34] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1800. 



curity had the people for domestic 

 happiness ? It was notorious, that 

 personal security might he easily 

 compromised, and that the greater 

 part of property was in a state of 

 insecurity ; that all bargains, com- 

 merce, and useful arts, were in a 

 state of stagnation, that there was 

 no longer any confidence between 

 man and man ; that the people were 

 vexed and tormented in every way 

 that was possible; that their misery 

 was so great, and their oppression 

 so complete, that they durst scarcely 

 to complain, and that those who 

 saw the causes of those evils, had 

 not courage either to mate tliem 

 known, or to point out the reme- 

 dies. What was the principal cause 

 of this deficiency of civil lilierty and 

 domestic happiness ? The imper- 

 fections and vices of their social 

 orijanization . As government was 

 instituted only for the good of tlie 

 governed, and that public liberty 

 was nothing else than the means of 

 securing individual liberty, it was 

 evident that if this last had no ex- 

 istence ; if tlie mass of the go- 

 verned resigned themselves to their 

 fate in silent submission and passive 

 obedience, it was because there was 

 no etfectual mode of obtaining jus- 

 tice ; because the development of 

 the political powers was imperfect 

 and vicious. 



From the continued violations 

 of the constitutional law, respecting 

 the exercise of the sovereignty of 

 the people, either by the undue in- 

 fluence of the executive govern- 

 ment, or that of factions eager to 

 convert its power to their own use, 

 the orator passed on to that want of 

 harmony which had been visible 

 among the public functionaries 

 whose respective authorities were 

 -without any line of demarcation. 



without any legal and coercive 

 means of preventing their mutual 

 invasions on public liberty, or the 

 respective faculties which had been 

 delegated to them by the constitu- 

 tional charter. The line of demar- 

 cation between the legislative and 

 executive powers, should have been 

 clearly marked. There was no 

 provision that could prevent the 

 legislative body from trespassing on 

 those limits, if such were its inten- 

 tion. Tliis last body, possessing the 

 exclusive right of interpreting the 

 constitution, became the only com- 

 petent judge between itself and 

 the other powers, and had the only 

 right of calling them to account. 

 The independency of the respective 

 powers was, therefore, either not 

 reciprocal, or not sufficiently gua- 

 ranteed. As to government, when 

 the diflerent ideas annexed to that 

 word are considered, it will be 

 found to be all imcertainty, embar- 

 rassment, and contradiction : if taken 

 in the most extensive sense of the 

 word, as embracins' both the lesis- 

 lative and executive powers, these 

 two authorities, so far from going 

 band in hand together, were al- 

 most always in constant opposition, 

 presenting the spectacle of two fu- 

 rious enemies, continually aimingat 

 each other's ruin. With regard to 

 the executive government, the ad- 

 ministrators were continually in a 

 state of mutation according to the 

 will of the party alternately predo- 

 minant, and continually occupied, 

 not about the good of the people, j 

 but how to consolidate their tri- 

 umph over their adversaries. In 

 tine, is there a single jiart of the 

 public service Avhich is organized, 

 or that proceeds in a regular and 

 invariable movement ? No ! every 

 thing is in confusion ; and all our 



