The Constitution.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume V, Issue 367, 7 February 1849, Page 3

The Constitution.

The discussion on the constitution for the new Republic began on Monday, and^ judging ; f from the progress-which has been made up to this time, is likely to occupy the Assembjy for some months to come. In the outset -the Assembly agreed to all the articles of the projects declaring that the Assembly should not separate' until it had voted the organic laws in conformity with the constitution. We subjoin a brief resumi of the subsequent proceedings : i M. de Puyraveau led the opposition to the ' principle of ■ the ' constitution, -which* 'goes, to % lodge so much power in the hands of the Pre- * sident. M.^Thiers contended ithat, unless' there was. an intermediate power like a senate^ to temper the authority of c the President on the one hand, and moderate. >uhe ba'sty action of a large popular assembly on the other/ the - result would inevitably be the creation of two distinct, and sometimes clashing powers,- act--ing like rivals; and ending ia hostility to one^ another. " What could you oppose," asked M. de Puyrayeau, " to this power of thetPre-' sident, who, like yourselves,, is? elected hyjthe people, and derives his: authority from 4he same source I ''You could > hava no authority. . over. him, while he, on the contrary, dispose*, of the active force -of the executive, which he = might 1 apply ;agains( you. • He imay dissolve i you, if you stand in the waysofhis ambition^ for-what can resist force 1 His power wonld^; in fact, be royalty under another name,' jand no matter what guarantees you may 'take,- be * assured that such apower is by its v^ry nature encroacbiugi^i : „ ;■ -„ -v irlsc o, -■. M. ■ Gredy< Reclaimed ' aga'initi. cowuptidn, which he said Iriughtl not to be renewed under a Republic. . ?He was for -a severer mode- of-

life, »nd Jpr the repression of luxury. It was quite shocking, to see the inequality of conditipr^that existed in society, some being exorbiuntly^rich, white others, with is good right to cpm I fa.rt,,we_re l in wretchedness and misery. (de Coudon), delivered an abstract "essay on constitutions, which had no practical bearjng on the subject. , $L Lafont considered that the preamble contained" such high sounding promises, in in such high-flown language, that it would be well to omit it, altogether. i i M. Pierxe Leroux next ascended the tribune, and^if a lion had been let loose, the shout of terror could not have been greater {lian wa* excited by the- appearance of this prolix ptiitosoptier. The Assembly at length ] put on- an air of resignation, and patiently endured, the hurdy-gurdy, going over its wellknown,series, of^discordant tunes about socialism, communism, atheisv, &c. M. Arnoult laboured to show that the preambleTOugHt to be postponed, on the principle J«rhaps that the preface to! a, book is the last jfjitten, as it is generally the last read. ' M..,Dufaure -showed" that the preamble, as coming first, ought to be, the first discussed. The Abbe Fayet, Bishop of Orleans, considered the preamble wanting in clearness, and under ■ semblance of conciliation concealed -some, questions of an irritating character (murmurs). . He 'blamed the paragraph containing the' dogma of liberty, equality, and fraternity. He protested against such a definition. Liberty was neither a natural, a civil, nor a political dogma — it was nothing more than obedience to the law. The only dogmas were religion, a love of country, justice, and the union of all virtues. He concluded by proposing, as an amendment, to place at the head of the preamble in place of the words, "in the presence of God," &c, the words, "in the name of God," &c. __M. Coquerel said he must oppose the amendment. The expression "in the name of God " was an ecclesiastical one, whereas, "in the presence of God" was, on the contrary,, laical, (laughter). M. Frosnau could not see what advantage either ,the Assembly or the country would derive from such philosophical discussions. Abstract truth did not belong; to the domain of legislative assemblies. The Convention had thought* fit: to recognise the existence of God, and to decree the immortality,,. of the soul; but what had truth gained by such proceedings ? , He concluded by proposing that the Assembly should declare that the preamble, bfiing^ouecessary, ought to be suppressed. ] M.de'Lj«nartine ascended the tribune to vindicate the great revolution of February, which there was an evident- disposition to underrate and lower, and that was what he could mt witness in silence-; for he might say, in theiwordso6yirgil,,"Adsum quiieci;" and he tftok.upion himself the responsibility of all that had taken place. What more glorious, what, more magnificent spectacle, he would ask, than of a nation earnestly engaged in the great woik of its own regeneration, and labouring: among the dust caused by the ruins of the 5 falling monarchy to frame a fitting constitution ? If the fear* and scruples of those who would deprive this great work of it* noblest part and ornament, the preamble, were/to be attended to, the work itself would lose.its grandeur, as well as its practical utility. The Constituent Assembly, when it had a similar task to accomplish, was not frightened :by such an objection, but began by publshin,g a declaration, of tights. The American began also by asserting the principles, which were to serve as the groundwork of its acts. Such great examples ought not to be influence on the French Assembly-, They ought to bear in mind that they were legislating for future generations, ana they were reminded of the majestic character of their work by the solemn words — "In the presence of God, and in the name of the.French people." If they rejected that preamble^ they would obliterate all traces of the enthusiasm by which they had,; been inspired, and for which their posterity would seek.in vain.. They were not dealing with a mere act ofcparliament. If they had but a limited local measure-on which to'legislate, they might say sic volo, ite jubeo — but such a course as that was not suited to a great constitution, which should be settled finally and carried but triumphantly. He hoped to see the /preamble placed at the summit of the constitution, which its declaration of assistance for . those who required, it, instruction for. : all, and employment secured within the resources of the state. He then proceeded to assert the truth and beauty of the motto of the Republic. Nothing was more sublime than liberty; and fraternity, as he understood it, was different indeed from the sdrtrot union dreamed of by the preachers of Communism. The fraternity which he understood was that taught by the Gospel of God ; the other was sheer selfishness, personal ambition, and « thirst for property, which it pretended to annihilate. Here M. de Ltmtrtine separated himself completely from the

Communists. He would maintain the preamble, and for the reason that the question affecting the interests of society should not be shrunk from. Every question should be looked in the face-r-every, abyss of evil should be sounded — and they had a.right to pledge themselves, as they did by their preamble* to deal with all wants and necessities. He then proceeded to glorify the revolution of February, which he called the greatest event of modern times; It had abolished' capital punishment for political offences. It had put down a little electoral oligarchy of 250,000 electors, and gave universal suffrage. He was for that revolution, and was opposed to Communism, which some had thought to engraft upon it. He was a firm supporter of the principle of property, which was the great support and instrument of civilisation, as Communism would, on the other hand, lead to barbarism. The organization of labour, as 1 advocated by certain persons, wasj in His opinion, Utopian and foolish. These declarations were received with loud, cheering, and when M. de Lamartine left the tribune, he w«* surrounded by a crowd of representatives, shaking his hands and offering him their congratulations. M. Odillon Barrot made himself conspicuous by the warmth of his admiration towards the rival who ruined his grand project of a regency. After a speech from M. Mesnard, the amendment of M. Fresnau, which had for its object the suppression of the preamble, was rejected by 491 to 225.