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

M. de Persigny's Speech.

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

Duke de Persigny, who is one of the most faithful
friends and one of the firmest supporters of the
empire, considers that the people of France may be
very happy in their own country,and very proud of
being Frenchmen, without adopting the parliamen.
tarp as in and without having responsible ministers
regime England, or having a restricted electoral suf•
frage as in that country. We are of opinion, and do
not cease to repeat that the notion of making liberty
subordinate to determined forms is not a philoso-
phic idea. Our masters in that doctrine are Mira.
beau and Benjamin Constant. To think thus is to
think wisely, and, moreover, is to employ a lan-
guage very encouraging to all patriots. The day on
which there shall be no longer in France any other
party than that in favour of liberty, liberty will be
obtained, and the Government will be sure to live.
We also admit with the ex-Minister of the Interior
that, among those men who attack the Government

under the pretest of demanding liberty, a great
number do so from animosity towards the Govern-
ment. On that point no one is deceived ; their in-
tentions may be detected through their doubtful
attitude—they even pierce through the most solemn
declarations, and from beneath the most sacred

formulae. Revolutions have, indeed, greatly ener.
vated the nation; with respect to civic courage and
freedom of opinion Frenchmen are rapidly declining.
Duke de Persigny says so in his speech, and be is
right. He is, however, wrong when he draws from
that state of things the conclusion that certain in-
dispensable libprties should beadjourned. To remedy
the evil those libertieß should, on the contrary, be
accorded as early as possible. Perhaps, in restoring
to certain people the liberty of saying what
they think, they would be cured of the
ugly fault of saying what they do not think.

A nation is never elevated by an excess of authority,
but by the exercise of liberty it is restored and puri.
fled. Liberty is healthgiving. If the liberty which
is inherent in the Napoleonic idea, so well under.

stood and so well defined by Duke do Persigny, is
of a better quality than that of the Government
of July or the Republican liberty of 1848, that is
reason for not holding it back any longer. It must
be applied to us quickly as the infallible remedy for
all our weakness. This is the reason why, after
having adhered to the premises of the speech at St.
Etienne, we are led to reject the conclusions, and
substitute for them others entirely contrary.
(From the Temps.)
The duke, in his new parallel bet Weer, France and
England, has gone back beyowl the origin of the
Hanoverian dynasty, At 'which he has np to the pree
sent time liked to stop. He went as far back as the
Conquest, and he appears to think that the Anglo-
Saxon race is still at present subjected to the yoke
of the Norman conquerors, the only depositaries of
English authority and liberty. We exaggerate
nothing :—" There we see, scattered over the surface

of the country, a whole electoral body, a whole poli-
tical class who, as the traditional inheritors of the
Conquest, have held all the means ofliniluence ever

since William the Conqueror, administer the coun-
ties, dispense justice, levy taxes, maintain public
order, and, in short, enjoy all the principal at•
tributes which belong in France to the adminis.
trative hierarchy." That view is erroneous.
Long since the mixture of races, not less than
the reciprocal penetration of institutions, is a
fait accompli in England. Among the most
illustrious houses, there are very few which date
back to the Conquest, and the immense majority of
the English electoral body has nothing, absolutely
nothing, to do with William the Conqueror. What

is exact in the Duke de Persigny's parallel is that
universal suffrage exists in France and does not in
England. What is false is the consequences which
he draws from that fact. "In England the prin-
ciples of authority and liberty cannot be in conflict,
and are not sacrificed one to the other; for liberty
is in the hands of those who directly exercise autho-
rity in all things." The Duke de Persigny appears,
therefore, to think that the electors alonP, are free
in England. That is a grave error, and everyone
well knows that, cithout speaking of the right of
meeting and other rights from which no one is ex-
cluded, individual liberty is guaranteed in England
to every one, and consequently to thAs. nun-electors
as in France to the electors. But how is it that the
duke has not seen that his principle turns against
his thesis ? Let ua admit that liberty is in England
the monopoly of the governing classes; the conse-
quence is that in France, where there ars no classes,
liberty—and be it understood, English liberty,
for there is no other—ought to be the appanage of
everyone, and that universal suffrage has nothing to
do with that " skilfully-devised hierarchy, Which
protects all interests and presides over all the ope.
rations of life." In a despotic State one man alone