LETTER IX.
The tribunate.—Speech of Portalis on presenting the code civil in the corps législatif.—Debate in the tribunate on the same subject.
Paris, december the 20th, 1801, (29th frimaire).
MY DEAR SIR,
I went this morning to the tribunate, which holds its sitting in the ci-devant Palais royal, in order to hear discussed the proposed project of civil laws. This reminds me, that by a strange and unaccountable omission, I have not in any of my letters mentioned the speech, which the celebrated Portalis delivered on the 24th of last month, in presenting the measure to the corps législatif, and which speech I was so fortunate as to hear. To remedy my neglect, I shall begin my letter with mentioning what passed on that occasion; and shall conclude it with the debate, which took place to day, on the same subject, in the tribunate.
Portalis is a man of grave, respectable appearance, about fifty years old, and so shortsighted, as to be nearly blind. As soon as he ascended the rostrum, the utmost silence prevailed, and the legislators seemed to listen with that profound attention, which is only given to those from whom we expect either amusement or instruction. As for me, I received both from his discourse; and I do not remember to have been yet so well contented with a public speaker in France. He spoke for rather more than an hour and a half, without notes and without hesitation. He explained with precision, the principles and the heads of the code, which he was ordered to lay before the legislature; and while he was clear and intelligible in every part of his speech, he was frequently extremely eloquent. His principal aim seemed to be, as he expressed it, “de profiter des lumières de notre temps, mais pas de les avancer[34].” He particularly recommended a system of laws, corresponding with those of other nations, and which should strengthen the ties of matrimony, and the security of domestic happiness. Among the many strong expressions, with which his speech abounded, I remarked the following. “Pour aimer le monde entier, on peut dire, il faut aimer premièrement sa patrie, mais celui qui commencerait à aimer le monde entier, finira à n’aimer aucun pays[35]. La philosophie a fait son devoir, c’est à vous, citoyens législateurs, d’achever le votre. La philosophie commence à faire le bonheur des hommes, mais c’est la législation qui l’acheve, &c.” The legislature ordered his speech to be printed, and adjourned.
To day this important question was debated in the tribunate; and I must confess, that the expectations, which I had formed, were not a little disappointed. I did not, it is true, flatter myself with the idea of hearing either a Fox, a Pitt, a Sheridan, or a Mirabeau; but I imagined, that among the members of the only deliberative assembly, now in France, some few men would be found capable of discussing with sense, argument, and extended views, a measure so important, not only to the present happiness of the country, but to that also of the latest posterity. It would be too presumptuous to say, that there are no such men in the tribunate. On the contrary, I know, that there are some members of very superiour knowledge, great genius, and liberal principles. I shall be forgiven, however, for remarking, that the talent displayed on this occasion was by no means equal to the dignity of the subject in question, or worthy the assembly in which it was discussed. Five or six members had put their names down, as intending to speak, and each was heard in his turn. Nothing could be duller than these speeches; every one of which was read from a written paper. A very ridiculous circumstance arose from this manner of speaking. As each of the discourses had been previously prepared, there was no reference to the arguments used in the debate; and the advocates and opposers of the measure, equally disregarded, and left unanswered, the remarks of those who happened to precede them in the debate. I was not a little entertained with the conceit of one of these lamp-oil orators, who discovered, that unless they restored la loi d’aubaine[36], englishmen might buy up all the woods of France, and thus, at one blow, deprive the government of its ships, and the people of their fuel.
The only decent speech delivered on the occasion was by the celebrated Boissy d’Anglass[37], who adduced some very strong reasons against the proposed project. Speaking of England, he called the climate, “ce climat ténébreux et humide[38].”
The expression may apply; but from the damp and foggy weather, which, during some time has prevailed at Paris, I am apt to think, that it is not exclusively descriptive of Great Britain.
After this tame and languid debate, more resembling the dull repetition of school boy’s exercises, than the speeches of a great popular assembly, the measure was rejected by a large majority.
I shall make no remarks on this decision, as doing so would necessarily lead into a political discussion, which it is my great object to avoid.
The tribunes, being but one hundred in number, sit in a small hall appropriate to their use. There is a gallery, which from the specimen of eloquence displayed this day, I was not surprised to find nearly empty. The tribunes wear a uniform of blue cloth, embroidered with silver, hussar boots also edged with silver, white waistcoats, blue pantaloons, and a tricoloured sash. They also begin and end their meetings with military honours.
I am, &c.