The Express.
London, England, 1861-03-12 00:00:00

EXPRESS FROM PARIS.

(now ova own

PARIR, MONDAY EvJarmo.
The debate on the address in the Corps Legialatif
commenced to-day.

After the transaction of some formal buainoss,
which only lasted a few minutes,
The PRESIDDIT (Count de Morny) called upon
Count de Flavigny, who had put down his name
to speak against the address.
The Count Di FtrvloNT—a gentlemanly old
man, with white hair and a feeble voioe--said :
After the recent inauguration by the Emperor of a more
liberal and conciliatory policy, I should have been glad to
have associated myself in an unreserved vote of respectful
thanks. But an event has occurred in another place of
such importance, a certain speech has obtained such wide
celebrity, and has produced so much uneasiness, that I feel
it necessary to have a frank and loyal explanation with
the organs of government. A programme or manifesto of
a revolutionary policy has been displayed in the Senate—
that sanctuary of prudent liberty and the most delicate
propriety. The walls of the Luxembourg were astounded
at hearing language to which they had been unaccustomed
since the time when Louis Blanc preached equality of
wages. France and Europe cannot but be moved
114 the advent of this policy, which is the most
diametrical denial of that pursued by the French
government during the last ten years. This lan-
guage was not repudiated by the government organs in
the Senate, and was merely met by very timid reserves.
Abroad this speech has been lauded to the skies It is pain-
ful to think that the minister more particularly charged
with the maintenance of public order should have made use
of the telegraph to propagate this impression without re-
flecting that he was sowing fear and uneasiness broadcast
throughout the country. What is the effect of this policy
in Italy ? It is the policy which has torn up the treaty of
Villafraoca, an act of the most consummate wisdom. But
let me first say • word of Piedmont. Piedmont owes
everything to France ; it was the sword of Franos
and not that of Piedmont which liberated Italy, and
yet Piedmont did not only not follow the advice
of Francs, but did everything in her power to make the
treaty of Villafranca a dead letter. Piedmont has deceived
us and placed us in the most false position. What was the
leading idea of the treaty of Villainies It was to
preserve two interests eminently French—the mainten-
sue of the papacy in its dignity and independence, and
at the same time, conformably to the secular policy of
France, the separation of the Italian nations. Here is the
considerable difference between the policy of the Emperor
and that revolutionary policy to which I have alluded.
Napoleon HI. felt that his task was to maintain the work
of Charlemagne, and that the sovereign of a catholic nation
—more catholic than some people suppose—was bound to
support the papacy ; this is still the Emperor's wish. But
the Italian revolution in altogether hostile to this policy. That
revolution says that the papacy Is a black spot upon the map
, of Italy, that it is a cracked vessel, unfit for use, and it offers
the Pops a derisory hospitality in some corner of Europe.
As to the other question, the territorial one, what was the
Emperor. idea? He desired a federative system, be de-
sired the maintenance of the principles of right, he wished
to be the man of right and law, ea he had been in the
Crimea. But this did not suit Piedmont. Piedmont
wanted new territories—a vast extent of new territories.
She wanted all Italy ; she has said frankly that she could
not be satisfied with half when she was able to take all.
Piedmcnt wanted Rome. Now, with Rome in the hands
of the Bing of Italy, there is an end of the papacy. This
policy proclaims principles which call to mind the most
sinister souvenirs. It is a policy tending to raise peoples
against their sovereigns. This is a roller which vouchsafes
words of pity for an august misfortune, ;for
which the Emperor avowed • noble sympathy, approved
by all France —for France takes an interest not only in
oppressed people but in oppressed monarchies which know
how to defend themselves with courage. This policy
would have Hungary not accept the benefits offered to her.
This policy would stir up the Poles to rush on the points
of the Russian bayonets without being able to help them—
it is a policy which prepares the revival of continental
alliances—a policy tending to German unity, which would
Ibe very dangerous for France. It is this policy again
which causes the uneasiness and mistrust which prevails is
Europe, and substitutes for peaceful enterprise these
large armaments which exhaust a nation's re.
sources and lead inevitably to war. This is the
revolutionary policy which has never been and cannot
be that of the Emperor's government. France he I
often seen this policy in operation, and she has • dread of
it. A Piedmontese minister once said, " France is terrible,
even when she smiles." With much more reason we may
say that the Revolution frightens us, even when she only
knocks at the door. And now let as see how this revolts.
tkoary policy is appreci►ted in a despatch from the Minister
of the Interior? The following is the despatch sent to
every department and posted on every wall in France
:
"A magnificent speech has just been pronounced in the
Senate by Prince Napoleon. It took up the, entire sitting,
and has produced an immense sensation." After such ex-
pressions emanating from the minister, it seems to me that
the government is called upon to explain this policy. Is it
accepted or repudiated! Are we to sacrifice to the rapacity
of Piedmont the secular policy of France? I shall take
another opportunity of discussing the Italian question
in its details. To-day I merely wish to protest
against the danger of a fatal policy, and to give
the government an opportunity to deny it
openly and separate itself from it. Let it not be said
that the representatives of the government before
the Chamber are net reepansible for speeches made else.
where. They are responsible for their silence, and never
will silence have been more seriously significant than theirs
on this occasion. (Prolonged agitation.)

The next speaker was Baron David, whose speech
was looked forward to with considerable interest,
because be is known to be a favourite at the Tui-
leries, and it was whispered in the lobbies that he
was put forward for the purpose of softening down
Prince Napoleon's speech, and representing more
closely the real ideas of the Emperor. I should be
sorry to think this true, because Baron David spoke
•repeatedly, and in the strongest manner, against
the unity of Italy, which he regarded as an impos-
sible dream, and, moreover, an event much to be
deprecated by France, because a united Italy
would surely be the ally of England. He, how-
ever, spoke very complacently of the possibility of
the Pope's temporal power being lost, and during
his strictures upon the government of the cardinals
and upon Francis 11., he was frequently interrupted
by M. Grimier de Cassagnac, who protested with
furious gesticulation.
When Barou David sat down, a member rose to
declare that he had not expressed the sentiments of
the committee on the address (of which lie is a
member), and must be understood as speaking solely
for himself.

M. Gouin was the next speaker, but his observa-
tions were inaudible in the gallery.
M. Keenigswater, the Jewish banker, spoke very
decidedly in favour of the unity of Italy, and de-
clared his opinion that so far from an alliance be-
tween Englandandltalybeing to be dreaded,Russia,
France, and Italy would drive England out of the
Mediterranean, and secure the line of communica-
tion with India. He was, however, a partisan of
peace. He agreed with the address, except as re-
gards the paragraph on Syrian occupation, which
he regretted not to see worded more energetically
against the English opposition. He also com-
plained of the hostility of English statesmen and
English newspapers to French institutions.