive. On the 6th July, 1710, she married the grandson of Louis XIV., to whose hand she had long aspired, and, after this event, she seems to have shown, without any restraint, all the natural perversity of her character. She contrived to embroil her husband with the duke of Burgundy, her intention being to secure the lead at court, through the influence of her father-in-law, the dauphin. But the latter dying suddenly, she turned all the fury of her disappointed ambition against his widow, whom she treated with insolent and contemptuous ingratitude. At the same time she commenced that series of scandalous intrigues which terminated only with her death. The duchess of Burgundy died suddenly, not without strong suspicions of poison, which fell on the duchess de Berry, and the premature death of the duke, her husband, which took place shortly afterwards, seemed to give colour to these reports, on which, however, the chronicles of the day are too indefinite to warrant a satisfactory verdict. The duke of Orleans being called to the regency on the death of the king, the pride and pretensions of the duchess increased beyond all bounds. Her extravagant pomp and arrogance, however, did not prevent her from giving the rein to all the irregularities of a licentious life, and she and her father, if we may credit contemporary memoirs, revelled in depths of debauchery almost unparalleled.

duchesse de, daughter of Ferdinand I., king of the Two Sicilies, born at Naples, 5th November, 1798. On the 17th June, 1816, she married the duc de Berry. Two sons were the fruit of this, both of whom died in infancy. The duc de Berry was assassinated at the opera, on the night of the 10th February, 1820. Seven months after this tragic event, the duchess gave birth to another son, who received the name of the duc de Bordeaux. During the memorable Three Days of July, 1830, the duchess nearly succeeded in dividing the insurgent populace by boldly rushing into the midst of them, and presenting this child to them as their sovereign. This attempt proving abortive, she followed the fallen king, Charles X., into exile, but, contrary to the wish of the royal family, in less than two years afterwards, she returned to France in expectation of being able to excite a movement in favour of her son. On the night of the 28th April, 1832, she landed on the French coast, some leagues from Marseilles, but her attempt proving unsuccessful, she fled to La Vendee. Proscribed by the government, she nevertheless found friends in Bretagne, willing to risk their lives and fortunes in the cause of the young prince. For five months she concealed herself in the house of mademoiselle du Guigni, but through the treachery of a Jew who had pretended to enter warmly into her schemes, her retreat was pointed out to the emissaries of the government. She was found, along with three other persons, concealed behind a chimney, where they had been shut up for six hours in a space only three feet and a half in length, and eighteen inches in breadth. When dragged from this wretched retreat, their hands and part of their clothing were found to be burned. The duchess was immediately transferred to the chateau de Blaye, and while there in confinement, a letter bearing her signature appeared in the Moniteur, announcing that she had sometime before contracted a second marriage, and was now on the eve of her accouchement. Her new husband was the son of a Neapolitan nobleman, prince of Lucchesi-Palli. Being at length set at liberty, she embarked at Blaye on the 8th June, 1833, and set sail for Sicily, where she arrived after a voyage of twenty-four days, and where she still remains in privacy with her family.—G. M.  BERRYER,, a celebrated French barrister and political orator, son of Pierre Nicholas, born in Paris in 1790, was educated at the college of Juilly. His fervent piety would have constrained him to enter the church, had not his father insisted on his following the profession of law. In 1811, at the age of twenty-one, he commenced that career in which his triumphs were so numerous and brilliant. His first appearances at the bar were hardly worthy of his powers, and commanded little attention. It was in 1815, after having been associated with his father in the defence of Marshal Ney, that he first exerted himself with the triumphant effect which so often attended his pleadings. The trial of Generals Debelle and Cambronne followed that of Ney, and young Berryer alone was retained for the defence. Eloquence could not save the former, but Cambronne, thanks to the impassioned oratory of his advocate, was acquitted. This was his first triumph, but others followed in rapid succession, and heightened as well as diffused his fame. His success was equally decided in civil and in political cases, and he had only to wait till he attained the requisite age to be introduced into parliament under the best auspices, the fame of being one of the first of popular orators. In 1830 he was elected to the chamber of deputies, and immediately assumed that commanding position in the house to which his extraordinary talents entitled him. He appeared in the tribune for the first time on March 9, 1830, and it was to assail with all the fervour of his eloquence the remonstrance of the 221 members, who demurred to the royal address. His speech recalled, in its overwhelming force and passion, the best of Mirabeau's; but its argument was unconstitutional, and shocked the majority of the chamber 