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

I saw a brave and well-disposed population, content to pro.
secute commerce and agriculture, and to leave the task of
governing entirely in the hands of others. The old King
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. Such 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
own affairs? In this hall we are allowed full liberty of
speech ; we may, if we please, blame in the severest manner
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-
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 moders
ation. Then the general opinion, which is only a pre-
liminary notice, is collected together by the national repre-
sentation and carried to the foot of the 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 political education of the country be taken in hand ?
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 Government. 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-
vernment should have the right of declaring what amount
of criticism it will tolerate ? Is that the way to commence
the education of the country ? lam told also of the license
of the press. But 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
that might displease it ? (Interruption.)
M. E. PELLETAN—The Government journals are calum-
niators. (Noise.)
31. THIEBS—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-
didateships, 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 credulous 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 mote 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 portion of the e ;
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-
cede 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 be 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. Rouher 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,
1 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 above all things neces-
sary is the irreepocsibility 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 Sae,
de Villele, de Martignac, Royer-Collard, Casimir-Perier, de
Broglie, and Guizot, a man can have but one desire, viz., 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 discueeion tannot be avoided.
When people have sought for 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 sotne 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 make use ef Mich language
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. Tho same change was everywhere effected,
but at different dates. 'When the people ia 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 P We cannot shed the blood
of our soldiers to everywhere establish liberty, and then hear
,he 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. THIERS —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 aro
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 dignity
as any one, but knows how to yield it at a proper time, and
tb.e 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 b EDgland, whereas the former eave it
•

to the whole world• The ground is covered with the re-
mains of the Governments which have been overthrown.
They are called the representatives of ancient parties. I
am ono of them, and I ask permission to tear away the veil.
The 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 R 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 duo to nobly supported trials, and the affec-
tion due to those with whom I have passed the most bril-
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 éclat of power when they are
in exile. (Hear.) There is a last thing which I call Heaven
to witness they never have required, and never will ask of
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. But, 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. ROLTHER, 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. Thiere. Long years since, in
the year 18-17, 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-
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.
the declaration of principles I accept in its
fullest extent. National sovereignty, order, and
liberty have been our principles, nut 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?
I 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. Lestly:came 1852, when order was restored, and
liberty, as you say, postponed. Is that your opinion of the
constitution which saved the country from anarchy ? The
print.; 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 theca. It there-
fore was not a mute body. From 1852 to 1850 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 aro 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 ma
tained three elementsj; 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 pre 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 ? Such 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's attempt? Ido 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. GLAts-Bizo TN—You are talking as if we were in 1814.
M. Rot ILEIL—What is the liberty of the prose ? Where
is reciprocity for the country ? Is it not a monopolised means
of aggression ?—a liberty without a counterpoise, which die-

turbs all the other lilserties 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 guardianf4hip in the interest of all
and of the Constitution. I now pass to another order
of ideas, for the speech of the honourable M. Thiess
seeniS tta enibrace the *hole address. I will only touch
briefly on the different points, tdt sash of the questions will
soon recur, perhaps witb 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? Cast it be td paralyse the mission Confided to you
by the totntry ? (Approbation) My explanations Ott this
point shall be concise and frank. We have great respect
for universal suffrage; it Saved France by electing the Pre-
sident of the Tier's:bile, by atterwards giving him a teas
years' term of office, and by voting the empire. We shall
therefore always regard it as a foundation of the Lnpertat
edifice. But should the Government remain indifferent
with regard to the election of deputies? What! 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 : You 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 reeking this ques-
tion the subject of a special debate; we will then more
closely examine the principles and the conduct of the
G ,sernment 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 F 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 timo which
ought to have been devoted to public business. (Cries of
"That is true !") The Legislative Body has all the attri-
butes necssary for the public good, and can make its con-
victions triumph without the right of interpellation. I 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. Thiess 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. 'Ehlers, " 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 Colmoil of State re-