spired them with no alarm; that all they required was full liberty of conscience for Protestants as well as Catholics. France, in conjunction with her allies, had forced the Porte to recall the governor, Omar Pasha, who had been sent to oppress Syria. In Constantinople France again occupied the former high station. Her sole policy was to protect and strengthen the independence and security of the Ottoman empire against all foreign attempts, and to promote at the same time the amelioration of the condition of the Christian subjects of the Sultan, and France and her allies had nearly succeeded in achieving those objects. With regard to Spain, her relations were not hostile, as stated by the Marquess de Dreux Breze, and he did not hesitate to declare, that no act of the Regent had hitherto justified the charge of usurpation directed against the present ruler of Spain by M. Boissy. France kept a watchful eye over that country; her interests, her honour pledged her to uphold the throne of the young Queen; the French Cabinet had carefully avoided to meddle in the internal affairs of Spain; they knew that Spain stood in need of the amity of France, and when the friendly advice of the latter was disregarded by the men who successively held possession of power in Madrid, they abstained from all hostility, and remained foreign to the quarrels of parties, well knowing that Spain, so jealous of the interference of foreigners in her affairs, would appreciate her forbearance, and that a reaction in her favour would ultimately take place. That reaction was already manifest, even at Barcelona, where the cries

"death to the French," which was the rallying cry of the revolution effected in that city in September, 1840. France, he declared, wished that Spain should be happy and well governed, and the great majority of Spaniards were well aware that she had no other ambition. As respected the other Powers of Europe, the situation of France was what it ought to beperfectly regular. She courted the intimacy of none, but maintained a good understanding with all. M. Guizot, in conclusion, contended that the policy pursued by the Government of July was perfectly honourable, advantageous and national, having obtained the approbation and support of all the men who, since 1789, had been foremost in defending the interests and independence of the country.

"I as

In the course of the debate, M. Villemain (Minister of Public Instruction) said, that he should confine himself to examining and confuting the doctrines maintained by the opponents to the address, to the effect that occasional trea. ties may be violated at the pleasure of either party who may find it convenient to do so. sert, and I need not insist upon this point in the presence of such an assembly as I now address," continued the orator, "that the common law of nations never admitted such a theory. There are, no doubt, treaties which contain in themselves ulterior causes for modification, but such a condition must exist in the terms of the convention, or be the consequence of the object for which it was concluded, But it cannot be created at the will of either party. With respect to another point, raised on

recently concluded a treaty with the United States, that Power never admitted the Right of Search, and consequently France, which admitted this right by treaty, and ratified and applied it during ten years, is precisely in the same position as America, and ought to impose what America obtained. Certainly, Gentlemen, this pretension is an abuse of comparison and of argument. I admit, that Great Britain in her anxiety to extinguish the slave-trade, after having endeavoured to obtain the same terms to which the European Powers acceded, yielded on one point and admitted another arrangement. But have we therefore a right to refuse what we admitted and practised? Let me add that the United States had another objection, much more serious than the Right of Search, founded upon the similarity of language of the two Powers, and the pretension assumed by Great Britain to press her sailors whereever she can find them. This difference between the United States and every other nation has been overlooked in the heat of political debate."

Afterwards, the general discussion on the Address being closed, the debate commenced on the separate paragraphs, according to the custom in the French Chambers. On the 23rd of January, when the third paragraph was proposed, the Marquess de Turgot moved the following amendment

"Those good relations (with Great Britain) would be better insured if, on a new examination of the treaties of 1831 and 1833, the inconveniences which their execution has revealed were removed by fresh negotiations," and after describing the circumstances under

which those treaties were concluded, stated his opinion that the surveillance exercised by French cruisers would suffice for the repression of the slave-trade by French vessels; that the Right of mutual Search was no longer necessary to attain that desirable object, since it had been abandoned by England in the Ashburton treaty; that England could not refuse to negociate on a new basis, and that she would not compromise the peace of Europe by refusing to acquiesce in a demand to that effect. If the Right of mutual Search had been conceded in 1831 and 1833, it was, he said, because both parties then considered it to be the only means of abolishing an abominable traffic.

The Prince of Moskowa succeeded M. de Turgot, and proposed the following amendment :"We hope that your Majesty will see the necessity of taking into consideration the opinion that has manifested itself relative to the Right of mutual Search stipulated in the treaties of 1831 and 1833."

The Prince of Moskowa quoted Vatel and other political writers, to prove that under certain circumstances one of the parties to a treaty had a right to demand its abrogation. He thought that the abuses to which the execution of the convention of 1831 and 1833 had given rise could be justly invoked as a well-grounded motive for their repeal. The search made by an English officer on board a French vessel was, he said, humiliating for the French flag; it was viewed in that light by the whole nation, and the Chamber of Peers, could not help partaking in that general feeling, and was bound to express its reprobation in the Address.

spired them with no alarm; that all they required was full liberty of conscience for Protestants as well as Catholics. France, in conjunction with her allies, had forced the Porte to recall the governor, Omar Pasha, who had been sent to oppress Syria. In Constantinople France again occupied the former high station. Her sole policy was to protect and strengthen the independence and security of the Ottoman empire against all foreign attempts, and to promote at the same time the amelioration of the condition of the Christian subjects of the Sultan, and France and her allies had nearly succeeded in achieving those objects. With regard to Spain, her relations were not hostile, as stated by the Marquess de Dreux Breze, and he did not hesitate to declare, that no act of the Regent had hitherto justified the charge of usurpation directed against the present ruler of Spain by M. Boissy. France kept a watchful eye over that country; her interests, her honour pledged her to uphold the throne of the young Queen; the French Cabinet had carefully avoided to meddle in the internal affairs of Spain; they knew that Spain stood in need of the amity of France, and when the friendly advice of the latter was disregarded by the men who successively held possession of power in Madrid, they abstained from all hostility, and remained foreign to the quarrels of parties, well knowing that Spain, so jealous of the interference of foreigners in her affairs, would appreciate her forbearance, and that a reaction in her favour would ultimately take place. That reaction was already manifest, even at Barcelona, where the cries

"death to the French," which was the rallying cry of the revolution effected in that city in September, 1840. France, he declared, wished that Spain should be happy and well governed, and the great majority of Spaniards were well aware that she had no other ambition. As respected the other Powers of Europe, the situation of France was what it ought to beperfectly regular. She courted the intimacy of none, but maintained a good understanding with all. M. Guizot, in conclusion, contended that the policy pursued by the Government of July was perfectly honourable, advantageous and national, having obtained the approbation and support of all the men who, since 1789, had been foremost in defending the interests and independence of the country.

In the course of the debate, M. Villemain (Minister of Public Instruction) said, that he should confine himself to examining and confuting the doctrines maintained by the opponents to the address, to the effect that occasional treaties may be violated at the pleasure of either party who may find it convenient to do so. "I assert, and I need not insist upon this point in the presence of such an assembly as I now address," continued the orator, "that the common law of nations never admitted such a theory. There are, no doubt, treaties which contain in themselves ulterior causes for modification, but such a condition must exist in the terms of the convention, or be the consequence of the object for which it was concluded. But it cannot be created at the will of either party. With respect to another point, raised on

recently concluded a treaty with the United States, that Power never admitted the Right of Search, and consequently France, which admitted this right by treaty, and ratified and applied it during ten years, is precisely in the same position as America, and ought to impose what America obtained. Certainly, Gentlemen, this pretension is an abuse of comparison and of argument. I admit, that Great Britain in her anxiety to extinguish the slave-trade, after having endeavoured to obtain the same terms to which the European Powers acceded, yielded on one point and admitted another arrangement. But have we there fore a right to refuse what we admitted and practised? Let me add that the United States had another objection, much more serious than the Right of Search, founded upon the similarity of language of the two Powers, and the pretension assumed by Great Britain to press her sailors whereever she can find them. This difference between the United States and every other nation has been overlooked in the heat of political debate."

Afterwards, the general discussion on the Address being closed, the debate commenced on the separate paragraphs, according to the custom in the French Chambers. On the 23rd of January, when the third paragraph was proposed, the Marquess de Turgot moved the following amendment

"Those good relations (with Great Britain) would be better insured if, on a new examination of the treaties of 1831 and 1833, the inconveniences which their execution has revealed were removed by fresh negotiations," and after describing the circumstances under

which those treaties were concluded, stated his opinion that the surveillance exercised by French cruisers would suffice for the repression of the slave-trade by French vessels; that the Right of mutual Search was no longer necessary to attain that desirable object, since it had been abandoned by England in the Ashburton treaty; that England could not refuse to negociate on a new basis, and that she would not compromise the peace of Europe by refusing to acquiesce in a demand to that effect. If the Right of mutual Search had been conceded in 1831 and 1833, it was, he said, because both parties then considered it to be the only means of abolishing an abominable traffic.

The Prince of Moskowa succeeded M. de Turgot, and proposed the following amendment :-"We hope that your Majesty will see the necessity of taking into consideration the opinion that has manifested itself relative to the Right of mutual Search stipulated in the treaties of 1831 and 1833."

The Prince of Moskowa quoted Vatel and other political writers, to prove that under certain circumstances one of the parties to a treaty had a right to demand its abrogation. He thought that the abuses to which the execution of the convention of 1831 and 1833 had given rise could be justly invoked as a well-grounded motive for their repeal. The search made by an English officer on board a French vessel was, he said, humiliating for the French flag; it was viewed in that light by the whole nation, and the Chamber of Peers, could not help partaking in that general feeling, and was bound to express its reprobation in the Address.

The Duke de Noailles followed, and supported M. de Turgot's amendment, when

M. Guizot rose, and said that he would not reply to all the legal and constitutional objections to which the question before the House had given rise. He would at once examine the reality of the facts. The treaties existed, and bound France towards England. They bound her not only towards England, but also towards other Powers, which she had solicited to concur in them. Thus, France had advised and obtained the adhesion of Denmark in 1834, of Sweden and Sardinia in 1836, of the Hanse Towns and Tuscany in 1837, and Naples in 1838. Negotiations to the same effect had been likewise opened by her with the Cabinets of Madrid, Lisbon, and Rio Janeiro. In making these overtures, France invariably assured those Powers that the concessions required of them were conformable to the real principles of the maritime laws, which France had always defended. It was, he repeated, at the suggestion of France that those Powers had adhered to the treaty, and the motive of the latter for being so pressing was, that England should not arrogate to herself alone the right of visiting the vessels of other nations. These treaties had existed during ten years without any serious objection being raised against them. In that interval only twelve complaints were made. Several were found groundless, two had obtained satisfaction, and three remained unadjusted. Had it not been for the treaty of the 15th of July, 1841, the conventions of 1831 and 1833 would never have been thought of M. Guizot was

feeling excited by that treaty imposed upon the Government an obligation to prosecute its abrogation. The object for which they were concluded still existed; it was notorious that French, Spanish, and Portuguese vessels were still engaged in the slave-trade. The moment, on the other hand, was not favourable to propose the opening of a fresh negotiation, owing to the state of irritation which that question had created between the two nations. While the question remained between the two Cabinets an amicable solution might be expected; but now that it had fallen into the public domain and was agitated by both Chambers, it would be dangerous to make new overtures. The aboli tion party, who compelled the British Government, after a long resistance, to adopt its doctrines, was stronger than ever, and would array the Parliament of England against that of France. M. Guizot, to show that there was nothing to be expected from England, mentioned a conversation that took place on the 9th of February, 1842, between Lord Aberdeen and M. de St. Aulaire, with regard to the modifications of the treaty of 1841, proposed in compliance with the vote of the Chamber of Deputies.

Lord Aberdeen declared that, notwithstanding his anxious desire and that of his Cabinet, to throw no difficulties in the way of the French Ministry, he could not consent to these modifications, because their spirit was too evident from the offensive language used towards England in the course of the debate in the Chamber, and that the motives that might have otherwise induced the acceptance of those modifications would be