bers, he uses the precise formula prescribed by the British constitution, Le Roi s'avisera.' 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; neither can they put forth addresses to the people. teaches the people equally to dread oppression and licentiousness. he says: Le Roi veut en délibérer but if he refuses his final sanction to a law which has passed the cham-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 public 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. We have not room to enter on a detailed account of all the topics which engaged the attention of the two chambers during their first session; but some it would be improper to pass over. The first in 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 fulfil ment 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 1814. "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.Reasonable 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 R blindly 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 adversa ries. "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 tranquil lity repressive laws are insufficient against the effects for which the author, perhaps, can only be funished 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 of fence, 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 untimited 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 restraint: let us not complain of this; let us not envy a neigh bouring 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 clegance 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 wirh 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." 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 wri tings in the dead languages, 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 director-general 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 communicate 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 appointed 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 Ame rica) 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 establishments not properly notified and permitted by the director-general of the press were to be deemed clandestine, and as such were to be destroyed, and the proprietors subject to a fine of 10,000 francs and six months imprisonment. If notice was not given and a deposit 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 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; since 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 approbation 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 countryment (obscure as the law of libel is) than to the opinion of censors: secondly, the most despotic or timid government will be disposed 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 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 control 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 ef fectual guard against sudden and violent revolutions. By those who could see nothing wrong in the measures of Louis, it was contended that France was not fit for a greater share of the liberty of the press than what it was proposed to give her in this projet. But this is a very suspicious argument: would those who supported it when Louis was sove reign of France have admitted its validity when Bonaparte was on the throne? Some distinction ought however to be made in the two cases: Bonaparte had rendered himself so detested, that, if the liberty of the press had been allowed, his reign would probably have been terminated long before it actually was: it was therefore necessary for him to restrain the press: but he had himself created that necessity; and the necessity had respect only to his own personal safety. Whereas, in the case of Louis, if perfect liberty of the press had been granted while so many partisans of Bonaparte remained, not only the fate of Louis but the tranquillity of the kingdom would have been endangered: it may be said, therefore, that some restrictions were absolutely necessary; and that this necessity, which was of a public nature, was created, not by the measures of Louis, but by the measures of Bonaparte. It was not to be expected that the projet would pass through both chambers without considerable discussion and opposition; though there were not many members in either chamber, who by their conduct during the reign of Bonaparte had very solid and unquestionable grounds for being regarded as consistent and conscientious friends of liberty; and it was impossible, on reading the most eloquent and powerful harangues on this and other similar subjects, to prevent the suspicion crossing the mind, that these men had spoken as powerfully and eloquently in favour of Bonaparte's measures. This impression must be greatly strengthened by the character of the oratory displayed in their chambers; which is too rhetorical,-and bears too much the appearance of having its origin in a wish to shine, to please and satisfy those who have been accustomed to the manly, substantial and business-likespeeches of the British parliament. ་ CHAPTER XVII. Report of the Committee of the Chamber of Deputies on the Law respecting the Liberty of the Press-Speech of M. Raynouard on this Occasion-Determination of the Chamber respecting it-Speech of the Abbé Montesquiou in Defence of it-Reply of M. Raynouard-Discussions in the two Chambers respecting the Restitution of the unsold Property of the Emigrants-Speech of the Duke of Tarentum on this Occasion-Journal suppressed for misrepresenting his Speech-Substance of his Plan for relieving the Emigrants. TH THE law respecting the liberty of the press, as proposed by the king, meant to subject to censorship pamphlets, journals, and on the whole publications of a temporary interest and circumscribed size, viz. 30 sheets. The projet of this law having been referred to a committee, they debated upon it; and when the report of the committee was brought up (as we should term it in England) M. Raynouard in the chamber of deputies made a most eloquent speech in favour of the free and unrestrained right of publication. As this speech entered at considerable length into the arguments in R 3 support |