The Sun.
London, England, 1848-09-15 00:00:00

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.

We have received the Paris papers of yesterday.
The speech of M. TRIERS on the right of labour
is the great event of the day, on which all the papers
comment, and they all without exception, friends as
well as foes, admit that it was one of the most elo-
quent and brilliant rhetorical displays ever offered to
the attention of a deliberative assembly. M. VICTOR
CONSIDERANT, who undertook the defence of So-
cialism against M. TRIERS, demanded permission to
speak for four consecutive days in reply to the speech
of M. TRIERS, which had lasted about half the
number of hours, and was of course refused. The
President, M. MARRAST, reminded M. CONSIDERANT
that the National Assembly was a legislative body,
convoked for the purpose of making laws, and not a
class assembled to listen to the lectures of a peda-
gogue. The following is a summary of M. TRIERS
speech :
M. Thiers said, that he and his friends attached the
greatest importance to the constitution. They had not
desired nor founded the Republic; they accepted it loy-
ally and sincerely. In the eyes of every honest man and
every good citizen a legal government was entitled to
respect. They had neither flattered nor betrayed mo-
narchy; and they should neither flatter nor betray the
Republic. They would tell it the truth. They had never
conspired, and never would conspire. The instrument
with which they wished to effect the happiness of their
country being broken, they would continue the work
under the Republic.. They desired the welfare and
grandeur of France, a national policy, and they would
pursue the realization of those objects in the future as
they had in the past. The question before the Assem-
bly was not a mere question of political economy—it was
a social question. It was not enough to ridicule
the old science; if the Socialists had anything but
dangerous generalities to expound, any secret to
disclose, they would be guilty not to proclaim it from
the tribune. In the name of society in peril, he sum-
moned them to make known their remedies. He had
listened to them with the attention they merited, and
hitherto he had found nothing serious, nothing new, in
their doctrines. Society rested on property, liberty, and
competition. Its principle was labour, without which
man would be the most miserable of beings, and society
itself plunged into misery. God and society told man,
" Work, work, and you will receive the reward of your
labour. The produce of your toil shall be your patri-
mony and that of your children." And man laboured
to the end of his lite supported by that consolatory as-
surance. The prosperity of a country was to be judged
from the more or less respect enjoyed by property. In
the East. where that respect least existed, the soil was
neglected, because it was must exposed to the rapacity
of despotism; it was abandoned to slaves. Trade
alone was there in honour, because capital was more
easily screened from rapacity. Where property was
respected, the land recovered its importance, in-
dustry flourished, usury disappeared, and money was
abundant. By liberty he (M. Thiers) did not mean
political, he meant social liberty, which allowed a man
to choose his profession. The old society told man,
" Labour; if you are skilful you will,become rich; if not,
you will ba poor; labour, at your risks awl ,It
explained to him the laws of contract. Some men suc-
ceeded, because they were more highly gifted than others
or favoured by circumstances, some who were rich be-
came poor, and vice versa. As to competition, M. Thiers
maintained that it was not the people who suffered by it.
The operative had been better paid since the introduc-
tion of machinery; he was no longer a beast of burden,
he was more comfortably clothed, and had benefited in
many other respects by the improvements introduced In
industry. If an inquiry was ordered by the Assembly,
it would be found that he advanced nothing lightly.
The workmen in the vicinity of Paris who earned, in
1814, 24 and 30 sous a day, now gained 40. In many
branches of industry the salaries had doubled and
trebled. On the other hand, the price of the articles of
manufacture indispensable to the working classes
had considerably diminished. Cotton goods were
80 per cent. cheaper, cloth 40 per cent.; and
lodgings alone had increased in the propor-
tion of 90 to 120 ; but it was in conse-
quence of the tendency of the manufacturers to establish
themselves close to the great centres of population. (The
accuracy of these statements was repeatedly contested
lay the Ultra-Republican Members ; and M. Thiers,
amidst the noise occasioned by those interruptions,
having pronounced the word " faction," the greatest con-
fusion arose. and one of the Montagnards called him a
Royalist. When silence was restored, M. Thiers re-
sumed his discourse.) The Hon. Member showed that
the cotton mantifactures of France had increased be-
tween 1835 and 1845, from 35,000,000 kilogrammes to
65,000,000 ; that the 35,000,000 of kilogrammes cost, in
1835, 630,000,000 f., whilst the price of the 65,000,000 in
1845 was only 650,000,000 f. The salary of the work-
men, in the same interval, had augmented from 330 f. to
400 f. M. Thiers then proceeded to examine the doc-
trines of the four Socialist sects. The first, the Com-
munists, said he, denied the right of property,
and, consequently, of liberty. Should their doctrines
prevail, they would create an idle and slavish society.
No man would labour for the community. A patriot
was ready to die, but not to work for the country.
The second system, that of association, was characterised
by M. Thiers as anarchy in industry and monopoly.
He next refern d to the system of M. Proudhon, who
wished to create cheapness, and began by proposing
that a law be passed to effect a reduction of 25 per cent.
in all property. salaries, &c., and his object would then
be attained. Those were the pitiful schemes of which
their authors were so proud and with which they
imagined to reform the world ! The right to labour
was not less absurd. The partisans of that right only
sought to remedy the condition of the operatives in the
towns, who were to the country operatives as 1 to 36.
When the workmen should come to claim labour from
the State, how could the latter employ them ? It could
not employ them in manufacturing silk, lace, jewellery;
it ought to open national workshops, where the silk-
weavers and jewellers would be employ ed in works
which, not being familiar to them, must of
course be unproductive. The State would be
often obliged to propose to them to expatriate
themselves, to proceed to Brittany, Normandy, Africa;
and everybody knew how such a proposition had been re-
sponded to by the insurgents of June. If that right was
inscribed in the Constitution, its full execution would be
insisted upon by the unemployed labourer. The State
could only give him wherewith to enable him to live, and
he would demand, in virtue of that right, the wages he
was accustomed to earn. "Remember," exclaimed M.
Thiers, " the 14th article of the Charter of the Restora-
tion, and beware of arming our new Sovereign with an-
other 14th article." In conclusion he stated that, if the
systems proposed were to be realised, the indigent popu-
lation would be the only and real sufferers; that, if the
property of those who were called rich was to be sold,
its proceeds would not amount to one year's revenue of
France, and, as the classes the Socialists intended to re-
lieve would be the first and only victims, he appealed to
the humanity and justice of the Assembly not to inscribe
the right to labour on the Constitution.
M. Thiers then descended from the tribune.
The debate on the right to labour was again ad-
journed.
It would appear front the revelations of the Re-
forme
"Encoretrwhooeyhas,ucbvthatvlodhefeeebtnhehl
aleLwi
ave PrinceeorhNuamsoit asr toolc.
td
BGhoHe
efeAu
rot
oßßnoir
NL4gouAoAtes usslpsui.
light
hivvt.,rcNAPOLEONweEwß:hhAf:oaTst,
,vtfelected is ,
President,
he :e
neRu.KO
arnli
correspondence
King,
os
et:b.
hdsmeet:ul3:Vg
heades
smuggled
e -
diplomacy put Prince Louis in the background, although
he appears by the presence of his agent. We have the
evidence of his handwriting, which was taken from the
luggage of M. de —.
" "fell me,' positively writes Prince Louis on the 2d
of May, 1839, •if Charles expects to receive a letter
concerning me from Leonard.'
"Leonard is not, therefore, a person unknown to his
Imperial Highness. As to Charles, the intermediate
correspondent, he is no other than Charles Durand, then
editor of the Capitole, and formerly editor of the Journal
de FronVort, a paper said to have been in the pay of
the Emperor Nicholas. His name is printed in full.
"Prince Louis again writes en the 22d May:—
" lam very happy at the co-operation of which you
have been assured, and I beg you to thank Charles for
the zeal he has shown. I see with pleasure his letter
to Orloff ; I sent it off immediately.'
" On the 14th August he writes :
" lam pleased to see that your efforts have already
had a commencement of success with Leonard. His

antecedents (to Charles), which are useful to me if they
have the appearance of being independent of me, but are
injurious if thought to be dictated by me. A great
power who adopts me exalts me ; but for me to adopt a
toreign alliance, it would ruin me.'
" He who knows not how to dissemble knows not how
to reign,' and Prince Louis is well acquainted with this
maxim. Look with what precaution he acts. All the
letters pass through his bands. He is pleased with the
secretary, but he fears his antecedents ; he would not
have his connexion with him known. It is necessary to
obtain the support of Russia, without appearing per-
sonally to solicit it.; A great power who adopts exalts. If
it were suspected he would be lost. It is no less a farce
than that played with the faubourgs.
" It appears that the answers are sent in a no less
mysterious manner. We find a letter of M. de
which begins thus—' fhe same young man who had
previously called on my friend says that the letters
from Russia were still in your power.'
" We have only wished to re-establish in its integrity
a fact which we had net before taken sufficient notice of
—the alliance of his Imperial Highness with the
foreigner. We wished to show that this superb Prince,
who treated with such contempt the revolutionary scum
of the faubourgs, cringed, through his subordinates, to
the guardianship of a power which had dethroned his
uncle, and which had invaded and ransomed his country.
Is the authenticity of the letters of Prince Louis con-

tested? Let it be declared, but until that is done, we
shall have the right to warn our fellow-citizens against
the candidateship of a pretender adopted by Russia."
The trial of M. PINEL GRAND CHAMP, a surgeon
residing in the Faubourg St. Marceau, and maire of
the arrondissement, who was charged with taking an

active part in the insurrection of June, was brought
to a conclusion on Wednesday. He was acquitted

on the count charging him with having been guilty

of an attempt to destroy the Government and to give

over the capital to massacre, devastation, and pillage,
but found guilty of having, during the course of the

inaurrection, encouraged 404 fiwilit4tedj.the (*seem•