could not submit to the humiliation of accepting propositions made after the adoption of the unjust amendment introduced by the Chamber in its Address. M.Guizot said that similar propositions would now experience the same fate; that it was neither prudent nor opportune to propose new negotiations; that such a proposition would not succeed; that it would be folly to adopt such a course; that, for his part, he would not accept such a mission. He told Lord Palmerston in 1840 My Lord, you sacrifice la grande politique à la petite-the existence of good relations between France and England are worth more than Syria;" he would say to the Chamber, "You sacrifice the grande politique à la petite, -the existence of good relations between France and England, politically and morally speaking, are far preferable to the abrogation of the conventions of 1831 and 1833." "We have," said M. Guizot, in conclusion, "rights to respect; to propose new negotia tions would be an act of levity and blameable imprudence and temerity. The Government of the King is convinced that the status quo is not in the least derogatory to the national independence, and it is consequently determined not to depart from the complete and loyal execution of those treaties; and I repeat, it would neither be wise nor opportune to propose any modification thereof at this moment to the English Cabinet." Next day the Duke de Broglie ascended the tribune, and delivered a very able speech. He began by explaining the motive of the silence observed by the committee respecting the question of the Right of Search. He felt the danger of bringing forward a question of such moment, carrying it, as it were, to the foot of the Throne, and placing the King in the alternative of either expressing an opinion, or withholding it. It was the right of the Chamber, he admitted, but it was a right that should be reserved for extreme circumstances. The committee, however had carefully examined the question. They had consulted the President of the Council and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The latter had informed them of the inutility, in the present state of things, of demanding any modifications in the treaties. One of the commissioners having observed that the Ministry had always in its power to paralyse the ill-will of England by refusing to renew the warrants, the Minister replied that such a course would be an act of bad faith, and the entire committee had concurred in that opinion. M. Guizot recommended that the affair should be left between the two Cabinets. If difficulties of an unforeseen nature should arise, France, he said, having to treat with an intelli gent and reasonable Government, an adjustment could be easily obtained; but the result of the negotiations would be compromised if the case were taken up by the Chambers; and the committee had consequently been unanimous in directing him (M. de Broglie) to reject every amendment proposed on that subject. The Duke de Broglie next proceeded to vindicate himself for having signed the conventions of 1831 and 1833, and did not hesitate to assume the responsibility of those acts. admitted that the Restoration had refused to concede the principle of the Right of Search, but that right He nevertheless existed de facto, and many French merchant vessels had been actually searched, seized, and condemned by British cruisers during the reign of the elder Bourbons, but particularly from 1822 to 1830, when that Government was strongest. M. de Broglie then produced a volume of English State Papers, from which he read the report of a British captain, stating that nineteen French vessels were visited by him from the 5th of June to the 5th of July, 1823. He adduced similar proofs for 1824, 1825, and down to the 30th of November, 1830. Among the documents to which he referred was a return of the vessels searched by British cruisers in 1829, which was officially communicated by the Ambassador of Great Britain to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Duke likewise cited a number of judgments pronounced by the Court of Sierra Leone against French vessels thus seized. This course was considered so natural in order to arrive at the suppression of the slave-trade, that so far back as 1826, Marshal Sebastiani gave it his approbation from the tribune of the Chamber of Deputies. This M.de Broglie merely mentioned, to show that the Right of Search did not originate with him, and that the principle was not contested under the Restoration. The English cruisers were in the habit of proceeding in the same manner towards the Americans, and he read a list of twenty American vessels visited by them, and treated in every respect as the vessels of France. He said, that at the time those conventions were signed, all Europe was arrayed in arms against France, and the latter that evinced any sympathy for her revolution a right which she had freely exercised during the Restoration. France wished that right to be regulated by a treaty, to which England readily assented. The Right of Search, which was originally enforced by one nation was shared by France in virtue of the convention. The search made by all English vessels of war, and all over the Atlantic, was confined to cruisers provided with special warrants, and within certain zones, and the citizens of both countries were handed over for trial to their respective tribunals. In a word, the principle of the most complete equality for both was preserved in the treaties, and no stipulation in favour of one nation was introduced in them to the prejudice of the other. M. de Broglie then discussed the question of constitutionality, and contended that the Government was not bound to submit those treaties to the approbation of the Chambers, and that had it done so it would have violated the constitution. The treaty resembled the treaties of extradition, of which ten existed between France, Spain, Belgium, &c., and which had never been sanctioned by the Legislature. The argument derived from the fiction, that a vessel at sea was a portion of the territory of the country to which it belonged, he positively contested, and he defied the noble Peer who had used it to cite a single article of French legislation in justification of his assertion; by some writers it was called a floating colony, a floating island, but its character had never been properly defined. The law of March, 1831, however, had, in M. de Broglie's opinion, settled sel engaged in the slave trade to an instrument of crime, and pronounced its confiscation, and confiscation, it was well known, only existed in the French code as respected instruments of crime. He then vindicated those treaties against the charge of their violate ing the criminal law of France, or having obstructed the progress of French trades, which he treated as a mere speculative opinion, unjustified by any document. He declared that, in the course of the ten years, only twelve complaints had been made, seven of which rested on such flimsy reasons that they were abandoned by their authors. During the last year pressing appeals had been addressed to all the captains engaged in the African trade to denounce all the abuses which had arisen out of the execution of the treaties, and only two had come forward, whose principal_grievance had been that the English officers who visited them were not dressed in their uniforms. The idea that England was so anxious to maintain these treaties, because they afforded her a means of exercising a sort of inquisition over the trade of France, he regarded as absurd. England, he said, had consuls in every port of France, and nothing was so easy for her as to obtain from those functionaries an exact return of the vessels, and the nature of their cargoes, without incurring the enormous expense of equipping cruisers for that purpose. M. de Broglie, in conclusion, said, that the Chamber On the following day (Jan. 25), of Peers by agreeing to the a discussion arose on the sixth amendment, would adopt a peril- paragraph, which related to comous course, in opposition to that mercial negotiations, when Count which it had invariably pursued Beugnot brought forward arguwith so much success. The misments to prove that a commercial press and enlighten public opinion and not yield to it. He afterwards reminded the assembly of what had occurred in England in 1738, precisely under similar circumstances. In virtue of treaties Spain had obtained from England the privilege of visiting English vessels suspected of carrying on a contraband trade with her colonies. This occasioned innumerable and loud complaints. The most extravagant stories were every day put forward to rouse the public feeling, and compel the Government to demand the revocation of those treaties. Addresses were forwarded from all parts of the country, and Sir Robert Walpole, though well aware of the falsity of those stories, was at last obliged to yield, against his conviction, and placed by public clamour under the necessity of declaring war against Spain. The whole of Europe subsequently took part in that war, which was terminated by the treaty of Aix-laChapelle, after ten years' duration; "and, strange to say, added M. de Broglie, "not one word respecting the Right of Search was inserted in that treaty." He then concluded by an extract of Burke's opinion on that war, which appeared to make a deep impression on the assembly. After the Duke de Broglie had returned to his seat, the amendment was put to the vote, and rejected by a large majority, 118 having voted against it, and 67 in its favour. gium could not be otherwise than advantageous to the two countries, because it would produce no sudden and alarming changes in the present state of manufactures and commerce of the two countries. By degrees, both countries would gain by the interchange of commodities. The great objection to this plan would be a political one-namely, the neutrality of Belgium guaranteed by treaties. Europe might suppose that a more intimate union was eventually intended, and would therefore probably oppose the plan agitated since last session. As to any necessity weighing on Belgium to engage in a commercial union with France, it was ridiculous to make so unfounded an assertion. The quantity of business transacted in that country was greater than that of Sweden, Spain, or Russia. It was an error therefore, to say that Belgium could not live alone. For his own part, he should prefer a lower rate of tariffs to any commercial union, no matter however advantageous it might appear. He should, in concluding, quote the words of Sir R. Peel on the point. "England," said the hon. Baronet, "desires to purchase everything at a cheap rate. If there are other nations who are willing to pay dear, they are at liberty to do so." Baron Dupin considered the Belgian people happier than the French nation. Their taxes were lighter, and the necessaries of life were cheaper than in France. Their commerce was enormous, and out of proportion with the number of the inhabitants. The Belgians were, therefore, less interested in the question of a commercial union than the French, and if that question was brought for Belgium had a large commercial company possessing a capital of 60,000,000, which was overstocked with goods, and was anxious for a market for their productions. The voice of these men should not be taken for that of the Belgian people. For his part he was opposed to the idea of a commercial union. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said, that the Government did not see, in the expressions of the Address, any thing but perfectly allowable recommendations. He thought it right to declare that the paragraph under discussion in no way constrained the Government, for there was nothing in it to hinder them from negotiation or modifying tariffs. The liberty of the Crown remained intact, and existing interests should be, it might be depended on, the object of its solicitude. The other paragraphs having been adopted almost without discussion, the Chamber proceeded to the ballot on the ensemble of the Address, when there appeared in its favour 117 votes, and against it 33, giving a majority of 84. The Address was consequently adopted. When this Address was presented to the King by a deputation from the Chamber of Peers, His Majesty made the following reply: "I am deeply affected by the wishes you express. After the blow which befel me, I could only derive consolation from that general mourning, and that accord of all sentiments and all opinions to concur in my grief and insure the future prospects of France. It is by the union of all the powers of the State, by the confidence with which you invested me, by the sincere and enlightened co-operation you afforded me, that our present perfection, and that we obtained the object of our common endeavours-the maintenance of order at home and of peace abroad. It is a pleasure to me to repeat to you, that you have acquired many additional titles to my gratitude and that of the country." -- In the Chamber of Deputies, the draft of the Address was read by M. Dumont, who had been appointed to draw it up, and on the 27th, the general debate commenced. The proposed Address was for the most part an echo of the Speech, but relative to the question of the right of searchon which so much irritation of feeling prevailed amongst French politicians who made it a pretext for attacking the Soult-Guizot Ministry the following paragraph was introduced:-"United by feelings of humanity, the Powers apply themselves to the suppression of the infamous traffic in black slaves. We have seen with satisfaction, that, in continuing to lend to this just aim the support of France, the Government of your Majesty has refused its assent to an extension of existing treaties. For the strict and faithful execution of these treaties, as long as they exist, we repose on the vigilance and firmness of your Government. But struck with the inconveniences, revealed by experience, and even in the interest of that good understanding so necessary to the accomplishment of the common task, we look forward with the strongest hopes to the moment when our commerce shall be replaced under the exclusive surveillance of our own flag." The usual protest concerning Poland was also inserted in the words "France recals to Europe The debate on the Address was commenced by M. de Beaumont, who vehemently attacked the Ministry, and said that it had not an existence conformable to the institutions, and that it would be fatally led by the exigencies of its origin to violate the charter. Their internal policy being bad, it was impossible that their foreign policy could be dignified and profitable for the country. The radical vice of their situation rested in the existence, or rather the nonexistence, of the Cabinet, for it had no system, no will of its own, no policy of which it could be said to be the expression. M. de Carné followed, and supported the policy of the Cabinet. M. de Lamartine then rose and said that he could not agree with the hon. Deputy who had opened the discussion, that the fault was in the Ministry. In his (M. de Lamartine's) opinion, the fault was neither in the present Ministry, nor in that which had preceded it, nor in that which should be destined to succeed it; the fault lay still higher, it was in the difficulty of the situation. He did not intend as he had been accustomed to do, to combat some particular paragraphs of the Address; he should attack the whole in its spirit and its terms, with the exception of that paragraph in which the country associates itself with the monarchy, which had been in existence for twelve years, and with the misfortune which had so deeply affected them all. It was painful for him to come there to oppose men to whom he had for a long time given his support: but he had perceived at rather a late period that there was danger in discussing question by question, |