Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

marks; for, whether one attempted in a discussion to disparage one's adversaries, or to eulogize oneself, the effect must be to lessen the value of important matters, such as the general interest of mankind, or the affairs of nations. The hon. gentleman, in his observations on the policy of the Government since 1830, had divided it into two heads, one in which he had, and the other in which he had not, taken a part; the former he had approved of, and the latter he had criticized. He would observe, with regard to the former, that in his opinion the hon. deputy had not given it the full praise that it deserved; for a policy which, on the morrow of a revolution, in the midst of the greatest agitation, had always remained master of itself-prudent, just, and moderate -must certainly be called a great policy. He must beg the Chamber to excuse him from not following the hon. gentleman through all the questions which he had raised, for there were many which it was more desirable to leave for history to record; for the great responsibility falling on a minister frequently did not allow him to treat such questions as he might please. With regard to the right of search, he would ask whether, if the Cabinet had fallen under that question, and the hon. M. Thiers had concluded the convention of 29th May, the Opposition would not have regarded it as a great piece of success. The hon. gentleman, in alluding to the conduct of the Government towards Spain, expressed his astonishment that when the support of the French Government was demanded, the reply should have been to tell her to save herself; that was, however, what she had been able to

accomplish. She had, without intervention, put an end to the civil war, and established a constitutional government. Spain doubtless continued to experience many difficulties, but he denied that she was in a declining state; on the contrary, she was in the way to return to the good principles of practical government. He was surprised to hear the hon. gentleman make use of the names of parties connected with Spanish affairs, in a tone of bitterness which could not be made use of when speaking of their own affairs. M. Guizot here passed an eulogium on General Narvaez, who, he observed, had conferred great benefits on Spain. That officer might have committed great faults, might have yielded to the brutal traditions of his country, but when prudent voices warned him that he was acting wrong, he at once gave way, and remained strictly within the bounds of constitutional order. No person ought, therefore, to accuse General Narvaez of having compromised the monarchy of his country. As to Queen Christina, who could tell by what views her mother's heart had been moved in seeking a husband for her daughter? She had too much good sense, and too much political experience, not to sacrifice any personal feelings of her own to the welfare of her country. Spain was at present in the hands of men who had given proofs of their devotedness to her interests. What France owed them, and what she desired to afford them, was her moral support. He should not then pause to answer the observations of M. Thiers relative to Syria, for the question would one of these days be brought forward, and discussed at full length. He must, however,

declare that M. Thiers was quite in error when he asserted that France had asked for a little humanity for the Christians of that country, and could not obtain it. Humanity had nothing to do with the matter; it was altogether a question of organization in the interior of the Lebanon, on which England and France held different opinions. He was convinced that the latter was right, and should be able to prove it when the matter was discussed, but at present he could not allow the question to be misstated-to be represented as one of humanity. With respect to Greece, he should be just as brief in his remarks, as he had not long since declared that the whole cause of the difference between France and England, relative to that country, was that they had formed different opinions respecting the character of the ministry now in power. A difference of opinion might easily exist between the two Governments on such a point without leading to any grave results, and this was what had taken place in the present instance. As to the question of the United States, he certainly did not expect to find it again alluded to in the tribune. Every word that he had ever uttered relative to the United States, every act that he had sanctioned, might be strictly examined, and nothing could be found that did not testify to his great consideration and interest for that country. He had maintained the independence of the policy of France, as he had thought it fitting for her interest, in a secondary matter; and in a question of a graver cast, he had been the first to proclaim a policy which no person in that Chamber could gainsay-a strict and real neutrality, surrounded by every kind of gua

rantee. Such were the few words which he had deemed it necessary to utter on the foreign policy of the Government. He should now proceed to discuss that of the home administration, and as a preliminary step should observe, that on the accusation that the present Ministry wished for peace at any price, he must declare that they did certainly aim at preserving peace, as the only efficient means of consolidating the power and greatness of the country. But there

were

two modes of preserving peace; one was to be uneasy, to fear the possibility of war, to continually demand if it could be preserved-in fact, to show that war was considered probable. This conduct in its turn produced doubt amongst the other powers, and at last the result would be that war would burst out. But there was another mode of preserving peace, which was to do so with confidence, with the conviction that it was to be observed, and that it would issue victoriously from all trials to which it might be subjected. After a lapse of time every one would believe in its continuance, and the favourable opinion thus felt would exercise a most beneficial effect on the country. It was in this way that the present Government preserved peace. Let any one go from that Chamber, and, proceeding through France, listen to what was said and regard what was done, and then declare if France had not gained strength immeasurably within the last five years. "You, said the hon. Minister, turning to the Opposition benches, "you and your friends are the only persons who do not say so. All others declare the contrary to you; and this is the only way that we prove in what manner we un

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

derstand and practise the policy of peace.' With regard to the domestic policy of the Government, the first reproach made against it by the hon. gentleman was, that it was not a parliamentary government. It had acquired a majority. It was admitted that it had passed through many difficult trials, which it had got over with much success, and yet it was not a parliamentary government; it was a party, and governed as a party. If by this it was meant to say that the majority had acquired a firmness, an organization, and a unity which was fitting to it, the Government congratulated itself on it. The Conservative party, in fact, for the last five years, must be regarded as the principal constitutional force of the country. A constitutional government required a majority possessing those principles, and faithfully following under the same standard. Great efforts and great sacrifices had been made to attain that end. As hon. Members did not appear to understand the sacrifices he alluded to, he would explain that they had sacrificed the dearest friendships, and the warmest allies, to maintain the unity of the Conservative party. This had produced on the side of the Opposition what had been called a fusion. He considered they were very far from forming a party fit to govern, for they were wanting in the ideas, the sentiments, and the habits, which constituted such a party. They had, however, started in that road, and he much preferred seeing it so, to witnessing the disunion, the impuissance, and the incoherence which formerly reigned in the ranks of the Opposition. They had done right to constitute themselves into a great party, and to

take M. Thiers as their leader. It was not long since that that hon. Member designated himself under that character. He should leave that question to be settled among themselves; but he must be permitted to believe that the example of the Conservative party, and the necessity felt for strengthening themselves, had led to that result, which he should consider as a mark of progress, but in which it appeared they had not advanced had thought. The Government was told that it certainly had the majority, but that this advantage was obtained by means of corruption, and at the expense of representative government. The Opposition allowed that it had confidence in the institutions of the country, and that it admired them. But had not these institutions been in force for the last fifteen years? Was not every one in his place? Was not the combat that was going on between the several parties regulated by these institutions? And when a new species of liberty had been admitted, that of public voting in the Chamber, had the Government and the Conservative party suffered from it? Undoubtedly not. But it was not alone in the Chamber that the institutions were in force; throughout the whole length and breadth of the territory they prevailed, in councils general, in municipal councils, in the National Guard, everywhere they had their influence, and everywhere the Government had the majority! Well, then, here were free and powerful institutions used by every one at full liberty, and yet the Opposition went the length of declaring that they were annihilated by corruption! What greater insult could

as much as he

be offered to those institutions and to the country! If amongst the various Governments that had succeeded each other in France, any single one, the Empire for instance, with the immense powers at its disposal, had endeavoured not to corrupt, but simply to seduce; he could comprehend its being reproached with exercising an ascendancy over the institutions of the country; but in the present day, with the means now at the service of the Government-so slight, so inferior to suppose that it could succeed in putting down the great free institutions of France, was certainly going too far. It was certainly quite out of character for the Opposition, who boasted of perfectly understanding the great interests, the generous sentiments of the country, to accuse the Government of using corruption by means of tobacco shops, and supernumeraries' places, and of obtaining by such insignificant instruments the great results at which it has arrived; that surely was not possible, it was an insult to the country to suppose it. He was well aware how the Opposition explained this anomaly; they said the country slumbered was indifferent allowed matters to take their course. The Restoration was not very far from the present time; the Government then disposed of more numerous means of influence than at present-the liberties of the country were less extensive and less active. But the country did not slumber, nor did it remain indifferent. And why? Because it distrusted the Government, and was uneasy respecting its principles, for that reason it became vigilant and on the defensive.

Why

was the country not in the same state of alarm now? Because it was

quite satisfied as to the principles of the Government which held the reins of power, and, being so, it tranquilly transacted its daily business. Let not then hon. gentlemen attribute to administrative manœuvres such great results. Between the Government and the Opposition the country had to choose, and it preferred the former, and that was the sole cause of the former's force. He should now come to another reproach raised by M. Thiers against the domestic policy of the Government, that of falsifying the representative system. The policy practised by the Government was every day attacked; it was stated to be retrograde and counter-revolutionary at home, and weak and humiliating abroad; and, after thus stigmatizing the policy of the Government, it was said that it was not its own, and that if the Opposition would have followed the same course, it might have been in its place. That was the language that had been made use of; but it was evident that in that case the responsibility was not misplaced.

M. Thiers

had certainly too much experience not to know that good intentions did not always prevent bad consequences. He admitted the right which the hon. gentleman had claimed to examine into the influence exercised by the different powers of the state; but that right ought to be made use of for the interest of the country, and under certain circumstances. Had, then, that right been used, under existing circumstances, in a manner conformably to the principles of a representative government, and to the interests of the country? They were all labouring to found a monarchical establishment. This was the fourth attempt within fifty years.

There was the monarchy of 1791; the imperial monarchy of 1804; that of the restoration; and, lastly, that of 1830. They were, therefore, engaged in their fourth attempt, and that proved two things: that a monarchy was necessary, since it was always returned to; and, at the same time, that it was very difficult to establish it on a firm and durable basis. He believed that the last of the four monarchies he had mentioned, offered the best conditions of success. If France had been told in 1830 that, at the end of fifteen years, she would find herself in the situation in which she was now placed, she would have congratulated herself more than she did at a moment when she had extricated herself from a state of anarchy. But, in founding a durable and solid monarchy, it was not too much to find, in addition to the energetic assistance of all the great powers of the State, that of the Crown equally with the rest, and it was a great happiness for the present monarchy at its very commencement to meet with in the Crown so much wisdom, firmness, and devotedness to the country. What he had just uttered was repeated commonly, not only in France, but throughout the whole world, and he could not see any just reason why he should be prevented from proclaiming it in that assembly. There was much difference of opinion as to the duties of advisers of the Crown. For his part, he believed that the duties of Ministers in a monarchy were to maintain the accord between the great powers of the State; not to make one preponderate over the other, but to maintain an equilibrium between them, to bring them to the same desire, the same will.

In

In order to effect this, it was necessary for them to treat with all, with the Crown as with the Chambers, to make them accept the conditions of common accord. This was the light in which he regarded representative government. order to perform the part which he had here pointed out, it was necessary to possess much independence. He had lived under many Governments, many of whom he had served, and he was confident that no one had ever found him either servile or complaisant. He had, he confessed, much respect for the powers which governed the country, and if he happened to find himself opposed to one of them, far from allowing them to see it, he was anxious to conceal it. It was not proper to make the country acquainted with those intestine struggles; the weaknesses of the powers should be concealed. He would never allow his vanity to be gratified by such conduct, at the expense of his independence. There was another point which separated him from M. Thiers: it was this, that in his opinion the duty of the counsellors of the Crown was, to attribute to the Crown all that it did of good, but never to assign to it anything of evil. The Crown was never responsible for what was ill; it was it that effected every good.

The Marquis de Larochejaquelin.-And 1830!

M. Guizot continued. He was well aware that in all times and countries there were Crown counsellors, who endeavoured to elevate themselves by pursuing a different course; such conduct neither suited his taste nor his sense of duty. He believed, on the contrary, that it was his duty to stand aside before the Crown. By such

« AnteriorContinuar »