The discussions in the Chamber of Deputies on the laws
against the French press have become unusually interesting. The Duke DE BROGLIE, THIERS, BIGNON. MAUGUIN, DUPIN, and ROYER COLLARD, are the principal orators. The Duke DE $eOGUK spoke like an Ultra Tory in favour of repressive mea- sures. He appears to be quite unaware that he stands on the brink of that precipice down which POLIGNAC was hurled. Bilalloses speech was full of allusions to the consequences of the potic proceedings of the Government on the foreign policy of 'entry. He considered that their inevitable tendency was en the alliance of France with Constitutional Govern- nd to throw her into the arms of the Despotic Confede- France, he said, would be well represented by her new Kalisch and Toplitz. MAUGUIN spoke with less earnest- an was expected against the tyrannical proposition of the rs. By far the most important and impressive speech d during the discussion, as far as accounts of it have been d, was that of ROYER COLLARD, the father of the Doctri- who, as President of the Chamber in 1829, presented the address to CHARLES the Tenth, which led to the new ns, and the ordinances of POLIGNAC in 1830. Five years elapsed' since this most popular and influential member bad opened his lips in the Chamber, and intense was the interest and respect with which he was listened to. He solemnly warned the Government to pause in their mad career. He spoke season- able truths on the subject of the liberty of the press— "Isis impossible to separate," he said, " the advantages of the liberty of the we wets! Lstes. :01s a less t - ithest seaeelive Xecelv V' 'Mire N-.-.1atno el press from its inconveniences. It is impassibly to mark distinctly, by any law which Gan be framed, when tlut lawful umisettbe press terminate, and where what is called the licentioyanen or wheat ea sawn of the press begin. There are certain great truths which ate now eakhrushed in France relative to the press, and it be)amgs to no arras question dr aa. 710 evil and the good of the press are inseparable. There is no liberty without licentiousness. The offence cannot always be defined. The interpretation remains arbitrary. The offence itself is changeable. That which is an offence of the press at one time is not at another. These great truths—these truths which can never be overthrown.— have been demonstrated to us all by innumerable facts; and by this demonstra- tion, we arrived at that great national conquest of the subjecting offences of the press to trial by jury."
He protested against the erection of the Chamber of Peers into a tribunal for the trial of offences committed by the press ; and contended that Ministers were paving the way to the destruction of that Chamber by their proceedings. He spoke of the Duke DE BROGUE, his former disciple, as " an honest man led away by irritation," and entreated him not to deal a mortal blow at that liberty of which he seemed all at once to have lost the " instinct and the desire."
DUPIN spoke rather feebly, being in ill health ; and TRIERS made a lame reply to COLLARD. Indeed. the Ministry seem to have had much the worst in the debate.
Previous page
