The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-14 00:00:00

I saw a brave and well-disposed population, content to pro•

to the whole world• The ground is covered with the re-

secute commerce and agriculture, and to leave the task of
governing entirely in the hands of others. The old King

mains of the Governments which have been overthrown.

They are called the representatives of ancient parties. I
am one of them, and I ask permission to tear away the veil.

Francis made himself popular by walking about in shabby
clothes without any aide-de-camp, and talking to everyone
he met ; and in that way he obtained a knowledge of the
true state of his affairs. Stich was Austrian liberty 25
years ago, but I ask if there is at the present day any people
on earth who would be content with it ? Speaking one day
on this subject with the late Prince de Metternich, I told
him that populations in general preferred embroiling their
own affairs to leaving them to the care of others, and I
added that they were in the right, for it was only by re-
peated trials that they could learn to transact them properly.
But is it possible to refuse to a people a knowledge of their

Tho mission which the country has given to those repre-

sentatives of the old parties, is to discuss with impartiality
public affairs, to watch over the finances, and to bring about

useful reforms in the laws and institutions, That is how I
understand the mandate confided to me. (Approbation.) I
am convinced that the country has such a desire for true
and wholesome liberty that the Government NI hich shall
give it will be frankly and sincerely accepted by all. I have
served an august family, now in misfortune, to whom I owe
all the respect due to nobly supported trials, and the affec-

ion due to those with whom I have passed the most bril-

own affairs ? In this hall we are allowed full liberty of
speech ; we may, if we please, blame in the severest manner

liant part of my life. There is something which Ido not

owe them, and which they would not ask of me—but which
the pride of my heart gives them willingly—that of living
in retirement, and not showing them the spectacle of one
of their servants seeking the eclat of power when they are
in exile. (Hear.) There is a last thing which I call Heaven

the acts of the Government; but the journals which repro-
duce our speeches are not allowed to add a word of their
own. Is there not here a great inconsistency ? It is as if
a man should first tell a secret to ten persons, and then to
an eleventh with a recommendation not to divulge it. By
that system, gentlemen, the natural order of things is dis-

witness they never have required, and never will ask of

torted and the springs of government warped, In a State
which has been completely educated, the press, fortunately,
does not form public opinion; it is only the cause of public
opinion existing. When the press exaggerates, the people
draw in the rein, and the exaggeration itself ensures moder-
ation. Then the general opinion, which is only a pre-
liminary notice, is collected together by the national repre-

mutation and carried to the foot of tha throne. It is

indeed true that all this can only take place in a country

whose education is complete; but it implies that our
own education should at length be commenced. France
cannot remain for ever in a perpetual infancy.
(Noise.) We are told that the Government is ex-
ceedingly strong. That I believe ; I think its material
force strong enough to defy the attack of any party. Then
why not profit by present circumstances? 'When will
the politieal education of the country be taken in hand ?

me, and that is to sacrifice to them the interests of my coun-
try. (Approbation.) I therefore declare that if those liber-
ties of which I believe the country to be seriously in need
are given to us, I shall accept them, and I may then be
reckoned among the number of the submissive and grateful
citizens of the Empire. Bat, gentlemen, if our duty is to
accept, it is that of the Government to give what is necessary
to satisfy the legitimate wishes of the people. It is with re-
spect that I ask it, not for myself, but for my country. Let
it not be forgotten that France, scarcely awakened, and
with whom the exaggeration of desire is so prompt, if she

now allows it to be asked for in a deferential and respectful
manner, may perhaps one day exact it. (Agitation.)
The sitting was here suspended for a quarter of an hour.
M. ROMIER, Minister of State—l have listened to the
speech of M. Thiers with the respect due to one of the
glories of our country, and with a deep consciousness of the
difficulty of replying to it. Why in the midst of our present
calm was that last word pronounced which still rings in
our ears ? (Applause.) Have we so rapidly returned to
those evil times when the word revolution was everyday re.
peated ? This is not the first time that such words have
been uttered by the Hon. M. Thiers. Long years since, in
the year 1847, M. Thiers startled the country by saying—
" Yes, I am a revolutionist, and I have drawn my boat so
far ashore on a lofty promontory that it would be long be-

The press being free in the rest of Europe, do you mean
that France is to be the only nation remaining in leading
strings? (Renewed interruption.) But we are told that
this education is already commenced, and the Minister of
State, a few days ago, informed us that two only out of 15
or 18 Parisian journals supported the Gevernment, But

what is the condition of the whole of them ? They are sub-

ject to receiving warnings, and, if warnings do not suffice,
they may be suspended or suppressed. The press having
_ _ _

the right of criticising the Government, it is right the Go,

vemment should have the right of declaring what amount
of criticism it will tolerate ? Is that the way to commence

she education of the country ? lam told also of the license

of the press. Bat have yon, yourselves, suppressed that
license! Have you not rather made a deposit of it in the

hands of the Government to be used against any citizens

fore the tide could reach it. The revolutionary wave did
rise, however, and the monarchy whose memory you have
recalled was swept away. (Movement.) But those days
have long past, and I will not dwell on them, The speech

you have just heard presents three principal features. M

Thiers first made a declaration of principles, then gave a
rapid history of liberty under preceding Governments,
and lastly, stipulated the conditions under which
he would fain see the present Government placed.
1 he declaration of principles I accept in its
fullest extent. National sovereignty, order, and
liberty have been our principles, not only since the 24th
November, but from the day on which the representative
monarchy was constituted under Napoleon 111. (Hear,
hear.) With regard to the retrospective history of pre.
ceding Governments, I will freely confess that Napoleon
I. did concentrate in his person all the powers of the
country, and that he really intended to restore to
France her public liberties. I need not say why those
intentions were never realised. Then came another
dynasty. What caused that to fall? Was it owing to an
attempt to maintain the principle of divine right as supe-
rior to that of national sovereignty ? Or because the in-
cessant attacks of the press drove it to violate the charter ?
will only say that the influence of the press at that period
was immense, that it created terrible embarrassments for
the Government, and that we are bound to profit by the
lesson. Then came the monarchy of July, which also fell,
overwhelmed by the vice of its origin and its accumulated
faults. Next we had the Republic, which I will pass over in
silence. Lastly:came 18:52, when order was restored, and
liberty, as you say, postponed. Is that your opinion of the
constitution which saved the country from anarchy ? The
prince who traced its bases had studied the successive falls
of preceding governments, and established it on your three
principles—national sovereignty, order, and liberty. The
government founded in 1852 was a representative and de-
mocratic monarchy, with universal suffrage for its base.
The powers in the State were duly balanced, and all con-
flicts between them rendered impossible. Senate was made
powerful by its permanence,the Legislative Body was vested
with powers as complete as practicable. It voted taxes, dis-
cussed laws, and had the right of amending them. It there-
fore was not a mute body. From 1852 to 1860 the Legisla-
tive Body exercised a useful, not a revolutionary influence.
In the change effected by the decree of Nov. 24 the Emperor
only followed the tendencies of 1852. (Approbation.) Thus
we see that none of the principles evoked by M. Thiers have
been neglected since the nation pronounced its decision. M.
Thiers, however, declares that we have not liberty enough,
and that the necessary conditions for it are wanting. These
conditions he states to be individual liberty, liberty of the
press, electoral liberty, parliamentary liberty, and lastly, a
ministerial responsibility. Let us examine these points. M.
Thiers says that individual liberty is compromised by the
law of general surety, but what is that law ? At first it can.
tained three element* it affected political persons who had
taken part in previous commotions ; it specified the
offences which must be repressed in the interests of society,
and it gave the Government the power of banishment
and of assigning a fixed residence in France or Algeria.
The first of these faculties was relinquished by the
generosity of the sovereign in 1859; what is there
abnormal in the second and third ? Stmh is the law of gene-
ral surety, a very mild measure as compared with those
adopted by other Governments. Have you forgotten the
exceptional laws passed after the assassination of the Duke
de Berry ? Of those which you yourself introduced in 1835
after Fieschi'a attempt? I do not say this reproachfully,
for rigour is necessary in the presence of great crimes. In-
dividual liberty is complete. Nothing but atrocious attempts
to assassinate could make the Government regret its gene-
rosity; but, thank God, there is no want of vigilance, and
Providence protects us. (Approbation.) I now come to the
liberty of the press. That liberty exists, and is only amen-
able to the laws. Do not make subtle distinctions between
books and journals. The revolution of 1789 was made
without journals; you all know the effect produced by the
pamphlet on the " Tiers-E tat." What is a journal that daily
reviews all the interests of the country, if it is not a power-
ful machine exercising a considerable influence every day ;
it is said that journals do not make public opinion, and that
is true, they distort it. (Applause.)
M. Grats-Bmoiel—You are talking as if we were in 1814.
M. ROVIIER—What is the liberty of the press ? Where
is reciprocity for the country ? Is it not a monopolised means
of aggression 7—a liberty without a counterpoise, which dis-
turbs all the other liberties of the country. I have seen the
liberty of the press doing its work and giving all honest
citizens, by frightening them, the liberty of closing their
shops. I do not reject the liberty of the press, but only
want it to have a counterpoise ; it was the want of this that
overthrew two thrones. In a country where the free exer-
cise of the individual will is favoured by the habits of the
people, the Government has reserved to itself the faculty
of giving warnings to journals, suspending and suppressing
them. Is all liberty in France suppressed on that account,
and does not the Government use its powers with the
greatest circumspection ? The Administration only
exercises a right of guardianship in the interest of all
and of the Constitution. I now pass to another order
of ideas, for the speech of the honourable M. Thiers
seems to embrace the whole address. I will only touch
briefly on the different points, for each of the questions W.'
soon recur, perhaps with greater acrimony, though I hope
it may not be so, as I should regret to see debates unduly
prolonged, which might cause agitation in the country. I
therefore come at once to electoral liberty. The hon. M.
Thiers says that the suffrage was universal only when the
prinCes were elected, but that it does not exist in the election
of deputies, and he says this to you. What can be the
object ? Can it be to paralyse the mission confided to you
by the country ? (Approbation.) My explanations on this
point shall be concise and frank. We have great respect
for universal suffrage ; it saved France by electing the Pre-
sident of the Republic, by afterwards giving him a ten
years' term of office, and by voting the empire. We shall
therefore always regard it as a foundation of the Imperial
edifice. But should the Government remain indifferent
with regard to the election of deputies ? What I you will
not have it designate candidates to the electors ? You
would have the Government exposed to attacks on all sides
without defending itself I (Approbation.) No; the Go-
vernment is bound to recommend candidates, and the only
limits to its actions are its prudence, moderation, and
morality ; it always chooses as its candidates men whose
characters and qualities recommend them to their fellow-
citizens. It will say to the mayors and other function-
aries : Yon shall not use your influence against the Govern-
ment, either resign your offices or support the policy of the
Government. Any other course could only lead to anarchy.
M. Thiers has expressed his intention of making this ques-
tion the subject of a special debate; we will then more
closely examine the principles and the conduct of the
Government and the Opposition, I now come to what M.
Thiers calls parliamentary liberty. That question is diffi-
cult to discuss. M. Thiers, from his long experience in
assemblies, well knows that it is an agreeable task to tell a
Chamber that it has not power enough, and ought to have
the right of interpellation. But why ? when everything
can be discussed during the debate on the Address,
and that on the Budget. Interpellations were so
frequent in the Constituent and Legislative
Assemblies, that they occupied the time which
ought to have been devoted to public business. (Cries of
"That is true I") The Legislative Body has all the attri-
butes necessary for the public good, and can make its con-
victions triumph without the right of interpellat ion. L now
come to the last thesis maintained by M. Thiers. He
asserted that there can be no proper responsibility unless
the ministers themselves appear in the Chamber, and he
mixed up this serious question with anecdotes which it is
necessary for me to notice. M. Thiers said that a decree
had rendered vacant the portfolio of the Minister of State,
but that another decree might fill it again to-morrow. " I
have this hope," added M. Thiers, "do not deprive me of it.
The Minister of State is before you, gentlemen; if his func-
tions have been taken from him, it is because, according to
the principles and the very essence of the Constitution, a
Minister cannot appear before this Assembly. The Minister
of State is here only a member of the Council of State re-

that might displease it ? (Interruption.)
M. E. PELLETe.x—The Government journals are calum
platers. (Noise.)
M. THIERS—It is not my wish to remind the Chamber of
anything personal to myself ; I do not foster any recollec-
tions of what took place a few months back. People in
general have short memories concerning the affairs of others
—I am content that my memory should be short also, but
I wish you not entirely to forget what occurred. (Laughter
and signs of assent.) I pass on to the liberty of elections ;
and without at present treating the question of official can-
dideteships, I will merely say that the Government acts in
this matter as it does in the case of the press. It gives
universal suffrage to the nation, but on the condition of dic-
tating a little the choice to be made. Great homage is paid
to universal suffrage in these our times. It has been made
the right divine of the epoch. An appeal is made to it
whenever Sovereigns are wanted, as in Italy, Greece, and
Mexico. You go on your knees before this authority ; but
when it is a question of electing deputies, you tell universal
suffrage it can neither read nor write, that it is oredulous and
timid, and must be told what men to choose. But I shall re-
serve this question for another opportunity, and say a few
words on the liberty of representation. I readily admit
the full initiative of Government in all matters of regulation;
the more so because it must be unceasingly occupied with
our affairs both at home and abroad ; it is always in the
spot whilst you are here only during a pertion of the 3 ea: ;
and after all the initiative of the Chamber can only be the
expression of a wish. But, if I concede to the Government
the initiative in every thing, the Government ought to con•
code to us a control over all, and the usage now prevalent
in all the liberal assemblies of Europe should be restored
to us. A Chamber cannot to said to possess true liberty
where all questions are submitted to it by the Government
only. We also ought to have the power of introducing any
questions considered useful to the majority, and not thought
dangerous by the Government. Here the hon, member
proceeded to comment on the system of speaking ministers,
arguing that it would be far better that a minister should
have the faculty of explaining the affairs of his own depart-
ment, whether with or without eloquence ; and ha expressed
the hope of seeing M. Itouher supported in the Chamber by
a few more of his colleagues. He then continued—Let us
rapidly recapitulate the liberties which we require. To
give them to the country it will not be necessary to over-
throw any institutions, but only to develop those which
exist. Thus, to have individual liberty, the law of public
safety should be repealed ; to have the liberty of the press,
two or three articles of the decree on the public journals
should be altered ; to have electoral liberty, certain objection-
able practices should be modified ; and, to have the liberty of
the national representation, the practice of interpellations
should be resumed. But what is sleeve all things neces-
sary is the irreeponsibility of the Sovereign. I am well
aware that people will say to me, "Ah ! we know you well
—you want to have back that wretched Parliamentary Go-
vernment—that Government of rhetoricians which exhi-
bited during 40 years the sad spectacle of a struggle for
portfolios. It may do very well for England, a nation of
shopkeepers, but France does not like the squabbles
of lawyers!' I wish to say a word in reply
to such objections. The Government of rhetori-
cians I lam not very partial to the expression ; but
when it is applied to such men as Gen. Foy, MM. de Sane,
de Villele, de Martignac, Royer-Collard, Casimir-Perier, de
Broglie, and Guizot, a man can have but one desire, via., to
merit it. (Approbation.) Since then I take no offence at the
word myself, neither should Ministers take offence, for they
also are rhetoricians—(laughter)—you yourselves, gentle-
men, applaud their speeches, and you acclaim the dawn of
any rising talent. But the struggle for portfolios I It will
be admitted that I myself am personally disinterested in
this matter. (Noise.) But where is the epoch, where the
country, in which power has not been disputed ? In a tur-
bulent republic it is disputed in the public forum, at courts
it is often the prize of secret intrigues. Was there ever an
epoch grander or more glorious than that of Louis XIV ?
Well, men had then to please Mme. de Maintenon I But
where can power be more nobly disputed than in an as-
sembly of representatives of men eminent for intelligence
and honourable character ? This is a glory that England
guards with jealous care—she calls it the glory of Pitt and
Fox. Let us be as intelligent as England, and let us not
sneer at a glory which assuredly has done no harm to our
country during 40 years. The boldest man that ever lived,
Napoleon 1., never ventured to levy an impost without it
had been voted. At present, when the country is asked to
give milliards, it becomes necessary to explain the condition
of the demand, and a general discussion cannot be avoided.
When people have sought fir freedom under a monarchy,
they have found it in one form only, viz, individual liberty,
with the right of expressing their opinions, and naming
delegates to discuss them with responsible Ministers under
an inviolable Sovereign. The question is different with re-
gard to the electoral law; it may vary in some countries,
and be modelled to suit the customs and manners of the
populations. It is not the same for the Government, as its
mechanism does not vary like the electoral law. To call this
Government English is like saying that a steam engine is
an English machine. Those who wake use of suchlanguage
show great ignorance of past events, There is in the his-
tory of modern Europe three great epochs—the feudal, the
royal, and the present one, which I call liberal. When the
military Government of Charlemange passed into the hands
of his successors, it localised itself, and gave birth to the
feudal regime, which was not peculiar to any one part of
Europe. When society, tired of that state of things, turned
towards royal power, standing armies and parliaments were
established. The same change was everywhere effected,
but at different dates. When the people in their turn wished
to have their part of the power, England preceded us by
about a century, but the whole of Europe was anxious to
follow in the same path, for England has not alone the
right of enjoying freedom. If liberty is an evil, why have
we expended millions and shed the blood of our soldiers to
give it to Italy ? Why were those eulogiums bestowed upon
Austria by the official journals when she entered on the path
of constitutional governments ? We cannot shed the blood
of our soldiers to everywhere establish liberty, and then hear
the assertion made that it is not suited to us. (Approba-
tion on several benches.) If it were so, we should declare
that our country labours under political incapacity, and I
for my part do not accept such a declaration.
A VOICE—No one accepts it,
M. TRIERS —Europe envies us, and acknowledges in us
genius, prudence, and good sense, and I cannot think that
the nation which has produced Descartes and Bousset is
unworthy of liberty. (Renewed approbation.) There are
difficulties, we are told, in our situation, in our character,
and in our revolutionary state. The English are said to
be a calmer people than we, but that is a mistake, for Eng-
land is an exceedingly passionate nation. The difference
between France and England is that one is a military na-
tion, and the other is not. In France, the Sovereign and
the people alike have military pride, which with difficulty
gives way ; in England the Sovereign has as much dignify
as any one, but knows how to yield it at a proper time, and
the people know how to wait, (Murmurs.) In France,
the Sovereign, in his military pride, puts his hands on the
hilt of his sword, and says, No more concessions, and the
people run to arms, and, instead of those compromises
which elsewhere conclude such cries, we have a battle,
and, of course, victors and vanquished. Those difficulties,
I repeat, are not insurmountable ; and I say without hesi-
tation that the true founder of our liberties, and that is a
title which would perfectly befit the founder of a dynasty'
will be the Sovereign who shall know how to solve those
difficulties. It is said, and justly, that there are others
which arise out of our revolutionary state. The French
Revolution overthrew more Governments than the Eng-
lish one. And that can be conceived easily, as the latter
only gave liberty to England, whereas the former gave it

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JANUARY 14, 1864.

presenting the Government before you. Do you wish to
now reconstitute parliamentary Government? (Cries of
No, no) I really ask myself whether Ido not mistake my
most sacred duty in discussing the question when the Con-
stitution declares that the Ministers are responsible only to
the Emperor. Art, sof the fundamental compact is de-
clared to have fallen into abeyance because it has not been

applied, that is to say, that the responsibility of the Em-
peror is done away with, because the Sovereign, from hav-
ing well directed affairs, has not incurred it. (Approba-
tion.) You see clearly that you return to the parliamentary
regime, that you misrepresent our Constitution, which is
not that Charter in which the King reigns and does not
govern, where the Legislative power was paramount, and
where, with great talent, portfolios were constantly con-
tended for. It is such a political system which during
eighteen years affected the country. Two parties were in
presence ; one supported M. Guizot ; who formed an inte-
gral part of the Government ; the other opposed, in
order to take the place occupied by its adversaries.
You, gentlemen, judge with disinterestedness the policy
of the Government, you do not disturb yourselves with the
choice made by the Sovereign. You well know that he would
remove from his counsels any one who was not worthy of
his confidence; you examine the affairs of the country with-
out partiality for any particular man, and you pronounce
that great and solemn verdict which during the last ten
years has caused the prosperity of France, (Approbation.)
The objectiou has been attributed to us that parliamentary
Government is English. and not applicable in France, but
what difference does in fact exist between the two nations ?
Establish in France, if you dare, that aristocratic organisa-
tion which forms a powerful oligarchy, dominates over all
the interests of the country, and only allows of the expansion
which goes to India or to China. England is an aristocratic
nation, while in France our two fundamental laws are equa-
lity and democracy.
(Approbation.) Since M. Thiers has
returned into this Assembly, to bring the convictions of his
whole life, and to propose to us the Constitution of 1830, I
must be allowed to draw a comparison between the policy of
the Government of July and that of the Emperor. The
former occupied Ancona to quickly vithdraw from it, the
latter emancipated Italy. The former had an Embassy at
St. Petersburg, but with none of theprivileges of such an
establishment. It met with difficulties in the Eastern ques-
tion, before which it gave way. The Emperor's Govern-
ment made war in the Crimea and conquered Sebastopol.
The Government of July had agitatbn at home to contend
with, and used every effort to stem the revolutionary cur-
rent which had carried it to power. No useful reform was
during that time effected. The present Government has
courageously made reforms—it has neither hesitated from a
fear of unpopularity nor been led away by obstinate preju-
dices. The country is now reaping the benefits of what has
been done. Let it not be forgotten that there is in those
reforms something more than the commercial question. They
have had the effect of habituating every citizen to a feeling
of his own responsibility. They have removed him out of
that tutelage which made him doubt his own strength, and
prepared him for those political liberties which will be con-
ferred on him when the proper moment arrives. Such
has been the course of the Government : first, civil
liberty, then commercial liberty, which are the best prepa-
rations for the political liberties yon demand,but which the
country is still apt to associate with the memory of the
sterile agitations it so long endured. You now show your-
selves impatient, but we have the right to protest against
that impatience, which could only have the effect of arrest-
ing our progress in the path of reforms. We are justified
in saying, "Be patient, as the country itself is;" for the
country knows that under this beneficent Government, no
good idea, no useful reform, has remained sterile, and that
when the proper time comes, it will enter into possession of
those liberties which you demand for it. (Applause.)
M. JULES FAVRE—I wish to---
The PRESIDENT—It is M. Oilivier's turn to speak, but I
suppose he will give way.
Mr. E. OLLIVIER signified his assent.
M. JULES FAVRE—I ask indulgence of the Chamber for
a few momenta. I wish, for yottr instruction, to draw a
comparison between the two speeches you have heard. If
these two speeches are opposed to each other, and it it is of
interest to know in what way they differ, it is well to re-
mark that they agree on ono point, as to the perfectibility
of the Constitution. The necessity of taking a step in that
direction has been demonstrated in the admirable speech of
M.Thiers, and promised in the eloquent peroration of the
Minister of State. This point of contact beween the two
speeches cannot have escaped you. M. Thiers no more
wishes for a revolution than doer the Minister of State,and,on
this point,the former gentleman's speech has certainly been
misunderstood. (Noise.) Both admit that there is progress
in our institutions, the difference being that the Minister
tells us to expect it from the intelligence and good-will of
the Sovereign, while M. Thiers, at the same time that he
is addressing the Government, turns his eyes to the coun-
try as a last resort. To be gelded in our choice we must
look to the nature of our institutions. I must admit indeed
that the Government has entered in the path of reform, but
there has been something still more liberal than the Govern-
ment, I mean the small group of men who have come to
sit on this bench. (Noise.) Tbey have combated your argu-
ments, they have criticised your acts, they have made head
against your contradictions and murmurs ; and the country,
—that sovereign judge—hasbestowed on them its approba-
tion, as the vote of Paris at the last elections was unani-
mous. The Minister of State cannot contest those facts; to
do so, or even to criticise them, would be to question the
supremacy of universal suffrage. Have we not then a right
to say that by the side of the sovereign power there is an-
other which causes its will tobe made known ? And if so,
how admit with the hon. Minister that M. Thiers' criticisms
were ill-founded ? Let me now say a word on the law of
general safety. The Minister of State has said that it would
perhaps be rash to cry out against that law at a moment
when it was wanted. (True, true.) Allow me to say that
the sad occurrence to which I have alluded, and which fills
all honest minds with sentiments of horror and reprobation
—(approbation)—that occurrence, I say, is in itself a con-
demnation of this law ; for, if the law could not prevent
such a result, it is useless. (No, no.) I add, for the honour
of our country, that amongst the individuals whose names
have been mentioned, not one is a native of France. (Ap-
plause.) France is patient because she is strong, and it is
not in her bosom that such abominable thoughts can ger-
minate. Respecting the liberty of the press I shall say
more on another occasion, remarking only that the Minis-
ter of State will find it difficult to reconcile his language in
the senate with that used in this place; in the Senate he
eulogised the liberty of the press ; here he has called
the press Satanic, and destrective of all government. I
wish also to preserve a neutrality for the present on certain
subjects debated by M. Thiere and the Minister, and only
observe that if Governments in France have fallen in suc-
cession, it has been under theand when I heard the Minister of State include in the num-
ber weight of their own faults,
the Government of July, t said to myself
that he was
arguing against his own thesis; for it was not by any ex-
aggeration of liberty that the fuly Government fell, but by
its fearing to confront it. (Much applause.)
A VOICE—And the Republic ?
M. FAVRE—As to the last 'words of M. Thiers, I think
they have been misunderstood,
They were not a provoca-
tion, but they will remain in thee memory of the country, and
produce their effect. (Interruption.) All violence was far
from the thought of the hon.
speaker ; what he wished to
signalise is the absolute right Which you proclaim in your
against yourselves.
speeches, but which you mutilate in your acts. Well then
this right will one day be turned
The discussion was then adjourned, and the proceedings
terminated.
11

THE STREET TRAFFIC OF LONDON.—VatiOnS
expedients have ben proposed for relieving the
pressure of the street tratne of the city of London—among
the more important of which are new railways, new police
regulations, and new streets. The difficulty of satisfactorily
solving this problem will be otvious from a mere statement
of the facts of the case. On every business day in Loudon
upwards of 700,000 persons enter the city by its various ap-
proaches, and leave it again is the evening for their homes,
at the West-end, in the suburbs, or in the country. 700,000
pm:sone-represent a population equal to the whole inhabi-
tante of South Wales, or of the city of Manchester. Drawn
up in a line, two deep, standing close together, they would
occupy an extent of over 120 miles; and ranged six deep,
they would take more than 12 hours to march past a spec-
tator at the rate of 110 paces a minute. Of the 700,000 per-
sons and upwards entering and leaving the city daily (exclu-
sive of those entering the
West-end and other parts of Lon-
don), it was ascertained by the officers of the city police, in
the month of May, 1860, that an average of 535,000 proceeded
on foot, and 171,000 in vehicles, making
a total of 706,000
persons. The number
time to4enter the city every 2
of vehicles ascertained at the same
59,765;
which,
if drawn up close in line wouldhours,occupy was
:tlength of about 260
miles, reaching from London to York, and extending more
than 50 miles beyond the latter place. The closeness with
which the vehicles follow each other in the streets may be
inferred from the fact that between 10 and 11 a.m. on Wed-
nesday, Nov. 19, 1862 it was ascertained that the total
number passing Low
Church,in both directions, was 1,2.55
—of which 348 were omnibuses, 584 cabs, and 282 carts,
drays, vans, and
--- waggons, besides 41 trucks and barrows.
The numbers and proportions of vehicles passing the same
place bet ween 4 and 5 p.m. on the same day were ascertained
to be as nearly as Possible the same.—Railway News.
ADVERTISEXENTI—AVoid medicines: they always aggra-
vate chronic complaints, but Du Barry's Delicious Health
Restoring Revalenth, Ara bica Food, which saves fifty times
its cost in other remedies, invariably cures them, restoring
perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound lungs, healthy liver,
pure blood, refreshing sleep, functional regularity, and energy
to. the most disordered' or enfeebled. We extract a few out
of 60,000 cures :___
Cure No. 58,216 or the Marchioness de
Brdhan, Paris, of a liver complaint, wasting away for seven
d
years, debility, with a nervous palpitation all over, ba
d fies,ion
' "nut ant sleeplessness the most intolerable nervous
agitation, and dreadfully low a irited.—Cure No. 1,771. Lord,
Stuart de Decies, Lord I: ut Pot Waterford, of many years
dYsPePsia*--Nn• 40,832. .',eFifty years' indescribable agony
from dyspepsia,
nervousness, asthma, cough, constipation,.
flatulency, spasms, sickness, and and vomiting.—Maria Jolly."
—Cure No. 46,270. Tdr James Roberts, of Friraley, Surrey, of
thirty years' diseased.i ,s Epitting, of blood, liver
,derange .
melt, and partial deafness.—Cure ' Cure No. 47,121. Miss Elizabeth
Jacobs, of extreme nervousness,' indigestion, gatherings, low
spirits, and nervous fancies 'Cure No. 54,810. The Rev. Jas,
T. Campbell, Pakenharn, Norfolk,. "of indigestion and torpi,-,
dity or the liver, which had resisted all medical treatment.
In tins, 1 lb., 2s. 9d. ; 21b., 4s. 6cl ; 51b., Its. ; 121 b., 225. ; ~41b
405.-Barry Du Barry and Co., No. 77, Regent-street, London;
• also Fortnum and Mason ; and all Grocers and Cbe ivasts in
• every town of the United liink,rclom.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

TIMES.—The Opposition in the French Elective
Chamber seems determined to make its presence felt.

The discussio❑ on the Budget has been opened by
Thiers with a speech, or what they would call

in America an oration, in which he embraces the
whole of the domestic policy of France, and the
history of the Governments which have swayed her
destinies, from the time of the First Napoleon to the

present day. We never remember to have read any
speech addressed to a deliberative Assembly which
attempted to go over so vast a space of ground, and
to exhaust subjects so important and so numerous.
Like a true son of France, M. 'Tiers begins at the

beginning, or perhaps a little before it. In order to
form an estimate of the present political situation of
France, he feels bound to investigate and deduce
for himself, from principles purely abstract and a

priori, the true theory of politics in general. There
are three things which he considers necessary and
fundamental principles of government—national
sovereignty, order, and liberty; and this liberty is
of five kinds—personal liberty, the liberty of the

press, liberty of election, the liberty of the repre-
sentatives of the nation, and the liberty of debating

such questions as may arise with the responsible
Ministers of the Sovereign. Having provided him-
self with this foi midable logical apparatus—having
forged with his own hand, and in the presence of
his audience, the weapons which he is to employ in
the conflict upon which he enters—M. Thiers sets
himself to criticise the present Constitution of
France, and to show that each of the five kinds of
liberty of which he speaks is fettered or destroyed
by the existing Constitution. The task, as may be
readily inferred, is by no means difficult. It is
indeed so easy that it almost seems to cast ridicule
on the tremendous apparatus which is brought to
bear against it. There is little need of heavy guns
to overthrow a wall which is in ruins already, the

reality of weakness being concealed by a rampart
of pasteboard. That personal liberty is not fully
enjoyed in France, even up to what M. Thiers
calls the necessary point, results from the laws
which were passed after the attempt of Orsini.
That the liberty of the press does not exist
completely is shown by the fact that the press,
whose business it is to criticise the Government, is
itself placed under the power of that Government to
warn, to suspend, and to suppress. The reviewer
must take the author into his council, criticising

with the utmost impartiality, but taking care, under
the heaviest penalties, to say nothing disagreeable
to the person criticised. The principle is admitted,
but nullified by the restraints under which it is ap-
plied. As regards electoral liberty, M. Thiers has
the game equally in his own hands. Universal
suffrage is the great resource of moder❑ times. It
is permitted to decide on the fate of kingdoms and
dynasties. Italy, Greece, Mexico, and France her-
self have received their reigning dynasties from this
source. No wonder that universal suffrage is called
in for the smaller business of electing the French

Chambers. But when employed for this purpose it
is thus addressed—" Oh, you are very respectable,
but most frequently you do not know how to read or
write ; you are singularly credulous, and capable of
believing ell that the Opposition members tell you,
so that we find it necessary to dictate your choice."
The elector may elect just as the editor may criticise
—that is, provided the criticism is agreeable to the
Government, and provided the candidate is agree-
able to the prefect. As to the fourth kind of liberty,
M. Thiers claims the power of introducing such
questions as the Chamber pleases, instead of having
its proceedings traced for it by the Government, and,
meteover, that the Assembly should really have con-
trol over the finances and all other questions which
come legitimately under its deliberations. As to the
fifth kind of liberty, be asks for responsible govern-
ment, the abolition of the rule which vests the power
of acting in one Minister, and the duty of defending
what is done in another. All these things, N. Thiers
thinks, might be conceded by a few alterations
in law and in practice without materially alter-
ing the existing Constitution, and if they were con-
ceded he is of opinion that France would have
little right to complain on the score of freedom.
He deprecates any attempt to depreciate his
proposals because they would bring the Consti-
tution into closer similarity with that of England.
He says truly these are not the principles of Eng-
lish liberty only, but of liberty in general. The
abstinence of the Executive from any interference
with personal liberty, with the liberty of the Press,
the liberty of election, and the liberty of free dis-
cussion, and the Government by responsible Minis-
ters which renders it possible to effect a change in
administration without a revolution,—these are
truly the minimum, the very smallest amount of
powers and privileges which entitle a people to call
themselves tree. We should not do justice to the
speech which we are considering if we did not
not notice that M. Thiers justifies his return to
public life by the analogy of his conduct in the case
of the Republic,—a form of Government which be
did not approve, but under which he rendered the
public essential services. He further justifies him-
self by reference to the concessions in a literal direc-
tion made by the Emperor, by the advice which he
had given to his friends to take the oath of allegi-
ance to the existing Government, and by the con-
sideration that at his age, and after the posts which
be has filled, he cannot he for a moment accused of
any personal or selfish object. The speech of which
we have just given an outline has been prepared
with much care, and, if a little more senile and dif-
fuse than the former efforts of M. Tillers, does no
discredit to his oratorical reputation. It is, per-
haps, difficult for us to estimate what is suited to so
peculiar an audience on so special an occasion. To
us it would seem that proof was wasted in demon-
strating that which no one can seriously doubt, and
that the real question is, not whether France is in
many essential respects deprived of liberty, nor
yet whether that liberty can be conferred without
overthrowing the existing Constitution, but rather
whether liberty, to give or withhold which is at
the present moment entirely is the power of the
Emperor, is from his point of view, with reference
to his antecedent acts and his present position,
an advisable step. What use would France make
of it? What profit would he or his dynasty
derive from it ? Is the present negation of liberty a
greater evil than the state of things which would
ensue if that liberty were granted ? On this point
the speech gives us no information, Such a speech,
made before an Assembly which has no power, even
if fully convinced, to give practical effect to its con-
victions, can hardly escape one of two dangers. It
will either be considered as a mere exercitation, the
display of a debating club, or as an attempt to rouse
the passions of the people, and induce them, in the
orator's own closing words, " to exact what they
now deferentially ask for." Such a position is
hardly suitable to the condition of the French
Chambers. They exist by sufferance. All the powers
they have are grants from the Emperor, which he is
just as able to recall as he was to make. He may
have parted with the shadow, but he has retained
in all its fulness the substance of power. Even were
all that M. Thiers asks for to be granted, the liberties
of France would still depend on the head of the
Executive, who wields a power against which no
institution in France can for a moment maintain
itself. The same causes which enabled the President
of the Republic to sweep away the Assembly in 1851
—namely, the power of the sword and the indiffer-
ence of France for popular government—would
make such a feat much easier in the present year.
That the Emperor is under no apprehension from
M. Thiers is evident from the elaborate report which
his speech has received in the Moniteur ; were it
otherwise, the Assembly in which that speech was
delivered would probably not meet again. We ad-
mire the man who boldly exercises his rights in
behalf of his country, but we are by no means dis-
posed to identify the conduct of a representative
who defends established liberties with that of an
orator who takes advantage of the indulgence
granted by arbitrary power to assail the very insti-
tutions under which he exercises it. The road by
which alone, as it seems to us, the French Chambers
can win their way to that public estimation and
confidence on which an extension of their powers
can be duraWy founded is by a close attention to
business, and by showing that within their own
narrow sphere they are wise and practical, rather
than by any ambitious attempts to investigate the
theory and revolutionise the practice of a Govern-
ment with which they have very little to do.
POST.—The near approach of the next session of
Parliament lends increasing interest to a subject,
which is certain to be mooted at an early date, in
connection with the naval estimates. It will be in
the recollection of many of our readers that, in the
committee upon naval promotion and retirement, a
considerable body of evidence was taken, and
various suggestions were made with respect to
placing the present establishment of naval chap-
lains upon a more efficient footing. Of the impor-
tance of the office in question no one who has ever
studied the interior economy of a man-of-war will
entertain any manner of doubt. Paramount as the
authority of the captain must and ought to be in all
matters of discipline, it is hardly too much to say
that the influence among men of a zealous, earnest,
judicious, and well-educated Christian minister will
be second only to that of the commanding officer
himself. In many respects he may be more the
friend of the sailors than a professional superior can
or ought to be—and if he be quick and ready to
seize the tnolha teenpora fandi, he will find" poor
Jack" neither an unwilling nor an unmindful
hearer. To those who know what sailors are it is
unnecessary to point out how often they need gni.
dance and council, or how rarely, under present cire.
cumstances, these inestimable blessings are practi-
cally attainable by them. That the present system
needs change of some kind was admitted by almost
every witness examined before the committee.