The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-27 00:00:00

FRANCE.

In the sitting of the Assembly yesterday, M.
M Thiers
read a report of the Committee of Finance on a pro-
position of M. Proudhon, relative to the tax on revenues.
The proposition, he said, tended to authorise the Go-
vernment to seize one-third of the rents, and the Com-
mittee had been unanimously of opinionf to reject
it. According to the proposition. a tax one-third
was to be levied after the 15th of July,o 1848, on
all property, one-sixth of which was to beto• the
lodgers and farmers, awl the other to the givenlov
3/1. Proudhon calculated that the produce of that new
tax would amount to at least 150 millions of
And permit the suppression or reduction of other francs,
particularly those on articles of consumption, theaxes
most odious of all. M. Proudhon suggested that the
Goiernment once in possession of those resohurces.
might proceed to organize immediately discount
in all the districts of France ; create farming aariti(dl
manufacturing banks, Sze. M. Thiers stated that that'
proposition had been discussed during several days in the
Committee, in a financial, moral, and political point of
view. The project originally published in a iournal,
subsaquently suspended for sedition, contained a direct
and avowed attack against property. It was presented
as a petition of a factious nature, since its author
declared that it should not be presented as a prayer but
an order. It was moreover founded on the denial of
the right of property, and was one of those engines by
means of which so many ambitious men sought of late
celebrity or power amidst the ruins of social order. M.
Proudhon,when examined by t he Committee, declared that
he did not wish to destroy property, but merely to de-
rive from it a temporary resource for the benefit and
protection of property itself. T.tie Comtnittee, however,
had not considered the proposition entitled to considera-
tion. It regarded it as one of those indirect appeals to
citizens to turn against each other the arms that should
only be directed against the enemies of the country.
M. Thiers was or opinion that all those antinoonda-social
doctrines should be discussed publicl dy an in y,
and that they should not be stifled, lest the modern
Erostrates should, like Galileo, complain of having
been condemned without a hearing. He next dee
monstrated the folly of the proposed scheme, and
maintained that it would be impossible to raise
the sum of 1,500,000,000 francs. In 1821 the Govern-
ment had ordered an inquiry to be instituted into
the revenue of the landed property of France, and
it was ascertained that it did not exceed 1,600 millions.
25 years afterwards a new inquiry was instituted, and it
was found to have increased by one-fourth, and to
amount to 2,000 'millions, or perhaps 2,200. To-day
that revenue would not be above 1,800 millions. After
recapitulating the different branches of revenue of
which M. Proudhon proposed to confiscate one-third, M.
Thiers showed that not more than 320 millions could be
realized,

M. Thiers contended that it was neither a system of
credit nor a new tax. M. Proudhon wished to establish
that it was an attack against property, as audacious as it
was ably combined; that if there were errors entitled to
pity and respect, there were others unworthy of any in-
dulgence; that the doctrines developed by M. Proudhon
deserved universal reprobation, and, in the interest of
soeiery so deeply shaken, he called on the National As-
sembly to ratify the judgment of its Finance Committee.
M. Prow-lhon next asked that his proposition be dis-
cussed on Saturday.
Boatel, as Member of the-Finance Committee, had
found fault with a passage of M. Thiers' report, in hich
he said', that the project of decree on the progressive tax
had alarmed all the proprietary. Vii. Boutel was r.ot a
partisan of the savage doctrines of M. Proudhon ; ho
reproved thorn, but he thought that M.
Thiers was not justified in attacking before hand a pro-
ject of decree presented by‘tilieoCoveirnment.
M. 'Thiers replied, that .uoutei was the only mem-
ber of the Committee who had objected to, th.at‘passage
of his report. He had at first used the word deeply
irritated the proprietors," but at the suggestion of M.
13, ntel he had consented to substitute for them the word
" alarmed."
When M. Thiers descended from the tribune a great
tumult arose, which only subsided when General Ca-
vainlic appeared at the tribune.
General Cavaignac gave his fullest approbation to
every v%ord of M. Thiers's report and thanked him in
the name of the country for the sentiments he had ex-

TrIE

pressed. But he thought that M. Thiers should' not .
have condemned in advance a project of decree that bad
not yet come under discussion.
M. Thiers maintained his right, and observed that tb e
Committee to which the project had been referred I ie.d
reproved its principle.
After a few words from General Cavaignac, the i eel-
dent was dropped.
M. Marie, Minister of Justice, next laid on the t able
a project of decree relative to elections of Judges ot! the
Tribunals of Commerce. According to the decree, the
members of those tribunals should in future be elect& I
by merchants, licensed during five years, and having 11 i-
sided two years within the jurisdiction of the tribunal.
M. Marrast next read a letter from M. Bixi% who
tendered his resignation of the post of Vice-Pres;,dent. of
the Assembly.
The Assembly afterwards resumed the adjoutmed dis-
cussion on the 13th article of the law relative to clubs,
' which had been referred, with the different amendments,
to the Committee.
M. Coquerel, the reporter, stated that the Committee
had carefully examined all these amendments, and thought
proper to substitute three articles for the 13th article. By
the first, it was proposed to prohibit all secret societies,
and to condemn their members to a fine of from 100 f. to
500 f., and to an imprisonment of from three months to a
year. The penalty might be doubled as respected the
chiefs. By the second article, the citizens were to be
authorized to establish circles or reunions, which were
not of a political nature, on giving previous notice of
their intention to the authorities. Finally, the 15th
article sanctioned the right of all citizens to hold pre-
paratory electoral meetings and to assemble for religious
purposes.
M. Vivien observed that the penalties against secret
societies were not sufficiently severe, and proposed not
only to increase the fine and imprisonment, but to de-
prive the members of such societies of their civil rights
during a period of five years at least and ten years at
most.
A discussion ensued on the nature of secret societies,
which M. Vallette was desirous to specify in the law.
M. Dupin stated that the fact of their secrecy consti-
tuted their culpabiliiy.
M. Flocon was left at the tribune, combating M. Du-
pin's opinion.