his family, he was unable to command respect for his authority. Frightful disorder followed the deposition of the Emir Bechir, when it was proposed to place Lebanon under the Turkish authority. France acquiesced, but insisted on its being merely temporary, having always in view the re-establishment of a purely Christian Administration. The Pashas had obtained and forwarded to Constantinople petitions from Lebanon, inviting the Sultan to appoint an Ottoman governor. France proved the falsehood of those petitions, and defeated the scheme. All the Turks who succeeded each other in the government of Lebanon had laboured to establish that system against which France had invariably protested. Chekib Effendi was then sent by the Divan to inquire into the real situation of Lebanon, and redress the grievances of the Christian sufferers. Chekib Effendi violated every promise he had made previous to his departure from Constantinople. On arriving at Beyrout, he proceeded to disarm the population of Lebanon, both Druse and Christian. That measure was executed with violence, particularly as respected the Christians. The Druses were, however, equally disarmed, and some of their chiefs arrested and transported to Constantinople. The French grievances were not redressed by Chekib Effendi. The chief who had presided at the murder of Father Charles had been tried and acquitted. The trial had been conducted with all possible solemnity. Witnesses were examined, and the sentence had the appearance of impartiality and sincerity. All the forms had been observed, and France had no right to demand the head of

the guilty man. But the other grievances of France having been overlooked, the French Ambassador addressed an ultimatum to the Porte, in which he insisted on their being immediately redressed, on the payment of an indemnity to the convents and French citizens who had been despoiled by the Turks, and on the instant repeal of the measure of Chekib Effendi which enjoined all foreign resi dents to quit Lebanon and repair to Beyrout; threatening, in case his demand were not acceded to, to suspend all diplomatic intercourse with the Porte. That ultimatum was accepted, and every satisfaction granted. M. Guizot next referred to the arrest of a French dragoman, whose liberation, vainly demanded by the French Consul, was obtained by the interference of the captain of the Belle Poule frigate, who landed a party of his men to rescue him by force. This act constituted a violation of territory. Nevertheless, the conduct of the consul and captain was approved, but they were recommended at the same time not to resort in future to armed demonstrations. M. Guizot declared, in conclusion, that during the last five years he had availed himself of every opportunity to claim the restoration of a Christian Administration for the entire of Lebanon; that the opinion of France in that respect had gained ground since 1842; that Austria had completely adhered to it, and that others might ere long be expected to advocate the same principle.

The debate on the Address in the Chamber of Peers terminated on the 16th of January, when it was carried by the large majority of 120 to 23.

On the 20th the Address was presented to the King, who returned the following answer:

"I am happy to see that every new year adds fresh motives of congratulation to those which you have so long offered me, at the opening of your Sessions, respecting the increase of public prosperity. We are indebted for that fortunate result, of which every thing presages the progressive continuation, to the co-operation you have so constantly and so efficaciously afforded my Government, and to the accord existing between all the powers of the State. I again find, with a lively satisfaction, in your Address the expression of the sentiments of the Chamber of Peers for my family and for me. In returning to them our grateful acknowledgments, I feel pleasure in repeating the assurance that we will ever respond to them by our entire devotedness to France."

In the Chamber of Deputies, on the 12th of January, the President, M. Sauzet, read the following Address in answer to the Royal Speech:

"Sire-The Chamber of Deputies congratulates itself with your Majesty on the general state of the country, on the accord exist ing between the great Powers, and on the maintenance of our policy of order and conservation, which will secure more and more the regular development of our institutions, the consolidation of our liberties, and the progress of national prosperity.

"Your Government applies itself to the execution of great public works, both of defence and of utility, of which the nation demanded the prompt completion. These new elements of force and VOL. LXXXVIII.

of wealth will give us, in a few years, the guarantees which our security demands, and which will extend their advantages over the entire country and amongst all classes of the population. Industry and prosperity will afford us the means of rendering our manufactures prosperous, of reviving our commerce, and of preparing happy days for our agriculturists, and a prosperity worthy of their laborious efforts.

"The Chambers will carefully examine, without transgressing the bounds of prudence, the measures which shall be proposed to them to complete these great works in all their bearings.

"Your Majesty gives us the assurance that our financial position is becoming more satisfactory. We shall endeavour still further to improve it by employing a vigilant economy in the employment of our

resources.

"The different Bills presented to us shall be the object of our utmost solicitude.

"We are happy to hear that your Majesty has received from all the foreign Powers pacific and amicable assurances. Peace will be henceforward the first wish of all people. It belongs to those whose force equals their courage, and who loudly proclaim its benefits. The policy which has maintained peace through so many storms, with the assistance of the powers of the state and of public opinion, excites at present the gratitude of all nations. One day, Sire, it will do honour to your name in history.

secured the amicable relations of the two States. Your Majesty announces to us that the convention recently concluded for the purpose of putting an end to an odious traffic is this mo

ment being executed. Thus are being realized the wishes constantly expressed by the Chamber, the rights of humanity shall be efficaciously protected, and our commerce shall be replaced under the exclusive care of our flag.

"We trust that France and England, by a common action, the object of which is to stop the effusion of blood, and to establish safe and regular commercial relations, will at length produce peace on the banks of the Plata. France, faithful to the engagements which she contracts, has a right to invoke the sanctity of treaties. She recalls to the recollection of Europe the solemn guarantees stipulated in favour of a generous nation.

"We deplore with your Majesty the events which have disturbed our African possessions, and we partake the sentiments with which the heroism of our troops inspires your Majesty. France follows them in their perils with solicitude and gratitude. She applauds the prompt measures adopted by your Majesty to preserve in Algeria her force and domination. Nothing shall exhaust our perseverance, nor our generous efforts to establish prosperous security in that land, which your Majesty proclaims to be French territory.

"Sire, your wisdom and your courage have accomplished for us, in the midst of our most severe trials, the noble mission confided to you by the national will. Our duty is to lend our loyal assistance

to establish with you on imperishable bases the Government and the dynasty of our choice. Providence has blessed our efforts. It has afforded us consolations which are our guarantees for the future. Your grandchildren will follow the example of their fathers those noble princes who, wherever they have appeared, have worthily supported the name of France. Sire, your wishes have been accomplished, you have for ever acquired the affection of the country, and every day renders more indissoluble the intimate union between your family and the nation."

The debate on this Address in the Chamber of Deputies did not commence until the 19th of January, and was of a more animated and interesting character than that which took place in the Chamber of Peers. The discussion was opened by

M. Corne, who said that he could not share the sentiment of quietude and satisfaction expressed by the Cabinet in the speech from the throne, and confirmed by the committee in the address. He had only to refer to the situation of Algeria to show how little that confidence was founded, when, after a campaign glorious for the arms of France, a frightful massacre occurred, and Abd-el-Kader was again in arms, more formidable than ever, in the heart of her African possessions. The Ministry had also badly chosen the moment of extolling its policy, in presence of the disastrous results of the treaty with Morocco. If he reverted to internal affairs, he could discover no evidence of their boasted prosperity. The country was burdened with a budget double in amount to what it was under the restoration, and, during the

last six years, enormous resources, far greater than were ever granted by any nation, had been placed at the disposal of the Cabinet, and, to this day, they had not been able to balance the receipts and expenditure of the State, to create something like a respectable navy, and to command something like respect for the honour of France. He then criticised various acts of the administration. The national guards dissolved at Lyons, Strasburg, and in other cities, still awaited their re-organization, and the only reply hitherto made by Ministers to those who reproached them with that violation of the law, had been, "We have violated the laws, but we are ready to assume the responsibility of our conduct." Ministers had likewise been guilty of a serious attempt against the independence of Parliament, when they dared to supersede in their offices members of the House, who had silently voted against some of their acts. M. Corne next denounced a number of illegalities committed by Ministers at elections, and said that he would vote against the address.

M. Leyrand confined himself to 'an examination of the conduct of the agents of the Government during the elections of 1845. The prefects, he said, had been guilty of the most shameful frauds, and organized, agreeably to their instructions, a complete system of corruption all over the country. Never, at any former period, even under the restoration, had a greater number of appeals been addressed to the courts of justice against the decisions of those functionaries. They had amounted, according to his computation, to upwards of 2,000, whilst in 1841 they were only 200, and three-fourths of

them had been admitted by the courts. In several instances, even, the latter had stigmatized the illegalities committed by the prefects in the most energetic terms. False electors had been inscribed on the lists, and the names of numbers of citizens, entitled to vote, had been struck off; and that system was so barefacedly carried on in some departments, that he would cite two colleges, consisting each of about 250 electors, in which the appellants had exceeded 140. M. Leyrand concluded by recommending electoral reform, and the convocation of the electors, in the chief towns of the departments, to return their deputies.

M, Peyramont bore testimony to the truth of the facts mentioned by M. Leyrand. Part of them had passed under his eyes, otherwise he would have considered them incredible and impossible. Their investigation had already occupied the court, of which he was a member, during two months, and the sentiments they had excited in the bosom of the magistrates had been surprise, disgust, and profound indignation.

M. Duchatel, the Minister of the Interior, next rose, and denied having organized the system of corruption exposed by M. Leyrand. He had never given the instructions cited by that deputy, and he defied him to produce a line emanating from his department in support of his assertions. M. Duchatel and his friends were anxious for the triumph of their political opinions, but they would be sorry to owe it to the use of such means. Besides, they did not want to recur to those means to insure triumph to their policy, which every day obtained more and more the sanction of public reason.

They desired as ardently as their adversaries the truth and sincerity of the representative Government; and if facts, such as those denounced by M. Leyrand, had occurred in some departments, it had been without the approbation or authorization of the Cabinet. M. Duchatel then explained why the number of appeals against the decisions of the prefects had been so considerable in 1845. They had amounted to 1,936, and were principally grounded on the misapplication of the new law on the political domicile of the electors, voted last year by the Chambers, and of the law on licences. Of those 1,936 cases, 1,809 had been decided; 790 were admitted, and 1,019 rejected.

M. Duvergier de Hauranne proceeded to examine whether the public liberties and the national influence had progressed during the last five years, and arrived at the conclusion, that the theory of representative Government was now an idle word, and that the dignity and honour of France had been sacrificed. Investigating, afterwards, the conduct of the agents of the Government in the elections, he drew a parallel between the doctrines formerly professed by certain Ministers when they belonged to the Opposition and those they now practised, and asked the Minister of the Interior if he would to-day sign the circular addressed in 1830 by M. Guizot, the then Minister of the Interior, to the prefects, recommending them the strictest neutrality and impartiality in the elections.

M. Duchatel having replied in the affirmative, M. Larochejacquelin rose, and loudly exclaimed that he would not. This incident caused confusion, and cries of

"Order arose from the Ministerial benches.

When silence was restored, M. Duvergier de Hauranne continued his speech, and cited instances in which the present Cabinet had manifested its disrespect for the usages of the representative Government by remaining in office when abandoned by the majority, or supported by such small majorities that their friends at the other side of the Channel were indignant at their conduct. M. Duvergier de Hauranne, after contending that the domestic policy pursued at present was less liberal than it was twelve years ago, proceeded to compare the foreign policy of the Cabinet with that of the Government of 1831 and 1832, and maintained that under similar circumstances the former would never have dared to occupy Ancona and besiege Antwerp, and that the Cabinet of 1831 would never have granted an indemnity to Mr. Pritchard, nor signed the treaty of Tangier. The weakness of the Administration had been hitherto its only safeguard. In its negotiations with foreign Powers it invariably held a language unbecoming the dignity of France. In London, Rome, and elsewhere, it told the Governments, "Do not be too exacting; make some concessions, otherwise we shall be obliged to vacate our offices, and be replaced by others from whom you have nothing to expect.' M. Duvergier de Hauranne then asked what Ministers had achieved since last Session to justify their quietude? In Syria, the secular influence of France was at an end, and she could not even prevent the massacre of populations placed for ages under her protection. What was their conduct on

the