The National Register.
London, England, 1814-08-14 00:00:00

514

is always painfully remethhered by those to whom the rights
of mankind in general have always endeared the•equal bles-
sings of the Bi itish Constitution. The attack upon Copen-
hagen, and our solemn recognition of the transfer of Nor-
way, are no longer solitary instaniii of our derelictiOn of the
first and best ptinciples of a nation's inherent right to legis-
late and act for itself. Quotations from Grotius, Puffend.orf,
Etc. may multiply the.al.►joetjons ofa-rmut§t, but c=tibrdffief
the plain sense of the question, and that alone we arc desirous

of discussing.
. Yet we fear, notwithstanding-, that this topic comes home
too sensibly to every man's bosom to be met-altogether with
the coolness of a philosopher, or the indifference. of a diplo-
matist. There is about the feelings and understanding of
an Englishman, an ardour which inspires investigation and
supports perseverance; an innate something that is born with
us, that cve.n flourishes in the-midst of our fogs and damps,
and bears,_an eternal verdure. Let its then shoW ourselves
deserving the character we have obtained. For the freedom

of our African brethren, petitions are signed with an eager
. •
humanity, that delights, exalts, a►►d consoles the human
mi►►d. Where then is the difference? If there be :•one,

Why should we avoid the same means—why refuse to in-

scribe upon the same parchment the names of Poland, Sax-
ony, and Norway, with the claims of Africa;. or deny to our
Government the power of an instrument inscribed with the
names of eleven millions of human souls, and which, if suf-
ficient to induce France to agree to the abolition of the Slave
Trade, inay, in the hands of the Princeßegent, effectually
destroy the plans now meditated for the extinction of Po-
land, the transfer of Norway, and the dethronement of
Saxony.

FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE.

FRENCH PAPERS.

CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES,
Sitting of August 6.

This day the discossion was opened on the plan of the law relative to
the liberty of the press. The Abbe Montesquieu, Minister of the In-
terior, was present during the whole of the sitting.
M. FLEV rtr, (deputy from the Isere) having been a member of the
Central Committee, was one, of the minori.y. who thought that the
assemble should adr pt. with amendments, the law which was pro.
post dto them. .I`,len iu sodetv had felt, that in order not to lose liberty
altogether, they must enjoy it in common. They had in consequence
cot anted to sacrifice a part 61 their independence; in order to be able
to 0r.10.r the te•t: in security. He applied this idea to the lihetty of
the press ; and proposed to prove that the censorship was conformable
to all good leuislation, and not contrary to ovr's.
%Vio ! exclaimed the Member, can the idea be entertained of with.
HI-awing troto the •vigilance of the police, writers, who have such don-
ccrous ni.ean.s oT distnrbing the public tranqitillity ? What, is it our
duty to arrest the poniard of the assas,in, the cup of the poisoner. and
e torch of -the.intendiary "; and shall we not be permitted to prevent
the nutil.evion of. a writing which may carry desolation under the
✓ ,)! of a eittzen, tarnish the hon.tur of a wife or kdaughter, destroy
e e t tl a letpect due to a Guy:tumult, and lead a whole people to
irtvult ?

AUG. 14.

. - .
Though he had resolved...Jo discuss the subject coolly, he could net
restrain bislndienatien. Were turn made forprincieteS, or Inincip!es
for men ? Did we still live in those times when a Cannibal could conic
andemetentece-trait'iger!:-Trittitie, " Perish our colonies, rather than
prieciples?". they were lost ; that monster himself had pe-
risheel ; and even hie.p.unislonetet- might become a fruitless example to
posterity..
It was •said that the Bth -article of the Constitution decided the
whole ; that it spoke merely of repressing abuses, that is punishing,
not preventing before band, their occurrence. But in our language,
the word " repress" signifieetsomething.tee, Woke,. ocreirrersernatis, as
.4teVtisi-iiilereti;.---ile-ettsiTteefseterafinsOices of this sort from St. Eyre-
mond and I.llontesquieu ; but he professed himself ashamed Qf this
war of words.
He thee examined the argument, that the press itself furnished an
antidote to its nee mischiefs. - Must n mair, then, said lie, descend into
the arena against wiitersebv profession, who will have the advantage over
him ? Me•t a peareful Citizen be compelled to tilt with these fencing-
masters? Why should an infant Goverument he exposed to the at-
tempts of all those who may choose to attack it lint the war of the
pen, ii was said, was not dangerous. Ah ! Gentlemen, the liberty of
the press hed always been amongst us the liberty Of the struegest.
During the Revelutiou it had been only the club in the hands of the
giant, to demolish the weaker party. the public never heard both
sides with impartiality. An invincible• propensi.y led it always to
listen to those who attacked the Governmese.— [Here tnermers in-
formed the Orator that tiie members were not of his opieion.l--Tho
public always sees despotism where it sees a combined system. .
If the author of a libel were n Beaumarchais, mid had, lihe him, a
front of brass, au iron pen dipped in gall if lie preftiselystatteredthe
most cutting irony in his wrj.iege, he would be condemned perhaps be-
fore the tribunals, but the public would have learned to despise what
it ought to fear end respect. The opinion of the unfortunate Males.
fleshes had been cited in favour of the liberty of the press ; but
herbei had afterwards seen reason to change that opinion; and the
reputable men who in the 18th century had stood up se strongly for the
Liberty of the Press, would he of a different opinion, if they had lived
to see that it was the principal cause of the destruction et' 11,e Throve.
The famous letter of the Alibi; Reyna! to the Consteuveit Assembly af-
forded a strong proof of the justice of this observe tem.
We should examine the calamities which bed been produced by the
licentiousness of the Press. The times, doubtless, were changed ; but
mankind were not changed.
It was not merely malevolence which was to be dreaded, it was
also imprudence. The publicity of the sittings of that Chamber was
one of its most valuable privileges : and yet the Constitution had give!'
to ally fire of its Members the dictatorial pee er of rendering its sittiligs
secret ; and yet was the first upstert to arrogate to himself a publicity
which was denied to our mature deliberations !
Who would derive advantage from the unlimited liberty at saying
every thing ? the Kim! ? He, it was said, would find useful truths
in the journals and pamphlets; but he would be much to be pitied, if
he were compelled to reed them; and France also ‘vould be in a pi-
tiable state, if it was in them she was to fled tle elements of polities.
He concluded with moving, that they should pass to the order of the
day on the report of the committee ; and that the
.plan of the law be
adopted with amendments. The Chamber, by a !impiety of voices, or-
dered the printing of his speech.
Ile was followed by M Ciet.l.o 15, who warmly attacked the priociple
Of the projet. Ile tuaintaiued, that it was contradictory to the HO;
article of the Constitutional Charter, ehich says--" The French have
a rielit to print and publish their opinions, if they coolorm to the hies
designed to repress the abuse of that liberty. Such, said he, is the
solemn promulgation of the liberty of the press, which his Majesty in
his declaration of be .2d of Mar had announced as one of the best., of
the liberal Constitution which he was ,leterteined to adoet. The laws
which best establish the liberty of the press were likewise those that
its excesses the most severely. You could net, therefor',- but
await with just impatience that repressive law e Inch was finally to as-
sure to France the peaceable, coustatit, and reetdar eXereise ut that
right. iii this disposition you must have seen with astoni-hment, mixed
with regret, that the plait of the law presented to yell was contrary to
the Constitutional Charter. It fixes metheds of littrary jurisdictioe
eoetrery to the fitSpo,itions of the Chatter, and not the methods of
iodic-ill procedure which it announces. It specifies what it th'res not
permit, but (tees not specify what it enjoins.
He then contended, that the proposed measures were not a restraint
on the abuse of liberty, bet en liberty itself. He skewed the dangers
of a literary censorship under a had eoveroment. which :eight make it
•e mullein of attaining the object proposed by the famous decree of
the Connell of State in 1764, which forbade the writing and printing
of works on matters relating to Administratien. These dangers would