Receive, then, my sincere thanks; for nothing is more favourable to the calm, regular advance of governments, than the good understanding between the great powers of the State."

The debate in the Legislative Body on the Address lasted for a week, and the Marquis de Pierre, M. Picard, and M. Jules Favre, were the principal speakers in opposition. M. de Pierre attacked the régime maintained to coerce the press, arguing that one Minister ought not to have the power of silencing all France, that the warnings apparently so innocent, were really attacks on property, that nobody in France, except the legislators, could utter the least complaint, and that in his opinion the France of 1789 was humiliated. He deprecated expeditions to Italy, Mexico, Syria, and China, while Africa offered them a legitimate field for their exuberant activity.

He was followed, on the 8th of March, by M. Picard, who argued in favour of the jury trying offences of the press, and observed that according to the present system the Government "that names the magistrates, the Government in whose name justice is administered in our courts of law, on this point shows mistrust of the magistracy,"

The President.-Allow me-. M. Picard. I only examine principles.

The President. Try to do so in a decorous manner.

M. Emile Ollivier.-Let the speaker explain his meaning.

M. Picard. I believe I am speaking in a decorous manner.

The President.-No, you are not. Allow me to tell you that you are not speaking in a proper

manner when you say that the Government mistrusts the magistracy.

M. Ollivier. Allow him to prove what he says.

M. Jules Favre.-The law itself, in fact, supposes a suspicion of the magistracy, and shall not a deputy have the right to say so?

The President (to M. Picard). -I will not allow anyone in this House to attack, as you have done, the fundamental laws of the country.

M. Picard.-As I have done! When did I attack them?

not

The President.-Yesterday. M. Picard. You did preside yesterday, and you have nothing to do with what was said yesterday.

The President.-I regret it. You declared yesterday that an existing law (the Law of Public Safety) was a humiliation for the country. Now, you may criticize the acts of the Government; you may criticize its policy; but you cannot criticize an existing law, and say that it is humiliating, for, if you do, you weaken the respect due to the laws of the country.

M. Picard. In the first place, I was not the only person who said so. I only repeated what had been said by one of my colleagues. Allow me to tell you, sir, respectfully, but firmly, that you have no right to make the observations you have addressed to me. I am, of course, subject to your censure, as deputy, in so far as you can call me to order for what I may say in this day's sitting; but as to what I may have said yesterday, I will not hear anything.

The President.-Allow me to tell you that you are subject to

my censure whenever I think proper to apply it to you, and, when I have the support of the Chamber, I am in my right. There is no abstract principle in these things. Allow me also to tell you, that during the debate, order is not the only thing I have to cause to be respected. Do you suppose that I have not the right to call you to order when you disturb order? I have a right to call you to propriety (convenances), and to prevent you from calumniating in this place the Government and the magistracy.

M. Picard.-I am not of your opinion.

The President.-I don't want your opinion. I am the judge, with the Chamber, of your words.

M. Picard. - Whenever you call me to order I submit; and that is all I can do.

The President.-Go on with your speech.

M. Picard insisted that the jury were the proper judges of offences of the press. The magistrates who now tried them, earnestly desired to be relieved from the terrible power imposed on them. They were pained when such cases were brought before them, and when they were called upon to decide whether this or that discussion, this or that article, tended to excite hatred and contempt against the Government. They themselves admit that they are incompetent, and that the jury is the proper jurisdiction for the press. He denounced the system on which elections were carried on; maintained that mayors should not be directly named by the Government, but should be chosen by

the electors; he denounced the Law of Public Safety (of 1858), and declared that the electors should have the right to meet, and should enjoy the same chances of publicity and protection in the exercise of their rights. M. Picard dwelt at some length on each of these topics. Alluding to something which fell from one of the Commission on the Address, that it should express the policy of the Government, M. Schneider corrected him, and said, "The wish of the majority of the Chamber."

M. Picard.—Then I am very sorry both for the Government and the majority of the Chamber, if I am allowed to say so, and I shall tell you my reasons. France has already seen three or four revolutions, and many Governments

A Member. And she does not wish to see any more.

M. Picard. Neither do we; but it is you who are hastening to it with a precipitation unexampled; and we need no longer offer you opposition, for the Government refutes itself. At this moment, and to our satisfaction, it refutes the exaggeration of its principles.

The President.—In what way, pray? Explain.

M. Picard.-It is not possible to enter into a discussion of the kind.

The President. I beg your pardon. Explain. Otherwise it would be too convenient.

M. Picard. With all my heart; but I believe it is not possible. I will not explain, because I should enter on too difficult an undertaking, and because it is evident that I have not the moral liberty to do so.

The President. You have always the right to explain in a becoming manner.

M. Picard. Well, then, do you wish me to speak of all the acts which are personal to the Chief of the Executive or to the Government, and which have been judged by public opinion for some time past, and that I should speak of them with full liberty? But it is not possible.

The President. - I will not permit you to discuss here the personal acts of what you call the Executive-that is, the Emperor.

M. Picard.-Yet it is in the Constitution. The Executive is responsible, and therefore it may be discussed.

The President. limit.

There is a

The President. There was the greatest reaction against you, and you were obliged to quit power. I do not say you personally; you understand me; but your principles and your party.

M. Ollivier. And yours also, M. le President, and the first Empire also!

M. Baroche. Do you mean to say that it was the nation that overthrew the first Empire?

The President.-I repeat that this discussion is impossible, and that for the sake of the public I will not allow it to continue. But when you allege that the Govern ment stultifies itself

M. Picard.-Refutes itself. The President.-One refutes himself. I say that it is neither just nor generous to come here passing such criticism on the Government. The more it disarms, the more you attack it, instead of using moderately the liberties it has accorded to the country. In truth, you will end by curing it of all temptation to give any more liberty.

Mr. Picard continued his speech with some more occasional interruptions. He said at the close:

"For my part, I am saddened, not to say humiliated, when I think that my country is told that it is not worthy of liberty, and when I look at the men who hold such language. My country is worthy of liberty, because it is great; it is docile, it is patient; it does not rush to excess, and it will not do so; and the best proof are the laws which I attack. It is worthy of liberty, because it is France-France, which accepts all, which contemplates all with a curiosity mingled with astonishment for a certain time-but which will one day demand a reckoning, and will demand it regularly by means of the institutions which you yourselves have given, and which you wish to maintain."

M. Baroche, President of the Council of State, replied at some length to M. Picard. He maintained that nowhere were elections so solemn, or so real, as in France. He defended the existing laws on the press, and the law of public security. The liberty of the press existed in France, and some thought it had too much liberty. It was more free than at any period since 1789. He defended the system of avertissements, and pointed out the vices of the system of trying offences of the press by a jury.

M. Jules Favre, who was one of the five who signed an amendment on the Address followed on the same side, and using the expression," the official drawing up of the Address," was interrupted by the President, who asked, What do you mean by the word 'official drawing up?'"

M. Ollivier. I must beg of the President not to interrupt us. The President.-M. Ollivier,

The President. You think the explanation very simple, don't you? Well, then, to give this explanation you had no need to use the word official; you should have said simply, the drawing up by the Commission. M. Ollivier. - You are not a professor of grammar!

M. Jules Favre delivered a brilliant specch, in which he argued that the Government was 66 revolutionary, for it denied the principles of 1789, or rather exalted them to heaven in order to dispense with them on earth;" that in France there was only one journalist, and that the Emperor; that the whole press of France consisted of writers condemned to be docile, under pain of death, to inspirations from high quarters. The Government, he added, controlled the elections, interdicted committees in the provinces, ordered all public functionaries to support their candidate, and hunted individuals with spies, himself among the rest. So long as this régime was maintained, the Government must renounce the honour of governing a free people.

M. Baroche replied to this speech, and on the 11th M. Favre delivered another address, urging the evacuation of Rome.

He

an impossible task, to reconcile principles absolutely irreconcileable. She had recognized Italy, but held her by the throat, and stopped the circulation of blood through her veins. "What had Italy gained, if Frenchmen had only expelled the stranger to occupy the place themselves?" Religion could not be made a pretext for supporting absolute power, the occupation of Rome was an injury to the national life, and civilization should now offer her non possumus, and proclaim that France could not permit that freedom should be sacrificed to despotism.

M. Billault, in reply, declared that to quit Rome would be to incur hazards which might trouble the world far and wide, while to countenance reaction would be to stultify France. He read a letter from the Emperor, of the 12th of July, 1861, affirming that it was not for him to lay pressure on a free people, and though he (M. Billault) admitted that the occupation of Rome was a violation of right, still the Government of France was condemned to that act by overwhelming considerations. It had, however, demanded that the Romans, without being given over to others, should be given to them selves, and their municipal rights secured. The non possumus and the idea that the temporal power was a dogma were inadmissible, but events must wait for time and Providence.

In the early part of the Session, the Legislative Body came into collision with the Emperor in a matter in which his personal wishes were concerned, and the Chamber showed, on one point,

he must have been little prepared. It is, however, only fair to state that the Emperor extricated himself from the difficulty in a manner which did credit to his tact and good sense. He had created General Montauban, who commanded the French expedition to China, Count de Palihao, and a Senator with a salary of 1200l. a-year. He also pro

posed to grant him a dotation or majorat in perpetuity of 20007. a-year, by means of a Bill to be passed by the Chambers. The General was not popular in France, and the Legislative Body was strongly opposed to making a precedent for the creation of a military hereditary aristocracy with State endowments. When, therefore, the Bill was introduced it was referred as usual to a Committee, which reported against it.

The report, after paying a tribute to the General's merits, and declaring that it desired nothing more ardently than to aid in carrying out the Emperor's intention to reward the services of that distinguished officer, said that it was not from any motive of parsimony that it disapproved the measure, but for other reasons which are set forth in the following passages :

66

It

But your Committee found itself in presence of an order of ideas entirely different. could not forget that you are the guardians of the principles of our public right, and that within these walls you are obliged to cause the most generous considerations to give way before the authority of the law.