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

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

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

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

true state of his affairs. Such was Austrian liberty 25
years ago, but I ask if there is at the present day any people

, .
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 Is 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-

on earth who would be content with it P Speaking one day
on this subject with the late Prince de Isletternich, 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

Eon 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

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

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

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 moder-
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 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 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 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-

...
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 f (Interruption.)
M. E. PELLETAN—The Government journals are calum-
niators. (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-
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 more so because it must be unceasingly occupied with
our affairs both at home and abroad ; it is always in the
spot whilst you aro here only during a p-,rtion 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

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. Bnt, 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. Rouaran, 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-
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.

Thiess 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, 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 ?
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. Lastly: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
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 necessaryconiitions for it are wanting. These
conditions he states to be individual liberty, liberty of the
press, electoral liberty, parliamentary libel ty, 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 elementsl; 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 ? 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? 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 ajournal 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. GLArs-Bmous—You are talking as if we were in 1814.
M. RovHEß—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 will
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 ! 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 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 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. 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-

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 batter 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,
j 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 irresponsibility of the Sovereign. I am well
aware that people will say to me, "Ah I we know you well
—you want to have back that wretched Perliamentary 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-
eians I lam not very partial to the expression; but
when it is applied to such men as Gen. Foy, MM. de SCA'3,
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 1 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 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 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 make 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 bne 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
fjllow 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 journdls 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 then we, but that is a mistake, for Eng-
land is an exceedingly passionate nation. The d;fference
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 Frenoh
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 objection 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 bs allowed to draw a comparison between the policy of
the Government of July and that of the Emperor. The
former occupied Ancona to quickly withdraw from it, the
latter emancipated Italy. The former had an Embassy at
St. Petersburg, but with none of the privileges 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 agitation 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 you demand,bat 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 I
PRESIDENT—It is M. 011ivier's turn to speak, DUE I
suppose he will give way.
Mr. E. OLLeveEet signified his assent.
M. JuLES FAVRE—I ask indulgence of the Chamber for
a few moments. I wish, for your instruction, to draw a
comparison between the two speeches you have heard. If
these two speeches are opposed to each other, and if it is of
interest to know in what way they differ, it is well to re-
mark that they agree on one 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 does 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 guided 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.) They 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—has bestowed 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 to be 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 :aw 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 cur 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; hero he has called
the press Satanic, and destructive of all government. I
wish also to preserve a neutrality for the present on certain
subjects debated by M. niers and the Minister, and only
observe that if Governments in France have fallen in sue-
th eJuly
Government fell, but by
suc-
cession, it has been under the weight of their own faults,
and when I heard the Minister of State include in the num-
ber July, I said to myself that he was
for it was not by any ex-
aggeration
arguing t
against Government
e
o fliberty D
w that
its fearing to confront it. (Much applause.)
A VOICE—And the Republic
his f
own
thesis;
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 the 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
speeches, but which you mutilate in your acts. Well then
this right will one day be turned against yourselves.
The discussion was then adjourned, and the proceedings
terminated.

THE STREET TRAFFIC OF LONDON.—Various
expedients have been proposed for relieving the
pressure of the street traffic 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 obvious from a mere statement
of the facts of the case. On every business day in London
upwards of 700,000 persons enter the city by its various ap-
proaches, and leave it again in the evening for their homes,
at the West-end, in the suburbs, or in the country. 700,000
persons 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-
sonsby the officers of the city police, in
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
the month of May, 1860, that an average of 535,000 proceeded
3
on foot, and 171,000 in vehicles, making a total of 706,000
persons. The number of vehicles ascertained at the same
time toe enter the city every
24 hours' '
was 59,765; which,
if drawn up close in line would occupy
miles, reaching from London to York and extending more
than 50 miles beyond the latter pl ' The closeness with
which the vehicles follow each other -thaecrein the streets may be
inferred from the fact that betweenco 10 and 11 a.m. on Wed-
nesday, Nov.
.. 19, 1862, it was ascertained that the total
number
.passing Bow Church, a length of about 260
in both directions, was 1,255
—of which 348 were omnibuses, 584 cabs, and 282 carts,
The numbers and proportions of vehicles passing
rdrays, vans, and waggons besides 41 trucks and barrows.
vate chronic complaints but
place between 4 and 5 pmon
the same day were ascertained
to be as nearly as possible. the same.—Railway News.
pure blood, refreshing slee
ADVERTISEMENT.] Avoid medicines; they always aggra-
vate same
food, which saves fifty times
Restoring Revalenta Ara' bin
its cost in other remedies invariably cures them, restoring
sound lungs, healthy liver,
perfect digestion, stroll, nerves,
Du Barry's Delicious 'Health
years, debility,
di
ilagteusitie
no
y,
,c esnpsatsainn ts
,s lee pi s functionaln
to the most disordered or enfeebled. We extract a few out
agitation, and dreadfullyclow
of 60,000 Cures :—Cure .I\4`o
Stuart de Decies, Lord dreadfully
Y, with a nervous 58,216 of the Marchioness de
Brehan, Paris, of a liver con; Plaint'
s vgarsetgi:glaraiNtvy:yanfodresneevregny
to palpitation all over, bad
the most intolerable nervous
diseased lungs dyspepsia.—No. 40 83, „Firty years' indescribable ac_•o ny
Lieut. opo it r
‘i
vt eadt .e—r iCo
ru
dr
,e
ofiN o
m. 1 fn7yl . y
sates
from dyspepsia, asthma, cough, constipation,.
nervousness, ss
e 'and vomiting—Maria Jolly.
Roberts, of Frimley, burrey, of
—Cure No. 46,270. Mr. sickness,Jame
thirty years' spitting of blood, liver d, e.range .
Campbell, Pakenham N'o.rfelic'
ment,,and partial deafness.—Cure' No. 47,421. Miss E.lizabeth
indigestion, gatheriugs, low
Jacobs, of extreme nervousness,
40s.—Parry Du Barry' and. Co. core No. 54,b16. The Rev. Jas,
spirits, and nervous fancies .—Cure
T. Cam
torpi-
dity or the liver which h d resists i all medical treatment',
In tins,l lb., 15.,9d. • 21b had
6d ; nib., I is. ' 121 b., 225. ; :41b
" of indigestion and
also Fortnum and Mason; and" ail Grocers and ClierniAts in
• , every towu of the United Kingdom.
No. 77, Regent-street, London;

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

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

The discussion on the Budget has been opened by
M. 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 formidable logical apparatus—having
forged with his own hand, and in the presence of
his audience, the weapons which ho 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. Then- 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

There are three salient points which strike at once
even the casual observer as crying evils under
existing circumstances—these are—the absence of
any superintending head in the shape of a chap ain-
general ; the want of any specific official definition
of the duties of individual chaplains—and the too
frequent combination of the offices of chaplain and
naval instructor, to the serious detriment and secu-
larisation of the former. The office of Chapain-
General of the Navy is no new one. So far back
as the year 1812 it was distinctly provided for in
the Regulations of the Navy, and has, in fact,
fallen into disuse only at a comparatively recent
date. At the time to which we refer no war-
rant was granted for the appointment of any
naval chaplain unless recommended by the two
Archbishops and the Bishop of London (through
the Chaplain-General) as in every way properly
qualified. In the absence of such an authority there
is literally no one (for the Senior Chaplain of Green
wich Hospital is for this purpose entirely useless)
to whom the naval chaplain can apply, however
young he may be in his profession, for counsel and
advice under all circumstances, or for encourage-
ment and assistance in the doubts and difficulties
which surround the performance of what ought to be
a very arduous duty. The army has already such
an official to superintend the operations of a com-
paratively limited number of subordinates. Of the
one hundred and fifty-one chaplains at present on
the Navy Lio but seven are permanently retired,
twenty-three hold Admiralty livings or shore ap-
pointments connected with the navy, and the re-
mainder only are actively employed. Surely we
shall hardly be guilty much longer of the "penny
' wise, pound foolish" economy of refusing to utilise
and systematise the efforts of a body of paid officials
for want of a suitable directing head. Again, with
respect to the nature and extent of a chaplain's
duties. These are supposed to be defined in the
" Naval Instructions ;" but will any sailor for a
moment maintain that they are either intelligible in
themselves or invariably carried out in practice ?
Is it not notorious that cases have occurred where,
for three years, Divine service has not been once
performed on board a ship upon a foreign station ?
Does not every zealous chaplain complain that little
or no opportunity is given to him of meeting his pro
tempore parishioners in a quiet way, or of inculcat-
ing those sacred truth which he is bound by his
ordination vows to teach always and everywhere ?
As matters stand at present, the chaplain's cabin is
so situated as to be neither approachable by the men
nor suitable for the purposes of study and retire-
ment. In the sick weal, and in the sick ward alone,
according to the Regulations of the Navy, can he visit
in any sense that is worthy of the name, although the
relaxation of the strict letter of the law by intelli-
gent commanding officers has been attended with the
happiest effect. Lastly, out of the one hundred and
20 old naval chaplains afloat, 56 are qualified, and
mostly employed, as naval instructors, an office
which, except in very small ships, it is utterly im-
possible they can properly discharge, and which
should be filled by a paid schoolmaster. The pay
of a chaplain, varying: from £lB2 to £292 per
annum, would in itself attract earnest men into the
navy, without the additional stipend of from £9O
to £l5O payable to a naval instructor, were the
service placed upon a proper footing, with definite
duties, and under the superintendence of a known
and responsible head. In some instances it may
be impossible to separate the two offices. But such
cases should be emphatically the exception, and
not the rule, if the interests of the service are to
count for anything in the balance. As we have
said before, there is no indisposition in the navy
itself to the desired reform. Out of 10 witnesses
examined before the committee, no less than seven
were in favour of the appointment of a chaplain-
general if 4,‘ an officer who had been a good chap-
lain in the navy were appointed, one who could
find good chaplains, and explain to them the na-
ture of their duties, provided all communications
to the chaplain-general should pass through the
captain as at present." As it is, any influence
winch may have been acquired during a cruise is
speedily neutralised when the ship arrives at
Portsmouth, to pay off in close contiguity to a sea-
port town which numbers among its population
4,000 of the lowest prostitutes. Every obstacle is
thrown in the way of the chaplain acquiring any
real control over his flock, and the result is shown
in the disbursement of £B,OOO a year payable for
the accommodation of patients in Hasler Hospital,
admitted on this ground alone, and constituting
35 per cent. of the total number of admissions. We
say nothing, in this calculation, of the large addi-
tional subsidies paid by the Admiralty to the local
lock hospitals, a sum which, from the deficiency of
regulations for its administration, is at present
prat ically thrown into the sea. The naval
barracks which arc now in course of construc-
tion at our various seaports are equally in
need of the agency to which we have re-
ferred with our sea-going vessels, and would
benefit in at least an equal degree from its employ-
ment. In short, the case is one in which the argu-
ments are virtually all on one side, and in which
what opposition there is is only the old story of
official unwillingness to disturb the present order of
affairs. The subject is one which will undoubtedly
be fully discussed early in the present session, and
which deserves a far larger share of the attention
of the Legislature than has hitherto been bestowed
upon it. The more it is ventilated, the more, we
are persuaded, will the necessity of some change
being made in the direction which we have indi-
cated become apparent to all.

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 modern 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
Cuambers. 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 feud 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,
moreover, 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, he 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 thesethings, M. 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 tight 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 ho rendered the
public essential services. He further justifies him-
self by reference to the concessions in a liberal direc-
tion made by the Emperor, by the advice which he
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
he has filled, he cannot be for a moment accused of
any personal or selfish object. Tne speech of which
wo have jest given an outline hes been prepared
with much care, and, if a little more senile and dif-

fuse than the former efforts of M. Thiers, 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 in 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 18M
—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 mail 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 durably 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 atterttpts 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 niellia tempera 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 gui-
dance and council, or how rarely, under present cir•
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.

American Presidential Candidates.

(How the New York Iribunc)

There is such a thing as running men for the Pre-
sidency, and there may be such a thing as running
them into the ground. We have an illustration of
these two facts in the course of a leading sensation
journal of this city. Whoever will take the trouble
to turn over its files for the last three months will
find that it has enforced the claims of half a dozen
candidates for Presidential honours with equal zeal
and sincerity, while distributing the damaging
effects of its advocacy among its several favourites
with an impartial hand. When we remember that
during the last three or four Presidential campaigns
it has supported the candidates who were defeated,
and that the stunning blows they received at the
polls were in exact ratio with the warmth of its
advocacy, it must be conceded that its modesty in
suggesting a successful name for the coming contest
is as conspicuous as was its wisdom in selecting
those of the past. Its embrace having always been
sure destruction to the unfortunate candidate upon
whom it forced its favours, one would think any
soldier or civiliau who might venture to aspire to
the Presidential chair would, the moment it prof- '
fered him its aid, cry out, in the words of the
Spanish proverb, " Deliver me from my friends, and
I will take care of my enemies."
The journal in question has, with the last few
months, alternately, not to say simultaneously, be-
stowed its laudatory commendations upon General
Banks, General Rosecranz, Gen. Blair, Governor
Seward, and Governor Chase, as suitable and hope-
ful candidates for the Whi to House. The favourites
upon wham it has longest and oftenest poured
the fulsome beslummerings are General M'Clellan
and Mr. Lincoln. Now, the ex•commander of the
army of the Potomac was the hero designed by Pro-
vidence to conciliate the insurgents, explode the plots
of the Radicals, crush the aspirations of the irre-
pressible negro, and bring order out of chaos by re-
storing the Union and reviving the good old times
when Davis and Seward hobnobbed in the Senate,
and Grow and Keitt exchanged salutations in the
House. Then, scanning the dark and troubled clouds
that lowered over the country, " Honest Old Abe,"
slow and sure, cautious and conservative, was the
only man to be dreamed of for steering the ship of
state through the breakers and reaching peace and
prosperity by the shortest cut—" the pilot for wea-
thering the storm." Whoever will run over the
columns of our versatile neighbours during the times
of which we write—and he need not go back many
weeks—will, perhaps, at the first perusal, be a little
confused at the " promiscuous and worrysome way,"
to quote the words of Sarah Gamp, in which the
names are mixed up—as, for instance, Banks and
Blair, Rosencranz and Banks, Chase and Seward,
Seward and Chase, M'Clellan and Lincoln Lincoln
and M'Clellan, and so on. But to ring the changes
on candidates in this way is not as difficult as one
would suppose. As Hamlet says, "itis as easy as
lying."

Having boxed the compass with its old favourites
and run their names up and down the scale till
they grate upon the ears of its readers, this viva-
cious journal now seeks a new sensation in the per-
son of General Grant. The furore with which it lays
hold of its fresh victim indicates that its passion will
not last long; though perhaps it will be protracted
enough to kill off the man who could storm Fort
Dmelson, vanquish Sidney Johnson at Shiloh, cir-
cumvent Pemberton at Vicksburg, and pass un-
scathed through the tempest of shot and shell at
Chattanooga. We have the highest appreciation of
the services of General Grant. We believe there
can be scarcely any limit set to his powers of en-