Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

24th of February, 1848, the Chamber of Deputies, instead of being defended by the National Guard, had had at its disposal one of the regiments stationed in the Place de la Concorde, it would have certainly succeeded in repressing the insurrection. The National Assembly would not have been invaded by barbarians on the 15th of May, had a military force been at hand; and the formidable insurrection of June would not have been so easily subdued had not the command of the troops been centred in the hands of a General of the Assembly, who had established his head-quarters in the legislative palace. He had no notion of forming a parliamentary army, nor of adding a single soldier to the troops now charged with its defence. All to be desired was, that at a supreme moment the Assembly should be empowered to call out the battalions necessary for its defence and independence. It was a military as well as a parliamentary precaution.

M. Lasteyrie next rose and said that his proposition was without any object, since the right was not contested. He accordingly withdrew it, hoping that the Assembly would cause its authority to be respected.

The President then read the following order of the day, signed by Messrs. Daru, De Broglie, De Montalembert, &c. :

"The National Assembly being invested by the Constitution with sufficient power for its defence, passes to the order of the day."

M. Crémieux observed that hitherto the Majority and the President of the Republic had pursued one and the same course of policy, and undertaken together that fatal

expedition to Rome, in which one republic had destroyed another republic. Why had a distrust suddenly broke out between them, and manifested itself by the proposition of the Questors? It was evidently because the President had submitted to the deliberation of the Assembly the repeal of the electoral law of the 31st of May, and, for the first time since the 20th of December, 1848, brought forward a popular measure. The Majority had no great attachment to the Republic. It incessantly invoked the Constitution, which it every day trampled under foot. M. Leflo had justified his intentions in moving the proposition. M. Crémieux did not inquire into the intentions, but merely regarded the law. He would ask the Majority what it thought of it, and what it would do, when it would invest its President with the right of calling out the troops? He then ridiculed the apprehensions of the Majority with regard to the views of Louis Napoleon. For his part, he feared nothing from a man who exceeded his powers. If the Majority was so afraid, it was because the Assembly did not feel behind it that force which supported Assemblies. That side (pointing to the Left) feared nothing from him. They accepted from his hands a popular act, but did not dread his popularity. They accordingly had no reason to vote the resolution of the Questors, the Constitution providing sufficiently for the defence of the Assembly. The 32nd Article stated that it fixed the importance of the military forces necessary for its defence, and disposed of them. The 36th Article declared the representatives of the people inviolate; and the 110th confided the de

posit of the Constitution, and the rights which it consecrated, to the guardianship and patriotism of all Frenchmen.

After some discussion M. Thiers rose and, amidst much confusion and disorderly interruption, proceeded to address the Assembly. He said, that it was stated that they were much displeased at the attempted abrogation of the law of May 31. The principal cause of the proposition was, not the wish to repeal the law of May 31, but the circular of the Minister of War. (Agitation.) "Is it or is it not," said M. Thiers, "true, that the circular of the Minister caused a great impression on all the benches of the Assembly?" M. Miot," That is not the question." (Several members of the Left here rose and appeared to be protesting against the conduct of the Mountain.) "Was it not intended to put interpellations on the subject? Several expressed an opinion that in presence of such language, which might give the army false ideas of its duties, it was proper to enlighten it on the subject. (Noise.) I do not hesitate to say, without again entering into the discussion, that I will demonstrate that, in presence of the circular of the Minister, it would be im prudent not to establish the law in the minds of the army. Permit me now to say a word on the state of affairs. (Loud interruption.) When General Baraguay d Hilliers replaced General Changarnier, did he not consider himself obliged, in making an appeal to the obedience and the discipline of the army, to dictate to it as a duty the maintenance of the powers constitutionally established and respect for the laws? After General Baraguay d Hilliers came General

Magnan, for unfortunately it has been necessary to seek for new devotedness. General Magnan also spoke of respect for the laws, and that is the proper language to address to the army. The army owes obedience for the maintenance of the laws. For the first time the new chief of the public force, General Leroy Saint Arnaud, has made an appeal in novel terms to passive obedience and to discipline. I do not attribute it as a crime to the Minister to make this appeal to discipline, but he perverts the spirit of the army when he does not speak to it of respect for the laws-A Voice Is not the Constitution then a law?'-and for the Constitution. [You violated the Constitution by voting the law of May 31. You violated it on the 13th of June.'] ['And you voted against it.] (Continued noise.) I will ask my interrupters whether they approve of the omnission of any mention of respect for the laws in the circular in question? The circular of the Minister, I repeat, is of great gravity. Is it so or not? Do you approve of it? (Cries of No, no!" on the Leit, and laughter on the Right. [M. Michel (de Bourges)-A snare is laid for us.'] Under no régime can such language be held to the army. The army is abroad the defender of nationality-at home the defender of the law. That must be well understood by all. and without any mental reserve. In imposing on the army the absolute principle, without any reserve, of obedience, you should give it for object the maintenance of the law. And you, legislators, who wish that the obedience of the soldier shall have the maintenance of the law for its object, should

render the law clear. What is the object of the proposition? I am not the author of it, neither did I suggest it. (Ironical laughter on the Left.) [General Leflò, addressing the Left, No one more than you inspired the proposition.'] Under a Constitution which renders the Assembly the temporary holder of the national sovereignty, the necessary principle inspired by the simplest common sense is, that the Assembly shall charge itself with its defence, and shall not delegate it to any one. Now, do you think that that general declaration, without any rule which explains it, is sufficiently clear to put an end to all the anxieties of those who may have to comply with your requisitions? (Interruption on the Left.) Two cases may present themselves. (Renewed interrupLion.) You now (addressing the Left) deny the privilege of direct requisition, which you admitted under the Constituent Assembly. [Voice on the Right-Wait a moment, you are not Ministers yet."] (Laughter; agitation on the Left.) The principle of direct requisition has been affirmed. But it has been denied, and you think that that does not require a new reply from the Government. General Lebreton- It has been denied by all Governments.] I will say the same thing in the tribune. Will you grant me a few minutes to explain the principle of direct requisition? Do you wish that this immense question, misunderstood now, shall not be unknown to-morrow? The question at stake is the independence of the Assemblythe future of representative government-the last Assembly perhaps. (Oh! oh! for the Royalists on the Left.) Royalists! Call me Royalist, if you will; but it will be a

singular spectacle to see Royalists defending the liberty of the Assembly. (Cries of Divide on the Left.) I wish to make the question clear in the interest of everybody. (Noise on the Left.) The country will know that when I wished to throw light on this great question you would not listen to me."

M. Thiers then, unable to command a hearing, left the tribune, and was succeeded by the Minister of War, General de St. Arnaud, who said

"I thank M. Thiers for having afforded me the opportunity of replying openly to the strange interpretations to which my language has been subjected. A new man in politics, a stranger to parties, I did not expect such attacks and such injustice. I am not accustomed to keep back what I think; and I thought that I could recall to the army the principles of discipline and passive obedience in the ranks. I learnt those principles in the school of the illustrious Marshal Bugeaud. I profess those principles openly, and am resolved to maintain them. The day on which you allow the spirit of examination and discussion to be introduced in the army-Interruption)-you will have no longer any army, and public order will have lost its most firm, its only support. (Movement.) I am reproached with not having reminded the army of the respect due to the laws and the Constitution. It is not my words, then, which are interpreted, but my silence. I know how to respect the laws, and I am one of those who know how to make them respected. But But a soldier is not a judge of the law. I do not know if I form a just idea of the majesty of the law;

but in speaking of discipline, and of the necessity of drawing closer its bonds, I never dreamt of causing the law to descend from the height which it occupies. I know that the law is the principle of every society. But the principle of the army is passive obedience, without which there is no discipline. It is by discipline that the soldier is taught devotedness to the laws of his country. If you oppose in the army the respect of the law to the respect of discipline, what will be the consequence? If you develop in the army the spirit of deliberation contrary to that discipline, what will be the consequence? Under arms, the military regulations form the only law. By the side of the duty of obedience, I have placed responsibility. If you suppress all that, you will destroy the army, and will enter on a fatal path. Gentlemen, the army is the army of the country. It is united in devotedness, and in the knowledge of its duties. The President of the Committee has said that there must be no equivocation. I am entirely of his opinion. It is good that the Assembly, rejecting orders of the day motives, should reject or accept the proposition of the Questors. I repeat it aloud from this tribune, in order that every one may know it. We do not contest the right of the Assembly to demand troops for its defence, but this right must come within the terms of the Constitution, and in order not to destroy discipline and the army, the requisition, which will never be refused, must pass through the regular channels of command."

Several other members after wards rose to speak, but the noise and interruption were so great that they were hardly able to make

[blocks in formation]

The proposition was consequently rejected, and the sitting was brought to a close in the midst of the greatest agitation.

Another measure indicating the suspicions entertained by the Assembly of the conduct of the President, was now brought forward. It was in the shape of a Bill for determining the responsibility of Ministers and the Chief of the State. By the 68th article of the Constitution, it was prescribed that an organic law should be passed deferring the other cases of responsibility of the President and his Ministers, besides those specified in and by the terms of the Constitution itself.

In 1849 the Government of the day had directed the Council of State to prepare such a law, but no interest was felt in the subject; and the progress of the Council was so slow, that it was not until the 9th of October in the present year that they had perfected a measure, which was submitted to the President of the Republic, and to the Legislative Assembly, on the 5th of November. The projet de loi contained thirty-six articles, in eight chapters, under distinctive heads

Chapter I. "Of the Responsi bility of the President of the Republic," comprised in Article 1, these three paragraphs, among others, defining the circumstances which warranted impeachment:—

"1. If he be guilty of an attack

on or a plot against the safety of the State, of which the object may be to destroy or change the form of government, or to suspend the empire of the Constitution and the laws; 2. If he be guilty of exciting to the violation of article 45 of the Constitution [which forbids the re-election of an existing President]; 3. If he be guilty of violation of the Constitution, by taking in person the command of the armed force."

Chapter II. "Of the Responsibility of the Ministers," contained, in Article 5, these paragraphs of impeachment:

1. If they be guilty as accomplices of the crime of high treason punished by article 68 of the Constitution; 2. If they be guilty as authors or accomplices of one of the crimes foreseen by paragraph 1 of Article 1; 3. If they be guilty of a crime against the internal or external safety of the State, foreseen by the Penal Code; 4. If they be guilty as authors or accomplices of one of the crimes foreseen by paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 1; 5. If they make a criminal use of the power confided to them; 6. If they knowingly compromise the interests of the State by the violation or non-execution of the laws."

Chapter III. defined the process of impeaching the President or Ministers, and when these had been impeached, the actual trial of the accused was regulated by Article 16, as follows:

"If the accusation be admitted, the National Assembly issues a decree which convokes the High Court of Justice, and designates the town in which it will hold its sittings. It nominates, by the absolute majority, the commissaries, who may belong to the As sembly or not, charged to conduct

the prosecution before the High Court of Justice. They enter immediately on the exercise of their duties. The accused immediately ceases his functions."

This was the last measure of importance which occupied the attention of the Legislative Assembly of France. Its destruction was already resolved on by the Presi dent, who prepared his Coup d'Etat with a skill and courage worthy of a better cause. He saw that his illegal views were suspected, and that the Assembly would never consent to be the instrument of his ambitious endeavours to put himself in nomination for the next Presidency, in violation of the fundamental law of the Constitution. He knew also that, if he descended to the station of a private individual, his influence was gone for ever, and there is too much reason to believe that pecuniary embarrassment would have involved him in extreme difficulty.

He resolved, therefore, to strike a sudden and daring blow. For a long time he had seized every opportunity of ingratiating himself with the army, and by its aid he hoped to be able to subvert the Constitution which he had sworn solemnly to maintain, and to bear down all opposition, if any were offered, by the cannon and the bayonet. It seems that he made privy to his plot M. de Morny, on whose devoted personal attachment he knew that he might rely, and with his aid he caused to be secretly printed, on the night of the 1st of December, a number of decrees, which appeared at daybreak on the walls of Paris, and met the eyes of the astonished inhabitants. They were as follows:

"In the name of the French

« EdellinenJatka »