The Sun.
London, England, 1831-12-22 00:00:00

should we take from all the emulation of this noble

object—an emulation generous and useful ? What-
ever services a citizen may have rendered the State,
however illustrious his talent or family might be,
he could not represent with you whatever the na-
tion has of eminence, if he has not solicited or ob-
tained of power, or of tliie electors, and exercised for
a certain length of time, one of the titles or offices
containel in the categories? Even the Lieutenant-
General whom may have gained a battle, cannot,
before he has held his rank three years, find in the
Peerage the recompense of a great service, if before
that time another has not been decreed him by a
special law, or unless he has been elevated to the
dignity of a Marshal of France.
But the majority of your Committee has consi-
dered that these inconveniences, however grave
they might be, could not balance the advantages
and guarantees which resulted from the limits which
the project set to the choice of the Crown. It has
thought, that, deprived of its hereditary right (the
Principal element of its independence), the Cham-
ber of Peers required others beyond the Royal no-
mination. The limits set to this nomination by the
Project are less a guarantee against the Crown than
a guarantee for the Peerage itself—than a sanc-
tion of opinion—a sanction so much the more
necessary as that of time and duration are taken
away. This limitation is no more an act of
distrust towards the Crown, than the condi-
tion imposed by the laws on the nomination of
officers in the army, of which, however, the Charter
proclaims the King the supreme chief. These
categories, are, besides, so extensive, that there is
not a real situation of eminence not comprehended
in them, by the functions to which such person
may be called by the choice of the communal or de-
partmental electors, by that of the institute, if he
owes his elevation to letters or the sciences, or by
his fortune if he contributes to the amount of
3,000 francs in direct taxes to the charges of the
State. Whatever his personal dignity or that of his
family might be, a citizen who does not belong to
any of these classes, and who has not a revenue suf-
ficient to support the rank of a member of this
Chamber, and to perform its functions, could not,
with any degree of utility, have u seat in it.
If these motives have induced your Committee to
adopt the categories, it has found no reason for the
restriction in the paragraph relative to the citizens
paying 3,000 francs in direct taxes, and by which
means the possessor of property, whatever his fortune
may be, is excluded from the candidature of the
Peerage, unless he has been elected a judge of a
tribunal of commerce, or unless he has sat six years
in a general council. It is, perhaps, to be regretted,
that the sum of 5,000 francs was not fixed on, as it
had been at first adopted by the Committee of the
other Chamber. We were tempted to propose to
you the sum as it originally stood, but we reflected
that it would still more restrict the circle already too
limited in the estimation of several among us of the
candidatures imposed on the Crown. We also con-
sidered that 3,000 francs paid in taxes represent, in
a great part of France, considerable property in
capital, if not in revenue ; and that the number of
persons possessing property in this class did not
amount, perhaps, to 3,000 in all France, exclusively
of those who do riot unite the other capitalists : it
is, besides, six-fold the guarantee of fortune required
by the law for admission to the popular represen-
tation.

At whatever amount you may fix the sum, it has
appeared to us, that the possession of property car-
ried with it sufficient guarantees ; that it had by its
own nature sufficient rights, and represented suffi-
cient interests for nothing more to be demanded of
it. 'We should much rather have understood a eel-

taro rate of property being demanded of the func-
tionary, than the promotion to certain functions,
which sometimes proves rather favour than capacity
being required of the possessor of property. We
should have understood it especially of functionaries
removable at pleasure, who may lose, the moment
of their entrance into this Chamber, the functions
which have opened its door to them, and with those
functions the titles which have procured them an
honour, refased to the quality of being irremovable,
which is inherent in the possession of property.
Like the charter of 1814, the article proposed
fixes no limit to the number of the members of this
Chamber. Many of the members of your Com-
mittee have thought that the hereditary right des-
troyed, it would be impossible to leave to the Crown
the right of augmenting unlimitedly the number of
Peers, and of destroying the institution by the abuse
of the power left it. This right has existed, say
they, it is true, these 16 years ; and whatever use
may have been made of it, it may be said that the
number to which the Chamber may without incon-
venience have been increased has not been surpassed;
but the hereditary right was then to serve as a coun-
terpoise. If this counterpoise could not be brought
to act against abusive nomina'ions, the Chamber
would soon cease to be a power. It would be but
a Committee—a fearful danger when we consider
what judicial powers the charter has conferred on
the Peerage. Undoubtedly there would be great
n convenience attached to the limitation, if the num-
ber were so restricted that it might be easily com-
pleted ; but in fixing it, for instance, at the number
of the Chamber of Deputies, double the number of
the present Peerage,what difficulties are tobe feared ?
The majority of your Committee has been more
struck with the dangers of this grave innovation
than with those of the present disposition of the
Charter.
This disposition has been in one grave circum-
stance carried so far that it cannot in future be car-
ried further. The abuse was so great that it brought
with it its own corrective. In great part to the no-
mination of the 76 Peers are we indebted for the

triumph of the constitutional principles in the me-
morable election of 1827, a triumph which shows
what the true remedy for the danger is, and which
proves that the danger is not real. On the contrary,
an immense danger would result from the adoption
of the limitation. The number being once com-
pleted, where would be the means of defence against
the pretensions of the Peerage ? The foresight of
the Chamber has preserved the equilibrium of the
three powers by the reciprocity of the means of
action and resistance which it has given each of
them. The Chamber of Deputies holds in its hands
the taxes, and thus resists the pretensions of the
Crown. The Government answers by an appeal to
the country, to the encroachment of the elective
Chamber ; a hostile majority is destroyed in the
other Chamber by a nomination of Peers. But if
the limited number be attained, what resource has
the throne or the country against this majority, how-
ever factious it may be ? The Chamber of Depu-
ties and the King must receive the law from the
Peers, or the law must be violated. The alterna-
tive allows of no hesitation. We propose, then,
to declare the number to be unlimited. The para-
graph declaring that the conditions of admissibility
may be modified by a law may have the greatest
consequences.
There is in the legislation of nations a supreme
law,—that of the common safety and necessity.
The law which should condemn society to perish
would not be a law, but the overthrow of the law.
That of social preservation can alone be immutable
—not in prescriptions and its application, but in its
principle, which is that of natural defence applied to
States, a principle which governs all for States as for
individuals.
The law ought, then, always to have in itself the
means of satisfying the wants of the country. The
law unites all—subjects and powers, king and nation,
all except herself are subject to her: she cannot ab-
dicate her power.
Vainly, indeed, would the present desire to legis—
late for the future. What power does it possess to
do so ? The disposition of the law which would en-
chain the future, would then be null and vain. Be-
sides which, it would be most inconvenient to en-
deavour to restrain a right which cannot be limited ;
it would be to attack a fundamental principle,
which it is important to preserve. But the majority
of your commission have thought that this right and
this privilege were so incontestable that they could

not but propose in consequence to you to maintain it.
Here, gentlemen, finishes the task of your commis-
sion. Your duty now commences. We were de-
sirous of rendering it easy to you, in offering you a
result less incomplete of our united efforts. We
are sure, at least, that we have in this our first ex-
amination brought to the subject that spirit of con-
ciliation and of disinterestedness which will also pre-
side over your deliberations. If our opinions have
been divided, our wishes have been unanimous, as
will also be yours, in order that those grave and so-
lemn debates may be the last of these discussions
which have interested so many parties, and called into
action so many passions.
Never was this union of honourable sentiments
more necessary or more commanded. If the duty
of citizens is to contribute in the sphere of their
actions to aid the Government in the mission of
which it is always so difficult to fulfil, this duty is
more than ever imperious after one of those great
political commotions which has overthrown thrones,
which has reversed the social edifice, and which
will leave even the soil for a long time shaken. It
is not, then, too much—it is not, unhappily, always
enough—that the friends of order should aid the
Government in re-establishing society, and in as-
suring to it the force it will so much need, and fair
which it must look exclusively to honest and upright
men. This confidence the Government has, above
all, a right to expect from that Parliamentary power
on the states which has received more especially the
mission of preserving and defending, of sustaining
and consolidating, society and the laws. You will
then, gentlemen, fail thus to fulfil your mission of
reconciliat'on and stability. The nation has a desire
to see terminated these contests without object be-
tween the past and the present—contests already too
much prolonged, and which compromise the security
of the present and the firure. The country re-
quires to put an end to these afflicting divisions
which occupy party feelings and passions, and which
permit the enemies of order and of property to
attempt the most criminal measures, happily re-
pressed; but which can only be prevented from re-
turning by the union of all good citizens.
'Whatever may be your determination, gentlemen,
inspired by these sentiments, we are sure that de-
liberation will carry conviction into every mind : we
doubt not the conviction which will dictate the de-
termination, viz., that of an important duty having
been fulfilled.