Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

"I regret, that I am not able at present to propose to you any reduction of the public charges; our duty towards France, and the circumstances in which we are placed, impose on us still heavy sacrifices; but the general position of Europe permits us to anticipate their conclusion. The future appears to us under favourable auspices; credit is sustained and is strengthened, and indubitable signs attest the progress of the national wealth.

"A few efforts more, and the last traces of the anxieties inseparable from a great revolution will disappear. The feeling of stability will return to all minds. France will assume an entire confidence in the future: and then will be realized the most cherished of my wishes, that of seeing my country raise itself to the height of prosperity to which it has a right to aspire, and of my being able to say, that my efforts have not been useless in the fulfil ment of its destinies."

The first proceedings of the Chamber-the election of its president and vice-presidents-shewed a strong majority in favour of the ministry. M. Dupin was their candidate, and allowed himself to be made their candidate, for the chair, although differences of one kind or another between them had prevented him from entering the cabinet. M. Lafitte was his opponent. The former had 234 votes, the latter only 136. When M. Lafitte, in the preceding year, was opposed to M. Perier, as candidates for the same office, he was only five votes below his antagonist, The election of the vice-presidents, and of the presidents and secretaries of the Bureaux, showed an equally preponderating majority

in favour of government. Out of these nine presidents, and nine secretaries, only one was a declared adherent of the opposition. These results tended greatly to remove the apprehensions of ministers of being seriously called in question for their illegal suspension of the law, and would seem to prove, that that irregular exercise of power found, in public opinion, a sufficient excuse in the good purposes which it had served. It was made, however, the prominent subject of discussion on the address. Amendments were moved on the paragraph which echoed the expressions used regarding it in the speech. They went indirectly to censure ministers, by declaring that the ordinance was contrary to the charter; the mildest merely altered the phraseology in which ministers themselves had expressed the propriety of making the consti tution, by means of new laws, speak a more precise language. Even M. Odillon Barrot declared that the opposition did not wish the impeachment of ministers, but merely reparation to the injured charter. The prime minister defended the proclamation of martial law on the ground, that the events of the 5th and 6th of June were of such a nature as to place government in the situation described by a leading orator of the opposition, who had said, in a speech delivered by him in March 1831, that, "when serious danger menaced the country, the minister, in order to save the laws, might for a moment place himself above them." Government, however, did not place itself above the laws, but had only recourse to the existing laws, the recent application of which to the departments of the west had given rise to no objections. Stress had

been laid on the period of taking the step in question. The riots commenced on the 5th of June, at five o'clock, but it was not until late in the night, and on the morning of the 6th, that they assumed the character of a positive insurrection. On the 6th, the rebels were openly in arms, barricades were erected, communications were interrupted, and the necessity of the measure was recognised by the national guards and the great mass of the citizens. The ordinance, which was only the declaration of a fact accomplished, (for the anarchy, which existed, had itself put Paris in a state of siege), was determined on and announced on the afternoon of the 6th, its official promulgation could not take place until the 7th; and, although in fact the rebellion had been then suppressed, there could be no doubt, that the knowledge of that step having been taken contributed materially to the defeat and depression of the insurgents. M. Barthe, the keeper of the seals, insisted strongly on the inconsistency of the opposition. The same parties, who chose to condemn the declaration of martial law in Paris, approved of it in La Vendée. The very journals, which, on the 3rd and 4th of June, were full of the regulations to be observed in cases of martial law, and loudly proclaimed both the legality and expediency of the measure as applied to La Vendée, on the 7th of June, only three days afterwards, were as strenuously employed in proving its illegality. The situation of Paris on the 5th and 6th of June, and the proofs furnished by the collection of arms and ammunition discovered at different places,-shewed the existence of a plot to overthrow

the government. It was not only necessary to repress rebellion by declaring martial law on the 6th, but to prevent its recurrence by continuing it afterwards. To protest against the rebellion on the one hand, and make it up by accusing the ministry on the other, was a weakness or an error; it was approving the repression of disorders, yet blaming the hand which applied the check.

M. Odillon Barrot argued, that government ought never to quit the path of legality; but if, in the absence of the chambers, imperious necessity compelled it to do so, it should take the earliest opportunity of explaining to the representatives of the country the nature of that necessity, and throwing itself on their mercy: in that case, a bill of indemnity might be granted. What could be said of an administration which had put four departments and the capital of the kingdom without the pale of the law, with no better excuse for its extra-legal conduct than syllogisms and legislative doubts, wholly inadequate to balance the injury inflicted upon the fundamental compact? In Paris the ministry had not even the excuse of the existence of civil war; for it had been amply proved that the rebellion was at an end before martial law had been proclaimed. That measure had been rejected in the council of ministers on the morning of the 6th of June, and was not adopted until the evening of that day, when the firing had ceased, and the rebellion was wholly at an end. The real motive of it could only have been the desire of vengeance, and the hope of being able to crush without difficulty those fallen enemies, whose fate would be delayed,

and perhaps mitigated, if left to the ordinary tribunals. If such were the motive-and he could imagine no other-then, putting the strict legality of the measure out of the question, the adoption of it for such an object was an attack on the charter calling for signal rereparation. "We should have thought," said he, "that ministers, profiting by the lessons given them by the past, would have kept within the strict line of legality. However, we are deceived; still nothing is lost. Let us endeavour to arrest the government on the brink of the precipice at which it has placed itself; and since ministers have so violently attacked the constitution, let us render it all the respect that is due to it."

Admiral de Rigny, the minister of the marine, asserted, in contradiction to M. Odillon Barrot, that the declaration of martial law had been determined on in the morning, not the evening, of the 6th of June, and that the council was unanimous in its decision. "M. Odillon Barrot, the minister of the marine, gives me the lie. 1 accept it. I shall carry the discussion no farther "-and the sitting was adjourned amid tumult and agitation.* Other stormy dis

There was here an awkward discrepancy between the statements of the ministers. Marshal Soult had just said, that the ordinance "was determined on and announced on the afternoon of the 6th, although it could not be officially promulgated before the 7th; he had mentioned the state of things upon the 6th as the reason why it was adopted; and if it was adopted in the morning, it is difficult to conceive why it should not have been brought to the knowledge of the citizens during a long day in the month of June. Yet Admiral Rigny averred that it was in the morning it was resolved on, though all Paris was kept

cussions succeeded. It having been stated that the national guard itself had called for coercive laws, the opposition reproached the ministry with having thus allowed themselves to be influenced by an armed body. There was an end of the constitution, if armed bodies once began to deliberate. M. Lefebvre, one of the deputies of Paris, asserted that it was not the national guard alone which called for a state of siege; it was the whole population of Paris, except the factions and their friends. The confusion and uproar, which followed this expression, were boundless. With difficulty did the president succeed in obtaining a hearing for the honourable deputy, who, however, persisted in his assertions. He would repeat, that the King, in his tour, on the 6th, through the different quarters of Paris, heard no other cry than for the city to be placed in a state of siege. (Fresh uproar). The capital was in such a state of alarm at the sedition and pillage with

in ignorance of it till the 7th. A great deal of importance was attached by each party to this difference of time; as ministers pleaded the state of the capital in the night of the 5th for proclaiming martial law on the morning of the 6th, though nothing was known of the ordinance, until it appeared in the Moniteur of the 7th. Now, as all the rioters had been taken or dispersed, and tranquillity was every where restored by the evening of the 6th, the opposition laboured to show, that the government had not even the excuse of continued riots for taking on themselves the responsibility of proclaiming martial law. M. Odillon Barrot declared that the King himself assured him and M. Lafitte, when they waited on His Majesty to advise moderation in the course which the government was about to pursue, that it was only on the evening of the 6th that the ordinance was resolved upon.

which it was threatened, that the factious alone desired that Paris should not be declared in a state of siege, and the cry for that measure was unanimous, when His Majesty, on the 6th of June, went through the streets and upon the quays, whence the revolters had but just been driven. If the factions had triumphed, the republic would have been proclaimed. M. Salverte, another representative of the capital, said, that all this was "false," and was an insult on the population of Paris. M. Jacqueminot, the head of the staff of the national guard, contended, and apparently there was sense in the argument, that the arms and barricades of the rebels had, in reality, placed Paris in a state of siege, before it was declared to be so by the authorities. All the amendments were rejected by considerable majorities. The address, as a whole, was carried by 233 to 119, being a majority of 114.

Various projects of law, which ministers had promised under the general phrases of the king's speech, were forthwith introduced. Among them was a bill to fix ministerial responsibility; a bill to regulate, for the future, the powers which should belong to the executive in establishing military law; a bill for the formation of municipal and departmental councils, a topic which had furnished for years the materials of contention and debate, -a measure for which the more popular party had ever loudly

called, in their hope that the constitution of these assemblies might render them nurseries of the democratic principle. A bill, too, was introduced to revise the custom duties, and abolish some of the prohibitions. But as none of these measures was more than introduced during the year, their history and discussion belongs to the legislative business of its successor.

The foreign affairs of France, too, having been confined to armed intervention in the concerns of other countries, belong more properly to the history of the states against which, or in whose favour, that intervention was applied She sent, unasked, a fleet and an army to Ancona, which took military occupation of a city and a citadel belonging to a friendly power. She disavowed the manner in which the occupation had been taken, and the commander by whom it had been conducted; but the occupation itself was retained. The siege and capture of the citadel of Antwerp, which was likewise designated a work of peace, was a more energetic exertion of her military power, but belongs to the history of Belgium. In the course of the autumn, the King of the Belgians was united to a daughter of the French monarch; and thus to the political relations, which identified the Belgic provinces with their encroach, ing and military neighbour, was added the tie of a family compact.

CHAP. XI.

HOLLAND AND BELGIUM.-State of the Negotiation for the Separation of the two Countries-Objections of Holland to the Treaty of the Twentyfour Articles, and Answers of the Conference-Delay in the Ratification of the Treaty-Unsuccessful Negotiations of Russia at the Hague-Ratifications of the Treaty exchanged-Seizure of M. Thorn, and its consequences-Proposals of Holland rejected-The Conference threatens to discharge Belgium of her share of the Debt -Explanatory Articles added to the Treaty to provide for subsequent negotiations between Holland and Belgium-Demands of Belgium— Holland agrees to the cession of Luxemburgh and presents a Counterproject on the other disputed points-Belgium protests against its being entertained till the ceded territories shall have been given upThe Conference declares it to be inadmissible-Disputes regarding the Scheldt, and the internal waters of Holland-France and England resolve to employ force against Holland; Austria, Prussia, and Russia refusing to concur-Convention for that purpose between France and England-Demands made on Holland by these two Powers to deliver up the Citadel of Antwerp refused-Embargo on Dutch Vessels-Project of Treaty proposed by Prussia, accepted by Holland, but rejected by England and France French Army enters Belgium-Siege and surrender of the Citadel of Antwerp. GERMANY-Ordinances of the Diet against the Press-Proceedings thereupon in different states of Germany. POLAND - Consequences of the suppression of the Insurrection.

[blocks in formation]

part of the year they had laid down certain other bases of separation, which Holland had accepted and Belgium had rejected. These had been declared by the conference, over and over again, to be final and irrevocable; the conference had repeatedly expressed their resolution to compel their fulfilment, and had even ordered their political agents to withdraw from Brussels. The intrigues, connected with the elevation of Leopold to the Belgian throne, had changed the scene. The irrevoca- . ble decisions were re-called, to

« AnteriorContinua »