to present themselves on the shores of Madagascar, and France tamely submit to the insult. In that case the rights of France would be sadly compromised. Under those circumstances the Cabinet had deemed the expedition necessary. The Chamber, however, was at liberty to express a wish on the subject; the expedition had not yet sailed, and the Government would retard its departure until the Committee, which was now examining a demand of supplementary credits, should have pronounced on its expediency. For those considerations the Ministry did not reject the amendment.

M. Billault, who spoke next, referred to the danger of delaying, perhaps for another month, the departure of the expedition until the Committee should have granted the supplies. He then proposed to state in the paragraph that "France abandoned none of her rights over Madagascar."

M. Dangeville opposed the insertion of these words into the Address, for fear of reviving the pretensions of the people of Bourbon, and others, who were anxious to conquer Madagascar. "Reserve," he said, "your rights, to prevent others from forming establishments at Madagascar, but abandon all idea of conquering an island placed at so great a distance from France, and whose population, according to English geographers, amounts to 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 of inhabitants.' M. Dangeville then ridiculed the idea entertained by the Chamber, of the importance of the establishments of St. Marie and Nossi Bé, and concluded by recommending their evacuation.

M. de Mackau, the Minister of Marine, observed, that M. Dangeville was mistaken respecting the

importance of those two establishments. France, he contended, was highly interested in their preservation and development. They were not military points, but they afforded good anchorages. The possession of St. Marie was of great commercial importance, particularly for Bourbon, which derives supplies from Madagascar through its medium. St. Marie now contained 5,000 native refugees from that island. The same might be said of Nossi Bé, whose population now amounted to 15,000 souls.

M. Guizot next rose, and asked M. Billault if the words he proposed to insert in the paragraph implied that the Ministry had, in any instance, abandoned the rights of France.

M. Billault replied, that he only desired the maintenance of the status quo, and that his amendment neither implied a blame nor a surprise.

The amendments of M. Billault and M. Dangeville were then put to the vote, and unanimously adopted.

The President next read the paragraph having reference to Poland, when Messrs. Mounier de la Sizeraun and Navia proposed to substitute for it the following

sentences:

"France, faithful to her engagement, protests against the violation of treaties. In the name of the law of nations, in the name of Christian civilization and humanity, she reminds Europe of the solemn guarantees stipulated in favour of Poland."

Messrs. Mounier, Navia, de Mornay, and Lherbette severally addressed the Chamber in favour of Polish nationality; after which the amendment was withdrawn, and the original paragraph adopted

with the substitution of the word "Poland" for "a generous nation."

M. Lamartine afterwards ascended the Tribune, and asked leave to offer a few observations on the situation of the Christians of Lebanon. He reminded the assembly of the capitulations concluded between France and the Porte, so far back as Francis I. and Henry IV., and which had constituted her the protector of the Syrian Catholics in particular, and of all the other Christian population in the East. All the attempts hitherto made, under the auspices of the five great European Powers, to improve the condition of the Maronites and other Christians of Lebanon, had merely tended to make it more wretched. France, by entering the European concert, had placed it out of her power to assist and relieve a population which morally formed part of the French nationality. The evil had now reached such a pitch that something should be speedily done to prevent the extermination of an entire people. A last negotiation should be opened with the Porte, or France should separate from the European concert, and manfully take that people under her protection. He would, however, prefer the first course. M. Lamartine next advocated the necessity of restoring the family of Schahab to the government of Lebanon, and maintained that order and tranquillity would not reign in that unhappy country until the Emir Beschir was recalled from exile, and invested again with a power which he had ably exercised for fifty-five years. After examining the consequences of the adoption of so bold a step by France, which he admitted would have the effect of destroy

ing the precarious alliance between England and France, he concluded by asking M. Guizot if the condition of Syria, and the anarchy which now prevailed in Lebanon, preoccupied his mind, and was the object of pending negotiations, and if the restoration of the Schahab family, and of a single and Christian Administration, was entertained by the French Cabinet.

M. Guizot replied, that the reestablishment of order and peace in Lebanon was actively prosecuted by France. He could not pledge himself for the success of his endeavours, but there existed a great probability that they would achieve the double object which M. Lamartine proposed to himself. But he thought that any discussion on the affairs of Syria at this moment might be attended with fatal consequences. He accordingly invited M. Lamartine not to bring forward any amendment on this subject. To this M. Lamartine assented.

The Address was afterwards carried in the Chamber of Deputies by a majority of 91, the numbers being 232 to 141.

The Address was presented to the King on the 7th of February, and His Majesty returned the following answer:

"Gentlemen Deputies,―

"I receive your Address with real satisfaction. I am happy to find in it a manifestation so signal of the support which you lend my Government, and of that loyal and constant co-operation which is the foundation of its force, and the guarantee of all our liberties. Public opinion acknowledges every day more and more that it has been by the regular progress and the perfect accord of all the powers of the State that France has

reached that degree of prosperity on which I am so pleased to congratulate you. Yes, gentlemen, it is with delight I express to you my confidence in the future destinies of our country. That confidence is strengthened by the sentiments you have just uttered, and it convinces me that this accord, continuing without intermission for future generations, will as

sist in developing that constantly increasing welfare enjoyed at present by all classes of society. Such has been for a long time the wish of my heart, the object of my endeavours; and my most valuable recompense will be to think that my devotion will have contributed to secure its blessings to my country."

one under those old monarchies where so many abuses existed, but he was not one in the present day; when, therefore, he supported the proposition, he did so because he considered the reform which it de manded to be an absolute necessity. The hon. deputy then proceeded to discuss at great length the merits of the proposition. Going back to the reigns of Louis XIV. and Louis XV., and examining in an historical point of view their various positions as young monarchs, and then as men advanced in years, he showed that all Governments, whether absolute or free, had their abuses, their dangers, and their flatterers. In absolute Governments, he remarked, flattery was manifested above to the monarch himself; in free ones below, in the bosom of deliberate assemblies, and to those also who named the members of such assemblies. From this tendency arose the abuses which the proposition aimed at putting down. Not that these abuses were as extensive as had sometimes been represented. France was by no means the most corrupt country in the world, as some persons took a pleasure in representing it; there was now, perhaps, less elevation of mind than thirty years before, but there was infinitely more purity of morals than existed then. But evils had decidedly taken root, of the kind referred to in the proposition, and there could be no doubt that they ought to be checked in their growth, if not altogether eradicated. The hon. deputy then referred to the example of England, which, he said, could be cited as a model, not of a social institution, but of a political one. He referred to the similitude which existed between the revolutions of 1688 and 1830,

and showed that, under William III. and succeeding monarchs, laws had been introduced to exclude government functionaries from the House of Commons, just as the present proposition aimed at keeping them from the Chamber of Deputies. He went on to argue, that though a certain number of functionaries were necessary in the Chamber, to give information on special questions, yet that it did not follow that because a man was not a functionary he might not be perfectly well able to enlighten the Chamber. M. O. Barrot, he said, was no functionary, nor was the Duke de Broglie, nor Count Molé, nor M. Guizot, and yet they were men of great knowledge. He therefore merely meant to say, that public functionaries, no doubt, had great information, but they had not a monopoly of it. The Chamber ought to be a body representing all classes of society, but no one would speak seriously of a majority representing advocates alone, or manufacturers alone, nor ought it to represent public functionaries alone. And yet the present one was exclusively composed of public functionaries. There were 184 of these in the Chamber.

M. Liadieres-152.

M. Thiers.-Yes, 152, if the Deputies composing part of the King's Household or Councillors of State in extraordinary service, and such like employés, were excluded, but of those 184 functionaries, 130 at least were Ministerial. The number of deputies usually voting was about 400. Of these 225 sided with the Ministry, and 175 for the Opposition, which gave an average majority of 50 to the Government. But if 130 functionaries were found amongst the 225, could it be