After a short time, Mr. Bonfils, being the oldest man of the company, called the assembly to order, and he being chosen chairman, went on to state the objects of the assembly, in the following words:
“My dear friends; it has been the will of Providence to cast us together upon this lonely, but beautiful island. It would seem that so small a community, regulated by mutual respect and mutual good will, might dwell together in peace and amity, without the restraints of law, or the requisitions of government. But history has told us, that in all lands, and in all ages, peace, order, justice, are only to be secured by established laws, and the means of carrying them into effect. There must be government, even in a family; there must be some power to check error, to punish crime, to command obedience to the rule of right. Where there is no government, there the violent, the unjust, the selfish, have sway, and become tyrants over the rest of the community. Our own unhappy experience teaches us this.
“Now we have met together, with a knowledge, a conviction of these truths. We know, we feel, we see that law is necessary, and that there must be a government to enforce it. Without this, there is no peace, no security, no quiet fireside, no happy home, no pleasant society. Without this, all is fear, anxiety, and anarchy.
“Let us then enter upon the duties of this occasion, with a proper sense of the obligation that rests upon us; of the serious duty which is imposed on every man present. We are about to decide questions which are of vital interest, not only to each actor in this scene, but to these wives and sisters and children, whom we see gathered at a little distance, watching our proceedings, as if their very lives were at stake.”
This speech was followed by a burst of applause; but soon a man by the name of Maurice arose—one who had been a leading supporter of Rogere—and addressed the assembly as follows:
“Mr. Chairman; it is well known that I am one of the persons who have followed the opinions of that leader who lost his life in the battle of the tents. I followed him from a conviction that his views were right. The fact is, that I have seen so much selfishness in the officers of the law, that I have learned to despise the law itself. Perhaps, however, I have been wrong. I wish to ask two questions—the first is this: Is not liberty a good thing? You will answer that it is. It is admitted, all the world over, that liberty is one of the greatest enjoyments of life. My second question then is—Why restrain liberty by laws? Every law is a cord put around the limbs of liberty. If you pass a law that I shall not steal, it is restraint of my freedom; it limits my liberty; it takes away a part of that, which all agree is one of the greatest benefits of life. And thus, as you proceed to pass one law after another, do you not at last bind every member of society by such a multiplied web of restraints, as to make him the slave of law? And is not a member of a society where you have a system of laws, like a fly in the hands of the spider, wound round and round by a bondage that he cannot burst, and which only renders him a slave of that power which has thus entangled him?”
When Maurice had done, Brusque arose, and spoke as follows:
“Mr. Chairman; I am happy that Mr. Maurice has thus stated a difficulty which has arisen in my own mind: he has stated it fairly, and it ought to be fairly answered. Liberty is certainly a good thing; without it, man cannot enjoy the highest happiness of which he is capable. All useless restraints of liberty are therefore wrong; all unnecessary restraints of liberty are wrong. But the true state of the case is this: we can enjoy no liberty, but by submitting to certain restraints. It is true that every law is an abridgment of liberty; but it is better to have some abridgment of it, than to lose it all.
“I wish to possess my life in safety; accordingly I submit to a law which forbids murder: I wish to possess my property in security; and therefore I submit to a law which forbids theft and violence: I wish to possess my house without intrusion; I therefore submit to a law which forbids one man to trespass upon the premises of another: I wish to go and come, without hindrance, and without fear; I therefore submit to a law which forbids highway robbery, and all interference with a man’s pursuit of his lawful business.
“Now, if we reflect a little, we shall readily see that by submitting to certain restraints, we do actually increase the amount of practical, available, useful liberty. By submitting to laws, therefore, we get more freedom than we lose. That this is the fact, may be easily tested by observation. Go to any civilized country, where there is a settled government and a complete system of laws, and you will find, in general, that a man enjoys his house, his home, his lands, his time, his thoughts, his property, without fear: whereas, if you go to a savage land, where there is no government and no law, there you will find your life, property, and liberty, exposed every moment to destruction. Who, then, can fail to see that the very laws which abridge liberty in some respects, actually increase the amount of liberty enjoyed by the community.”