The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-20 00:00:00

MARCH 20, 1846.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
FRENCH;CHAMBERS.
CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES.
SETTING OF MARCH 16.
The order of the day was the adjourned discussion on the
proposition relating to the incompatibility of public func-
tionaries to hold seats in the Chamber.
M. Thiers, before entering on the consideration of the
subject under discussion, wished to reply to a reproach
which bad been brought against the Ministry of March 1. It
had been alleged that ha and the other Members of that
Cabinet had opposed a proposition similar to the present one.
(" Yes, yes.") He could declare that for hispart he had always
been a partisan of the reform now demanded. (Denial from
the centre.) In 1840, it was brought before the Chamber,
and in place of refusing it, he had, in his quality of Pre•
sident of the Council, exercised his influence to get it taken
into consideration. The, matter was referred to a Com-
mittee, and before that body he had entered into an engage-
ment to bring in a Bill on the subject, in the course of the
ensuing session, and to make it a Cabinet question. How,
then, could it be said that he and his colleagues were ad-
verse to the reform now proposed? He was no innovator;
he, might have been one under those old monarchies where
so many abuses existed, but he was not, one in the present
day; when, therefore; he supported the proposition, he did
so because he considered the reform which it demanded to
be an absolute necessity. The Hon. Deputy then proceeded
to discuss at great length the merits of the proposition.
Going back to the reigns of Louis XIV. and Louis XV., and
examining, in an historical' point of view, their various
positions, as young monarchs and then as men advanced
in years, he.showed that all Governments, whether absolute
or free, had their abuses, their dangers, and their flatterers.
In absolute Governments, he remarked, flattery mas mani-'
fested above to the monarch himself ; in free ones below;
in the bosom of deliberate assemblies, and to those also who
named the members of such assemblies. From this ten-
dency arose the abuses which the proposition aimed at put-
ting down. Not that these abuses were as extensive as had
sometimes been represented. France was by no means the
most corrupt country in the world, as some persons took a
pleasure in representing it ; there was now, perhaps, less
elevation of mind than thirty years before, but there was in-
finitely more purity of morals than then existed. But evils
had decidedly taken root of the kind referred to in the pro-
position, and there could be no doubt'that they ought to be
checked in their growth, if not altogether eradicated. The
Hon. Deputy then referred to the example of England, which.
he said, could be cited as a model, not of a social institution,
but of a political one. He referred to the similitude
which existed between the revolutions of 1688 and 1830,
and showed that under William- 111. and succeeding mo-
narchs, laws had been introduced to exclude Government
functionaries from the House of Commons, just as the pre-
sent proposition aimed at keeping them from the Chamber
of Deputies. He went on to argue that though a certain
number of functionaries were necessary in the Chamber, to
give information on special questions, yet that it did not
follow that because a man was not a functionary he might
not be perfectly well able to enlighten the Chamber. M. 0.
Barrot, he said, was no functionary, nor was the Duke de
Broglie, nor Count Mole, nor M. Guizot, and yet they were
men of great knowledge. He therefore merely meant to say,
that public functionaries, no doubt, had great information,
but they had not a monopoly of it. The Chamber ought to
be a body representing all classes of society, but no one
would speak seriously of a majority representing advocates
alone, or manufacturers alone, nor ought it to represent
public functionaries alone. And vet the present one was
exclusively composed of public functionaries. There were
184 of these in the Chamber.
M. Liadieres-152.
M. Thiers—Yes, 152, if the Deputies composing part of
the King's 'household or Councillors of State in extraordi-
nary service, and, such like employes, were excluded. But
of those 184 functionaries, 130 at least were Ministerial.
The number of Deputies usually voting was about 400. Of
these 225 sided with the Mnistry, and 175 for the Opposi-
tion, which gave an average majority of 50 to the Govern-
ment. But if 130 functionaries were found amongst the
225, could it be denied that the majority was eminently
that of the Government employes? Be it remarked, too,
that the number of public functionaries who voted with the
Opposition was yearly decreasing. In 1832, 1833, and 1834,
there were about 60 in the Opposition ranks, whereas at
present the number was not more than 40. Since last year
there had been twenty new elections, and in these, fourteen
of the successful candidates were public functionaries. The
evil was evidently increasing, and ought to be put down.
The conclusion that he drew from these facts was that, often
in that Chamber, political feelings were sacrificed to per-
sonal interests. Functionaries, perceiving that they often
had the existence of the Cabinet in their hands,
eagerly sought for seats in the Chamber. Such func-
tionaries as were possessed only by the spirit of
their duty remained tranquil, whilst others, impelled by
ambition, threw themselves into the Ministerial ranks in
order to arrive at some higher place. Whenever a
situation fell vacant in the Court of Accounts, the Court of
Caseation, in the Council of State, who was almost sure to
obtain it? Without doubt a Deputy; and this was so well
known, that it was sufficient to cause the employes, who were
not Deputies, to detest the Government for placing so many
Members of the Chamber over their heads. The Hon. Deputy
then examined the question in its details, which he considered
fully justified. He next alluded to an amendment of
M. Barrot, which went even further than that under dis-
cussion, aid he admitted that he (M. Thiers) so fully ap-
proved of what that Hon. Deputy had done, that he was
ready to assume the whole responsibility attached to it, and
should give it his warmest support. It was said that the
amendment not only attacked a number of Hon. Deputies,
but even the august personage at the head of affairs. He
had to reply to that objection, that in what was thus pro
posed nothing personal was intended. How could it be
supposed that he and his 'friends could aim at attacking
royalty when they had supported it under, such trying
circumstances? The Hon Deputy here again referred to the
great revolution at present being effected in England, with
each regularity, from both the Ministry and the royal power
confining themselves strictly to the letter of the institutions.
" There was never any such thing heard of in England," he
observed, "as any enmity to the Queen. No one ever said
there, 'the Queen will have this done or that done ;' but
simply, Sir Robert Peel is doing so and so,' or Lord John
Russell is carrying out such and such a measure.' Did that
mean that England, who had expelled the Stuarts, was
willing to be subject to the son of a cotton-spinner? Cer-
tainly not. It merely meant that Sir Robert Peel was the
n ill of the country embodied in a single man. The Govern -
ment yielded to that will, not as to a riotous body, but as
enlightened reason obeyed a truth which it had discovered
and admitted.—(Loud applause on the left.) Sir R. Peel
was, then, the country-made man! And could there be a
greater stability or a nobler attitude than that which was
exhibited? An immense revolution was effected and not a
cry against the Queen. She passed on with impunity in the
midst of all the agitation, respected and beloved ! Nay, even
her death, if it unfortunately should take place, would cause
an immense affliction in England, but would not produce
the slightest alarm."—(Sensation.) Such was the sight he
had desired to behold at the restoration. He was then un-
known, and, in his deep obscurity, was acquainted with neither
the august occupant of the throne, nor him who was to suc-
ceed him. In 1829 he had written the phrase, " The King
reigns, but does not govern." He had written that in 1829,
and he believed in 1846 that his maxim was perfectly pos-
sible. He firmly believed that a true representative Govern-
ment was possible in France. Were it otherwise, the coun-
try ought to have been told so in 1830.—(Sensation.) If the
representative Government was not possible in France, it
would have been better not to effect the revolution—if it was
not possible, what they had previously was far preferable.—
(Continued sensation.) He looked on the revolution of July
as a step in advance—as a progress, but he felt convinced
that there was much more to be done. Was it necessary to
say what connexion there was between all this and the
amendment? The amendment desired to have royalty
always placed out of debate, and to see Deputies vote fairly
according to their own opinions. But when representatives
were seen to vote day after day according to the ideas of
another—(Murmurs from the centre)—it was evident that
such a state of things was attended with grave inconve-
nience.—(" Hear, hear," from the left.) "We had rather,"
said the Hon. Deputy in conclusion, " sacrifice the King's
aides-de-camp than the King himself, and we regard that
as an advance in the, career at the end of which we per-
ceive the truth of representative government. That truth
will be long in coming, it is said. Be it so ; I shall not say
anything to the contrary; but, in allowing the fact, I must
call to mind the words of a German author, who, in speak-
ing of causes that triumph slowly, said—' I shallplace)7
vessel on the highest promontory of thenbariinakn, !ind wciaftrnlle
await the coming of the tide to set me ,
off.' In the satins way Ido not think that am_ placing my
vessel so high tliiit it will be inaccessible."—(Loud applause
and agitation.)
The Minister of the Interior replied to the Hon. Deputy.
He maintained thiat the representative Government was fully
and honestly prl ictised at present in France. The funda-
mental rale of sucl i a Government was to have it directed by
the will of the t najority. That was what was demanded
under the restoratlion, and what was carried out in the pre-
sent day.—(lnterruption and exclamations )s. Itenied was said
that the restoration had the majority. dented as,
I.t
was not when it Ihad the majority that it fell, but when
t
separated itself frc,m the majority, and desired to govermnci
to its will. The present Gov
a sense contrary heernmelndt haask,
been for six years lin power, and had it eve
therefore, the would
separated from the majority? No!
and,
had been satisfied.
fun-
damental principle of the Government
The lion. Minister then proceeded toff" discussbeatuseless,te thee attended
inasmuch
with
as it
its own merits, &net argued that it
would not attain
~ifispesobkjiencgt,
of corruption
ivouwl
used by the Govern-
ment,H the
inconveniencoesn.
inister retorted the charge on M. Thiers'
Cabinet, denying that it was applicable in any way to the
present- DHe referred to the eputies appointed since 1840,
and defied M. IC hiers or any other Hen. Member to point
out those shamelW fallings-off from opinions which had
been alluded to. He also called on them to examine the
returns of Goveycnanent promotions, and show any examples
of improper or illegitimate recompenses awarded for politi-
cal apostasy. The Hon. Minister also called in questien the
calculations of M. Thiers with respect to the number of De-
puties holding Government situations. There were not, he
maintained, 18 4of such Deputies in the Chamber, since
generals on half-pay, members invested with merely hono-
rary functions, and such like, ought not to be included under
the category just named. Besides, he argued, whatever they
were, they had be:en nominated by the electors. The mo-
tives put forward by the author and supporters of the propo-
sition the Hon. Deputy did not think were the real ones.
The Chamber hail now existed for a period of five years, and
during that tiros the Conservative policy had triumphed.
The Oppositi'sn now, at the moment of ate Chamber's dis-
solution, desired to ode it pass on itself, just as it was about
to appear before :the electors, a veritable act of discredit—it
wanted the maior, ity to declare that for five years it had been
wanting in dignity and morality. This, he would venture
to say, the majority would not be induced to consent to. The
Hon. Minister co ncluded by alluding briefly to the amend-
ment. He declaa red that a proposition to exclude the func-
tionaries of the c ivil list from the Chamber came with so
much a worse Fri tee from M. Thiers, that it was he who had,
in 1836, nomms led Baron Fain, the intendant of the civil
list, a Member o f the Chamber. He maintained, further-
more, that the ci srtain effect of the amendment would be to
give to the one mien of the institutions of the country a
powerful weapot r against royalty.—(Hear, hear.)
The sitting WU brought to a close at half-past 6 o'clock.
Maecir 18.
At 2 o'clock 1 Sauset, the President, took the Chair, when
the discussion o n M. Remusat's proposition relative to the
right of placeme"a to be Deputies was resumed.
M. Deelongra is, the first speaker, supported the proposition,
which he rerancl IA as more advantageous to the majority
than to the -Opposition. The deputation, he said, should not