the Monarch have sworn, to defend, to be insulted before their faces, and under their written authority, deputies who are faithful to them to be insulted, and as though they were desirous of a fresh invasion, denouncing to Europe the immense majority of the French.2

of a struggle, nor the ardor of combat, nor the provocation of words. It is in cold blood, on purpose and with premeditation, that they applaud attacks on men whom they themselves have disarmed. They strike those that are down. This is a business the same as any other; but this business, in every country in the world, is considered as the vilest.

If an example be required, of the calumnies which the Censorship authorises, not only against individuals but against the whole nation in a body, it will be sufficient to read again an article of the 5th September last, "Whether Louvel had accomplices or not what does it signify? Whoever approves the crime would commit it, had he the power; and I see nothing in the comparison of the precept with the act, but that the disciple has surpassed his master." And who then, wretched denunciator, who then has approved the execrable crime of Louvel? And where are the masters of such a disciple? And this is after an august assembly, who will not be suspected of being wanting in fidelity to the Monarchy, has declared that this atrocious crime was the solitary work of an incensed monster, that they have dared to write these lines, and that a Censorship has dared to approve them?

2 I read an article of the 6th September, in which a deputy, whose name is fully mentioned, is called the patron of the radicals. In the same paper the radicals are perpetually represented as breathing nothing but disorder, anarchy, and pillage. If in an article presented to the Censorship, this celebrated writer of the opposite party should be styled the patron of a faction which breathes nothing but proscription, vengeance, and the annihilation of our institutions, would the Censorship permit its insertion? It is instituted, say the Ministers, to keep the public papers clear of personalities. To say that M. Manuel is the patron of the radicals, is this or not a personality? M. Manuel may disdain it, he may and does despise, I am convinced, both the libellists and their abettors. But does the Censorship less fail in the object of its institution? Are they less the favorers of calumny and outrage? Remark, that they designate M. Manuel, at the close of the article, as the deputy for la Vendée, in order that the injury may reflect upon the electors who have chosen him, and in the national representation of which he forms part.

3 Read all the articles of the papers in this interest: France is described in them as the nursery of European conspiracies; and revolutionary principles are called the" mal français." In fine, the authors of these articles sometimes forget to disguise their wishes. I read in a Journal of the 31st August, "that the Interest of humanity commands all sovereigns to spare us a bloody confusion." Thus, it is no longer the wisdom of the king, the patriotism of the chambers, the strength of our institutions, or the sanctity of our laws, which is to preserve us; it is for Foreigners to interpose, and the Censorship authorises this appeal to Foreigners.

"You who assert, with your eyes sparkling for joy, that Foreigners desire your systems, which I do not at all doubt; you who seem to put your noble opinions under the protection of European bayonets; you endeavour even to persuade me that such a sentiment is allowed you, or that such an opinion is commanded you. You talk to me of Foreigners when you speak

In such a state of things it is evident that the nation, which ought to exercise, by means of its electors, the right of suffrage, will have,-in order to understand itself and to act in concert and give its votes to those candidates, who will not deceive their hopes -many obstacles to surmount; but a nation worthy of liberty surmounts every obstacle. No one can be compelled to inscribe on his bulletin the names he rejects. There would therefore be cowardice in condescending, though it should even be alleged that there had been tyranny or artifice in the pretension.

In another respect the existing obstructions have this advantage, that they will serve us at length to judge of the intention of Ministers without going further. It is a trial they are about to undergo. If they wish the elections to be the expression of the popular opinion, let them break the chains which bind the elec

Let them give back to the citizens their guarantees, to the papers their independence, to opinion the means of expressing itself. Let them recollect that in Rome no armed forces approached the Comitial, and that in England the place of an election is protected, as a sanctuary, from the agency of power. If they refuse to follow this noble example, it is because their intentions are contrary to their professions. It is not to the rights of all, they pay respect; it is to the exclusion of some, they aspire.

This exclusion is in fact the avowed object of the faction whose orders they appear for some time to have received. "It would be advantageous," say the papers of this faction, " to do away, by a complete renewal of the Chamber, these speaking trumpets, these telegraphs, who make speeches and, from the national Tribune, transmit signals to the agitators." Thus we find what is desired, is

to me of the laws of my country! Let us keep vain fears at a distance. The Allies themselves have delivered their own country from the yoke of France; they know that nations ought to enjoy that independence which may in a moment be taken from them, and which they will always at length reconquer: spoliatis arma supersunt." This is what M. Chateaubriand wrote in 1816, (of the Monarchy agreeably to the Charter). But this is what the friends of liberty had said in 1789, 1792, and 1815, and what they will still say; because circumstances will make no alteration in their principles, when national independence and the dignity of the French name is the question.

This open confession will, perhaps, be disavowed by the skilful part of the party. But I defy contradiction. Robespierre contradicted Marat, at the moment when he caused the latter to ask for 20,000 heads. It is convenient for a faction to have a forlorn hope in its train, that shows respect for nothing; since this gives to the rest of the faction the appearance of greater moderation, whilst it enables them equally to move onward to their object. Fortunately there is a difference between Marat's time and ours. Marat had a frenzied populace at his heels, but there is nothing at the heels of the new Marats.

2 Tribune. The rostrum from which each member speaks.-TRANSL.

to drive from the Tribune all those who warn France of the danger her liberties are in; and if there is any hesitation in risking a bold and free measure, it is because the expulsion of these importunate orators does not appear to be sufficiently certain.

Humiliating confession, in a faction which pretends to govern us! It can neither predominate by its talents, nor by the efforts of its creatures. In order that it may be heard, every other voice must be silent. In order to persuade, it must speak alone. In order that what it writes may be read, the press must be its monopoly, and no one must write but those in their pay. This is not the way that men of any worth govern; they respect their adversaries whilst they contend with them; they have not that dead conscience which applauds itself for reigning in the void-which feels that its power is negative-which can only shine in the absence of every thing that is not servile and base-to which every struggle is a defeat, and which in order to conquer its rivals is obliged to drive them away or proscribe them. France, a country of so much talent and so much glory, into what degradation do these men plunge you to what excess do they make you fall off! Never did England, which is fallen much, see this jealous fury of an ambitious inferiority. Never did Mr. Pitt have recourse to such ignoble resources, in the removal of Mr. Fox; and the weak and inconsiderate Ministry of the Graftons and the Butes endeavoured to answer, not to impose silence on Junius.

Will our Ministry lend itself to the invidious meannesses of this faction? There is some cause to fear so. There is already perceptible in its preliminary operations many an effort to evade or counteract the votes; many obstacles presented to the approach of independent electors, many diversified chicaneries and often varied, in the different departments. How many threats to the government servants! What threatenings of dismissal to the functionaries, without reckoning the more memorable dismissals, which have proved that neither virtue, integrity, nor fidelity to

It may be, and I should be glad it were so, that these chicaneries are only the effect of the narrow and busy minds of some subalterns in office; but in this case it would be right for the Government to be apprised of it. In some departments sons-in-law are rejected because there are grandsons very young; in others, notarial acts, not prescribed by law, are required. In others again, the electors are required to prove that they have not previously voted in any Department in the kingdom, which would require from each, more than eighty declarations, collected at two or three hundred leagues distance. In a word, nothing is more uncertain, more tiresome, more diversified, than the legislation which is introducing itself by the act of subordinates, in a matter in which it is equally the interest of the throne and the people, that the rules should be fixed, the system extensive, and the execution loyal,

the King, could expiate a resistance to Ministers, zealous persecutors, indifferent colleagues, and faithless friends!

Let us not, however, pronounce upon them an irrevocable sentence. Seeing what they have done we are inclined to be severe. But let us consider what a noisy faction dares to ask of them or even proscribe them from doing. We shall, perhaps, be inclined to show some indulgence. They say they are surrounded with danger it may be they think so. If they were reanimated would they be less weak? Would they in fact yield to that inclination, natural to mankind, of existing by themselves, and not being the sport of a foreign and disdainful power? The chance exists;

2

"Will not men devoted to the King be encouraged by calling them to the assistance of the Monarchy? What do they ask? That an opportunity be given them of signalizing their zeal. One vigorous act. One only." (Journal of the 2nd September.) The date of this article ought to be noted, it cannot be denied that it is well chosen. Another Journal published one of them the same day, beginning with these words: Death to the Revolution; and finishing with these: The monster must be struck at the heart. The Censorship approves or tolerates all these anarchic appeals. Would it tolerate them in the opposite party? It allows to be printed, Death to the Revolution. Would it allow to be printed, Death to the ancient Regime? Still our present institutions reject equally the ancient Regime and the Revolu tion; whoever should write Death to the ancient Regime, would be a miserable incensed wretch.-But this rule is applicable to both.

2 The faction which the Ministry so pertinaciously favors loses no opportunity of giving to the members of this Ministry proofs of resentment and disdain. Read the bill addressed by one of its Journals, the 3rd September, to the Minister of Finance; to the Minister whose circulars, says the editor, are not dictated by the wisdom which shone in the councils of Fouché. Read particularly M. Clauzel of Coussergues on M. de Serre: who could have foreseen that after the discussions of the first fortnight in June, which in the opinion of M. Clauzel de Coussergues ought to have effaced all the injuries of M. de Serre towards his party, he would have accused this Minister of having authorised frightful calumnies, (page iii.) have reproached him for his atheistic law, (page 143.) and treated him as a declaimer, for not having followed, at the time of the sedition on the Boulevards, the example of Cicero, (page 191. of the justificatory documents)! For the example of Cicero is always invoked. It would be a fine effect, under difficult circumstances, to hear the Ministers, on entering the Hall, say of certain bold and inflexible orators, they have lived. For the rest I readily adopt the judgment formed by M. Clauzel de Coussergues, on the conduct of the Keeper of the Seals, at the time of the events of the 3rd June.-" His vehement speeches, reproached with incapacity by the chiefs of the sedition, served only, he says, to prove the weakness or the short-sightedness of Government, to encourage the seditious, and disquiet the peaceable who look to the future." It remains to be known who were the chiefs of the sedition, those who deliberately attacked the deputies, and in consequence of a preconcerted plot, those who escaped being victims of this plot, or those who have in vain demanded justice.

As chance has brought me to speak here of the work of M. Clauzel de Coussergues, I shall take the liberty of asking him a question on a particular fact.

let us then examine the picture which is drawn, or which they give us of France. Let us admit that their terrors are sincere, and let us examine together if they are well founded.

"A violent agitation," they tell us, "torments France; here a party meditates the overthrow of the monarchy; further on conspiracies of divers elements are engendering, but united for destruction. We are threatened with anarchy, military despotism seconds it, in order to stifle it after the victory; invisible associations, and Direction Committees pervert the Representative Government up to its very source."

Let us disjoin these assertions, in order to examine them. A violent agitation disturbs France. No doubt. But what are the causes of this agitation? They must be well described, not for the purpose of uselessly recalling past faults, but to prevent, if possible, future evil. The source of the evil must be pointed out, in order to find the remedy.

France was satisfied with what she possessed-what she possessed has been taken from her; she wished to preserve-others wished to destroy. She aspired at stability, she has been tired out with projects of innovations; an absurd pretext has been had recourse to, the falsehood of which was averred. This calumnia

In a note of his justificatory documents, No. 4, page 103. it is said that only five Protestants were killed at Nimes, in 1815. They were not sacrificed, he says, to political hatred; they perished by the hands of the relations of those whom they had killed. I admit for the moment his assertion, but this assertion suggests to me the question I ask him.

Five Protestants therefore were killed at Nimes, in 1815? Now what did M. d'Argenson say, at that time, in the House? That afflicting news, for the truth of which he did not vouch, but which he thought necessary should be explained, caused him to fear that Protestants had been massacred in the South. M. Clauzel de Coussergues was of the hidden chamber, as well as, if I am not mistaken, his honorable friends. Let the number of Protestant victims be five as he says, eleven as M. St. Aulaire pretends, a thousand as Lord Castlereagh afterwards said, that makes no difference to the accuracy of the fact reported by M. d'Argenson. Whence comes it then that the majority, of which M. Clauzel de Coussergues was one, called a deputy to order for having mentioned a fact which he now recognises to be incontestable? The assassination of five men was well worth an enquiry. Perhaps this enquiry, had it taken place, would have prevented other subsequent assassinations. If so, those who prevented enquiry are morally responsible. I leave this consideration to M. Clauzel's reflexions, simply observing that by his own confession murders were committed, that the objecting side of the House could have prevented them, and that by imposing silence, by inflicting on the speaker, who was the organ of these complaints, the only punishment they could inflict, they were wanting in truth, because the facts were true; in the independence of a colleague, for he had a right to speak; and in humanity, for the effect of this unjust and rigorous measure was to encourage assassins over whose crimes a veil was thrown.

1

! See the very clear, well written, and very convincing Pamphlet of M.