The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-18 00:00:00

contrary can be proved, I shall bow to the truth.
The Minister of State said the other day that the
electoral contest was only the continuation of that
which takes place here among the representatives
of the country. I admit that assimilation, and ask
if any one of you, gentlemen, would presume to
pronounce to us such a phrase as " The Emperor
will have it so." No one would dare to do this.
Therefore, as you would not so use the name of the
Emperor in this Chamber, why should you do so
in presence of electors? And in what a position
you place a candidate whom you repudiate, but
who is nevertheless elected ! You do not contest
his oath. How, then, can you say he is the enemy
of the Emperor ? Why treat him as such ? Who
has told you that he is so ? For my part, I repeat
the words which were spoken here the day before
yesterday—namely, that all those who entered this
Chamber had but one object—to make their ideas
penetrate into the mind of the Government. That
is the truth, and it is wrong to say at elections that
a candidate is an enemy. And the electors them■
selves! What will happen if you declare them all
enemies of the Emperor ? What will it be said
after the result of the late elections that during the
last few years the Emperor has made himself two
millions of enemies? As I wish to avoid strong
language, I shall content myself with repeating that
to call a candidate or electors enemies is to commit
a great imprudence, and I dwell on the point be-
cause it is desirable that all abuses of language
should be suppressed—(assent)—the more so because
when moderation is lost sight of in speech,it is often
violated in act; and it may be feared that those
who so abuse the name of the Emperor may be
forced into active measures of a more serious cha-
racter. We make an immense concession in allow-
ing you your official candidateships ; but we give
them only on condition of the most rigorous ahe
stention on your part. Without that moderation
the danger would be considerable in presence of
our system of centralisation. Of that centralisa-
eion I myself, as every body knows, have been the
defender ; it is the principle of French great-
ness ; it has given us clearness in our ac•
counts, order and immediate readiness in our
means of action, as was seen when France
decided on war in the month of March, 1859,
and had 200,000 men in Italy in the that days
of April. Ido not wish to compromise this cen-
tralisation. I remember what a great diplomatist,
M. Pozzo di Borgo, said to me on this subject in
1830. I was complaining of the Treaties of 1815,
and he said, " You complain that we have taken
from you a part of your territory, bat we have left
you a unity which gives you an immense force, and
which will one day become a danger to ourselves."

I replied to him, "You have left us that unity be
cause you could not take it from us." (Applause._
Therefore, as it could not be taken from us, let us
not fling it away ourselves. Allow me to indicate
briefly the bases of centralisation. In the adminis-
trative class you have the prefects, sub-prefects,
mayors, and all their agents. If we allow all these
functionaries to be nominated by the State we think
it necessary that the mayors should be taken from
the municipal council, and that they should not be
removable at the pleasure of the Government. In
the judicial order you have the noneremovable
judges, who are worthy of all respect, and the re-
Movable functionaries, as honourable, but depen-
dent. I can understand that these latter should be
at the disposal of the Government; they do not pro-
nounce judgments, they merely administer justice.
But attached to these Courts there are notaries, ad-
vocates, huissiers ; and you know well what is the
influence of a Proenreur-Imperial. I have here a
letter from a huissier of the Bas-Rhin, where an
election is now about to take place, and he declares
that he cannot act by reason of the menaces he has
received. Next, there is the Finance Department,
where the subordinates are numerous and constitute
a great power in the hands of the Government. The
Ministers of Marine and War are also very power-
ful. The former holds in his hands the fortunes of
the men serving on board, and might in a few hours
send a certain number to sea—
l'. Rouher, Minister of State—For electoral pur-
poses ? A Minister who should do that would be
impeached.
M. Thiers—l might quote facts did I not fear to
go beyond the bounds of respect. I endeavour to
be courteous towards my adversaries, although
you are sometimes hard upon yours. I have no
wish to weaken any part of the French Adminis-
tration, but in the election of Gambrel, which was
annulled, was there not a circular which proves the
power exercised by the :Minister of War over the
conscripts ? In our country the State, in fact, does
everything; at one time it encourages science and
the arts, and at another assists communes by the
construction of a road, or by endowing it with a
school. When such a power interferes with the elec-
tors of universal suffrage, what becomes of liberty
of voting ? All the innumerable agents of the State
who were living quietly among the people become
on the eve of elections, by orders received from Paris'
first silent and then hostile. As far as regards myself
personally, I have seen agents of the authority with
whom I have been on friendly terms compelled to
tell the country that I was a dangerous man. I
accept official candidates; but on condition that the
law is respected. The execution of the electoral law
is very difficult in France, because it so frequently
changes. The Government has a right to trace cut
the circumscriptions; but it is proper that on the
approach of a new or general election those districts
should be changed, in order to favour particular can-
didates ? With regard to the electoral lists, there
are some localities where they do not exist, as was
proved during the late verification of qualifications.
Is it true that the publications made by the non-
official candidates meet with impediments which
their Government opponents are not subjected to P
If so, the mayors ought to receive more formal in-
structions. The law enacts secrecy for the vote, and
that the bulletin shall be written out of the balloting
room, and be deposited in the urn by the elector ;
and yet there may be seen on the table of the office
packets of the bulletins of the Government candi-
date, but none of his opponents. When I concede
to you official candidates I can only do so on condi-
tion of respect for propriety, abstention from the
means of action at the disposal of the Government,
and strict observance of the law. If you do not accept
these conditions I cannot accord official candidate-
ships. We are in presence of universal suffrage,
which is a dangerous institution, and the Govern-
ment ought to have the means of directing it. In giv-
ing that suffrage have you given liberty to the con-
trary ? If the former, do not employ the means yon
now adopt. I know not what the result of univer-
sal suffrage may be in the future, but I see what it
is now. I am convinced that if fewer attempts were
made to enlighten it there would perhaps be more
means of control in the bodies of the State, and. in-
stead of sacrificing the Government to which you are
attached you would perhaps save it. (Interruption.)
The President—The Government has no fear of
being sacrificed, and has no need of being saved.
M. Thiers—Do not distort my meaning.
The President--I have made that observation to
you because I am sure you will give a satisfactory
explanation.
M. Thiers—Let there not be sought for in my
words any idea of a threat of any kind. What I
wish to express is not a menace but a warning.
(Movement; approbation on several benches.)
Rouher--Let me be allowed to say something
also on the
both to question of official candidates, and reply
doles Favre and N. Thiers, the more so
that the difference of opinion which existed between
these two
orators seems to have disappeared by the
last observations
does not admit such
does, but on condition acdatiedbidyatAcslii.
ir_rhs iaetrasil ;
M.
Thiers
platonic. The differenctehiastnothtesigsrheaaltl
absetomoebrleiglye
me to consider those gentlemen in the light of two
distinct adversaries. Let
me, then, consider the
rigilt of intervention of the Government in elections,
and the means this latter ought to employ, and also
the part played by the Opposition darin-g, the last
elections. I shall then examine the results, and
endeavour to deduce from it the
ofof
the election of the 31st of May. A s
Government intervention, I have already defended
it elsewhere, and affirmed it here a few days ago.
The Government cannot remain a passive spectator
of an operation in which its existence is at stake as
well as its policy; an operation in which unexpected