HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



1^9 



«oon as CEsar had usurped absolute 

 power. It was reserved for the new 

 yrorld to teach the old the practica- 

 bility of a nation's enjoying liberty 

 ■with the rising prosperity of the 

 people. Will the opinion of the 

 public funttionaries be the free wish 

 of the whole nation? Will there 

 not be inconveniencies attending the 

 avowal of opposite sentiments ? Is 

 the press so far restrained and de- 

 graded, that it will be impossible to 

 make, in the public prints, respect- 

 ful remonstrances against the pro- 

 posed arrangement ? Docs the ex- 

 pulsion of the Bourbons involve the 

 necessity of a new dynasty? May 

 Dot the establishment of that dynasty 

 place obstacles in the way of a ge- 

 neral peace ? Will it-be recognized 

 l)y foreign powers ? In case of re- 

 fusal to recognize it, must arms ne- 

 cessarily be resorted to ? In that 

 case, the security of the French na- 

 tion would be, perhaps, endangered 

 for an empty title. The means of 

 consolidation consist in adherence to 

 justice. Far be it from him to 

 make any particular application, tr 

 to cast any blame, on the opera- 

 tions of government. Is liberty, 

 ihen, disclosed to man, only that it 

 mav never be enjoyed ? He could 

 not, however, consent to regard it 



as a mere chimera: and his heart 

 told liim, that its government is 

 easy. He concluded, by declaring 

 his readiness to sacrifice his personal 

 opinion to the interests of his coun- 

 try. His respecl: for the law would 

 remain unalterable — his desire was 

 to 8cc every sentiment united against 

 their eternal, their implacable ene- 

 my ; that enemy wiio is now medi- 

 tating universal oppression. 



The speech of Carnot, temperate 

 as it was, and ajjparently delivered 

 in a tone of tonstraint, did not fail 



2 



to excite several vehement rrplies 

 and animadversions on his conduct. 

 He was asked, if he adopted the. pro- 

 per means of manifesting his re- 

 spect for the laws, in reminding 

 them, that he had, on a forme i- oc- 

 casion, voted against the consuilate 

 for life, sanctioned by the suflrages 

 of more than a million of French- 

 men ? If he had forgotten the re- 

 gimen of 1793, and that horrible de- 

 cemviral committee, wjiich, in cold 

 blood, signed arrests for death and 

 proscriptions? It was astonLMiing, 

 to hear of opposition to a measure, 

 which alone could prevent the re- 

 turn of similar miseries. The ques- 

 tion was not concerning the in ti rests 

 of individuals, but the inter<;sts of 

 the nation at large: a measure -which 

 would realize the plan of govern- 

 ment, formed by the constituent as- 

 sembly in 1789. ^ 



The discussion was resumed on 

 the ensuing day, and the proposi- 

 tion was principally supported by a 

 member, named Fayard, who, after 

 expatiating on the transcendent me- 

 rits and services [of Bonaparte, and, 

 by laying down tlic principle that 

 nations have the right to enjoy that 

 form of government, for which thej 

 arc by nature best adapted, he pro- 

 ceeded, by observing, that in rain 

 political maladies affeft and suspend 

 those principles for a moment — the 

 crisis ceases, and nature resumes her 

 rights. It is in the nature oi things, 

 that a country of vast extent, whose 

 security is not guaranteed by its 



physical position, and whose rela- 

 tions with its neighbours incessantly 

 menace its tranquillity, ought to be 

 governed by one head. Rome, at 

 her birth, had kings, because the sur- 

 rounding nations were ruled by 

 kings. Rome, after conquering her 

 neighbours, expelled the kings, and 



created 



