The Express.
London, England, 1849-07-23 00:00:00

FRANCE.
PARIS, 817KDAY, 5 30 r.n.
The Preis, to-day raises the question by which
M. Mathieu de la Drome preluded jPestt they in his
speech on the law of the press. The Presse thinks
that mere aggravation of penalties against the p.-“le
can only render it stronger, not weaker, and it there-
fore rejoices in a repression which is gradually lead-
ing the majority to the edge of a precipice. M. Jules
Fevre's eloquence in reply to M. Nlontslembert'm cru-
cifix:on of his own past opinions and career, and his
repentance for the opposition he had mac to the laws
of September, was most successful; be showed that to
follow M. Nlontalembert's ideas would lead to pro-
scribe not only oppcsiticn but the are of human
reason to the acts of government. That from repres-
sion of liberty of thought there was but one step to
the holy inquisition. It was vain to think of stopping
diseases without first cut salting the symptoms. As
for sccialism, the way to render it impotent was to
give it fall swing. Socialism in itstlf was nothing if
taken as a system, bat if it were considered as a
symptom of agitation that exists in certain ewers of
society it meant only a spirit of opplaition, and the
independence of human reason. And when the
.

human reason by chance lost itself in certain systems,
it would not do to cry anathema, but light must be
let in; it was not necessary to condemn, but to teach.
Nor could the excesses cf certain portions of the press,
as alledged by M. Montalembert, unction the repres-
sion of the whole. Marshal Bugeaud had not been
the only man ill-treated in the manner noticed, and
he, M. Fevre, might mention Ili examples no less per-
sons than Dupont de l'Eure and Lamartine. And as
for the abase or eccentricities of certain journals, could
they be invoked before legislators as a serious mode
of argument ? It was nonsense, and not discussion.
He, too, could show them a paper destined to the in-
habitants of the country parts of France, by men
whose device had always been " peace, pity, and
liberty," and which said, " We are amongst those
who protest highly against the accession of the repub-
lic, and who persist in thinking that it is but an un-
worthy usurpation and an infamous eseamotage. The
provisional government bad promised to consult
France but had only consulted itself."
After M. Jules Havre bad read the passage, appro-
bative shouts were raised on several benches of the

right, whereupon the orator cried out :—" I regret,
gentlemen, the movement that has just manifested
itself, and hope that I have not interpreted rightly ; I
hope that the woi di I have read will meet nought
but energetic reprobation, for, were it otherwise,
those who, at the beginning of this session, acclaimed
the republic unanimously, would be guilty of the
most abominable cowardice."
M. Jules Favre concluded by saying anathema to
violence, and all fur liberty and by liberty. The law
was one of hatred, impotence, and counter-revolution,
and he should vote against it.
At the conclusion of this speech M. Baroche an-
nounced that the Journal du Peuple, from whieh the
words above-mentioned had been quoted, had been
served with the necessary notice of action by the
procurenr-general a few hours before.
M. Odilon Barrot said :

Gentlemen,—l conical that liberty of thought is me inti-
mately allied to the political life of this country, that it is
impossible for a project of law having so other object than
to fill up a gap which is visible to all men who
look on this question free from puden, not to
awaken great anxieties. I can conceive that this project of
law which does no more than accept the principles of one of
which the hon. member who hes just preceded me was the
principal author and meet energetic defender, should raise
diecussions' it being a law which may be examined, appre-
ciated, and criticised in its details, bat which changes nothing
in the principles or fundamental rules of our legelation, be-
cause it is an offshoot from that real fundamental and consti-
tutional liberty which is that of the press. I can conceive
that young and brilliant orators should meet in this discus.
.ion and renew and revivify all the common places that
we have exhausted on the dangers and necessities of the
liberty of the press; but when one of them, who will
pardon me when I say that, whilst I admire the toree of
his talent, I cannot accept the assistance of his eloquence
—when one of them, I vey, in describing the evils and den-
' gen of society. is returning to those convulsions by which
Burs has passed, and with which it is yet threatened,
throws the responsibility not on the abuse or use of liberty,
not tin violent*, but on legal and honest opposition, and thus
tends to suppress that which we do not want es destroy, sad
which it would be crime and madness to suppress ; if our law
deserved this reproach, if it went so far as to suppress dis-
cussion, and prevent honest opposition, that necessary symp
tom, which does not overthrow governments, but which
INTO them when they are not sufficiently blind to despise
them,—if our law goes thus far, it is needier' to support it,
and I should be one of the first to desert it. It is because I
sm deeply convinced, not only that this law does not destroy
or suppress discussion and liberty, but that it saves against
violence which may destroy, that I am here to defend it.
The Hon. Jules FARO said truly, we want not violence—
anathema as violence,—we will pursue it wherever we ra oy
fled it. He is right. It is the most energetic and mortal
enemy of all political liberty, especially under a republic, and
in presence of universal suffrage. Its. more than a folly—it
is • crime, for there is no longer a pretext for violence when
universal suffrage has been put in vigour. The
sentiment that you have uttered is that which inspired
us in this law. We are desirous of stopping violence,
and of punishing by efficacious means all appeals to arms and
provocation to violence. We said to ourselves," It is not suffi-
cient to repress it in the street against some unfortunates
who have been led astray ; it must be repressed in that
which gives the sequel to appeal to arms and drives citizens
to Civil war." This we said. Is it a new principle in
legislation ? Have you not read, before ascender
this tribune, the law of the 11th of August, 1848, of
which you were the first author, and which was borrowed
in many essential parts from that legislation of 1835; but
you were right, for it is no reason to set maids a law that
contains some good points because it bean such and such a
date. That which is good take, even from your ad-
versaries. Well, what you borrowed from that law
woe the most exorbitant part of it—that portion in
which the legislature endeavours to combat even thought.
You have put this with your law on the 11th of
August, 1848, that every attack against the republican
principle and that of universal suffrage, is punishable; and
it was not the material fact that you punished, hut the attack
by the press, by discussion, and by publicity; you have
punished and come in armed with your law into the domain
of polemics. Now, what is it that we punish ? It is the
fact, because I do not cell a crime of the press the words of
a writer who neither criticises nor examines, but who says to
the public, " Take arms ;" and to workinet "Go down
into the streets, and take your guns with you." Is that dis-
cussion? Is the suppreseion of such appeals to violenee a
blow against liberty No, it is preventing sedition in its
first act, arresting it before it descends into the street, and
attempting to avoid those terrible repressions which cost so
dearly to humanity. This is what we have done. And is
not the science of the legislator—the science of politics—that
of fall M. Barnet then proceeded to quote the epi.
pions of K. Fevre and his party in August, 1848,
when they saw that all attacks against ides. on which
society rests mast be prevented, because they did not want to
serve the fortune of some ambitious men. He asked them
whether they now repented of the language. No (continued
M. 0. Bernd), you did so because you wine in the truth, as
we are to day. We must forget all differeuces of origin and
of principles to look merely at the interests of that society
which has entrusted to us its destinies, over which we must
watch, and from which we must repel all violence, in order
that it may accomplish, under the shade of liberty, its great
and glorious destinies. This duty you were then performing ;
we are doing so now, by. defending this law. Do not, there-
fore, attack it in its principles, is its intentions, or its ten-
dencies. When you examine ash of its dispositions,e you
will tell us whether they have gone beyond the strictest ne-
cessity, whether they are justified by the power of facts and
by the experience of the catastrophe from which we have
issued ; whether, in fact, they are rendered legitimate by
judicious and sensible foresight. You will examine them
and discuss them ; and if these dispositions are outside of
this necessity you will opines them. But to attack the law
In Its principle and substance, to attack a government
that has merely obeyed the sentiments which you exposed
only yesterday at the tribune, would no longer be honest dis-
cussion, but I should in my turn complain that you are going
beyond the laws of tact and poetic*. Now, can it be maid
that we have profited by the public emotion sad the impres-
sion left on Paris by the events that took place not only in
the metropolis hut in all France, by the coufisgration which
threatened one's whole country, and which the sole teem
of government end the promptitude of its measures smothered
in its birth ? Do we use this as a means of striking a blow
against liberty itself, and stop debate ? No ; what we have
done is what every politic man should do ; we have gone to
the source of the evil. And do not think that lam entering
here into an exclusive and narrow system of politics, sad
that I attribute the emotions of society sad the violence. cone
milted merely to the excitements of the press—of a certain
press. This would be but a narrow view. There are other
eausee—secret and special ones ; and we will provide for
them by all possible means. Yon are quite right when you
say that it was not enough to tarn round on the and
lay "Yon gall commit no soave violater; you so sore