The Sun.
London, England, 1864-08-30 00:00:00

VALE OF TONY.

The half-yearly meeting of this company was
held at Llandovery on Wednesday; Mr. W. Camp-
bell Davis (deputy-chairman) presided. The acr
counts showed a balance in hand to be carried for-
warded to the next half-yearly account.
The CHAIRMAN moved the adoption of the report
and accounts, which was geoonded and carried.
The SECRETARY stated that a reduction had been
made Of company's debts during the past half-year,
and that it wag proposed to pay off the remainder
of them in the early dart of the ensuing year, when
a dividend of £3 per cent. could be available.

ABKRYSTWITH AND WEJ,SII COAST.
The half-yearly meeting of this comony was held
at the offices 4 Bridge-street, Westminster); Mr H.
Gartside in the elicit.
The report stated that the disagreement and dis-
satisfaction that existed among the directors at the
last meeting had subsided, and had been succeeded
by perfect harmony and unity of action. The re•
sults of the past session of Parliament as regarded
the interests of the company had been satisfactory
and successful. The whole line from Machyulleth
to Aberystwith had been opened, and the traffic was
highly satisfactory. The directors propose to rein-
troduce in the next session of Parliament the bill
for establishing steamboat communication between
North Wales and Ireland. About half the land re-
qulved for the line between Barmouth and Portma-
[ dt, bad been purchmed, and on the remaining land

being acquired the works would be commenced.
Application would be made to Parliament next ses-
sion to abandon the proposed bridge and embank-
ment across the River Davey, and to substitute a
railway on the north side of the river, so as to con-
nect Aberdovey and Aberystwith by a better line,
and more direct communication with the Cambrian
railways. The balance-sheet showed a total receipt
of 1:647,494, and a balance of £2,303,
The CHAIRMAN, in mnving the adoption of the
report, congratulated the shareholders on the im-
proved earning of the line, which, without those
derived from minerals, amounted to £lB 10s. per
mile per week.
After some conversation, in which Mr PENSON,
Mr PIERCY, Mr BANKS, and others took part, the
report was adopted, and a dividend of 5 per cent.
declared on the preference shares.

M. de Persigny's Speech.

(From the Debate.)

We were not surprised to find again in this new
speech that philosophic and historical theory so dear
to the speaker, and on which he establishes the
conclusion which is set forth bath at the beginning
and the end of the address, that the present consti-
tution has founded liberty in France. Aa for our-
selves, we have no interest in denying the fact
attested by history, and asserted so emphatically
by the duke, that liberty, like power, varies in its
development in a thousand ways, and that each free
-people—presents a character and a physiognomy
which are personal to it. Yes, we are aware that
there are diversities everywhere; but everywhere
also beneath those diversities history shows us
something common to all fixed and essential, which
M. de Persigny does not or will not see. Among all
free nations we find what an illustrious speaker
called in the last discussion on the address the strict
necessary—the minimum of liberty. Can the asser-
tion be made that this minimum, as it has been
practised for the last twelve years, is enjoyed at
present in France under the constitution of 1852 ?
Here we will not speak in our own names; nor
should we venture to shield ourselves behind the
opinion of M. Thiers, but we may be permitted to op-
pose to Duke de Persigny an authority less suspected,
and one which he cannot completely disavow him-
self. M. Bonher, who is also strongly devoted to
the present constitution, has explained the essential
condition which he thinks suits the Government of
France. Whilst M. Rouher proclaims the great
principle of administrative decentralization, Duke
de Persigny, if we have rightly understood him,
sees nothing to be changed and nothing to be re-
formed in what exists ; his ideal is the present
organisation of the country ; the regime, in which
a spirit of centralisation prevails, in which society
has moved for centuries under the guidance of a
skilfully-devised series of places which protects all
interests and presides over all the operations of life ;
in which, in fine, all the instruments of authority
ere in the hands of a vast administration exclusively
charged with the maintenance of public order and
security. Between those two theories, which as
may be seen have but little in common, we have no
need to say our choice is made; we prefer by far
that of M. Rouher to that of Duke de Persigny.
(From the Nation.)

Duke de Persigny, who is one of the most faithful
friends and one of the firmest supporters of the
empire, considers that the people of France may be
very happy in their own country,and very proud of
being Frenchmen, without adopting the parliamee.
tary as in and without having responsible ministers
regime England, or having a restricted electoral suf-
frage as in the! country. We are of opinion, and do
not cease to repeat that the notion of making liberty
subordinate to determined forms is not a philoso-
phic idea. Our masters in that doctrine are Mira-
beau and Benjamin Constant. To think thus is to
think wisely, and, moreover, is to employ a lan-
guage very encouraging to all patriots. The day on
whinh there shall be no longer in France any other
nary than that in favour of liberty, liberty will be
obtained, and the Government will be sure to live.
We also admit with the ex-Ministor of the Inturior
that, among those men who attack the Government
under the pretext of demanding liberty, a great
number do so from animosity towards the Govern-
meat. On that point no one is deceived ; their in-
tentions may be detected through their doubtful
attitude—they even pierce through the most solemn
declarations, and from beneath the most sacred
formula. Revolutions have, indeed, greatly ever•
vated the nation; with respect to civic courage and
freedom of opinion Frenchmen are rapidly declining.
Duke de Persigny says so in his speech, and he is
right. He is, however, wrong when he draws from
that state of things the conclusion that certain in-
dispensable liberties should be adj ourned. To remedy
the evil those liberties should, on the contrary, be
accorded as early as possible. Perhaps, in restoring
to certain people the liberty of saying what
they think, they would be cured of the
ugly fault of saying what they do not think.
A nation is never elevated by an excess of authority,
but by the exercise of liberty it is restored and purl•
fled. Liberty is healthgiving. If the liberty which
is inherent in the Napoleonic idea, so well under-
stood and so well defined by Duke de Persigny, is
of a better quality than that of the Government
of July or the Republican liberty of 1848, that is a
reason for not holding it back any longer. It must
be applied to us quickly as the infallible remedy for
-all our weakness. This is the reason why, after
having adhered to the premises of the speech at St.
Etienne, we are led to reject the conclusions, and
substitute for them others entirely contrary.

(From the Temps.)

The duke, in his new parallel between Franco and
England, has gone back beyond the origin of the
Hanoverian dynasty, at which he has up to the pre•
sent time liked to stop. He went as far back as the
Conquest, and he appears to think that the Anglo-
Saxon race is still at present subje::ted to the yoke
of the Norman conquerors, the only depositaries of
English authority and liberty. We exaggerate
nothing :—" There we see, scattered over the surface
of the country, a whole electoral body, a whole poli-
tical class who, as the traditional inheritors of the
Conquest, have held all the means orintiuence ever
since William the Conqueror, administer the coun-
ties, dispense justice, levy taxes, maintain public
order, and, in short, enjoy all the principal at-
tributes which belong in France to the adminis-
trative hierarchy." That view is erroneous.
Long since the mixture of races, not less than
the reciprocal penetration of institutions, is a
fait accompli in England. Among the most
illustrious houses, there are very few which date
back to the Conquest, and the immense majority of
the English electoral body has nothing, absolutely
nothing, to do with William the Conqueror. What
is exact in the Duke de Persigny's parallel is that
universal suffrage exists in France and does not in
England. What is false is the consequences which
he draws from that fact. "In England the prin-
ciples of authority and liberty cannot be in conflict,
and are not sacrificed one to the other ; for liberty
is in the hands of those Mho directly exercise autho-
rity in all thiugs." The Duke do Pessigny appears,
therefore, to think that the electors alone are free
in England. That is a grave error, and everyone
well knows that, without speaking of the right of
meeting and other rights from which no one is ex-
cluded, individual liberty is guaranteed in England
to every one, and consequently to the non-electors
as in France to the electors. But how is it that the
duke has not seen that his principle turns against
his thesis? Let us admit that liberty is in England
the monopoly of the governing classes ; the conse-
quence is that in France, where there ars no classes,
liberty—and be it well understood, English liberty,
for there is no other—ought to be the appanage of
everyone, and that universal suffrage has nothing to
do with that " skilfully-devised hierarchy, which
nrotects all interests and presides over all the ape..
alone
rations of life," In a despotic State cue man