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

The French Legislative Assembly,

The Legislative Body sat on Tuesday, Duke de Morny
in the chair.

M. Rouher, Minister of State ; M. Ronland, Minister
presiding over the Council of State ; and the other Govern-

went Commissioners were present.
The orders of the day was the discussion on the Address.
M. THIERS—On a recent occasion I said that I should.
ask your permission to speak onithe internal politics of the
country, and that I intended to avail myself of that oppor-

tunity to give some personal explanations on the motives
which induced me to enter this Chamber. I know that
great assemblies have more important business than listen-

ing to what concerns individuals, but I feel it a duty which
I owe to my fellow-citizens, who elected me without asking
for a profession of faith, and towards my colleagues, whose
confidence I should be happy to possess. (Hear, hear.) It
_ _

Is 34 'ears since I first came within these walls, and in
that space of time I have witnessed a rapid succession of

events, men, and opinions. In the midst of this torrent,

which seemed as if it would sweep everything before it, the

social and political principles on which modern society is
based have alone survived. There have been gloomy mo-
ments whether it would ever be restored. At a later period
_ _

liberty seemed to have disappeared, and yet order has been
re-established and liberty is about to revive. You must all

have been struck with the fact that man himself, so small
in the presence of great events, derives all his importance
from understanding great principles and faithfully adher-
ing to them. I have always held three great prin-

ciples as the rule of conduct for every honest states-
roan—national sovereignty, order, and liberty. I
have lived in what is called the school of 1789, which
believes that France has the right to choose her own
government—l think she ought to exercise that sovereignty
very seldom, bat when she has pronounced freely, that de-
cision becomes a law to which individual judgments must

yield. (Approbation.) :After submitting to the legal govern-
ment of our country there are two things which we are en-
titled to demand of it, order and liberty. Without order society
is troubled and industry is paralysed. The rich can sometimes

dispense with working, but society is a labourer condemned
to toil for the daily bread of his children. (Hear, hear.)

When order and occupation are wanting, society inclines to

despotism. When liberty is absent, society suffers as mueh,
but in a different way, and tends to revolution. Sach are
the principles which have constantly directed my political
life. When the Republic was proclaimed I adhered to it,
though it was not the government I preferred, and I added

my efforts to those of the courageous men who defended
order in the Assembly, Order was preserved ; France re-
turned to the monarchical principle, and I again submitted

out of respect for the principle of national sovereignty, but
I remained in retirement, and devoted my leisure to writing
with sincerity the history of my country.. (Hear, hear.) I

should have passed the rest of my life in that work without
regret, had not the decrees of November, 1861, and February,
1862, changed the situation. Till then you were here to
discuss, with but little power to amend, the bills proposed
by the Counoil of State. (Denials.) You voted the budget
by ministries, and the supplementary credits could not be
known to you till it was too late to exercise any serious con-
troi. The decrees above mentioned entirely changed this
state of things, and though they do not confer all the liber-
ties we might wish, they are an earnest of further conces-
sions, and I am grateful to the Emperor for them. (Appro-
bation) As it thus became possible to freely discuss the
affairs of the country, I considered that abstention was no
longer wise or dignified, or patriotic. I advised my friends
to take the oath to the empire, but I confess that I myself
felt some reluctance to leave my retirement. But it is a bad
practice to give advice to others which you will not follow
yourself ; and the reflection that no one could accuse me of
personal ambition decided me again to enter on political life.
My only ambition is to bring to this Assembly the tribute
of my experience, to discuss the affairs of the country with
a view only to the public weal, so that the closing years of
my life may not be altogether useless to my fellow-citizens.

( Loud cheering.)
The PRESIDENT—M. Thiers, will you have the kindness
to turn yourself so as to be heard in all parts of the
Chamber ? home members complain that they cannot
hear you.

THIERS—Fnm an old habit of speaking from the
tribune, I am always tempted to face the assembly.
The PRESIDENT—I spoke solely in the interest of those
who do not hear you distinctly.
1L THIERS—After these explanations, which I would
fain have made shorter, I come to the business in hand, and
shall limit my observations to our internal policy, which
ought to be the development of our institutions in the sense
of a well ordered liberty. First, then, let me state what is
our precise political situation; we have long lived under
constitutions which, when once made, were declared to be
unchangeable. We have now a constitution admitting of
such improvements as time, a wiser innovator than man,
may show to be advisable. The constitution says that when
a change shall be recognised as beneficial, the Emperor
shall take the initiative, and the Senate give its sanction.
Several modifications have already ben made in confor-
mity with this principle. The right of discussing the Ad-
dress has been granted to the Legislative Body, which can
thus make known the wishes of the country. Wo have
lately beard much of liberty; but are wishes serious which
have been expressed on that subject. That point must be
examined ; we must ascertain how far it would be wise to
satisfy those aspirations, and to what extent the present
constitution, allows them to be realised. Those questions,
gentlemen, are grave and delicate, but be assured that I
Waal! respect all that ought to be respected, and that your
confidence, in facilitating my task, wall render it less peril-
ous and more useful. (Marks of adhesion.) History shows
that France may sometime dispense with liberty, but only
to afterwards return to it with almost irresistible force.
At one time she was naturally forgetful of 11,:e. liberties ;
that was in 1800, after the terrible trials of the
revolution. France had before her a wonderful
man, who held everything in his own hand, and at one

moment she appeared to have lost all thought of anything
else. When, however, she saw one part of her armies
precipitated into the burning gulf of Spain, and
the other among the icy wastes of Russia, she began
to reflect deeply and sadly, and regarded those liberties
which she had too readily abandoned. On the 31st Dec.,

1813, she called on the Emperor for peace, but her voice was
not listened to. Some months after, the victorious enemy
entered Paris, and France fell bleeding at the feet of the
Bourbons. What did she demand for them? Peace, and
with it the liberty of which she then felt all the value. The
Bourbons again disappeared, and Napoleon returned, and
from him peace and liberty was demanded. The former

he could no longer give, but the latter he granted fully and
in good faith. Examples have been frequently borrowed
from Napoleon when victorious and dazzled by success. I
must be allowed to borrow one from him, when matured by
misfortune. (Approbation.) Liberty at that period could
not be tried under favourable circumstances. Waterloo
removed all idea of it, and an immense reaction commenced
in Europe against all the ideas of the Revolution. We were
then young ; we sometimes endeavoured to murmur the
word liberty, and the answer given was to point to the
blood-stained scaffold of Louis XVI. Our reason was not,
however, convinced, and we persisted in calling for liberty,
In 1825, 1826, and 1327 we were near attaining our object.
We approached those obscure and perilous limits where the
prerogatives of the Sovereign found themselves in presence
of those of the country. Twice, under different forms, did
that great question agitate the country, and two thrones
fell. If I may be allowed to make a comparison I would
say that the fatal question was for us what the Stormy Cape
was for the navigators of the 15th century, who trembled
on approaching it. John of Portugal, wishing to dissipate
those -vain terrors, changed the name of that formidable
cape to that of Good Hope, and it was then happily doubled.
God grant that our Stormy Cape may also change its name
with equally good results (Loud approbation.) I shall
not speak of our hours of agitation since 1848. We have
passed through the Republic to come to the empire. The
idea of liberty again disappeared ; an immense military re-
action; prevailed over Europe. Princes were assembled in
Paris, in the persons of their representatives, to regulate
the consequences cf the glorious peace of the Crimea,
and for the first time liberty had a Congress .for
tribune and a diplomatist for speaker. That is what I call
liberty of national representation. Public opinion, when it
is once well known,becomes a guide for the acts of the Go-
vernment. (Murmurs and approbation.) In order to orga-
nize in the State that condition of liberty two mean, have-
been imagined—the Republic and Monarchy. In the former
the chief of the State is changed every four or six years,
and is responsible. The partisans of Monarchy also wished
t 3 reconcile with that form of government the condition of
liberty, and they imagined the plan of making the weight
of public opinion bear, not on the chief of the State, but on
those who bold authority under him. It is between the
latter and those elected by public opinion that the discus.
sion takes place. The sovereign does not change, but the
ministers may be subjected to the fluctuations of opinion,
and we have thus a country which under a monarch placed
beyond the reach of our discussions, governs by himself,
according to his own ideas. (Noise.) There are five con-
ditions of liberty which I call necessary, incontestable, and
indispensable ; which of them do ye possess ? Which re-
main to be achieved ? Which ought we to have ? Those
are questions that lam anxious to treat on. Individual
liberty we have with one exception—the law of general
safety. That law, it is true, only bears on one class of
citizens, but when one citizen is affected, all are threatened.
That law moreover applies to circumstances which happily
no longer exist. (Noise and interruption,)
A VOICE—They have just been renewed.
M. TRIERS—I have too much respect for the Assembly
to accuse it for any of its acts, but that law no one can
think of renewing, and the Government itself has no such
idea. The only question is whether it should be allowed to
die a natural death in 1865, or cease to exist before that
time. That must be left to the Government to decide on.
I pass on to the second of these liberties I have called
necessary ; I mean the liberty of the press. Gentlemen, if
any man in France has suffered the inconvenience of that
liberty, it is I. An illustrious statesman with whom I for
a long time discussed and transacted the affairs of the
ccuntry, M. Guizot, felt them as much as myself, but I am
sure ho would confirm me when I say that the liberty of
the press is necessary. (Noise.) I can:understand, with-
out approving, the principle of withholding such liberty.
More than 20 years ago, when I turned my eyes to Austria,