The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-10 00:00:00

DISCUSSIONIN THEBELGIUM CHAMBER
UPON THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

The Brussels papers of Thursday contain full re-
ports of the sitting of the Chamber of Representa-
tives on Wednesday, in which interpellations were
addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs rela-
tive to the attack made upon the Belgian press in
the late Congress at Paris.
The sitting commenced at half-past two p.m.
The galleries open to the public were densely
crowded. The interpellations, of which notice had
been given by M. Orts, were first on the orders of
the day.
M. ORTs said—No one can call in question the
great emotion produced in this country by the
publication of an important diplomatic document,
which every one of us has read, which every one of
us has appreciated, now that it has been fully and
authentically published. The feeling of the public
has been excited for two reasons. Grave accusa-
tions have been brought against Belgium and
assainst the Belgian press. These accusations, the
exaggerations of which it will be easy for me to
prove to the Chamber—and this proof would
be superfluous were I speaking solely for the
Chamber—have hurt the national feeling and
dignity, as unjust accusation always does,
even should it happen to be, as I am wil-
ling to believe, the mere result of error on the part
of the accuser. The feeling of the public has atmr
been excited in a second point of view by means of
this accusation, and a future state inspiring appre-
hension has been dimly foreseen by us. Words
that we perhaps do but ill comprehend, to which
we possibly attach greater importance than he who
uttered them wished them to convey, have seemed
words of menace launched against what every one
of you, what every Belgian citizen holds most dear,
against what he considers to be his most legitimate,
his most sacred possession, against our constitu-
tional institutions. The Belgian press, it has been
said, attacks social order and foreign Governments.
The laws of this country, it has been said, insure
to those who thus evidently commit an abuse of the
freedom of the press an impunity that the friendly
feelings of the Government and the support given
by all the good citizens of this country are power-
less to arrest. Ido not deny that certain organs
of the press have in Belgium abused their freedom ;
that in many instances, more frequently than we
all wish, they have adopted, instead of a polite
polemical style—a calm and dignified tone of dis-
cussion—a violence of language which all good
citizens amongst us condemn and reprobate, see-
ing that it cannot be inspired by any real patriotic
Belgian feeling. (General approbation.) It is
therefore not for the purpose of absolutely deny-
ing the truth of this grave accusation that I
have risdh to address you ; but what I do
deny is, that the facts which gave rise to it have
assumed in this country so general a character as
has been assigned to them ; that the trespassers of
the press meet with protection here by virtue of
that immunity which cannot be diminished with-
out injury to our constitution. What I contest is
the assumption that these attacks are exclusively
inspired by any feeling of hostility towards Frauce ;
that, moreover, these abuses, pointed out in the
use of our constitutional freedom of the press, are
abuses which the land of Belgium alone furnishes
an instance of, as has been said. Have these accu-
sations brought against the whole press of our
country been justly proclaimed? Have the facts
taking place around us been justly appreciated ?
For, doubtless, these excesses cannot he merely a
cause of regret to every right-minded man in the
country ; we ought to condemn them, to denounce
them. Ido not think there can be in Belgium two
opinions concerning the truth of these,accusations.
Those few organs of the press that abuse their
liberty, you who live on the spot know what means
of publicity, what influence they possess amongst
us, you know how little they are in accord with
public opinion. Impunity, indeed—have we guar-
ranteed it ? In the first place, what sort of impu-
nity do they mean ? Is it the impotence of the law ?
Is it the systematic refusal of the judge to enforce
the law ? Is it from either of these causes that this
impunity proceeds ? Did we not on a recent occa-
sion strengthen and complete the law, with the
view of fulfilling an international duty ? Are not
offences towards foreign sovereigns, towards the
chiefs of foreign governments, published here by a
law that we passed expressly in order to fulfil rela-
tively to Europe the duty I have just been alluding
to ? Were anything besides offences, besides viru-
lent attacks against the authority of foreign go-
vernments, to occur—if graver facts, if yet greater
acts of hostility, were to be perpetrated in this land,
our laws are powerful enough to reach them ; the
Government is not disarmed. If conspiracies were
at work—if deeds were hatching in our territory
for the purpose of effecting the overthrow of a fo-
reign government or the assassination of a foreign
sovereign—our penal code is at hand : the Govern-
ment can appeal to it. Is there in Belgium a judge
or jury that would refuse to enforce it, provided
the appeal to the law were equitable and just ?
Besides, this accusation can be met by a peremp-
tory reply : if Belgium had been called on to de-
fend herself when she was accused, a reply would
doubtless have been made. The Governments of
Europe have shown their contentment ; they' have
in this matter given unequivocal signs of content
since the passing of the law of 1852. And who has
been appointed judge, by virtue of that law of 1852,
concerning the question of knowing whether ribald
attacks on foreign governments were being made or
not in Belgium? The foreign governments them-
selves. And where is the foreign government that,
since 1852, has appealed, without obtaining a fa-
vourable hearing in Belgium, to the law which all
Europe declared to be satisfactory ? Where
and when have complaints been laid that
have been disregarded ? When and where
have facts been denounced that have not been in-
vestigated by the tribunals ? Where are the ver-
dicts that have been returned in this land, refus-
ing satisfaction when lawfully and rightfully de-
manded ? These attacks, it has been said, are of a
nature exclusively hostile to one European govern-
ment alone, to the government of a great contigu-
ous nation, with which our interests and our sym-
pathies essentially enjoin us to maintain a good
understanding. Does this accusation rest on better
foundations than the others ? Is it not equally
easy to dispose of ? Have not the abuses of the
Belgian press very often offended other European
governments, and has the Belgian press alone been
guilty of violence of language, of outbursts when
addressing foreign governments ? Now, not solely
in the press, but even in this hall, even at the pub-
lic meetings tolerated. in Belgium, for a long
period, within sight and hearing of the government
itself, T have heard words uttered, violent in an-
other way, though quite as much so as these
printed in our journals, and those expressions were
levelled against a sovereign, who has not on that
account sought a quarrel with us, and whose repre-
sentatives on the occasion to which I allude evinced
a sympathy for Belgium and her cause that ob-
tained her warmest gratitude. Does the Belgian
press alone deserve the accusation brought with
concentrated force aganst her ? Open and read
French journals published out of France and in
foreign countries. Do not these journals contain
attacks quite as violent as those, on account of
which a few organs of the Belgian press are re-
pros ched ? Consult the French newspapers published
in Switzerland, Piedmont, and England, and you
will find in them not merely matter fully tantamount
to what may be found in the few journals, whose
action and influence I have already sufficiently
pointed out, but articles which the Belgian press has
only erred in by reproducing. In fine, these laws
of ours which it is pretended leave everything un-
punished, these inadequate laws—has not Belgium
accepted them for the defence of her own constitu-
tion and government, and the person of her sove-
reign so universally, so justly revered ? The terms
defining the trespasses that may be prosecuted as
attacks upon the Sovereign of Belgium and his
Government, are the same as are employed to
de-
fine attacks against foreign Governments. Let it
not be said then, while placing in this
foreign Governments and princes on an .2 manner
Belgian
with the Belgian Government and
prince, that we encourage beyond our frontierst
attacks not made at home. The world knows that
attacks have been made against our free institu-
tions and the prince called to preside over them,
against that prince whose brows are girt with a
crown freely offered, and who for five-and-twenty
years has secured happiness, order, avid liberty
to our country, the magnificent and glorious anni-
versary of which we are about to celebrate—in
fact, it is a rare thing, this anniversary, which en-
tire Belgium gratefully salutes, for it is something
more than an anniversary: it appears like the dawn
of happy and many days yet to come that Belgium
will owe for a long time yet to this prince—an
honest man, whom she willingly calls her well-be-
loved King. I was saying that the accusations, the
exaggeration of which I have endeavoured to show
you as succinctly as possible, ought to be imputed to
an imperfect knowledge of both men and things in
our country. This imperfect knowledge is what I
can easily comprehend on the part of a foreign
diplomatist deceiving himself, or perhaps being de-
ceived. It is nevertheless false to say, after quot-
ing violent expressions used by journals so de-
graded that they cannot be named, that this lan-
guage is identical with that used by the general
press of Belgium. I ask, therefore, the Govern-
ment, and it is the first among
the questions I shall
take the liberty of putting to it in the discharge of
what I hold to be an imperious duty in the present
state of men's minds, I ask the Government whe-
ther it has taken any step for communicatirg,
either to the French Government or to the Govern-
ments represented at the Conference of Paris, the