The Sun.
London, England, 1848-10-09 00:00:00

sentatives—" Thou! Thcu hast named the President
of the Republic because he was thy father, and
because in the aggrandizement of his position, thou
didst aspire to the advancement of thine own family !
Thou ! Thou hist given to the President of the
Republic thy voice, because he was thy personal
friend, and, because in the extension of his fortunes
thou didst hope to enhance the magnitude of thy
possessions 1 Thou ! Thou hast named the Presi-
dent of the Republic, because he has promised thee an
ambassadorship—thou, because he has promised thee
a prefecture.—(The orator was here interrupted by
shouts of " Yes ! yes !" " Bravo 1" and pro-
longed sensation.) Such are fragmentary portions
of the bar ue which has so profoundly
moved the Ass( mbly, and the reverberations of which
are still thrilling in the hearts of the French Republi-
cans. It has already gone far towards consolidating
the new institutions inaugurated in February—it is
even now affording a brilliant refutation to the fal-
lacy propunded by an English pamphleteer—it is,
if we may employ the beautiful expression,
of M. DE LAMARTINE himself, becoming to us a light,
enabling us to peruse the destinies of France
through the darkness of futurity. The President of
the French Republic will now be elected imme-
diately by the French people themselves—he will be
the visible emanation from the souls and the con-
sciences of many millions of citizens. As LAMAR-
TINE ejaculated, in the language of the great
Julius, ",Alea jacta est !" The die is cast! There
is now no further appeal. If the people abdicate their
sovereignty to a Pretender, the Assembly will meet
destruction with glory, and the past seven months will
be nothing more substantial than a beautiful vision.
" Yes ! Whatever may happen, it will be a beautiful
fact in history, to have attempted to create the Re-
public which was proclaimed, conceived, and in-
augurated in four months, the Republic of enthu-
siasm, of moderation, of fraternity, of peace, of pro-
tection to society, to property, to religion, to family,
the Republic nest Of WASHINGTON"—Of LAMARTINE !

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.

We have received the Paris papers of Saturday and
yesterday.
On Friday the discussion on the article of the
Constitution regulating the election of President was
continued, and the following brilliant speech in favour
of the election by universal suffrage was delivered
by M. DE LAMARTINE :
If every speaker is to experience embarrassment in
coming to discuss from this tribune a question so
complicated, and one on which opinions are so much
divided, it is at least pleasant to appreciate and ad-
mire the men whom he comes to oppose.
Numerous voices—Speak louder. We cannot hear.
M. de Lamartine—l say that independently of the
embarrassment which a political man feels when
giving his opinion on one of the questions the
most wavering, and the most undecided in the
opinion of the country, and in our own, there is
something painful in opposing those he appreciates
and admires. I shall, however, endeavour to put
aside these preoccupations. The Hon. Representa-
tives who yesterday and to-day spoke on this question
have, to my great regret, confounded in the discussion
the five articles which, in the draft of the Constitution,
tend to constitute the Executive Power; I am com-
pelled to follow them for a moment in the generality
and in the specialities of their arguments. The
question has been for the last two days not only to
decide whether the President of the Republic shall be
elected by the people, or by the National Assembly,
but also whether there be a President; what shall be
the form of his government; whether it shall be in
one or more hands; if it shall be arbitrarily subject to
the opinion of the majority ; if it shall be triennial or
quinquennial. All those points have been called in
question. Just now it has been recommended to us
to constitute a temporary and transitory power, de-
ficient, from that very cause, of all those conditions
of fixity necessary to terminate the revolu-
tion, which is now becoming unravelled, and
which we now constitute. To the question whe-
ther the Republic shall or shall not have a
President, I shall only reply to this by a very few
words. I refer to history, and I see that all French
Assemblies, all those who have seriously wished to
constitute a govemment, have admitted, and sought
to carry into practice, that distinction of functions. I
set aside the word powers, which is not a proper
expression, for the power must be unitary ; but you
have it here. The question is of functions, and they
must be distinct.—(Marks of adhesion.) I see on the
other hand the long Parliament, and the Convention
taking in hand not only, as was just now recommended,
the Legislative and the Executive Power, but also the
power indispensable to complete tyranny, the judicial
power, and thus giving an idea of what has been
been called a unitary power. I invoke that example,
and I will tell you. If you think that the necessities
of the country demand that terrible intensity, that
power which is to be met with not as an appeal, but
as a scarecrow in our history ; I will tell you—go to
the end, assume also the last, the judicial power, and
then call yourselves by your true name—call your-
selves the Reign of Terror.—(Agitation.) You will
not do so—the country does not wish it, and it is
right.—(" Hear, hear," and renewed agitation.)
I will now say something of another form of govern-
ment, that of committees. The danger of that form
is its irresponsibility ; an irresponsibility terrible,
because it is anonymous, and which is led away not
only in our time, but in history, to such a point that
we who have read, and who have written, the history
of the great epochs of the Revolution, we are obliged
to admit that it is impossible to attribute to whom it
is due the remuneration of gratitude, or of honour,
which any particular act may deserve, and which u e
cannot say if it proceeded from Collot d'Herbois,
from Barrere, from Robespierre, or from Danton.—
(Agitation.) The government of committees has
another inconvenience, which appears incompatible
with that which I have just mentioned, and which is
not the less real ; governments with several heads are
always weak. From a natural consequence of the
clashing of convictions and wills, the Government
directed by several heads, is composed of reciprocal
concessions, of delays, of compromises, and is not that
which suits great epochs, or the period of crises in
which we live.—(Hear.) I now come to the question
which has more particularly excited my attetio—
the form of nomination of the President by y.o
by the country. I yesterday listened with sincere
and conscientious anxiety to the remarks which were
made by an Hon. Representative (M. Parieu),but
the considerations developed by that Hon. Gentleman
are not
. new to me. I have also read and studied
constitutions of other nations in which monarchy has
recoiled before the forms of libertyacquainted
with the United States, with Veni lam
ce, and Gren,a ; I
93 .
am aware in our own history of the
system
have seen that combined mechanism
accordingoto
which
twenty-five candidates were pointed out from amongs
t
whim was to be chosen the President ofthe
Re-
public. I have endeavoured to render to myself an
account of all these systems, and I declare that I
have there found no information, no certain evidence,
no application of a great and general principle which
could enlighten our minds. M. Parieu yesterday
adduced the example of the United States, of Switzer-
land, and of Holland, where the nomination of the
Presidents was made by two degrees—even by three
degrees in one of those republics ; but, he must
allow me to observe, that that example applies as
badly to the queston of the nomination of the Presi-
dent as to that of the single Chamber. Those re-
publics which have been cited to us are Federal
States, what was to be personified in their Presidents
was not the expression of individual value, but of a
Federation. That is the secret of the constitutions
of those countries. But France has nothing analo-
gous to these federations, which are held up to us as
examples, without understanding the nature and
necessities of our country. Gentlemen, lam tempted
to leave these historical considerations, and which are
merely accessories to the question which is submitted
to us, and to enter into those which now engage the
attention of the country. Yes, gentlemen, lam
tempted, when I think of the religious attention which
is given in this Assembly to the most elevated ques-
tions, when I think to what understanding, I address
myself, I am tempted, I say, to speak with open
heart before you and before the country. If the question
was only to determine on such or such a mechanical
combination, it would be soon done. We should say
to ourselves, this people, which effected the revolu-
tion of February, is unitary par excellence; it is
therefore from its bosom that should proceed, not the
divison of power, for it is repugnant to my feelings
to use that expression, but that distinction of func-
tions which the Constitution requires. The people,
be it remembered, were jealous—such was at all
times their nature—and susceptible, for they had been
so often betrayed. Well, then, let it not be attempted
in this question of the Presidentship to give the
people reason to suppose that we want to deprive
them of their right of election—let that right be ac-
corded to them largely, fully, and sincerely, without
any reservation, without any desire to keep anything
back from them.—(Loud cheers.) In a Republic
what constitutes the force of the Government ? The
power in Republics is entirely in popularity or not
at all ; not that fugitive and restless popularity
which departs without reason as it comes without
motive, but that other popularity of reflection which
accumulates on all the names of the National
Assembly the sign of strength and the love of the
country.—(Hear, hear.) That popularity, gentle-
men is the entire power, but t is possible that it may
sometimes exhaust itself or be led astray. If in