The Express.
London, England, 1849-07-26 00:00:00

'fiterefore, complete right to discuss meta; the fool will
jadge the wise, the disloonest will accuse the honest. It
nut be so, beetue if it open haply na, it leI) et mes to pals
I bat clever people—honest people—use the same mews,
e means of expression of politic opisiun. Liberty exists
hat on that e. ondition. So fez we are agreel. But if I
pant complete liberty of dace...inn, even t, calumny, which
thy do harm, and which, at bott on, by attacking public
nen, will only shake or unmet weak men, those who have
power of mind and heart will not stop before daly
salumny ; a few weak men will suffer, and stop in their
career. it is like those soldiers who are not tit for the
augues of war, and who remain in hospitals after the fa-
(goes of the first few days of war. S much the wcrus for
nese government is only made for the strong. (Very
yo-4.) But if the discussion of acts is unlienite I, even to
oily and to calumny, in so far se the existence of govern.
neat is coact rued it is not so. Why are there laws, and
me in particular that is called the law of laws—a constitu
on ? It is is order that vi iletce may not be substituted fur
eacussion. Why write civil or polttical codes, unless it be
tat we may not live in a savage, state—in order that
polies may not cut each other's throats, r d
Eat things may go on as in frac c Amities ?
?here are many models in England end Ama
ica. There people argue and enlighten each other; if it is
uccessfully shown by one party that the it 'dyers-ate-a or the
(ornament are in the wroug, the former instantly replace
to latter. This is dieciassion, not violence. It is ter this
bat laws exist ; that there is a constitution. For if there
oust be vieleoes of what use are laws and a constitution ?
lot what do those do who attack the principle of govern-
tient—that is, who under the monarchy propose • republic,
and who ander a republio propose • menareby ? What do
Meths men do velem Übe to provoke the overthrow of govern-
meat, mei the substitution of violent means for discussion ?
A constitution would be a contradiction, none-nee, in fact, if
it allowed its principles to be contested, and if it allowed that
it could be overthrown ; but provocation to civil war, and
especially to the most fearful of civil ware, that of class
against class—that which breaks through all social ties—it
would be madness to tolerate. It would be m-at ridiculers
not to hay. punishmusts for such provocation.; no govern-
ment could resist suchen inconsistency, and I will force you,
without goieg much further, to • contradiction which would
render it insupportable. Have you not laws puaishiog
rebellion 1 Would you admit that those who revolt and be-
come insurgents should merely become for a moment prisoners
of the public force ? Na, you would nut, any more
than I do, admit such an steamily, such an absurdity, Well,
when you punish the inatraments, would you not punish
oleo the provocators to revolt, those who have led to rebel-
lion &number o: nailed unfortunates ? When you punish
the eff.ct you must punish the cause. But your law in this
case would be tare: barbarous; either we must blot from our
code the thus against rebellion, or we must punish those who
incite to it more than those who have been excited.
Gentlemen, I had hoped that by arguing step by step we
should perhaps. be obliged to conclu le that we afire d. I have
given my principle!. Let there be no unlimited aoerty of any
kind, whether in thought, whether in body. Let them be
at liberty to arouse on the acts of a governine at without
measure, but not to attack its existence, it= principle, which
is its form ; fur it is prevoking to overthrow, to appeal to
arms, and excite war of class against class. Such are my
minciples, and thee are those of every government that las
b.. n before you. You may sometimes complain of penslity,
of the form of the tribunal. Much may be said io tee way
of disco sion upon the point, I admit ; but such is the prin-
ciple, and you will pardon me for saying, for you have
given me the richt to gay, such ic the principle of the laws
of September. I am not here to justify them ; now is not the
due for doing so; and you cannot hear the justification
of the past ; history must do it, we cannot, nor
hove we the right Now, what have you, who have all
secuad this principle under the 1111230 of the laws of Soptens-
ber, what have yon done ? I do not come here to blame you,
not, iudeed, that I fear to do so, fur 1 have the right. (Di-
vers movements.) Atter the 24:h of February, 1848, it was
said that it was necessary to allow everything to he done,
every sentiment to be outspoken ; and government, who had
nut slowed the to be done, were abused ond calumniated.
The revolution of Feuruary had been made, vet in March
following there had already been a movement. In April, too,
there was one, anti but for the quick meeting together of the
national guard, the government which had so rtcen,ly been
formed from what was called the victory of February
would have boon overthrown. The next month, in 31. y,
the assembly—the first that had b.-en elected by universal
suffrage, and which had met in this very hall—was for a
moment expelled. In June, again, tetrads of blood were
shed in order to save society. Well, it is only when all
principles have been trodden down, that time and neeessi:y
speak out with a powerful voice—that of the nature of
things; and then, in spite of oneself, one prefers to be in-
consequent to allowing society, whose fate is in one'. hands,
to perish. After June you passed the law called that of
the 11th of August, 1848. What doss it say ? Ex.
actly what you had reproved in previous laws. It
consecrates the principle which I have already
spoken of. I shall not read the law now, though
itccnoists of hut eight articles. Allow me, however, to ens;
lye some of its principal dispositions. We most put aside
vagueness in such debates as these in order to arrive at facts.
This law, which is the work of the republicans of the eve of
M. Marie, who certainly possessed your confidence and de.
served it pc r'ectly —(rumours on she left)—was supported by
B. Jules Fevre. What did it say ? It is law ; but you
state continually that the laws which are proposed are hoes
rowed from the past, and the work of those men who give
the impulsion to the majority end to government. You
give me • right by these allegations to quote what
yon call the republicans of the eve, and to
tell you that the laws which you vote are not
ose to whom you impute them. Allow me, therefore, to
quote from M. Marie, who is not a man of the put —that is,
for thanks to the torrent which you have let loose,
men soon become of the past. (Approbation and laughter on
the right.) This law which we did aot make, and did nut
itt‘pire—for, apparently we did not inspire M. Marie—this
law, which was voted by the constituent assembly, and of t
which you regret so much the spirit and the majority—this
law, what says it? It makes penalties which are the
highest in meters of the press, admitted in our code,
penalties of 2 3,4, and 8 pare of imprisonment;
I fines, which by no means blame, of 1,2, 3,
4, and 6,000 fr., against what crimes ? 6,000 fr. fine against
whoever shall have attacked the National Assembly and its i
rights, the executive power, and the rights which it holds it
from the National Assembly, against whosoever shall have
attacked the principle of republican institutions; and you I
have dens rightly. Not only the principle of republican in-
stitutions, but the theoretic and abstract principle of
sovereignty of the people, expressed by universal suffrage.
I do not blame you; you were in the right; for every ,
government must defend itself. But allow me to tell
ou, you have done, not worse, for that I could not say,
but better than the laws of September. On the ques-
tion of the sovereignty of sloe people, you have been very
severe ; but 1 do not blame you; but one may be a very good
and a very perfect republican, and yet have a difference of
opioion on that question. That question may be understood '
in • more or leas absolute sense, as the monarchical principle I
was before it. Well, then, did you even see the monarchy
punish the discussion of those principles with five years' im-
prisonment, and yet you have done what the monarchy
dreamt of doing. Ido not amuse you for what you have
done, but do not he so inexorable, so insulting for the men
who have not done so much as you have done. (Approbe
lion.) You have preserved the remembrance of these insults,
and you wished to prevent them by inserting into your law a
clause which punished with 6,0001 r. fine and five years' im-
prisonment whoever shall excite hatred or contempt of the
government of the republic. And in your article 3, you in-
terdidt, and it is an honour to you to do eo,aay attack spinet
property or family ties, but you only punish that offence
with three years' imprisonment—that is to say, with two
years less than the punishment enacted against the crime of
exciting to hatred and contempt of the government; or, in
other words, that you express by your law that you have a I
right to defend the principle of the government more than
that of property and family ties. Ones more I say I do
not blame, neither do I attack you. But since you say that
repression commences to-day, you must allow me to my that
your yourselves first commenced It. Yon decided that the ;
principle of government must not be discussed.
M. Pinsaa Lhitotm—We opposed that law. •
M. Tarots—l am aware that you opposed it; but it is
im-
pesible for me now to enumerate the names of those who ,
voted for or against it. I well know that M. Marie was
attacked for his law, as we ourselves have been; bat M.
Marie is not a man of the past; he is not an old minister of
the monarchy. Was M. Marie suspected by you ?
Voices on the Loft—Yes, yes ;he was. (Interruption.) ,
M. THUMB—You have lately applauded M. I. Fevre, and
be bad his share in that law. (Laughter.) I do not wish
hero Minims forward the name of a considerable presser
—of • man who has obtained • high tank in the Mots—l
allude to General Cavaignsc.
General CAVAIGNAC, from hlace—lf it is for the In-
tense of the discussion do not hesitate.
M. TRIERS—It is not for me, general, to complain of you,
hut I avail myself of your authority. I ask whether General
Cavaigasc wishes to destroy the republic—whether M. J.
Fevre, who is so dear toyou, wishes to do so? Well, therm
General Caesium presented that law of the 11th Augum,
and M. J. Fevre supported it. But that law is not all ; she
proceedings under it go for something. M. Marie wisb'od to
accelerate them, he thought that in the interest of justice, it
was necessary to have judgment parsed under the impression
of the fact, and, therefore, wished to hasten it. M. Marie
wished that • journal should be tried before the Court of
Anises within three days after the commission of ens offence,
and rendered all subterlurges useless by reducing the period
of appeal to ten days, and all this in a law wbich M. Marie
had not time to rends... definitive. And yet in presence of
such a law you cry opt against the one which is new proposed
to you for adoption. You pretend that it arrests the advance
of th' human wind, that we are destroying the Republic,
that we are seoanging the principle of liberty foe that of
authority, Mt at we are substituting the past for the future.
But if you now bring for ward all these accuaations why did
you allow the bill of August 11 to pus? I am astonished when
I beer ,on bring forward these charges. What is the par-
inofp the law which we support ? It develops
an exceedingly mild manner the laws of Sep-
tember of the Republic, proposed by M. Mule.

Art. 1, trotects the Executive Power, now elected by
the people, as that of August 11 did that then elected by the
Assembly. Art. 2 pool-be' such mesons ae ath,opi to turn
away the army from its duty. You, gentlemen (Mining to
the Lett), no daub!. have confideece in your Maui ins and
hope to triumph. Would you nut desire to have an army to
obey yes, and not to turn round to and conspirators whom
you may 'co following you ? so, surely you cannot ob-
ject to the article in question. Art. 3 punishes pursers
tat nesting forged documents. You most certainly, it in
power, would not permit any one to come amongst
sou, and by mein, of forged information or paper, excite
disturbance and urge to inaurr-ction. We bet, precia.ly
the same feeling. As to the Beetle of procedure, it is literally
copied tr em that of M. Marie's bill. One would really sup-
pose that our advereariss have not read the measure • hich
hey attack, for it is a strange abuse of terms to call it a
Draconian bill. I now come to what is called the p
pert of the measure. You say that it gives the lie to the piet
—that it is in contradiction wi-h all that has le en maintained
for the lest eighteen years. Yes, I admit it; but, I may oh.
serve, that every time that you have attempted t e govern
seciety, you have done precisely the same. Wnencver
you have endeavoured to legislate, you have given the
lie to all that you bad said fur eighteen years in the moat
iusulting terms. When we were obigect to def-nd order
in the streets, when we were under the necenny of re-
plying by musket-shots to criminal provocations, you called
our conduct the butcheries of the Cloi rc St. Me ty, and ot the
Rue Transmnain. When we were forced to apply the lows
of the state of siege to the town which insurrection had
turned into a place of war, you called that cor.duct uncoasti-
tutional and abominable • when, in order to insure the
public safety, we found it necessary to put an end to the
illegal excitations which were put in practice, you etig.
=Weed that as the abomination of the laws of September.
In like manner in foreign policy, when, in order to insure
peace, treaties were engaged in, you called our Vs the hu-
miliation of the treaties of 1815 ; when we sought out in Eu.
rope if there was any power whi.h. by analogy of habits
end insti,,cts, suited us to units with, you called that the
shame of the Eighth alliance. Sash was your language
for eighteen years ; and yet, when on Februrry 24 you
seized on power, what was your conduct ? Called on to
defend society, you shed more blood than was ever seen
in the revolution and under the monarchy. Ido not any
this as a reproach—fir it was a sad necessity. But you
perceive how, in the interest of society, it is often found
necessary to act quite in contradiction to what was before
profess d. (Hear, hear.) The state of siege, you have
been forced to apply twice, and you extended its bearing
farther than wan ever done, for you suppressed the journals
—a wise act, fur it was a necessary one. (Movement.)
Looking at your legislation on the press, we find that you have
at least equallei the laws of Septemb. r. I am uowilling to
eater on s,condary recritainati ins, but still I have to ask
you what woul.l you not have said, if the monarchical
government had attempted to organise the clubs to influence
the electi .n', and if you had foetid in the budget au expense
of 100.000. r. w.ldly thrown away for that object? (Rear,
hear.) Bu', coming to the public expenses, 1 ask, ban you
diminished ti en in ay respect? bloat certainly not!—
Everything has been infinitely more costly in each depart
melt than be'nre. In fine, in foreign policy, these execra•
ble treaties of Idloi, which you had often headed with abuse
—did you tear them to pieces? No! You declared that
they were the law of France and of the other na ions! And
the English alliance—did you give up that? No r you pre-
served it moat sedulously. When you arrived at power, and
it was necessary to look round to see to what power you had
beat apply fur aid, towards which did you turn ? Towards
Ens land ! And, not long since, you beard General Cavaignac
declare from this tribune, in laiigume marked by good
sense, that when a nation appeared disposed to enter into
relations with you, you ought to come to some understand-
ing with it. But before him, M. de Lansutine, whom seie•
ral, without doubt, will not dioivow—
tieneral CAVAIOSAC, from his place—Perhaps !
M. TlMMS—General Cavaignac says ' Perhaps !" but
however that may be, MM L•dru It elfin, de Limatibe, end
Gamier Page. were in the government, and did they tear up
the treaties of 1815 ? Did they put an end to the English
alliance ? Certainly not. Ad that you lead pnvieusly
abused you preserved ; all that you called a crime you hal
tetra, sometimes with more want of address, sometimes with
a greater degree of violence, according as t .c danse ra were
more grave and pressing, you ell followed the same pried-
pies—a little more or less want of address, a little more or
less violence—that was the only difference. (Laughter and
cheen.) The men whom you call the men of the past, and
whom you designate the enemies of the republic, never at-
tempted to conceal their sentiments ; but did you ever as.
them attack a single ministry. No; they supported all the
ministries. From the day that I entered the constituent
assembly to the present, I have voted fur every ministry,
comments g with the executive committee. Yes ; I voted
for all, although I had no need of any of them ; for, no mat.
ter what M. J. Fevre may say, no one Oyer saw me in the
antechambers of the republic.
A Voice—ln the salons!
N. THIEMI—Nor in the salons They whom you call the
enemies of the republic could have triumphed when you
came to announce to them that it was nut until atter five
days of sanguinary combat that order had been established;
when you came to propose the state of siege; when you
brought forward your budgets of seventeen or eighteen
hundred mellioe a • when you respected the treaties which
you had previously attacked ! We could have triumphed
then in consequence of your inconsistent acts; we could
have refused to sanction the expemes w ich you brought
before us. Did we do that ? No, we defended all the mi-
nisters; audio the discussion on the budgets, it was we who
defended the functionaries when you wanted to cut them
down, and we did so, not from personal motives, but from a
sense of duty. Did we seek, I again ask, to triumph, owing
to y our foolish &eta ? Did we pick up the abuse and dela
nation which you bad thrown against us, in order to fling
them back on you with infloitely more reason ? No, we
placed the interests of the country above all, and at present
we support M. Odillon Barrot as we supported General
Cavaignac, and as we supported the Executive Committee.
(Hear, hear.) I now come to those means of repression
which, you my, have destroyed all the governments. Oh !
these are afflicting reminiscences. Yes, I admit, our soil is
strewed with ruins : several monarchies have fallen; that
ot genius has fallen, so has that of the eld right; so has that
of conventional right—and no good citizen can rejoice at
it. (Hear, hear.) But do not forget that the monarchical
form of gov rnment is not the only one that has fallen—
the republic also was laid low—there were, in fact, over-
throws fir all—l do not wish to predict anything, but, if the
excellence of government is to be measured by their dura-
tion, the adventure would certainly not be to the republic.
(Movement.) You say that coercive measures overturn. If
that be the case, are we to do nothing to save society—are
we never to resist the attacks that are made ? I believe that
measures of this kind are fatal to governments, which have
accorded only a small share of liberty, or which have not ac-
corded any; for liberty is the necessity of our times. But when
sle that is nee nary has been accorded, is there to be no stop ?
France, which had entered on a constitutional government
under the convention, entered further on it under the mon-
archy of July. That was not sufficient for you—you wanted
more, and you overturned the monarchy. You now have '
the republic. What still do you want? Yon had affirmed
to us that, with a republic, insurrections were not to be any
more dreaded—that one system would be pacifically set
aside by another. If you are consistent a time will doubt-
less come when it will he necessary to stop, or when.' eye-
tem—l will not say of coercion, but of reasonable resistance—
must commence. Where are you to stop, if not where you are
at present ? What, the time is not come to resist all these
wild and disorderly spirits who throw society into trouble in
the name of social ideas. If any of these ideas are sound, let
them be broug.ht forward hen, and let it be shown that they
arestrable of examination and realization. I myself chil-
ls& you to do so, when N. Proudhon's proposition was
discussed Yon affirm that all plans for amelioration are op-
posed. I, at this moment, form part of a committee with
M. Arm° ; let him say if, as is asserted, we systematically
reject all such attempts. You complain that the pram is
interdicted to you : but does not the tribune exist ? Has
not M. Pierre Leroux just made use of it? (Laughter.)
And what has he proposed to you ? Some strange trans-
formation of humanity ; some system in which his triad h
to have a place. (Laughter.) Why has he not, like Y.
Prondhon, the courage to plainly state his theory?
he did so we would dismiss it, like that of M. Proudhonil
and for which M. Proudhon and one other member voted.
who I believe is no longer We&
Voices.—Yee, yes !It was M. Oreppo! (Laughter.) 11
Y. Txtuitii.-14. Pierre Leroux decline that a seism*
like his cannot be dimmed in the tribune—that is true, we
are a legislative assembly, and not an academy. But let
him present a proposition, and a committee shall be appointed
to examine it. The assembly will then, in the first &esteem,
decide, and the country afterwards. As lone as you have not
done that, you have no right to reproach us with refusing
ameliorations which you are ignorant of yourselves. What
we: want to interdict to you, is not discussion, but whinge
troll of gall and of abominal intention, in which the people
sae told that there is a state of happiness which it depends
on us to give, and which we refuse, because we are rich and
I wicked. That is what we want to interdict, nothieg more.
If you do not bring forward something different, something
of a curative character, it is because you know of none. (la-
terruption on the left.) If you:know of any, why do you not
state it Whet, you have the means of rendering the peo-
ple happy, and you do not make its mode known to others.
ibringingmeans, youthe
meret forward.m t
pcuultrublernd
human
hravyeouthreemallny it, do not affirm to the people who are suffering
from disorder, beings
cause, do not say to them that the means of happiness can 1
ha
ofivne tnwhichhout e
y o are, involuntarily, the principal
be given to them. For, on the day of your triumph, if you
ever obtain it, you will find yourselves in a state of com-
piece impotence to effect anything. Oh ! if Ton had sm.'
seeded at the Conservatoire des Arts-et-Meuers, what, I
ask you, could you have done ? Nothing, absolutely no-
thing ! '(Agitation.) To the impatient demands made on I
you, what answer could you heave given ? None whatever ;
and you would have remair.ed in face of the indignation
which your foolish Promisee would have justly called forth—
for what is there that yr.o have not promised? (Loud ap-
plause on the right ; !agitation on the left.) And when I
thus propose an hypethnis, let it not be forgotten that it has
been realised, Alter Feb. 24, you and your friends could