but, at the same time, preserving the freedom of their policy. He had said several times, that there should be no intimacy which would shackle our policy; goodwill, reciprocal good understanding, yet a complete and real independence. But a good understanding was impossible, as M. de Vatry had just said, if words and actions did not agree; the relations could not be friendly, so long as bitter words, sharp speeches, and violent sentiments, were incessantly manifested in one of the two tribunals: expression should be equally equitable and amicable on both sides; it should be so on their part, and hecongratulated himself that there was no dissenting voice in that Chamber to such a proposition.

He now came to Spain, and insisted that there the policy of France had been decided. The two countries are connected by natural ties of geography and history. Of the two great sovereigns whom M. de Lamartine had mentioned, Louis the Fourteenth succeeded in his policy; Napoleon failed. Napoleon failed, because he attacked the independence and honour of Spain, and raised up hostile parties and obstacles to the Governments which succeeded him; and the growth of the constitutional system in Spain now forbids that half-possession, which constituted Louis the fourteenth's success. The present Government had gone upon the principle that political intimacy might subsist without domination, and that in internal changes Spain could right herself.

M. Guizot maintained that the power and influence of France had increased abroad; and he concluded with saying, they might run through the whole world, from

Washington to Calcutta, and they would find that the policy of France since 1830, was a matter judged and approved of. Inquire of any nation, and the wisdom of the French King would be found proverbial. A word more, and he had done. It was asserted that nothing truly great and good could be done without self-devotedness. Life was full of trials, no matter in what condition one was placed; and the higher was the position, the more difficult were they fre quently felt. The honourable Deputy had said, that he loved to carry his respect to a high persouage above him: let him bear in mind, that for twelve years that personage had served as a mark for the assassin's ball and poniard, and yet was still watching on patiently and unceasingly over the welfare and glory of France, and then let him say, that was not real, practical selfdevotedness. (Loud applause.)

if

A Voice-"That is unparliamentary language." (Disapprobation.)

The Minister for Foreign Affairs-Such, he would repeat, was real self-devotedness. Let them not forget it, or be guilty of ingratitude towards a whole reign. (Applause.)

The delivery of this speech made a great sensation on the Chamber, and when the division ultimately took place on the 4th of March, the ensemble of the grant was carried by a considerable majority; the numbers being-for the Bill, 244; against it, 155; majority for ministers 89.

The same Bill was afterwards on the 20th of March carried through the Chamber of Peers by a majority of 135 to 37. During the debate M. Guizot expressed

himself in the following language, which ought to gratify every sincere well wisher to his country, whether in France or England. "It is evident to everybody that the passions which had been so vehemently excited among us are now fast subsiding; that a better and more equitable feeling towards England is beginning to prevail; and that, thanks to the perseverance and moderation of the policy of the Government, as also to the persevering moderation of the British Cabinet, there is every reason to hope that the good relations between the two countries will soon be solidly restored."

In the month of April a projet de loi was brought forward in the Chamber of Deputies by M. Odillon Barrot for repealing what were called the laws of September; whereby offences of a political nature, whether against the State or the person of the King were with drawn from the cognizance of juries, and directed to be tried by a Court of Peers. This proposal, however, was rejected by the Chamber.

An interesting event occurred in the same month in the publication of the report of the Commission which had been appointed in May 1840, to enquire into the best means of emancipating the slaves in the French West Indian colonies. The report was drawn up by the Duke de Broglie, who acted as President of the Commission.

The following are the principal proposals of this document, which marks another great epoch in the history of West Indian slavery. The Commission proposes, first, a project of law fixing the 1st of January 1853 as the epoch of slavery ceasing in the

to remain in their present condition, with the exception of the following modifications, to be introduced by Royal ordonnance. Civil rights are granted to slaves during these ten years; but they cannot plead those rights in a court of justice without being represented by a curator ad hoc. Boats and vessels, arms and powder, are excepted from the kind of property which slaves may possess. The peculium and the right of a slave to purchase his liberty is established. Emancipated slaves are not to enjoy political rights. Children born free are not included in this. The emancipated are to be forced, for five years, to engage themselves to planters, and, of course, forced to reside in the colony. The Governor in Council shall fix each year the maximum and minimum of salaries. Disciplinary workhouses shall be established for the refractory. The indemnity to the planters will be 150 millions of francs, in Four per Cents. This sum will be distributed in 1857, with the accumulated interest, to the owners of slaves, those who have old and infirm slaves agreeing to keep and feed them. Another law will provide for the emancipation of all children born of slaves since 1838.* The Go

French West Indian Colonies for the tion, free and slaves, amounted to "The whole of the popula568,515, showing an augmentation of 3,732 over the preceding year. With respect to the slaves, since 1834, the number of births has gradually increased, whilst the same is not the case with respect to deaths. The number of mar

vernment proposed a measure, the object of which was to carry into effect the foregoing propositions, but as there was unhappily an idea prevalent that it had been framed at the suggestion of England and in compliance with English wishes, it created so much opposition, that it was postponed with the intention of bringing it forward next year.

In the month of May an important discussion took place in the Chamber of Deputies on a Bill brought forward by the Government, the object of which was to put an end to the manufacture of sugar from beet-root in France, giving an indemnity of 40,000,000 of francs to the beet-sugar producers. The Bill was as usual referred to a Committee to prepare it for the reception of the Chambers, and they proposed a measure rejecting the indemnity and continuing the manufacture of beetsugar, but subjected to an excise duty increasing (within certain

before. The number of slaves set free in 1840 amounted to 1987, whereas in 1839 it was only 1240. The number of hectares under sugar cultivation at Martinique, in 1839, was 19,814, and in 1840, 18,765; at Guadaloupe, 20,934 in 1839, and 23,505 in 1840; at Guyana, 1305 in 1839, and 1363 n 1840; at Bourbon, 22,405 in 1839, and 22,977 in

1840. The number of slaves at Martinique, in 1839, was 33,426, and in 1840, 35,308; at Guadaloupe, in 1839, 30,200,

and in 1840, 35,520; at Guyana, in 1839, 3,454, and in 1840, 3,489; at Bourbon, in 1839, 27,157, and in 1840, 25,715. The total production has increased, in 1840, by 500,000 kilogr. The general imports have diminished in the proportion of 3,000,000 on the average of years from 1833 to 1839,

which reduces them to 64,000,000. The exports, on the contrary, have increased four and a half millions in the same time, giving an amount of 58,000,000."

limits) as the quantity produced, increased, and diminishing as it diminished.

The debate upon these two measures commenced on the 10th of May, and lasted ten days. The following are the principal arguments and topics urged by the speakers. M. Mermilhiod said that the means adopted in 1837 and 1840 to reconcile the interests of the home and colonial sugar growers had proved inefficient. It was necessary to legislate anew. The influence of the home sugar interest had excluded the representatives of the maritime interests from the Bureaux. But their tactics had turned against themselves: the measure proposed by the Committee was a heavier blow to home-grown sugar than that which Ministers had proposed. The protection afforded to the beet-sugar robbed the treasury annually of 164,000,000 (francs.) The plan proposed by the Committee perpetuated the privilege of the beet-sugar, but prescribed limits to it. The Committee undertook to fix the proportions in which the beet and colonial sugars should contribute to supply the consumption; the former was to be allowed to produce every year 30,000,000 of kilogrammes, the latter 35. If the home-producers of sugar, by improving their processes, increased their production, they were to be punished by increased taxation. The Government plan, on the contrary, seeing the impossibility of beet-sugar keeping its ground in the market against colonial sugar on equal terms, and anxious to support a productive object of taxation, of fered the producers of beet sugar indemnification if they withdrew from the unequal contest. The

increased revenue from colonial sugar would enable Government to defray this indemnification, and find 10 or 12,000,000 of surplus in the treasury.

M. Jollivet supported the Government measure, in opposition to that of the Committee. He looked at the question with reference to the reciprocal rights and duties of mother country and colony. The colonies consume the wines, corn, fish, and manufactures of France to the amount of 50,000,000 (francs) per annum. Most of these articles they could procure cheaper from other countries, but the mother country will not allow them. The monopoly of the mother country costs the colonies 12,000,000 yearly, and taxes their industry 12 to 15 per cent. The only export produce of the colonies is sugar, and they are not allowed to refine their sugars for exportation. It was alleged that the slave-labour of the colonies cost nothing. On the contrary, official documents proved that the planters expended more on their slaves than European capitalists on their labourers.

M. Cunin Gridaine, Minister of Agriculture and Commerce, passed in review the history of beet-root sugar. In 1828 the manufacturers of beet sugar were warned that they were to be subjected to a tax; but they were left untaxed till 1837, when a duty of 10 francs per 100 kilogrammes for the current, and 15 for the ensuing year, was imposed. Still the protection afforded to home-made sugar was injurious to the colonies. In 1839 the Ministry of the 1st of May proposed to lower the duties on colonial sugars from 45 francs per 100 kilogrammes to 30;

attended to by the Chamber. The Colonists were at this time suffering intensely from the impossibility of disposing of their sugars. The distress was so alarming that on the 16th and 27th of May the governors were compelled to authorize, without consulting the home Government, the exportation of sugar to any market. In August a Royal Ordinance reduced the duty, ad interim, from 45 francs to 33. Great part of the accumulated stocks of colonial sugar were re-exported raw, for the use of foreign refiners. A momentary relief was experienced in the Antilles; but, notwithstanding the duty of 16 francs imposed on beet-sugar and the lowering of the duty on colonial sugar, matters were as bad as ever in the beginning of 1840. The then Ministers proposed to equalize the duties on the two classes of sugar, and, failing in this, imposed an additional duty of 10 francs per 100 kilogrammes upon it. Thus has the law relative to the sugar-duties been four times altered since 1837, and still no good has been effected. The speaker proceeded to argue that the Government measure would benefit the national finances, the commercial and shipping interests, and the great body of consumers. He maintained that the agricultural interest had derived no advantage from the manufacture of beet-sugar. The cultivation of the beet was confined to four or five of the northern departments, and occupied only 19,470 hectares. It had usurped the place of the more remunerative cultivation of cereals and oleaginous seeds; it threw out of cultivation colonial soils, "which were also French ground;" and

a bounty. That the suppression of beet-root sugar would occasion an increase of revenue was not called in question. The increased consumption of tropical sugars would create an extended market for French manufactures. It was such a commerce that had created the mercantile navies of England and Holland. The sugar of the island of Bourbon paid a lower duty than that of the Antilles, because it had to pay higher freights; on the same principle the sugar of the Antilles ought to pay a lower duty than home-made sugar; but the reverse was the case. The reverse was the case, because home-grown sugar could not compete with it on equal terms. Equalizing the duties would destroy the beet-root sugar, and therefore it was better to suppress it at once. To remain where they were, was impossible; and the Government measure was the fairest to all parties.

M. Stourm admitted that the Government measure would increase the revenue. He maintained that the colonies could not be saved. The only labour that could be obtained in them was negro slave labour. Slaves could neither increase nor re-produce themselves by natural means. The abolition of the slave-trade was gradually, but certainly, depriving the colonies of their labourers. Emancipation, it was clear from the experience of Hayti and the English colonies, would accelerate the ruin of the planters. The colonies could not be saved. The manufacture of home-sugar would be sacrificed, not to the colonial but to the fo

reign sugar-growers. Most exaggerated notions were entertained of the benefits the shipping inter

ed use of tropical sugars. The increase in the national tonnage from 1830 to 1840 was 85 per cent.; of this only 4 per cent. was attributable to the carriage of foreign and colonial sugars. The only way to benefit the shipping interest was to increase domestic prosperity to protect domestic industry. He should vote against the Government measure, because it was intended to create not a great nation but a great revenue.

M. de Lamartine maintained that the only remedy-the only palliative for the sufferings of the colonists-lay in dealing equalhanded justice to two great branches of industry. The colonies had been estranged from them by the Revolution, but, at the Restoration, had been re-incorporated into the national body. During their estrangement the hallucination of rendering the soil of France alone sufficient to supply all the wants of its inhabitants had given birth to chicory, and beet-sugar, as substitutes for colonial produce. But, although the colonies returned and the dream of commercial isolation vanished, the bounty upon the production of beet-root sugar, to the disadvantage of the colonies, was continued. Experimental legislation had shown that colonial and beet root sugar could not co-exist. The question to be solved was— Which ought to give way? M. Stourm's remarks about shipping proved nothing: although the proportion of the mercantile navy employed in the shipment of sugar might not be large, where was the use of throwing away that porportional part? Objections were made to the extirpation of a branch of domestic industry. That