bore no ill-will to France; that, on the contrary, they professed the highest esteem for her, and were animated with a sincere desire of continuing at peace with her; and that it would require real events, and not mere newspaper articles, to impair that good feeling of England towards France. France, besides, was particularly interested in maintaining those good relations, if she wished to avert the formation of a new coalition against her. Such a friend and ally was indispensable for France. England required no sacrifice as the price of her amity. (M. Garnier Pages, a deputy of the Left, here stood up, and exclaimed, "This is an English speech !" A great tumult ensued. The Members of the Centre loudly demanded that M. Garnier Pages be called to order; but the President took no notice of this clamorous invitation.) M. Guizot continued:-I think that I have said nothing that cannot be avowed by the best Frenchman. ("Yes, yes!" from the Centre; "No, no!" from the Left.) M. Guizot then proceeded to show that his endeavours to re-establish the good relations between the two countries had been crowned with success. Thus he had concluded conventions which had ever presented insuperable difficulties on matters. He had adjusted the long pending affair of Portendic, and signed with England a Post-office convention, another convention relative to extradition, and a fourth concerning the fisheries on the French coast. The British Ministry, he would say, had evinced throughout a spirit of moderation, goodwill, and equity, which had greatly facilitated the issue of the

cluded by declaring, that the Government would not consent to open any immediate negotiation for the revision of the treaties of 1831 and 1833, nor accept a mission which he considered contrary to the honour and well-understood interests of the country.

The chief feature in the debate that followed on this subject, was the emphatic declaration of Marshal Soult, that Ministers " accepted" the situation, in which the paragraph introduced by the Com mittee placed them, and that he cordially adopted the sentiments of M. Guizot. The gallant Marshal said " Much has been said of the English alliance. I declare, as I did some years back, that I am a warm partisan of that alliance. I had occasion to say it in this place on my return from London, when I called to mind that I had learned to estimate the English nation on the fields of battle. I fought the English down to Toulouse-("You mean at Waterloo.")-yes, at Waterloo. I was there; I was by the side of Cambronne when he said, The Guard dies, but never surrenders.' (Great interruption.) I repeat that I fought them down to Toulouse, when I defended the national independence, and fired the last cannon for it. In the meantime, I have been to London, and France knows the reception which I had. (Yes, yes!" A voice The English themselves said, Vive Soult they cried Soult for ever !') I repeat then, that I am a warm partisan of the English alliance but in saying so, do I say that I ever forgot-President of the Council, Marshal Soult, private soldier-that I ever forgot the independence and honour of

avowal which I now make, and which I shall always make, if the chances of war were again to arrive, either with England or with any power, I would sacrifice for my country my last breath of life! I would, like Marshal Saxe at Fontenoy, have myself borne to the field of battle on a bier, if necessary." (Continued cheers.)

This declaration of Ministers, that they would not oppose the insertion of the paragraph in the Address, but yet would not act upon it if carried, according to the determination expressed by M. Guizot, not to demand of England a revision of the treaties of 1831 and 1833, greatly disappointed the hopes of the Opposition, who found that they were outgeneralled; for by this stroke of policy, the Ministry escaped the appearance of a defeat, and yet in no degree compromised their principles,

Ultimately, on the 3rd of February, the Address was carried by a majority of 177; the numbers being-for the Address, 278; against it, 101.

A perusal of this debate in both Chambers, will show how strongly at the commencement of the present year an anti-English feeling prevailed in France. The most vehement advocates of freedom seemed disposed to allow the slavetrade to be carried on with impunity, rather than subject the French flag to an imaginary degradation, by conceding the Right of Search; and in truth, the very idea that such a right as that contended for by Great Britain could be derogatory to any nation, was never entertained in France, until the question had been raised by America, which was no party to

to the proposed treaty of 1841, which France, although she at first assented to it, subsequently refused to ratify. Nor would the conduct of America on this occasion have roused the dormant sensibilities of the French, had not their pride been wounded by the leading part which Great Britain took in settling the difficult dis. pute between Mehemet Ali and the Sublime Porte, when France thought fit to isolate herself, in a spirit of sullen and offended dignity from the other great Powers of Europe. But the existence of such a feeling in the nation, makes the conduct of M. Guizot and his colleagues more honourable and praiseworthy-for they had the moral courage to oppose the unjust and unworthy prejudices of their countrymen on this subject; and endeavoured to induce a more healthy tone of friendship and goodwill towards Great Britain.

In the beginning of March, an animated debate arose in the Chamber of Deputies on the Secret Service Fund Bill, which was understood to involve the question of confidence in the Ministry. In the Committee that was appointed to prepare the Bill, Ministers were enabled to place six out of the nine Members chosen for that purpose, and the general discussion commenced on the 1st of March, In the course of it, M. de Lamartine made another vigorous attack on the Cabinet, in a speech which embraced a very wide range of topics-he said that England exercised undue influence in Europe, and Russia in Turkey; and asked whether Spain ought not to be in the same manner dependent on France? He reproached the Ministry for not having exerted

bore no ill-will to France; that, on the contrary, they professed the highest esteem for her, and were animated with a sincere desire of continuing at peace with her; and that it would require real events, and not mere newspaper articles, to impair that good feeling of England towards France. France, besides, was particularly interested in maintaining those good relations, if she wished to avert the formation of a new coalition against her. Such a friend and ally was indispensable for France. England required no sacrifice as the price of her amity. (M. Garnier Pages, a deputy of the Left, here stood up, and exclaimed, "This is an English speech !" A great tumult ensued. The Members of the Centre loudly demanded that M. Garnier Pages be called to order; but the President took no notice of this clamorous invitation.) M. Guizot continued:-I think that I have said nothing that cannot be avowed by the best Frenchman. (" Yes, yes!" from the Centre; "No, no!" from the Left.) M. Guizot then proceeded to show that his endeavours to re-establish the good relations between the two countries had been crowned with success. Thus he had concluded con ventions which had ever presented insuperable difficulties on matters. He had adjusted the long pending affair of Portendic, and signed with England a Post-office convention, another convention relative to extradition, and a fourth concerning the fisheries on the French coast. The British Mi nistry, he would say, had evinced throughout a spirit of moderation, goodwill, and equity, which had greatly facilitated the issue of the

cluded by declaring, that the Government would not consent to open any immediate negotiation for the revision of the treaties of 1831 and 1833, nor accept a mission which he considered contrary to the honour and well-understood interests of the country.

The chief feature in the debate that followed on this subject, was the emphatic declaration of Marshal Soult, that Ministers "accepted" the situation, in which the paragraph introduced by the Committee placed them, and that he cordially adopted the sentiments of M. Guizot. The gallant Marshal said-" Much has been said of the English alliance. I declare, as I did some years back, that I am a warm partisan of that alliance. I had occasion to say it in this place on my return from London, when I called to mind that I had learned to estimate the Eng. lish nation on the fields of battle. I fought the English down to Toulouse("You mean at Waterloo.")-yes, at Waterloo. I was there; I was by the side of Cambronne when he said, The Guard dies, but never surrenders.' (Great interruption.) I repeat that I fought them down to Toulouse, when I defended the national independence, and fired the last cannon for it. In the meantime, I have been to London, and France knows the reception which I had. (Yes, yes!' A voice The English themselves said, Vive Soult they cried Soult for ever!') I repeat then, that I am a warm partisan of the English alliance but in saying so, do I say that I ever forgot-President of the Council, Marshal Soult, private soldier-that I ever forgot the independence and honour of

avowal which I now make, and which I shall always make, if the chances of war were again to arrive, either with England or with any power, I would sacrifice for my country my last breath of life! I would, like Marshal Saxe at Fontenoy, have myself borne to the field of battle on a bier, if necessary." (Continued cheers.)

This declaration of Ministers, that they would not oppose the insertion of the paragraph in the Address, but yet would not act upon it if carried, according to the determination expressed by M. Guizot, not to demand of England a revision of the treaties of 1831 and 1833, greatly disappointed the hopes of the Opposition, who found that they were outgeneralled; for by this stroke of policy, the Ministry escaped the appearance of a defeat, and yet in no degree compromised their principles,

Ultimately, on the 3rd of February, the Address was carried by a majority of 177; the num. bers being-for the Address, 278; against it, 101.

A perusal of this debate in both Chambers, will show how strongly at the commencement of the present year an anti-English feeling prevailed in France. The most vehement advocates of freedom seemed disposed to allow the slavetrade to be carried on with impunity, rather than subject the French flag to an imaginary de, gradation, by conceding the Right of Search; and in truth, the very idea that such a right as that contended for by Great Britain could be derogatory to any nation, was never entertained in France, until the question had been raised by America, which was no party to

to the proposed treaty of 1841, which France, although she at first assented to it, subsequently refused to ratify. Nor would the conduct of America on this occasion have roused the dormant sensibilities of the French, had not their pride been wounded by the leading part which Great Britain took in settling the difficult dis. pute between Mehemet Ali and the Sublime Porte, when France thought fit to isolate herself, in a spirit of sullen and offended dignity from the other great Powers of Europe. But the existence of such a feeling in the nation, makes the conduct of M. Guizot and his colleagues more honourable and praiseworthy-for they had the moral courage to oppose the unjust and unworthy prejudices of their countrymen on this subject; and endeavoured to induce a more healthy tone of friendship and goodwill towards Great Britain,

In the beginning of March, an animated debate arose in the Chamber of Deputies on the Secret Service Fund Bill, which was understood to involve the question of confidence in the Ministry. In the Committee that was appointed to prepare the Bill, Ministers were enabled to place six out of the nine Members chosen for that purpose, and the general discussion commenced on the 1st of March. In the course of it, M. de Lamartine made another vigorous attack on the Cabinet, in a speech which embraced a very wide range of topics-he said that England exercised undue influence in Europe, and Russia in Turkey; and asked whether Spain ought not to be in the same manner dependent on France? He reproached the Ministry for not having exerted

a stable and moderate government in Spain, and for having no principle to guide it :-Let not the honourable Minister, historian as he was, forget that each dynasty was founded on a principle. Louis the Fourteenth prevailed by his influence in Europe; Napoleon by his military glory; the Restoration by its traditions. "As to you (Turning to the Ministers)-you have not adopted any principle whatever; and on that account, you will advance towards that melancholy choice which you have yourselves anticipated-to a peace endured with shame, or some heroical but useless folly. I conclude with declaring, that such a line of proceeding must fall to the ground, not only with you, but with whatever men may be tempted to continue it. Nay more, I tell you, and I speak with the accent of a deep discouragement, with that excess of audacity that a mighty grief often affordsFrance must either cease to be France, or you must cease to be Ministers."

M. Guizot accused M. de Lamartine of "excess of audacity," in arraying him against the policy not only of the Government, but of the whole reign, and indeed of the country; in which representative Government had been developing itself for the last thirteen years; while the policy of successive Ministers had been uniform:-Know then (said M. Guizot,) whom you are struggling against, and what policy you are decrying. It is that of France, free and convinced. It was that which he came to support. That was the boldness which astonished him. Of what was this policy accused? Of two great errors

santly that all Europe was in a coalition against France, and could not endure her greatness; that France, on her part, was ready These to rise against Europe. were the two principal errors with which this policy was reproached; when for five years, from 1831 to 1835, these were the two ideas which he and his friends had constantly combated. It was the Opposition who then supported them; and he and his friends combated them against speeches similar to the one just pronounced. It was indeed strange, that the two results which had been obtained by the struggle of five years-one, that France could live at peace with Europe-that the France of the July Revolution, and the Government of July did not menace the security of Europe-the other, that Europe, which had so long opposed the Revolution of July, no longer threatened the security of France, and was willing to be at peace with her he could not help saying, that there was ingratitude and derision, in charging those results against the Government which had obtained them.

He insisted on the policy and right that France and England should reciprocally treat as equals; and he alluded, first to the time when Lord Grey's Government were reproached with sacrificing the supremacy of the British flag to the French navy, and then to the amicable sentiments towards France, which had recently been uttered in the British Parliament; he would not suffer a sentence to escape him, which would not correspond with those uttered on the other side of the Channel. Yes, the feelings of the two countries ought