The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-16 00:00:00

FRANCE.

PARIS, TrEIDAY EVENING.
In the debate of yesterday General Cavaignae
succeeded M. de Mornay. After some remarks in
reference to M. Falloux's speech, he said :
I have been accused of saying that the republic was
of divine right. That is an invention of our adver-
saries, who, knowing that things of divine right
and little favour in France, have cleverly applied the ex-
pression to the republic. What I said was, that a govern-
ment which permitted its principle to be discussed was a
dead government, and that is not an axiom, but a fact.
Since I said that, we have gained a victory which
I did not hope for. Your conunittee has admitted that you,
the Legislative Assembly, have no right to put the question
between the republic and monarchy. But here I observe
a strange contradiction in the conclusions of our commit-
tee. You cannot decide on that great question, and you
are to abandon it to a constituent to be convoked by you.
It is a dastardly and hypocritical way of solving so great a
question to leave it to chance. The moment you admit that
you have no right to raise that question yourselves, you
prove that you have no right to call upon a constituent to
do so. However, what has passed proves that our adver-
saries admit with us that there is a something above the
constitution. That something they call the national
power ; we call it the national sovereignty, which is by no
means the same thing. The people have the power in fact
to make as many revolutions as they please, but is that the
basis upon which you would establish society in France ?
When you have established your monarchy loy virtue of the
principle that the people have the power to do as they
like, will you allow us to conic here and propose to appeal
again to the people to dismiss their monarck ? If you say
yea, I take the liberty of telling you that you do not know
yourselves. (Laughter.) Show me a monarchy which
shall not be a negation or an abdication of the great priu-
ciple of national sovereignty, and then I will allow you to
discuss the liberty of the republic. You may per-
haps speak of the national sovereignty expressed in the char-
ter of IMO. That was a false national sovereignty,
recognised for an hour, just long enough to commit suicide ;
the true sovereignty is that which cannot deny itself, cannot
abdicate. If you say that national sovereignty is only an
accident, then mimed the republic is but a form; but the
moment you admit that sovereignty to he a principle, you
admit the republic to be a right. (Loud applause on the
Left.) I proceed now to examine the question of revision.
To those—and they are the greater number—who in demand-
' ing revision wish to ameliorate the republic, I my that we
have never asserted that the constitution was perfect, but
if it is to be revised, it should be done impartially, and in a
moment of tranquillity. Is the country now calm ? You
daily tell us the contrary, to justify your repressive laws.
Is public opinion calm? An examination of the public jour-
nals which would impose the revision upon us, would show
the present epoch to be imbued with a spirit of' aggression
against the law. Is this assembly calm ? No; for it is not
firmly confident in its own power, and has been told as an
argument fur revision, that the law which it would main-
tain may be overturned in spite of the Assembly. The de-
mand for revision cannot be based upon experience, for we
say that the constitution has never been fairly tried. The
argumenta against the constitution arc those, and no others,
which were brought forward in ISIS. When we see what
you have done under this constitution, we may justly feel
alarmed wuen we think of what volt would do with one of
your own making. Has the com:titution hindered you from
passing laws against the right of public meetings ? against
the peen ? against universal suffrage Surely in these re-
spects religion cannot be necessary for you. A second
chamber has been asked for, and we arc told there is a na-
tural aristocracy, an aristocracy of genius an aristocracy of
services rendered, of experience acijuded. So thought our
fathers ; and framing a constitution on that principle, they
compromised liberty and prepared the way for usurpation. Be-
fore we consent to have two chambers we must get rid of all
royal and imperial pretenders; we must be assured that an-
other aristocracy, which we desire not to have, will never
seat themselves upon the benches which we should provide
for a natural aristocracy. Till then we will confide the
preservation of the republic to the concentrated energy of a
single Chamber. Against Art. co, the example of the
United States and Wusloiugton is cited. France has not yet
found a Washington. In the meantime, let us keep our
Art. 15. It is our palladium. The prolongation of the
term of the President's power is demanded in the name of
stability. Does that mean the stability of government, or
of those who exercise it ? It is this latter stability which
has destroyed all the governntents of France for the last 60
years. I ant far from intending any personal application to
the President of the Republic when I say that the prolon-
gation is the first and natural step towards usurpation,
which is what we will not have. I come now to those
who ask for the revision in the hope of destroy-
ing the republic. They complain that the constitution
is a work of suspicion ugainst the President of the re-
public. Ido not deny it. It is a work of distrust, not of
his person or of his character, but of the pretensions w hick
he is supposed to entertain. The constitution was right to
be distrustful of its enemies. For those to whom I now
speak the republic can produce nothing acceptable. The
constitution is good in our opinion because it is bail hi
yours, because it is an obstacle to your projects. A hurs-
dred,titnes over, we do nut say that it is perfect, we will con-
sent to have it revised whenever we do not see monarchy
concealed behind the revision. The constitution will issue
triumphant from the present ordeal, and those who now
most furiously attack it will perhaps one day be too glad to
seek for themselves in the constitution a protection which it
alone can afford. (Much applause on the Left.)
In the sitting of the Assembly to-day
M. COQUEREI., a republican member of the titrs-parti,
made an effective speech in favour of revision. lie
said, on opening the resumed debate, that he should grapple
more closely with the question, particularly as related to
the possible re-election of the present President. He beiran
by refuting the doctrine of Cavaignac as to the sacred
immutability of the republic. Passing in re, iew the interests
and opinions of different parties he endeavoured to prove
that all of them were equally bound to admit revision
the Uric:mists, because the government of July was based
upon the national consent; the legitiiniets because they
now admitted that the right divine ought to be confirmed
by the popular sanction; the republicans, becauee, notwith-
standing the doctrines asserted by Den. Cavaignac, the essence
of the republic lay in consulting the will of the people, and
in obeying the dictates of that will. For his own port lie
had long been a republican, and believed that the republi-
can principle would eventually triumph among all nations.
He demanded the revision of the constitution to restore to
the nation its complete unshackled liberty. Although he
foresaw that Louis Napolean had a great chance of being
re-elected, not less on account of his being at present in
possession of power, than because his name was the only ,
one universally known in France, still he, M. Coquerel,
was far from desiring the renewal of the President's autho-
rity. But he thought that the probability of his being
again the elect of the people would be greatly increased
by the refusal of revision. lie (M. Coquerel) would
greatly regret such a result, not because he was insensible
to the services which the President had rendered to the
country, but because it was inconsistent with democratic
institutions to continue, under the republic, power in the
bands of one who had the fault of being a prince. He con-
cluded with expressing the hope that France, who had
abandoned herself once during the saturnalia of 93, would
retain upon this occasion all her self-pessession, and save
herself by the wise use she would make of her sovereignty.
This speech made considerable sensation in the
Assembly ; but was bitterly complained of by the
legitimists, of whom the greater part protested against
motives attributed to them by M. Coquerel in dc-
mantling revision. The vote of legitimists in favour
of revision was not to be considered, they said, as an
admission of the sovereignty of the peopl,.
The tribune was next occupied by M. Grevy, who
began by stating that the law of the 31st May, and
the other laws restricting the liberty of meeting and
the freedom of the press, had put all possibility of
his friends acceding to the revision of the constitution
out of the question. The Assembly not having
evinced any impression at this assertion of M. Grevy
corresponding to the gravity of the announcement,
the orator appeared to be d isappoi nted, and presently he
brought his speech abruptly to a close, and descended
from the tribune without having fall explained his
meaning. After a suspension of the sitting, M.
Dupin announced that M. Grevy desired to continue
his speech to-morrow. He then read a letter from
General Magnan, who commands at Strasbourg, re-
signing his seat in the Assembly, as incompatible
with his continuance in command of the 3rd division.
This announcement caused it to be reported that

General Nlagnan's resignation was only a preliminary
step to his succeeding to the post of General Ilaraguay
d'Hilliers. M. Michel de Bourges then ascended
the tribune. He vindicated for the republic the right
and privilege of having its principle discussed,
and was completely opposed to the doctrine of
General Cavaignac on this subject. He then affirmed
the superiority of the republic, which existed because
it ought to exist, and answered to the instincts, the
needed wishes of the people. It was a necessity de-
rived from the first revolution, and which wounded
no social principle, an assertion which could not
truly be made of monarchy. The sitting would ter-
minate with this speech.
Cardinal Wiseman, with his grand vicar, Mr.
Scarl, visited the principal churches and buildings
of Caen on Saturday. At the library, he wrote, is
the book of autographs, " In remembrance of my first'
visit to the cradle of English civilisation, and to the
earliest types of her religious architecture."
There was a considerable improvement manifested
to-day in the funds, which was attributed to the
orderly and peaePablc commencement of the debate
on revision. The Fives closed at 94.70, with a rise
of 40c. The Threes rose 2,5 c., and closed at 66.55. I