The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-18 00:00:00

M. THIERS'S SPEECH.

PARTS, Thursday Night.

The following is the report of M. Thiers's speech
on foreign affairs at the Corps Legislatif to-day.
He said :

" Gentlemen,—The interpellations of which I have
given notice clearly indicate the subject on which I
am about to address the house. That subject is the
situation of Europe, and, in particular, of France
with regard to Europe. That situation is serious,
and to be convinced thereof it were sufficient,
if any doubts were entertained, to refer to the
bill laid before us a few days ago, the object of
which is to give our armament a magnitude they had
never attained before. And it is not France
alone that is acting thus, but every state in
Europe, big or little, Switzerland, Belgium,
Holland, Denmark, Sweden, are all summoning to
arms the greatest possible mass of their population.
The great States have also adopted the same sys-
tem, although the number of their subjects might
have rendered it unnecessary for them to resort to
it. Austria, although she stands in such great need
of rest, is thinking of increasing her forces. Italy,
who has also need of rest, and who ought to leave
Europe in peace after having so greatly disturbed
it, spurns the idea of a disarmament, which the
state of her finances renders so desirable. Spain,
although so effectually protected by the barrier of
the Pyrenees, is doubling her peace effective. Eng-
land, still better protected by her insular position,
is devising means to make up for the deficiencies of
voluntary enlistment. Russia, powerfully armed
as she has been since the negotiations concerning
Poland, has just ordered a fresh levy. As for Prus-
sia, the cause of all this movement, the Government
knows what she is doing ; if it does not know it,
then it stands alone in its ignorance. That situa-
tion, I repeat, is serious, and my memory fails to
supply with me any parallel instance. But we must
consider it without flurry, and without any allu-
sions. According to me the best way of appreciating
it is to trace its causes. Those causes are, above
all, to be found in the false notions which of late
years have obtained respecting European policy.
Those false notions, entertained and turned to ac-
count by ambitious Governments which avail them-
selves of without believing in them ; those false
notions, encouraged by ill-advised Governments
ever hunting after popularity, have already turned
one-half of Europe upside down, and will convulse
the other half if they be not checked. Now what
are these false notions ? I shall attempt to precise
them. Of old, when one State gained such
strength in Europe as to threaten the indepen-
dence of the other States it was met by the great
argument of the European balance of power. That
is the argument which Spain had to contend with,
when under Charles V., controlling Germany, she
aimed at universal dominion ; which Louis XIV.
had to contend with when humiliating
other courts by his pride and alarming
them by his undertakings; which England
had to contend with last century when refusing to
acknowledge the rights of neutral flags ; which Napo-
leon had to contend with when he overran Europe
with such rapid strides ; nay we ourselves used that
argument against Russia when we found it neces-
sary to destroy her great establishment at Sebastopol.
Well, in the eyes of our modern reformers that ar-
gument is simply ridiculous. Ancient Europe, they
say, is crumbling on every side—why talk of equili-
brium in the midst of ruins ? I cannot understand
this disdainful way of shuffling out of the question.
The balance of European power is not a situation—
it is a principle—it is the interest of all nations
against the interest of one nation alone. (Assent.)
No doubt when we look at Europe we see young
and ambitious States in course of formation and
eager to grow ; States arrived at maturity and state-
macy ; and States on the wane. But to be born, to
expand, to arrive at the acme of strength and power,
and then to decline and die, is the common law of
nature—of the infinitesimally small who live but a
day, and of the great whose existence in space is
numbered by thousands of centuries (trey bien). That
is the common law, and States are equally subject
to it with individuals. What has become of Spain,
who under Charles V. held Europe in her grasp ?
What of Holland, whose fleets covered every sea ?
Of Sweden, whose might under Gustav-Adolphus
menaced Austria up to the very gates of Vienna?
All have suffered the common lot. When have we
ever seen Europe, impelled by some mad frenzy, la-
bouring to destroy States in their decline ? Such a
thing has never been witnessed, and to advocate it
would be as monstrous as to argue that when men
have passed a certain age they should be put to
death. Those states that decline, we are told that
they must be reconstructed on a new basis—and
what basis? Why, the basis of nationalities. That
is to say the conformity of race and origin attested
by the uniformity of language ! But if it were a
necessary condition that a State in order to exist
should contain but one race, speak but one language,
what State in Europe would have a right to exist ?
Are they not all composed of different races, whom
time has melted down into one ? From the theory
of nationalities the next step was the theory of great
agglomerations, which involves the suppression of
small States—and why ? Here is the reason assigned.
We are told that America is growing apace, that she
numbers now 32 millions of inhabitants, and will
soon have forty or fifty millions. That is very
likely, nay certain. But why, because America,
which is 3,000 miles off, which does not think of in-
terfering with us, but on the contrary is only
anxious that we should not interfere with her ;
-why, because America is expanding, should we be
asked to countenance the formation on our fron-
tiers of states of thirty, forty, and fifty millions of
souls ? Every further step I take in exploring this
theory increases my astonishment ; my mind is be-
wildered when I find such a system, not merely the

chaotic production of certain writers' brains, but
gravely laid down in State papers of the highest
importance. These doctrines now actuate most
governments ; they inspire the acts of some, and
the manifestoes of others. They must, therefore,
be discussed, and I must appeal to the Chamber's
kind indulgence whilst Ido so. (Hear, hear, and
"Go on.") And, gentlemen, permit me to remind
you of the grave responsibility that lies upon us.
In times like these, when events follow so swiftly
each other, and where effect follows cause so ra-
pidly, to speak, to be silent, to listen, to refuse to
bear, all alike involves great, serious responsibility.
Posterity—which ere long may be called on to reap
the results, good or bad, of our resolutions—will
call us severely to account for the duties we may
have shrunk from fulfilling. Now, to judge this
new-fangled policy, it is requisite to compare it to
the policy of all nations that have been solicitous
for their freedom, their self respect, and their inte-
rest. The policy of Europe may be said to have
commenced at the close of the fifteenth century,
when the breaking up of the feudal system led to
the formation of the principal states. The House
of Hapsburg assumed imperial rank ; the Kings of
England abandoned their pretensionsover the Con-
tinent, and confined their attention to their in-
sular
territory, to form the United Kingdom. In
Spain Ferdinand reached under his sceptre every
portion of the Peninsula ; and the skill of Louis
XI. and the wise policy of Anne de Beaujeu, an-
nexing Brittany, Maine, Anjou, and a portion of
Burgundy, formed a State compact and firmly knit,
though yet incomplete. Ever since that period
what has been the constant preoccupation of the
powers of Europe? It was to watch each other
closely, lest any one should threaten the safety of
all. If any one of them threatened the inde-
pendence of the others, these latter combined to re-
strain or put down the oppressor ; and that object
once attained, if one of the powers which had helped
in achieving it gave cause for anxiety, it had to
withstand in its turn the efforts of all the others.
That constant surveillane, and those incessant
efforts, led first to the notion, and then to the tech-
nical phrase of the equilibrium of Europe,' which,
translated into its real meaning, signifies the inde-
pendence of all nations. (Partial applause.) It is
that policy which has distinguished the nations of
modern from those of ancient times ; and it is to that
policy that modern Europe owes its preservation
from the universal monarchy which twice—under
Alexander the Great and Coasar—deprived the
nations of ancient times of their dignity, their