The next paragraph discussed was the sixth, referring to the amicable relations which subsisted between the Governments of France and Great Britain, and the convention which had been concluded between them for the suppression of the slave-trade. M. de Remusat proposed the insertion of the following words : "But in order to consolidate those relations it is indispensable that the two Governments, at the same time that they will act in conjunction in circumstances where they have a common interest, should carefully preserve, in both hemispheres, the entire independence of their political action. M. de Remusat proceeded to support his amendment. It expressed, he said, sentiments already manifested by the Chamber of Peers in their Address, with the silent approbation of the Cabinet. He admitted that the alliance of France with England presented invaluable advantages, but the interests of the two nations, he added, were so different, particularly in America, that it was indispensable that each power should preserve the entire independence of its political action. This had not been the case in the question of Texas, when France had openly embraced a policy which had tended to indispose the United States towards France. The increase of the territorial power of America could give no umbrage to France, and she ought to view with pleasure the increase of her maritime power, for France was interested in the development of the navies of all second-rate states. The American Union, besides, was her best market, and were it only for that consideration, the Government should have maintained the strictest neutrality on the question. M. Guizot replied, that he would support the amendment, if it did not contain an indirect blame of the past conduct of the Cabinet, and distrust it for the future. He then justified the course pursued by France in respect of Texas, which had not been hostile to the United States, but perfectly independendent, moderate, and re served. M. Thiers having here interrupted M. Guizot, the latter vacated the tribune, and was succeeded by M. Thiers, who questioned the truth of M. Guizot's declaration, and defied him to adduce a reasonable, a sufficient motive to justify his interference in the affair of Texas. The policy of France, he said, had not been impartial and reserved; more circumspection should have been observed not to indispose an old and natural ally to gratify an ally of a day. M. Thiers then ridiculed the commercial reasons given by M. Guizot to account for the opposition of France to the annexation of Texas, and the theory of the American balance of power which he had developed on a former day, and contended that the interests of France and England were widely different in America, when England wanted France, and France did not want England. M. Guizot next rose, and after questioning M. Thiers' pretensions to a monopoly of good sense, proceeded to expose the conduct of France in reference to Texas. He had wished, he said, to prevent a collision between two great nations, and had laid down the basis of the political neutrality of France, with all the reserve due to a friendly ment because it implied an indirect, but real blame, of the conduct of the Cabinet, and distrusted it for the future. M. Remusat next rose to explain. He had not, he said, recommended a union with the United States, but demanded that France should not adhere implicitly to the policy of England, against the United States, in the question of Oregon. Some words pronounced by M. Guizot, in the Chamber of Peers, induced such a belief, and it was for that purpose he considered a declaration necessary in the Address. His amendment was afterwards put to the vote, and lost by a majority of sixty-eight. people, and had she sided with the United States she would have assumed a false position. It was at the request of the Texan Government, and of its Chargé d'Affaires at Paris, that she supported the independence of that country, and not at the suggestion of England. France had recognised that State, and concluded a commercial treaty with it; and when its regular Government called on her to interfere in its behalf, she would have been wanting in all the rules of sound policy had she rejected that demand. M. Guizot then contended that, in America as well as in Europe, the policy of France had been independent of England. In Spain, where the two Cabinets were not entirely of accord, France had M. Billault then rose, and adfollowed an independent policy. In dressed himself to that part of the Greece, the English Government, paragraph which alluded to the conhe thought, was deceived respect-vention for the suppression of the ing the situation of that king- slave-trade, and the replacing of dom; but at bottom it wished, like French commerce under the excluFrance, for the consolidation of the sive care of the national flag. He constitutional monarchy within its said that he could not admit that the present limits. She only differed convention of May 29th had replaced with her respecting the means of ar- the commerce of France under the riving at that end. Another instance national flag. Far from restoring of the independence of the policy of to it those guarantees which it rethe Cabinet, was afforded by Tunis. quired, the convention took away, France desired the maintenance of without any compensation in rethe status quo in that country, and turn, those which it had before enthe independence of the Bey, whilst joyed. He must maintain that England was inclined to favour the the faculty to verify the napretensions of the Porte, who were tionality of vessels was an innoanxious to reduce that Beylik to vation on the maritime rights of the condition of Tripoli. M. Gui- France; it was contrary to their zot, in conclusion, announced his fundamental principles; France determination to persevere in the had never recognised it, and the line of policy he had hitherto pur- English had never admitted it sued, with the approbation of the either. The mode of proceeding majority of Parliament, and which in such verifications was more vexhe considered far more dignified atious than the former one. The than that recommended by the object of the search was the only Opposition, and declared that the thing changed; for in place of enGovernment rejected the amend- deavouring to ascertain whether the vessel was engaged in the slave-trade, it consisted in finding out if it displayed a false flag or not. The honourable deputy then proceeded to argue that this right of verifying the nationality of vessels had never been admitted in France, and referred, in support of this opinion, to a declaration in 1822 of the Duke de Broglie, saying, that "nations had undoubtedly a right to effect the verification in question in time of war, but in time of peace the right ceased to exist. Benjamin Constant, the honourable deputy observed, was of precisely the same opinion; and the Government of the Restoration took the same view of the question, as appeared from two despatches addressed to the English Government in 1829, by MM. Laval-Montmorency and Polignac, in which they protested against all attempts to verify the nationality of vessels sailing under French colours. The Government of July had also, he said, decided in the same way; and in the negotiations which preceded the first treaty on the right of search, MM. de Broglie and Sebastiani wrote to Lord Palmerston a despatch, declaring that "vessels sailing under the French flag could not be regularly seized and proceeded against unless by French cruisers. So that the means imagined in 1845 could not have been adopted in 1831. It was, therefore, perfectly correct to say that the right of verifying the nationality of vessels was contrary to French naval customs. The English had not admitted such a right, and the Duke of Wellington himself protested against a Bill which should give England such an exorbitant power over Portuguese vessels. The honourable deputy then compared the late conVOL. LXXXVIII. vention entered into for the suppression of the slave-trade with that concluded with the United States, and contended that the latter power had known better how to make her flag respected, and to protect her commerce. American vessels, he observed, might be really said to be under the surveillance of their own flag. The President had announced this result in his late Message, and Lord Aberdeen had said that England had neither demanded nor yielded any thing. He (M. Billault) contended that the late convention, and the intructions issued under it, would cause great embarrassment to their shipping interests, and that it was impossible to say that their commerce had been placed under the surveillance of its national flag. He concluded by stating his opinion that the present system employed was not the most efficacious means that could be adopted to suppress the traffic in slaves. He was, therefore, surprised not to see the abolitionists joining his friends in opposing the useless concessions made to England. He feared that the future maritime prosperity of France had been compromised, and called on the Chamber to give the subject its most serious attention. The honourable member concluded by announcing his intention of proposing an amendment in the sense of the observations which he had just delivered. It would not, he knew, be adopted, but he considered it right to leave on record his protest against the treaty to which he had alluded. M. Peyramont, the next day, undertook to reply to the speech delivered by M. Billault. The honourable member, he said, had produced arguments, which he ought [R] to have developed six months ago, against the stipulations of the convention of the 29th of May, 1845, when the Cabinet demanded and obtained from the Chambers the most explicit and most formal adhesion to its principle. That convention had been attacked, and the article which conceded to England the exclusive right of establishing cruisers on the eastern coast of Africa, was the only one that had been reproved. M. Dupin himself, whose opinion was an authority in all legal matters, had expressed his approbation of the convention in the strongest terms. M. Dupin here interrupted M. Peyramont, and said that he had approved it because he conceived it to have the meaning attached to it by the Americans. M. Peyramont then proceeded to demonstrate that the new convention really, efficaciously, and completely suppressed the right of search, and replaced the trade of France under the exclusive surveillance of the national flag, on conditions perhaps more advantageous than those obtained by the Americans. He next entered into an account of the negotiations which had led to the conclusion of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States, for the repression of the slave-trade; and contended that, although no mention was made in it of the right of search, England had not abandoned that faculty, which she no longer claimed, it was true, as a right, since she admitted the principle of an indemnity; but, in her instructions to the cruisers, she positively directed them to visit all suspicious vessels. Mr. Webster, the American Minister, consented to the exercise of that faculty, and General Cass himself, in a pamphlet published whilst he was Minister of the United States at Paris, says that his Government principally objected to the right of search because of the pretension of England to press her seamen on board of American vessels ; but that, if England were solemnly to renounce that pretension, that moment the question of the right of search would be adjusted without any difficulty. M. Peraymont then discussed the stipulations of the convention of the 29th of May, and maintained that it had replaced the commerce of France under the exclusive surveillance of her flag, and that all the naval officers, members of the House, would, he was sure, concur in the opinion delivered, in 1842, by the late Admiral Lalande, that the visitation of all vessels suspected of having hoisted false colours, was a wise, just, and perfectly legal measure. Other speakers followed, and a ballot then took place, when there appeared The sixth paragraph was then voted with the substitution of the word" infamous" for "odious," applied to the slave-trade. When the paragraph which referred to the joint interference of France and England to put a stop to the war on the banks of the Rio de la Plata was read. M. Aylies proposed to replace it by the following amendment : "We trust that France and England, by a common action, already cemented by generous efforts, will at length restore peace on the banks of the Plata, and, especially, succeed in consolidating it for the future, by insuring the loyal execution of treaties, and the development of commercial relations freed hereafter from all obstructions." M. Drouin de Lhuys said, that he could not share the confidence and satisfaction expressed by the Committee at the course pursued by the Cabinet in the affairs of la Plata. He then entered into a history of the events that had taken place in that quarter for the last five years, and denounced the inaction of the Ministry in presence of the horrors and spoliations committed by the agents of Rosas, to the prejudice of the French citizens, who had been reduced to the necessity of arming themselves for the defence of their lives and properties; and contended that it was only when England, feeling aggrieved, had resolved on an armed interference, that France had deemed it expedient to alter her policy with regard to the savage ruler of Buenos Ayres. After M. Drouin had concluded, M. Aylies withdrew his amendment, and a discussion afterwards arose upon one proposed by M. Dangeville, who moved the addition of the following paragraph relative to Madagascar:— "France is ready to make any sacrifice required of her to promote such important interests; but she would view with uneasiness the undertaking without a well-founded necessity of those distant expeditions." M. Vitet, as reporter of the Committee to which the amendment has been referred for examination, informed the Chamber that, although the Speech from the Throne had made no mention of the expedition against con Madagascar, the question, nevertheless, had seriously preoccupied the Committee, the majority of which had been of opinion that the expedition was inopportune, and thought that the communication with Madagascar might be reopened by pacific means. The Committee, however vinced of the inutility of the expedition, would not take the initiative, reserving itself to adhere to any amendment expressive of that sentiment which the Chamber might propose. That moved by M. Dangeville, conveying that expression, had been approved with the following alteration :"France expects, from the prudence of your Government, that it will not engage, without a wellfounded necessity, in distant and onerous expeditions." M. Dangeville assented to the modification proposed, and was succeeded by M. Berryer, who advocated the right of sovereignty of France over Madagascar. M. Guizot, who rose to reply, admitted the necessity of assuming a strong attitude, in order to enforce respect for the rights of France. The expedition had no other object; it was intended to give a severe lesson to the savages who had insulted the French flag, to re-establish the communications, and not to undertake any inland enterprise which might be attended with disastrous inconveniences. The Government had ever maintained the status quo, as respected the rights of France, and the French and English officers, who united to chastise the Hovas, had repaired to Tamatave to avenge common affronts, without any previous concert. The same thing might again occur, should the Government allow the English alone |