condemn virtue, will not disown their friends, nor despise genius.(77) Levasseur. I consider the project of the committee as impracticable, and as contrary to the principle that no limits can be set to the choice of the People, nor that choice any wise prescribed. Lacroix. This is also my opinion, and I wish to quote an instance in support of the same. You have placed a deputy from the neighbourhood of the Vendée in a state of arrest; well now! if that deputy should be judged by the primary assemblies of the section which chose him, these no doubt would declare that he has deserved well of the Country; and if, in that time when the Patriots in the national convention were oppressed by a tyrannical majority, Marseilles and the Vendée had judged the deputies, they would have deprived the People of representatives who really aim at the happiness of the People. I ask the previous question upon a project which might carry with it these dangers. Guyomard. I support the project, in order that the moral responsibleness of the deputies be not an illusion. Couthon. Your committee of public welfare convinced of the desirable qualities of those articles which they have proposed, were not aware of all the inconveniences that accompany them. But you have made us perceive these, and I myself ask that these articles be expunged. I demand the previous question, on this ground, that a single section of the People has not the right of depriving the whole Nation of a representative who possesses its esteem. The assembly rejects the project of censorship.(78) (77) The decision would, according to this project, not depend upon the whole French People, but upon the majority in one section; which section would be about one six hundredth part of the People! (78) All that perhaps could be done consistent with the rights of each Citizen, might be something like this: That at a period near to the time of election, (the 1st of May,) yet so distant that the result could be universally known previous to the election, the primary assemblies throughout the Republic should be convened extraordinarily, (to wit, in case a fixed number of Citizens have demanded this convocation, Legendre. I demand that the unlimited liberty of the press be guarantied by the constitution, for to the press we are indebted for the public liberty which we enjoy. This proposal is adopted. N*** I demand that the constitution guaranty also the public debt. from the legislative body, these Citizens prescribing the very words of the question to be put to the Nation,) and that the following, or a similar, question, should be decided by the yeas and nays of the whole People: "Does the People declare, that it is its will that N. N. be not elected during this year as a deputy? aud consequently that the votes which might in any place be given in favour of his election, during this year, shall be lost and be of no account?"-A measure thus so far in the spirit of the ancient ostracism, and petalism that it might be considered as affording the People a mean to secure itself in some measure against too influential and dangerous men, who might aim at the destruction of liberty, and whom the law could not yet reach. And such decisions the People might diversify and extend to an exclusion of N. N. during that year from all military charges, or all national offices. Possibly it might be proper that, at any time of the year, the People could in a similar way annihilate the mandate of any actually serving deputy, member of the executive council, commander of an army, and any other national officer, and disqualify the same for a fixed and short period for holding that place and some other places. Yet this principle should invariably be kept in view, that the People of one year are not the People of the next, nor can in the least lawfully restrain the choice of the People of the next year, nor of its deputies, &c. That People can renew the same disqualifying declaration for a fixed and short time. And if the whole People be convened to vote about the removal of a deputy actually serving, the primary assemblies of that section which chose him should at that very meeting proceed to the election of another in his stead, this election to be of force only in case the majority of the Nation decide in favour of that removal. That in all similar cases a demand by a fixed number of Citizens be required, to cause the convocation of all the primary assemblies of the Republic, appears to me a much better regulation than that a demand by a fixed number of primary assemblies be required. But would any such slow measure afford much security ?-Conspiracies often were hardly suspected to exist until the deadly blow was struck. Buonaparte had, at the head of very few men, overthrown the government of the Republic, and was ruling in fact as a despot, within 4 weeks after his return to Paris from Egypt, and whilst a large portion of the French believed him still there.-Active watchful Citizens throughout all the Country, keeping their rights and duties in view, and who appear to be ready to act up to them, may really afford a strong Γ 64 DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. Chabot. I demand the order of the day, on this ground, that the public debt is a property, and that all kind of property is guarantied by the constitution. Lacroix. Our slanderers spread abroad that we aim at bankruptcy, if you should reject the amendment, they would avail themselves of this circumstance to obtain belief in their calumnies. Though the order of the day on the aforementioned ground is an equivalent to the positive decree, I do prefer the decree, and I demand that the amendment be added, and inserted in article 122 of the constitution. The assembly adopts this proposal. [The Act of the Constitution, as definitively drawn up, was then adopted by the national convention, on the 24th of June, 1793, Collot-d'Herbois being president; whilst the hall and galleries resounded with the joyful cries of, Long live the Republic! Live the Republic forever! Live the convention! Live the mountain! &c. and diversified manifestations of the great joy of thousands and thousands, immediatley began, and closed this memorable day. The constitution was freely and truly accepted by the People in their primary assemblies, by 1,801,918 yeas, against 11,610 nays.] bulwark to liberty, and deter those who are of a treacherous mind. The utmost danger exists where this Patriotic watchfulness, and jealous active care against first encroachments is wanting. Much might be said against the manner of election by sections, instead of election by the whole Nation by absolute majority; but much in favour of the former manner may be said also. At any rate practicability is a first requisite of any regulation. A FEW OBSERVATIONS On article 109 of the French Constitution of 1793, compared to the Rights of Man, as acknowledged by article 1, 2, 7, and 18, of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens. This 109th article appears to need a fair construction; certainly not every Frenchman, the blind, the deaf and dumb, the old and infirm, &c. was intended to be constituted a soldier; and could such be intended as should consider it contrary to the dictates of their conscience to bear arms in any case whatsoever, or even in any particular war? was not liberty of conscience acknowledged ?-This article seems to intimate that, generally speaking, Frenchmen are the defenders of their beloved Country; that every one has a right to possess arms; and that, in general, a sufficient instruction and exercise as to the management of arms ought to take place. And besides, however some persons might possibly construe this general declaration, it ought to be observed, that no law on the subject of the defence of the Country (nor on any other subject) could be framed and brought into operation without the People having an opportunity to reject the draught of the same, according to article 56-60. If it should be pretended in any Republic, that the majority of the Citizens have the right to compel the minority, or any individual, to do any thing which, according to the belief of that minority, or individual, is contrary to duty, how can liberty of conscience be enjoyed there? The free exercise of the different manners of worship cannot be forbidden; (Rights, art. 7;) but what man, in any degree sincere and intelligent, can rest satisfied with liberty only to join in what is called public worship, and which ought to serve to enforce in his mind the lively sense of his obligation to render an universal obedience to all the Divine precepts, and the ardent desire to yield this obedience,-whilst compelled to obey in his conduct the dictates of his fellow-men, though he considers them as commanding acts forbidden by the Creator? No, every act of abstinence and of performance according to the Divine precepts, if flowing forth from right motives, belongs essentially to true worship and the exercise of that which the individual considers to be worship, is evidently intended, and acknowledged to be free, in this seventh article of the Rights. Equality, liberty, safety, and property, are natural and imprescriptible rights of Man: the social state ought to secure to Man the enjoyment of these rights. (Rights, article 1, 2.) But what enjoyment of true liberty and safety is secured to a man who would be liable, at the choice of a majority of his Fellow-citizens, to be forced to yield the blind obedience of a soldier, and to risk his limbs and life in what he may consider as a war of aggression waged to the injury of his Country? how is the enjoyment of his property secured to him, when he should be, so to speak, at all times wholly at the disposal of the community? No, he does not, he cannot, surrender these unalienable rights to the Republic; nor is his person alienable property; (Rights, art. 18;) he cannot surrender his person to the Republic; but he may engage his services, and his time; he may enlist voluntarily. Yet, that no man may be forced to enlist from the utter poverty and want of subsistence to which he is reduced, article 21 of the Rights should be brought into practice according to its most extensive and fairest intent; and of course in such a manner that neither those whom the Republic furnishes with work, nor the infirm supported by the Republic, be deprived of the exercise of their rights as Citizens, nor of the opportunity of attending Patriotic Societies and enjoying other means of improvement, as well as a home, a free disposal of part of their time, &c. Nothing in the least similar to locking freemen up in workhouses ought to take place; it is very essential that a freeman displeasing by his vote a proud employer and dismissed in con |