The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-11-25
Foreign Correspondence OF the Republic.


Debate Declaration Of PTesidsnt-1ne Proposed
LGD-Largs Number Of Copies of lte Messags-
Proposition Of The Qu'stOrs- Counter Progost-
fi0n-Le0n Fauchsr-Pa Paris Prisons Early Vim
t9-M de LGmartins- Election of Successor. 10
VI. MagnGH-A Sioindling HaiydTessn- QuGek
Doctor Condemnsd- Cooper, the NOvelist
PARIS, November TO- 1851.
On Friday last the fifteen bureaux the Chamber
elected each OF them a commissary, to compose the
bureau committee to examine the Presidents
new suffrage bill The proceedings on this coca
ton, am SORRY to cay, do not seem favorable to
the acceptance of the bill, and the repeal of the
present mutiladng system. Thirteen Of the fifteen
bureauI chose delegates hostile to the repeal leav-
ing only two in favor of it. This was, in certain
degree, expected, as the majority will not yield
their point till convinced by the arguments brought
forward in the discussion, and till the moment of
the last fatal vote arrive. Five of these delegates
formed part Of the famous " Committee of Seven
teen,' that presented the law Of May 81, 1850,
which il is now proposed to repeal. The two mem
bers favorable are NM. Larochejaqueln and Grevy.
BY adding together the votes Of the various bu-
rcaux, | find that $50 for the maintenance of
restricted suffrage, and 269 for it's abrogation This
is slight relative gain by the Republicans upon
the vote thrown on the 3lst of May, although on
that occasion some sixty moro representatives, took
part in the ballot.
! send you digest of the remarks made in the
fifth bureau by NJ. Cremieux against restricted
suffrage. This gentleman was the republican
candidate for delegate, but received only twenty
votes to twenty five obtained by his adversary:
M. Cremieux would admit that the repeal oil
the law would be the moral defeat OF one party
and the triumph Of another; bat it was not pos
sible to declare that the former alone was the party
OF order, which would leave it to be supposed
that the second the party of disorder.
Order liberty, the republic, and unlver-
sal suffrage. The law of the 3lst May was
not law of prudence, but of reaction and ven
geanCe. In procaiming it the majority had cast
the brand of civil into France; they had di-
vided what united, raised one part of the pop
ulation against the other, and had prepared evil
days, which. however, the prudence OF all might
still avert The ma ority said that from the 3lst
May they had conquered moral force in the coun.
try, but the fact that from that day they had
lost it. Let them compare France asst was before
with what 1T was now, and then say II they had
reason to congratulate themselves on their work.
The result of that work to place musket In
the hand of those to whom his party had confided
q voting ticket Universal suffrage was the end
of revolutions in the republic, as 1t did away with
the separation of the French people into two
camps, and il esta bshed real equality Ii attach
ed every citizen to the government, and removed all
desire in his mind to destroy 1t, for he had voice
in creating and directing 1t. He and his COL
leagues of the provisional government had been
blamed for having proclaimed the republic, but at
that time other form of government could have
been
posed the heir OF the elder branch IN the Hotel de-
Vile of 1880? Would any one have dared to think
of the return of a member OF the family which had
| fled without escort and without protest Would
any one have thought of Bonaparte? And out OF
the pale of those three royalties dynases, what
| other possible? Besides, had France not had
enough of those three royalties falling one alter
another into the abyss, If prove their nothing
ness? The republic, he maintained had been the
salvation of the country, but they had wished it to
be vcriablc one, worthy of great people, pow
erful and peaceable. In proclaiming universal
suffrage, the provisional government consolidated
the republic. The majority knew that with UNI
versal suffrage the existence of the republic was
assured, and it was on that account that they were
hostile to it. Some generous hearted men dreaInt
of the alliance OF universal suffrage with royalty,
but that was like trying to unite fire with water
The majority had given a curious spectacle during
two years. Universal suffrage had given them the
direction OF France, and they had attempted to de-
stroy it Il had nominated M. Bonaparto Presl-
dent of the republic, and he had aided in that at
tempt! After attacking universal suffrage, they had
attempted 10 destroy the republic. Anypubic func-
tionary suspected of republican sentiments had
been dismissed, and all places had been filled with
devoted royalsts To redress this grievance Paris,
the head and heart of France, had made elections
a lesson TO the government and the Assembly,
but they had only replied by law OF irritation.
They believed themselves the stronger party in the
country, but they only strong by their func-
tionaries and gendarmes. Universal suffrage mo-
rallied elections by rendering corruption impossi-
BILE. That ought TO please them for they had at
tackled corruption under Louis Philippe. Univer-
sal suffrage might deceive itself, but its error
would never be of long duration. Why should
they speak of crisis III 1852? Had not France al
ready elected President and an Assembly? There
had been no disturbances and no discord on those
occasions on the contrary, most majestic spec
tace had been given t. the world, and 1T would
be given again. Let tho law of the 3lst May be
suppressed let the people have their rights re-
stored to them, and all would pass off without
disturbance. Some persons wished the heir
Al l.. H. l. thore shoI
one Of the younger branch whilst others would
prefer a third party. But the three candi-
dates excluded each other; whilst the republic, calm
and imposing, held the place assigned to 1t by the
will ofthe people, and no one could remove it. On
one side the monarchy-on the other the re-
public-that was all the question, but they could
not solve it without the people. They did not feel
fear-neither did the party to which he belonged;
but was the sword to be drawn, and the horrors of
civil war TO be brought on? Those who supported
the law admitted that il ought to be modified
That was proof that 1t was not good law, and
for such measure were they to plunge France
into frightful confuson9 II was they who would
be responsible for the crisis If they repealed the
law, all danger would be end if they refused
the repeal, there would be civil war. lie called
them to restore to the people their incontcstable
right, and to give to France the calm che so much
needed, and which she would find under rcpubli
can institutions"
You will have noticed that the President in his
message declares it as his opinion that unless suf-
trage Is restored, CIVIL war ID lneNltaDle vi
declaration the Republican journals make terri
BILE usage. Who, they ask, are the leaders of the
majority in the Chamber, who will be responsible
for the defeat of the repeal, if defeat there lie, for
these leaders desire civil war? They MN
Berger, Falloux, Mole, &C., who represent the
pretensions and the politics of Henry W NM
Theirs, Lasteyre, Remusat, &C., who repre-
sent the fallen house of Orleans. If, then,
civil war should be kndled in France, the aw-
full responsibility will rest upon the Count of
Chambord and the royal family at Claremont
Such are the royalsts in the Chamber; Lee
gitimists and Orleanists lcagued together to OPP
the only pacific solution possible to the difficulties
of lS52-universal suffrage.
If civil war imminent before being pre-
dicted by the chief magistrate, how much more so
does it become when thus forcsccn in the Prosi-
dents message2 What is intimated in that docu-
ment is that the three million dsenfranchised
citizens will vote, in spite of the law which
cudcs them Three million men openly disobey-
ing the statutes nothing lees than that there
"a dnf nd bat the reir Of b, nd