The Sun.
London, England, 1834-09-11 00:00:00

SPAIN.

CHAMBER OF PROCURADOps.—SITTING OP
SEPTEMBER 1. 11,
The order of the day was the discussion of the petition
respecting political rights.

Senor Trueba—ln- rising to support the petition which
has been read, I feel deeply penetrated with the vastness
of its importance. No subject, in my opinion, could be
submitted to the judgment and deliberation of this estate
of greater interest than that which is now proposed—the
establishment on a solid basis of the liberty of Spain, and
securing to her children the full enjoyment of social rights.
If we analyse the Estatuto Real with that attention which -
it deserves, we shall find that it is an organic law, nothing
more—necessary to constitute and assemble the representa-
tives of the nation with those faculties which are proper to
them—but that it wants the fundamental bases on which
all representative Governments must lean and be supported.
This species of government is composed of two distinct parts
—the mechanism establishing the forms of governing, and
the fixed principles by which the government shall be con-
ducted. The mechanism may be subject to modifications ;
but not so the principles : these are fixed and indestructible.
In the mechanism we see great variety. In France and
England the representative body consists of two parts, in
Sweden of three ; and the variety not only exists in the
parts of which the said bodies are composed, but also in
other particulars, since the English Chambers arc heredi-
tary, while the French are elective, having formerly been
hereditary. Those of the United States are elective ; and
in Spain, according to the Estatuto Real, the Estamento da
Proceres is a mixed chamber, since it consists of hereditary
and elected Proceres. I again repeat that this only refers
to the mechanism, and not the principles ; and the Estatuto
Real wanting the basis of principles, is a law without the
means of support or defence. It is a building raised on a
fragile 'and moveable arena, exposed to fall to ruin at the
first ettadk otpower. Permit me to illustrate my argument
by an exaMPIF drawn from history ; and I will appeal to Eng-
land, a countty which I think all will admit to be well fitted to
illuStraie tYffslubject. England possessed chambers before
1688, at'Aicb time was passed the law entitled the Bill of
Rights : bui what power did the Parliaments possess before
that period to restrain the excesses of power,and was the Par-
liament able to restrain the excesses of Henry VII. ? Was
it able to restrain the violence even of Cromwell, who, after
being the defender of liberty, became its oppressor ? Crom-
well being desirous of getting rid of the English Parliament
in 1655, and being assured of the decision of his troops,
went straight to the Parliament : he entered the house, in-
voking the name of Jesus, and exclaimed, " This is not a
Parliament, you are hot the representatives of the nation."
One of the members exhibiting a desire to protest against
this violence, Cromwell proceeded in his violent excesses, and
addressing himself to the members, said to them one after
the other, " Thou art a libertine, thou a drunkard, thou a
rogue," &c. He then, forced all the members to leave the
house, which he closed, and after taking possession of the key
went away. A little after this, the same outrage was re-
peated in 1659, by a colonel. What influence, what power,
had the Pariament before the restoration? Charles 11., for-
getful of his father's fate, thought lightly of the rights of the
people, and it is known that a contribution respecting the
theatre having been proposed to Parliament, to which the
Court was opposed, Tyrell, one of the members of the Par-
liament who supported the contribution, was, at the Kings
direction, seized by his guards, who disarmed him and cut
off his head. Behold here a magnificent example of the in-
violability of the representatives of the nation ! James 11.,
it was well-known held, the Parliament in the highest state
y corrupt
of disregard ; and if ever he thought of applying to the
TheCh Chambers, mvbi
eeiresn,
ei
et
swas committedon y fori
nthe i
s dipurposedisastrous
eon of
reignobtaining
b money.
judges forced the English to throw off the yoke. The mea-
bsuitrteeronfesssuwffaesridnrgainheadd
tbneetnh
efi 111 eedryt odretlgies,—bri,—tmhedtihseeasceuphaodf
reached its height, and there was no other alternative but to
resist or perish. Indeed, it might be said that England has
ncgotnh Constitution,
government,t iuttii is
nn ,wo thoert sufficienthaenryuontdhtecorr havetlpe)
e thelltitle_
possessed liberty, and fully enjoyed all social rights, from the
year 1688, at which period the memorable bill before men-
tioned was passed. I have made this historical summary
whether there be 1,2, or 40
appella-
tion. nials Chambers, enta; s , if the bases of civil liberty arc wanting. Who
with the oiersbne jpoteorfcselt,si
importanceetoctnflotsealrittoielv:
can doubt this, and let but this principle be once admitted,
how can we avoid admitting its natural consequences' In-
' dividual security, the security of property, equality before

the law, are the natural consequences of civil liberty. The
freedom of the press is the bugbear which frightens the I
timid, the terror of all those whose interests are likely to
suffer from so rigid and vigilant a censor. The question is
teduced to this—whether the press is a positive good or
evil ? The abuses into which it may be betrayed, the
dangers which it may produce, are not to be considered of
any weight against the essence of the principle., I think
that the utility of the freedom of the press to be a
problem resolved at the present day, in a most satis-
factory manner. Let France, let Belgium, let the
United States, finally, little England, that classic soil
of liberty, that privileged country, where social rights
are known and respected—let them all bear witness to
my assertion. The organization of the Urban Militia by a
law is in my opinion the strongest guarantee which can be
given to the nation for the protection of its rights. Let
us not to be told that Government is occupied in preparing
a regulation ; for what is conceded by a decree, which may
be withdrawn as easily as it was issued, is not of the same
value as that which is established by a fundamental law, in
whose formation all those whose concurrence is essential
concur. It will be said that in our Parliamentary labours
we ought to proceed little by little : we should proceed
little by little in that part of our Parliamentary labours
which has reference to reforms. Reform indicates the
existence of an abuse which it is proposed to correct ; and
though it might be advantageous to correct abuses speedily,
yet political reasons require that this should be done by de-
grees. But though this course should be adopted with re-
spect to reforms, it ought not to be adopted with respect
to principles. A principle cannot be established bit by
bit ; a principle, like truth, is admitted as soon as made
known ; for the light of truth appears from the moment
that the eyes are opened to see it. Besides, liberty is
not a science to be learned ; it is a natural instinct im-
pressed on the human heart ; and man, as soon as he
feels it, has a right to satisfy it, and to seek the shortest
and most efficacious means of doing so. In vain reasons
dawn from a theory, brilliant perhaps, but not the less spe-
cious, would persuade the contrary ; for it is plain that
the shortest way to go from one point to another is by a
straight line, and not by making several turnings. It v ill
be said that the enjoyment of these rights might produce
abuses in the actual condition of the nation. To forbid the
use of a thing from fear of its abuse is an argument not
admitted in sound logic ; for the same reason you might
find fault with a general rule on account of the exceptions
to it. Besides, all human things, the most useful and the
best, are subject to abuses of power, to errors of compre-
hension, and to the excesses of the passions. Thus the
arms which the assassin uses are the same as those which
serve for the defence of the\ peaceful citizen. Let us
carry this argument still further. Religion degenerated
into fanaticism, which is its abuse, has been produc-
tive of the most horrid evils to society. The bloodiest wars,
the most implacable hatred, the most atrocious slaughter,
have often had their origin in a principle of virtue—in
excess of piety badly understood. Will it be contended
that on account of these things religion is an evil, and that
its worships should be prohibited in all nations ? How
often have we seen the sacred altars of justice bedewed
with the blood of the innocent ! How often have the
prisons been filled with the moans and the despairing
shrieks of innocent victims ! And because there may have
been judges whose ignorance, want of foresight, and malice
have made them unworthy of the respectable character
with which they were invested, is it to be inferred that the
judicial institution is pernicious, and that tribunals ought
not to exist ? Will it be said, too, that Spain is not in a
condition to enjoy these rights ? When then will it be ?
England and France may be regarded as the models of
civilized nations. I have paid some attention to the state
of things in those countries ; and though there may be a
difference with respect to knowledge and enlightenment
among the higher classes, and perhaps among the middle,
yet that difference is not to be found among the common
people, who form the greater mass of the nation. The com-
mon people are upon the whole, with few modifications, the
same in all countries. But I will assert that the country
population of Spain is not like that of the southern part of
France. No, the Spaniards have a more vivid imagination,
and a greater aptitude for all things ; and I also say, that
with equal means they would have arrived at better results.
But supposing, as I am bound to suppose, that Spain is at
the present day much in arrear with respect to France and
England, who will be found here bold enough to maintain
that Spain in 1834 is more backward than England in
1688, the period when the fundamental rights of the Eng-
lish were declared ? Who will say that Spain is more back-
ward than Portugal ? I shall doubtless be told that the
greater part of the rights includedin this petition are al-
ready comprised among our ancient laws. True—but how ?
—as a beautiful vestment concealed at the bottom of a
chest, from which we desire to take it for the purpose of
giving it air. Thus, then, we ought to insist that our Go-
vernment should place us on an equality with those illustri-
ous nations which serve as a rule and a guide—with those
nations which, if they have risen to the height of prosperity
and greatry wi have only done so by means of a repre-
sentative and national government. The eyes of those
nations, the eyes of the whole world are fixed upon us.
What will they say if we reject the petition which has just
been read to the Estate ? They will say that the represen-
tatives of the Spanish nation assemble in the temple of the
law—for what purpose ?—to renounce their salvation, to
become apostates to that faith which they ought to profess.
An inconsistency so monstrous must excite the attention
of the most indiffgrent. Therefore I support, as I think
I ought to supporthe petition which has been read, and
which I have had the honour to sign. I pray that the
sentiments of my heart may be transmitted to all my Hon.
Colleagues.
Senor Bendicho spoke in support of the petition, and
proposed the following addition :—" No law can be an-
nulled in Spain, in part or in whole, without the concur-
rence of the Cortes."
Senor Santa Fe thought that every thing desired would
be obtained by successive laws, and was against any decla-
ration of rights.
Senor Villanueva, after speaking for some time in sup-
port of the liberty of the press, was called to order by the
President, who reminded him that he was confining himself
entirely to a single article, whereas the question for dis-
cussion was the whole petition.
The Marquis de Falces observed, that in vain would
principles be proclaimed if an immediate application could
not be made of them. Moreover he was of opinion that in
the present circumstanees it would be prejudicial to the
public interest to adopt the proposed declaration.
Senor Lopez spoke at great length in support of the
petition.
M. Martinez de la Rosa—ln consequence of the petition
which is under discussion comprising so many objeots, its
consideration becomes the more difficult and embarrassing.
But it is not the fault of the Minissers that various demands
are submitted to the Chamber at once, each of which em-
braces matter of the highest importance, and consequently
calling for separate discussion. The petitions which are
now submitted to the Cortes are indeed the same as were
proposed during the debate on the speech from the throne,
with this difference, which is sufficiently remarkable, that
some of them were withdrawn by the committee charged
with that duty, doubtless because they perceived that the
Estate was inclined to disapprove of them. This is a ques-
tion of fact ; and on that occasion Senor Lopez exhibited a
concession highly honourable to his judgment. The hon.
member then said, that it was proper to withdraw a portion
of the subjects from debate, because the committee had not
the data which the Government wore in possession of. There
was proposed to the Estate this same table of rights, for
that was the name given to it. But it must be observed,
that at that time it was called the table of rights and obliga-
tions, and that now the last part of the title, obligations, is
suppressed—a circumstance which I shall presently touch
upon. Although the ideas were highly laudable, because
it appeared that nothing more was desired than to establish
AS fundamental principles certain axioms, or what at least
are thought to be so, yet several Procuradores proved that
the taking the proposed course might be attended with
serious inconveniences. The fact is, that the commission
by the mouth of Senor Lopez expreased themselves in these
words :

" The Commission being aware of the force of the rea-
sons which both the Ministry and several Procuradores
have urged, abandoned the field. If the expression may
be allowed, and left the estate at full liberty to express its
own opinion. The effect of this was to disapprove of the pa-
ragraph as it stood in the act. Scarcely has a single month
past, and again an attempt is made to present a load of pe-
titions in the same form and in the same expressions ;
and this, though the Estate, has already manifested its
opinion on the subject. The petitions are indentical ;
the word " table" alone being omitted. The Estate did
not disapprove of the ideas, for, with respect to the ideas,
we all were, and are still agreed ; but it doubted the con-
venience or policy of bringing them forward at this time.
The Estate, in admitting to-day what it rejected a month
ago, will derogate from the character of gravity and circum-
spection which forms the essential basis of every deliberative
body. In the first project there was contained a paragraph
respecting the freedom of the press without previous censor-
ship, which the committee altered by omitting that con-
dition. It is clear that at that time the Estate was dis-
posed to approve of the continuation of the previous cen-
sorship, and now it is sought to make the Estate retract its
decision, by again submitting the same matter for discussion.
If this attempt succeeds, there will be no stability in the
judgments and decisions of the Estate, and thus the resolu-
tions come to by it after mature deliberation, will lose all
that weight which they ought to have in the eyes of the na-
tion. Senor Trueba has quoted Bentham to ensure the
slow progress made in reforms, forgetting, however, that
the same Bentham has, with much reason, said that the
command to reform precipitately on the instant appears to
be a method copied from Constantinople or Algiers, and