Слике страница
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

penetrating, and cautious, he could devote his wonderful talents, and unequalled experience to bear on the object which he had in view, without exciting the suspicion of his opponents in council and diplomacy. Two circumstances, however, operated against the policy, otherwise so conspicuous of promoting Talleyrand to his situation: those of the French nation who were still attached to Buonaparte beheld him with dislike, as the betrayer of their only favourite and his former master, while the partizans of the Bourbon family entertained a natural suspicion that his attachment to the new government would only continue while their power remained permanent, and that he would desert them as he had deserted Bonaparte in the time of the greatest need. Waving the consideration of these two circumstances, it could not be doubted that his abilities and experience would enable him essentially to contribute to heal the wounds inflicted by the revolution and by the despotism of Napolean, while, as far as the honour and external relations of the country were involved, he would contribute to raise them as nearly as possible to the level of its former rank and glory.

But the disposition and feelings of the bulk of the French people formed the chief support on which Louis could depend for the permanence of his government. The capital of France no longer retained its ancient influence over the inhabitants of the provinces, and the revolution dividing the estates of the noblesse into possessions of a much more moderate size, and thus increasing the number of those who were desirous of peace, and placing the agricultural tenantry of the kingdom on a more respectable and independant footing, rendered the inhabitants of the country of much more weight and importance. Över these also the revolution had shed much less of its baneful effects, than over the inhabitants of Paris and other large cities: their manners were less frivolous, their morals less corrupt, their understandings and feelings virtuous and intelligent. On this class of people, therefore, Louis might safely rely for support, provided he secured to them their possessions, and that portion of respectability, independence, and

liberty which they regarded as their undoubted right.

The commercial and mercantile branches of the population must also have seen their interest in peace. They had suffered long and severely from the anticommercial plans of Buonaparte. Peace, and more especially a peace with England, was expected with impatience and received with gratitude. On these two classes, therefore, the agricultural and commercial, the security and permanence of the government of Louis finally depended.

There was only one other class in France whom it will be necessary to consider with respect to their influence on the government of Louis. Buonaparte had extensively curtailed the power of the clergy, degraded their rank, and reduced their emoluments. His system of discouragement united to the strong and general passion for military rank and glory, and with the indifference to religion produced by the revolution, powerfully operated in diminishing the influence of the priesthood over the people of France. Louis, from his natural disposition and habits, must have been strongly urged to replace the clergy as nearly as possible in the same scale of rank and wealth which they held before the revolution, a measure which would secure in his favour a most powerful body. Many obstacles were opposed to his procedure. A great part of the property of the Church was sold, and could not be restored, and the very intimation that such an object was in view would create the greatest alarm in the breasts of all who had purchased confiscated property. The revenues of the Clergy before the revolution, were in part derived from tithes. To endeavour to reimpose them would be the signal of universal discontent, and might possibly be followed by the re-establishment of feudal oppression. It seemed impossible to restore the clergy to their possessions; yet Louis by his demeanour evinced his anxiety for their political ascendancy and their pecuniary interest. By his evident attachment to the sacred order he certainly gave offence to the Parisians, and his proclamations for the celebration of mass in remembrance of Louis the XVI. and for the strict obser

vance of the sabbath, if they offended the profane and licentious rabble of the Boulevards, gratified the devout and virtuous inhabitants of the provinces, and contributed by extending the influence of the clergy to the support and stability of the throne.

. Considerable gloom and apprehension were excited in Paris by the refusal of Louis to receive the constitution exactly as it had been framed and accepted in his name, by his brother the Count d'Artois. On reflection, however, these feelings subsided; for Louis, though certainly unwilling to grant the extent of liberty demanded, and assuming the title of king by divine permission, was evidently disposed to sanction a degree of public freedom, unknown before or since the revolution.

About the middle of August a body of resolutions was framed under various titles, by which the intercourse between the king and the two legislative chambers was to be carried on. These regulations comprised the form of the constitution, describing the process of legislation, and apportioning its powers. The most remarkable part of this body of regulations is contained in title 4th; from which it appears that if the king refuses to accede to any request of the chambers, and disapproves of any law presented for his sanction, he must say, Le roi veut en deliberer.-The king wishes to deliberate on the subject. But if he refuses his final approbation to a law which has passed the chambers, he is pledged to use the precise form of words prescribed by the British constitution. What follows under titles 5, 6, and 7, relates to matters of form merely, with the exception of the two following articles: That the chambers can never form a junction; nor put forth addresses to the people.

The first discussion of importance respected the liberty of the press, which had been stipulated for in the 8th article of the constitutional charter. On the 6th of July the abbé de Montesquiou and the count de Blacas were introduced into the chamber of deputies, being ordered by the king to present a law on the liberty of the press: this was prefaced by an explanatory speech from the former, of which the following is the outline :

"Gentlemen, the king charges me to present to you the plan of a law relative to the press, in fulfilment of the 8th article of the constitutional charter. The press has rendered such great services to society, it is become of such necessity among civilised nations, that it ought not to be subjected to rigorous restrictions. The king, gentlemen, is not less interested than his subjects in seeing the revival of these services: it is his interest to hear the truth, as it is yours to tell it to him: but it is truth friendly to order, which wisdom always inspires, which calms instead of irritating the passions, and which teaches the people equally to dread oppression and licentiousness.

"The question is simple in itself. The object is so to consecrate the liberty of the press, as to render it useful and durable. That liberty, so often proclaimed in France during the first years of the revolution, became its own greatest enemy. The slave of popular opinion, which it had not time to form, it lent to licentiousness all its force, and could never supply reason with sufficient means of defence. The causes of this existed in the effervescence of the popular passions, in the nation being little accustomed to pub lic affairs, in the facility with which a people were deceived and deluded, still incapable of judging of the writings addressed to them, and of foreseeing their consequences.

"Have these causes now disappeared? Can we flatter ourselves that they will not again come into action? We fear that we cannot: the mute servitude which succeeded the turbulence of the first years of the revolution has not better trained us for liberty: the passions which could not display themselves during that interval would now burst forth fortified by new passions.-What should we oppose to their explosion? Almost as much inexperience, and more of weakness. Rea sonable men, disgusted with the long inutility of their efforts, would keep in the back ground, rather than expose themselves in a contest of which they had so often been the victims; interests the most opposite, and sentiments the most exaggerated, would again come into mutual combat, with all that additional violence which would be lent by the bitterness of recollections; the people

still unenlightened as to their interests, still unconfirmed in their sentiments, would follow blindly the impulse which might be given them; and whichever might be the victorious party, it would soon take exclusive possession of the press, to turn it against its adversaries,

"Such is the nature of that liberty, which must have been enjoyed in order to know how to use it: give it all the extent necessary to the nation's learning how to benefit by it; but oppose to it some bounds, that it may be saved from its own excesses,”

With regard to the principal provision of the law M. de Montesquiou spoke thus: "It has been long perceived and acknowledged, that writings of small bulk, which it is easy to circulate with profusion, and which are read with avidity, may immediately disturb the public tranquillity: repressive laws are sufficient against the effects for which the author, perhaps, can only be punished when the mischief has already become too great, not merely to be repaired, but even arrested in its progress, Writings of this sort are, therefore, the only ones against which the law takes precautions beforehand. Every work of ordinary size may be published freely; the king and the nation will have nothing to fear from them; and if the author commit any offence, the tribunals will be in readiness to punish him."

After explaining the other parts of the law, the abbé concluded thus:

"If we lived at a period when reason, long trained and tried, had a stronger sway than that of the passions; when national interest, clearly understood and strongly felt, had attached to its cause the majority of private interests; when public order, strongly consolidated, no longer feared the attacks of imprudence or folly; then the unlimited liberty of the press would be unattended with danger, and would even present advantages: but our situation is not so happy; our character even as well as our situation, forbids the establishment of an indefinite liberty. Nature has distributed her gifts among nations, as among individuals; the diversity of the institutions has fortified these primitive differences: we have received for our share a vivacity, a mobility of imagination, which require re

straint: let us not complain of this; let us not envy a neighbouring nation the enjoyment of advantages of another kind. Ours have procured us enough of happiness and glory, wherewithal to be content: to them we owe that elegance of taste, that delicacy of manners, which is shocked by the least neglect of decorum, and which does not permit us to violate it, without falling at once into the most unbridled licentiousness.

"The king proposes to you nothing that does not appear to him absolutely necessary to the safety of the national institutions, and to the march of government: assist him with your information and your influence; unite with him for the interests of liberty as for those of peace; and you will soon see that liberty unfold itself without storms, amidst the order which you shall have concurred in maintaining."

1

The projet of the law proposed by the king was divided into two parts: the first respected the publication of works; the second, the superintendance of the press; according to the first, every work of above thirty sheets might be published freely, without previous examination or revision. The same liberty was to be given to all writings in the dead, or in foreign languages;-prayer books, catechisms, &c.; law reports, if they were sanctioned by the names of professional persons; and works of literary or scientific societies established by the king, whatever was the number of the sheets which they contained.-The liberty which was apparently given in this part of the projet, was however in a great measure withdrawn by the proposal that the directorgeneral of the press might ordain, according to circumstances, that all writings of thirty sheets or under should be communicated to him before being printed. The appointment of censors was to be vested in the king; and the director-general was to cause every work to be examined by one or more censors; and if two at least of these conceived the writing to be defamatory or dangerous, or immoral, the director-general might forbid the printing: he was however to be obliged to com municate all the works, or parts of works,, suppressed by him, to a committee of both houses, consisting of three peers and three

deputies, with three commissioners appoint ed by the king; and if the motives of the censors should appear insufficient, the committee might order the printing. No journals or periodical writings were to appear without the king's authority. In a country such as Britain, where the inhabitants derive all their knowledge of passing events from the journals, this part of the projet will appear as putting a most effectual barrier to the most essential and valuable part of the liberty of the press. The journals in this country are undoubtedly often mere party publications: they often mislead the public both with regard to the facts which they ought to believe, and the opinions of public men and measures which they ought to entertain; but there can be not the smallest doubt that, if it were not for our journals being entirely independent of the acknowledged and direct control of government, our rulers would be much less cautious than they are in their conduct, and public opinion would have much less weight than it actually has. But there is no country in the world besides our own (with the exception of America) in which government does not interfere too much; to such a degree, indeed, as if they thought the people were incapable of thinking or acting for themselves, or as if they were conscious that their own actions would not bear to be fairly represented and canvassed. In the last clause of that part of the projet which relates to the publication of works, it was proposed that the author and printer may, if they think proper, require the examination of the work previously to sending it to press; and if it should be approved, they are discharged from all further responsibility, excepting as to the claims of injured individuals.

If this part of the projet appears inimical to the liberty of the press, the other part is still more decidedly so: by the first regulation in it, no person can be a printer or bookseller, without the king's license, nor without taking the proper oaths; and the license might be withdrawn on violation of the laws or regulations. All the printing establish ments not properly notified and permitted by the director-general of the press were to be deemed clandestine, and as such were to

[ocr errors]

be destroyed, and the proprietors subject to a fine of 10,000 francs, and six months imprisonment. If notice was not given and a de. posit made of the copy of any work, the impression might be seized; and in such case, a fine of 1000 francs for the first offence, and 2000 for the second, was to be levied: if the printer's name and residence were omitted in the title page of any copy of a work, there was to be a fine of 3000 francs; and in the case of the substitution of a false name or address, a fine of double that sum, besides imprisonment. Every bookseller exposing to sale a work without a printer's name, to pay a fine of 2000 francs, which was to be reduced to 1000 upon disclosure of the name. The projet concluded with the proposal that the law should be revised in three years, for the purpose of making the improvements which experience might show to be necessary.

It is scarcely necessary to point out the essential difference between the liberty of the press which this law proposed to establish in France, and that which we enjoy in Britain. It has been often complained that the nature of the libel and law respecting it is very obscure and uncertain; and that the consequences are, that a person does not know whether what he publishes will expose him to the law, or not. This certainly is the case; and the theory as well as the practice of our constitution would be much improved if libel were distinctly defined, so as that it could be known beforehand whether a publication were libellous or not. But even with this imperfection our law respecting the liberty of the press is infinitely preferable to that proposed and adopted in France; sinee in every respect the cause of truth, and the independence of character and mind of the people are much better secured, where every thing may be published, though the publication leads to danger, than where nothing can be published but what has met the approba tion of censors of the press. In the first place, it must be better, as well as safer, to trust to the opinion of a jury of our countrymen (obscure as the law of libel is) than to the opinion of censors: secondly, the most despotic or timid government will be dis posed to suffer many publications to go on,

after they are once given to the world, which they would have suppressed had they possessed the means before they were printed. But the chief consideration in estimating the advantages of the two modes is, that in a country where every work is permitted to be work is permitted to be published, the public at large can judge whether, if punishment be inflicted, that punishment is deserved; whereas, where publications are suppressed, the public cannot know whether the suppression takes place because they are beneficial to society and hurtful only to the ruling powers, or because they are really injurious to the community. In short, where free discussion is not permitted, there cannot be that controul of public opinion over governments which there ought to be, both for the real interests of the governors and the governed; nor can there exist in the public mind that calmness and comprehension with respect to their duties as well as their rights, which will always constitute the most effectual guard against sudden and violent revolutions.

The only other subject of debate, not connected with the political economy of France, related to the unsold estates of the emigrants. One of the greatest safeguards of the throne of Louis arose from his declaration that property should be respected; but while this declaration was highly satisfactory to those who had purchased estates, it was of course distressing and unpopular to the emigrants. They naturally expected that on the restoration of Louis they should regain their property; this object, however, could not be accomplished to its full extent; and even the proposal to restore the unsold estates created great alarm, as it was mistaken for a preliminary step to a further and more important innovation, that of restoring all the estates of the emigrants.

The law for restoring the unsold estates of the emigrants passed the chamber of deputies by a large majority. It was then carried up to the chamber of peers, where it passed by a majority of 100 to 3. The Duke of Tarentum pronounced on this occasion a discourse which had a great effect. At the close of his speech he announced his intention of proposing, on an early day, a projet of a law to be submitted to the king, grant

ing life annuities to those of the emigrants who had been left unprovided by the sale of their estates. "According," said he, "to the calculations whsch I shall have the honour to lay before the chamber, the funds necessary for these annuities will add but little to the burdens of the public; while this measure, so just and politic, will at the same time compensate those who have lost their all, and dissipate the apprehensions of the fair purchasers of the estates sold as national property."

It was usual during the dominion of Buonaparte for the minister of the interior to lay before the senate and legislative body an exposé of the state of France. Besides the exaggeration which these exposés obtained, they dwelt with great pomp and ostentation of detail on particular improvements in architecture and commerce of the most trifling nature. Soon after the accession of Louis a similar exposé of the state of France was laid before the two chambers, and furnishes much important and interesting information respecting the state of the empire at this mo mentous crisis.

It was read by the abbé de Montesquiou, minister of the interior, occupied 11 columns of the Moniteur, and draws a deplorable picture of the state of France. The following is an abstract of its contents.

His majesty, on assuming the reins of government, was desirous to make known to his people the state in which he found France. The cause of the misfortunes which broke down our country has disappeared; but its effects remain; and for a long time further, under a government which will devote itself solely to reparation, France will suffer under the wounds inflicted by a government which gave itself up to the business of destruction. It is necessary, therefore, that the nation should be informed of the extent and the cause of its misfortunes, in order to be able to set a due value upon, and to second the cares which are to soothe and retrieve them. Thus enlightened upon the extent and nature of the mischief, it will in future be required only to participate in the labours and exertions of the king, to re-establish what has been destroy not by him, to heal wounds not inflicted by him, and to repair wrongs to

« ПретходнаНастави »