Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

a power be given to the Crown, fortresses may be sold or pledged for the basest purposes, and the country daid defenceless at the feet of foreigners.toThese apprehen sions were equally inconsistent and chimerical. It may, or may not, be proper, in a mixed monarchy, to gives the Crown the power of making war, and concluding peace; but when, as in France, it has been invested with this power, it is contradictory to refuse it a right which may often be indispensable to peace. How frequently has the cession of fortresses been the very object of a war, and the condition of a treaty ? Who imagines that, in 1814 or 1815, the allied powers would have desired the sanction of a French legislature to the cession of the left bank of the Rhine to the Netherlands? Nor is there any danger of kings ever becoming fond of the exercise of such a prerogative. Necessity is the only thing that will compel a monarch to part with his territories or his fortresses; and cases of such neces→ sity can never be met by any strict and invariable rule. Where necessity does not interfere, public opinion will prevent, or will remedy the operation of other motives; and where no public opinion exists, no formal want of prerogative would be efficient.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

1

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

a petition to the Chamber of Deputies, praying to be allowed some remuneration. The committee to whom his petition was referred, admitted his services; they ac knowledged that he had not only saved a great number of the French colonists, but had done so at a great pecuniary sacrifice. They recommended to the Chamber, however, not to recognize the claim; because the government had not given a pecuniary guarantee on behalf of the colonists of San Domingo, and therefore was not a debtor to the petitioner; and because the moral obligation had been already dis charged by the government granting Mr. Kingston an advantageous! maritime commission. This favour, which was held to have discharged the obligation, had consisted in giving him the benefit of a flag of truce, which, in time of war, was no doubt an advantage; but, having been driven by stress of weather into one of the English West-India Islands, on his voyage from France to the United States, he was taken by a French privateer, and his protection declared void, and his vessel and cargo confiscated, by the sentence of a French colonial prize-court. This was the whole remuneration now set up against a debt incurred thirty-four years before. But the motion for diss missing the petition, by passing to. the order of the day, was success fully resisted by M. Alexisde, Noailles, and M. Hyde de Neuville, who protested against the government being content with merely doing what might be called strict legal justice, in a case in which it was admitted that the petitioner had saved the lives of so many French colonists, at the expense of his own fortune and a motion for sending back the peti

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

tion to the minister for foreign affairs, was carried by a large ma jority.The Chamber here rap peared in a more advantageous point of view than the ministers.be A French member of parliament reads his speeches, instead of speak ing them; he does not come to the House with ideas in his head, pre pared to meet the ever-varying and unexpected necessities of debate, but he comes with a pamphlet in his pocket, to read an essay on a given subject, prepared by himself or somebody else, in the solitude of the closet. An attempt was made to get rid of this anomaly of reading speeches by a motion of M. Du hamel, "That no written discourse shall be allowed to be read to the Chamber, bon the chapters, titles, and articles of laws, or propositions submitted for its consideration, but that only notes may be consulted." The proposal was sent to a com mittee, and the report of the committee was fatal to an innovation which was to give France some chance of possessing parliamentary oratory. The change, said the reporter, would do much harm, and nol good. Extemporaneous speak ing is not always, or necessarily, the best speaking; and, even if it were, the proposed prohibition of written discourses would not secure it. May there not be some among the orators most admired as extemporaneous speakers, whose inspirations have been only pretended? Have not their dis courses been too elegant for un studied speeches? If they had wished to deceive us into this be lief, would they not have intro duced some occasional negligen ces? This might be very true; but the committee forgot, that a prohibition against reading what a man has thought, is not a prohi

[ocr errors]

I

bition against thinking at all, and collecting the materials for thinking. It is wished," said the rest porter, to avoid long speeches but it is much more easy to be brief in writing, than in speaking extemporaneously. The writer relo jects with care all repetitions of ideas or phrases; he compresses at will his reasonings and his style he chooses at leisure his thoughts and his words. The extempora neous speaker, on the contrary, cannot choose either the one hor the other. What proves that ther interdiction of written speeches would not abridge our deliberato tions is, the length of the sittings of the English House of Commons. A single orator, Mr. Hume, in the sitting of the 17th March, spoke twenty-eight times, after shaving spoken forty-one times on the 6th It was probably ignorance which gave the name of speeches to the remarks which pass in the British House of Commons, when the House is in a committee on esti mates-although, even in that sense, the allegation regarding Mr. Hume was inaccurate; but so far was the view taken by the com-> mittee from being a correct one, that it is of the very nature of written discussion to spin out "the thread of its verbosity finer than the staple of its argument."/ To allow written discourses, instead of diminishing the number of members who burn to pour forth their ideas on the assembly, cona fessedly goes to extend their line to the utmost limit of the patience of that assembly; for it adds to those who can speak what they think, all those who can read what has been written! The individual essays, too, naturally be come more prolix than speeches.>> The very leisure” with which

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1

the writer composes, leaves him to say every thing that can be said, and creep deliberately into every nook and cranny of his subject; the debater seizes only what impresses itself upon him as important. Accordingly, more real business is done in the House of Commons in a month, than in the Chamber of Deputies in a session. It may be true that the French system enables a man to cull his phrases with greater care, and turn his periods with greater elegance; to give every member of a sentence its proper length, stick every interjection in its proper place, and introduce every metaphor with a due flourish of rhetorical preparation. But it is inconsistent with energy and boldness; it leads irresistibly to a vitiated taste; it ends in that puerile, declamatory, style of oratory (if so it must be called), which has fixed its abode in the French tribune. The French may possibly attain the smooth enamel, and the nice finishing, of the miniature, but they can never reach the power and magnificence of the fresco. If Cicero had been a French deputy, he would have unfolded his manuscript in the tribune, and, holding it to his eyes, would have read out, "Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra," with tones and gestures of most extemporaneous preparation. Moreover, it is ridiculous to call that mode of discussion a debate, in which every body reads his own sentiments, but nobody discusses them; in which every one gives his opinion, but no one disputes it; in which all open, but nobody answers or replies. No one advantage of debate is gained; there is no mutual sifting of opinions and reasons. A member mounts the tribune to reply to another;

but as he could not anticipate what that other was to say, his reply never touches on what has gone before. If a ready command of the stores collected by reading and thinking, rapidity of invention, quickness of thought, accuracy of memory, and facility of expression, be valuable mental qualities, the French mode of parliamentary discussion is equally unfavourable to them all.

[ocr errors]

By a law passed in 1822, for the regulation of the press, it was enacted that "if, in the interval of the sessions, serious circumstances (circonstances graves) should render the measures of guarantee and repression for a moment ineffectual, the censorship may be im mediately established by a Royal Ordinance." Such a provision is utterly destructive of the liberty of the press, because it leaves the determination of what circumstances require the introduction of a cen sorship dependent on the execu tive alone. A very mischievous measure may be carried through in a very short interval; and it may be extremely desirable for the executive to prevent the public press, during that interval, from sounding the alarm. Provisions founded on an anticipated necessity for dispensing with the regular and estab lished law cannot wisely be made standing parts of a form of govern ment: they are prospective bills of indemnity. M. Royer Collard, there fore, had reason on his side, when he wished to modify this law, or at least to fix the meaning of the "circonstances graves," which were to justify the crown in imposing temporary fetters on the press. He wished it to be restricted to "great events, great troubles, extraordinary cases, which could not be foreseen,"

in short, to something different

from the mere abuse of the liberty of the press itself. This would certainly seem to be the more rational and fair interpretation. A seditious mob in every large town, with seditious publications issuing from an hundred presses to excite and justify their excesses, such as have been witnessed in England more than once, would form a crisis requiring and excusing much stronger measures than an unusual quantity of abuse, or an universal expression of dislike, against the Jesuits, or the ministry: yet, to the king's confessor, or to a tottering minister, the latter might appear equally alarming with the former, and the law permits the application of the power of imposing silence in the one as in the other. The law, however, was allowed to remain as it was, the minister of the interior assuring the Chamber that no cabinet had ever borne the attacks of the press with more patience and forbearance than that of which he was a member, and that, when they used the power which they possessed, it would not be to defend themselves, but to prevent, instead of punishing, crimes which might endanger public order. The editor of the Journal du Commerce was called to the bar, for a libel on the Chamber; and, after he had been heard by his counsel, was punished with a month's imprisonment, and a fine of an hundred francs-the minimum of penalty allowed by the law. Another member complained to the Chamber, of the editor of the Drapeau Blanc, on account of a mis-report, not of his own speech, but of that of the minister of war, who was represented to have said something insulting to him. An angry discussion followed, the liberal party insisting, with no

T

great indulgence for the errors of the "chartered libertine," that the reporter to the journal should, in future, be excluded from the sittings of the Chamber: but it came to no practical result.

once

In the internal state of France there was scarcely any thing to occupy public attention, except occurrences arising from the conflicting efforts of different sects of religionists. Some ecclesiastical orders, particularly the Jesuits, had been gradually courting favour, and increasing in influence, and endeavouring to recover a portion of that authority which was theirs. Ecclesiastics of a different description were devoting themselves to the task of awakening among the people a spirit of fanatical piety; and men of considerable authority in the church availed themselves of their station, to try to enforce a more rigorous discipline, and to restore to superstitious rites the credit which they had long since lost. The party calling itself liberal, again, was opposed to these religionists: they dreaded the approaches of the Jesuits to power, because experience had taught too clearly how exclusive and despotic that power would be; and they disliked the rigorous austerity and debarring superstition of the others, because its direct tendency, and its great object, was, to enthrone ecclesiastical authority by absorbing the mind in theological dogmas and devotional rites. The religionists were the enemies of all popular rights; and the imprudence of some individuals among them permitted doctrines to be seen which appeared to be equally hostile to the Crown. At the end of the preceding year, the editors of two liberal journals had been tried for

the writer composes, leaves him to say every thing that can be said, and creep deliberately into every nook and cranny of his subject; the debater seizes only what impresses itself upon him as important. Accordingly, more real business is done in the House of Commons in a month, than in the Chamber of Deputies in a session. It may be true that the French system enables a man to cull his phrases with greater care, and turn his periods with greater elegance; to give every member of a sentence its proper length, stick every interjection in its proper place, and introduce every metaphor with a due flourish of rhetorical preparation. But it is inconsistent with energy and boldness; it leads irresistibly to a vitiated taste; it ends in that puerile, declamatory, style of oratory (if so it must be called), which has fixed its abode in the French tribune. The French may possibly attain the smooth enamel, and the nice finishing, of the miniature, but they can never reach the power and magnificence of the fresco. If Cicero had been a French deputy, he would have unfolded his manuscript in the tribune, and, holding it to his eyes, would have read out, Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra," with tones and gestures of most extemporaneous preparation. Moreover, it is ridiculous to call that mode of discussion a debate, in which every body reads his own sentiments, but nobody discusses them; in which every one gives his opinion, but no one disputes it; in which all open, but nobody answers or replies. No one advantage of debate is gained; there is no mutual sifting of opinions and reasons. A member mounts the tribune to reply to another;

[ocr errors]

66

but as he could not anticipate what that other was to say, his reply never touches on what has gone before. If a ready command of the stores collected by reading and thinking, rapidity of invention, quickness of thought, accuracy of memory, and facility of expression, be valuable mental qualities, the French mode of parliamentary discussion is equally unfavourable to them all.

By a law passed in 1822, for the regulation of the press, it was enacted that "if, in the interval of the sessions, serious circumstances (circonstances

graves) should render the measures of guarantee and repression for a moment ineffectual, the censorship may be immediately established by a Royal Ordinance." Such a provision is utterly destructive of the liberty of the press, because it leaves the determination of what circumstances require the introduction of a cen sorship dependent on the execu tive alone. A very mischievous measure may be carried through in a very short interval; and it may be extremely desirable for the executive to prevent the public press, during that interval, from sounding the alarm. Provisions founded on an anticipated necessity for dispensing with the regular and estab lished law cannot wisely be made standing parts of a form of govern ment: they are prospective bills of indemnity. M. Royer Collard, therefore, had reason on his side, when he wished to modify this law, or at least to fix the meaning of the "circonstances graves," which were to justify the crown in imposing temporary fetters on the press. He wished it to be restricted to "great events, great troubles, extraordinary cases, which could not be foreseen,"

in short, to something different

« EdellinenJatka »