In

denied that the majority was eminently that of the Government employés? Be it remarked, too, that the number of public functionaries who voted with the Opposition was yearly decreasing. 1832, 1833, and 1834, there were about 60 in the Opposition ranks, whereas at present the number was not more than 40. Since last year there had been 20 new elections, and in these 14 of the successful candidates were public functionaries. The evil was evidently increasing, and ought to be put down. The conclusion that he drew from these facts was, that often in that Chamber political feelings were sacrificed to personal interests. Functionaries, perceiving that they often had the existence of the Cabinet in their hands, eagerly sought for seats in the Chamber. Such functionaries as were possessed only by the spirit of their duty remained tranquil, whilst others, impelled by ambition, threw themselves into the Ministerial ranks in order to arrive at some higher place. Whenever a situation fell vacant in the Court of Accounts, or the Court of Cassation in the Council of State, who was almost sure to obtain it? without doubt a deputy; and this was so well known, that it was sufficient to cause the employés, who were not deputies, to detest the Government for placing so many members of the Chamber over their heads. The hon. deputy then examined the question in its details, which he considered fully justified. He next alluded to an amendment of M. Barrot, which went even further than that under discussion, and he admitted that he (M. Thiers) so fully approved of what that hon. deputy had done, that he was ready to assume

the whole responsibility attached to it, and should give it his warmest support. It was said that the amendment not only attacked a number of hon. deputies, but even the august personage at the head of affairs. He had to reply to that objection, that in what was thus proposed nothing personal was intended. How could it be supposed that he and his friends could aim at attacking Royalty, when they had supported it under such trying circumstances? The hon. deputy here again referred to the great revolution at present being effected in England, with such regularity, from both the Ministry and the Royal power, confining themselves strictly to the letter of the institutions. There was never any such thing heard of in England, he observed, as any enmity to the Queen. No one ever said there, the Queen will have this done or that done;' but simply, 'Sir Robert Peel is doing so and so,' or 'Lord John Russell is carrying out such and such a measure. Did that mean that England, who had expelled the Stuarts, was willing to be subject to the son of a cotton-spinner? Certainly not. It merely meant that Sir Robert Peel was the will of the country embodied in a single man. The Government yield to that will, not as to a riotous body, but as enlightened reason obeys a truth which it has discovered and admitted. Sir R. Peel was, then the country-made man! And could there be greater stability or a nobler attitude than that which was exhibited ? An immense revolution was effected, and not a cry against the Queen. She passed on with impunity in the midst of all the agitation, respected and beloved! Nay, even her death, if

it unfortunately should take place, would cause an immense affliction in England, but would not produce the slightest alarm." Such was the sight he had desired to behold at the Restoration. He was then unknown, and, in his deep obscurity, was acquainted with neither the august occupant of the throne, nor him who was to succeed him. In 1829, he had written the phrase, The King reigns, but does not govern." He had written that in 1829, and he believed, in 1846, that his maxim was perfectly possible. He firmly believed that a true representative government was possible in France. Were it otherwise, the country ought to have been told so in 1830. If the representative government was not possible in France, it would have been better not to effect the revolution-if it was not possible, what they had previously was far preferable. He looked on the revolution of July as a step in advance as a progress, but he felt convinced that there was much more to be done. Was it necessary to say what connection there

was

between all this and the amendment? The amendment desired to have Royalty always placed out of debate, and to see deputies vote fairly according to their own opinions. But when representatives were seen to vote day after day, according to the ideas of another-it was evident that such a state of things was attended with grave inconvenience. "We had rather,' M. Thiers in conclusion, "sacrifice the King's aides-de-camp than the King himself, and we regard that as an advance in the career at the end of which we perceive the truth of representative government. That truth will be

said

long in coming, it is said. Be it so; I shall not say any thing to the contrary; but, in allowing the fact, I must call to mind the words of a German author, who, in speaking of causes that triumph slowly, said I shall place my vessel on the highest promontory of the bank, and shall await the coming of the tide to set me afloat, and waft me off.' In the same way I do not think that I am placing my vessel so high that it will be inaccessible.'

The Minister of the Interior replied. He maintained that the representative government was fully and honestly practised at present in France. The fundamental rule of such a government was to have it directed by the will of the majority. That was what was demanded under the Restoration, and what was carried out in the present day. It was said that the Restoration had the majority. He denied it. It was not when it had the majority that it fell, but when it separated itself from the majority, and desired to govern in a sense contrary to its will. The present Government had been for six years in power, and had it ever, he would ask, separated from the majority? No! and, therefore, the fundamental principle of the Government had been satisfied. The hon. Minister then proceeded to discuss the question on its own merits, and argued that it was useless, inasmuch as it would not attain its object, and would be attended with grave inconveniences. Speaking of corruption used by the Government, the hon. Minister retorted the charge on M. Thiers' Cabinet, denying that it was applicable in any way to the present. He referred to the deputies appointed since 1840, and defied Ṁ.

Thiers or any other hon. member to point out those shameful fallings-off from opinions which had been alluded to. He also called on them to examine the returns of Government promotions, and show any examples of improper or illegitimate recompenses awarded for political apostasy. The hon. Minister also called in question the calculations of M. Thiers with respect to the number of deputies holding government situations. There were not, he maintained, 184 of such deputies in the Chamber, since generals on half-pay, members invested with merely honorary functions, and such like, ought not to be included under the category just named. Besides, he argued, whatever they were, they had been nominated by the electors. The motives put forward by the author and the supporters of the proposition the hon. deputy did not think were the real ones. The Chamber had now existed for a period of five years, and during that time the Conservative policy had triumphed. The Opposition now, at the moment of the Chamber's dissolution, desired to see it pass on itself, just as it was about to appear before the electors, a veritable act of discredit-it wanted the majority to declare that for five years it had been wanting in dignity and morality. This, he would venture to say, the majority would not be induced to consent to. The hon. Minister concluded by alluding briefly to the amendment. He declared that a proposition to exclude the functionaries of the civil list from the Chamber came with so much a worse grace from M. Thiers, that it was he who had, in 1836, nominated Baron Fain, the intendant of the civil list, a member of the Chamber. He main

tained, furthermore, that the certain effect of the amendment would be to give to the enemies of the institutions of the country a powerful weapon against Royalty.

The proposition of M. de Remusat was afterwards rejected by a majority of 48.

In the Chamber of Peers, on the 19th of March, when the discussion took place on the Secret Service Money Bill,

M. de Montalembert regretted that he could not grant the Ministry a vote of confidence as respected its foreign policy, particularly with regard to Poland. He came forward, he said, to defend the holiest legitimacy, the only one he recognised-the right of every nation to exist and to be governed according to the laws of justice. The late insurrection, he maintained, had not been excited from abroad. The Poles required no such excitation. Their oppression was a perpetual cause of excitement; it was their right to strive to shake off an iron yoke; it had been their history during the last eighty years. He had not the courage, like others, in presence of the reverses of the insurgents and the blood they had just shed, to blame their late attempt. Nobody in France was placed in a condition to appreciate the circumstances that led to the insurrection and to judge of its opportunity. Those who are deprived of all the blessings enjoyed in other countries should not be lightly condemned for not better biding their time, and calculating their chances of success. M. de Montalembert then examined the situation of the Poles, placed under the dominion of the three Northern Powers, and greatly commended the system pursued by Prussia towards her Polish sub

jects, who were at least freed from bondage, and all forced labour. In Galicia the people possessed nothing, and could legally possess nothing. The peasants were subjected to the most arbitrary treatment, and it was not surprising that they had revolted against the nobility. It was Joseph II. who had estranged from the latter the affection of the rural classes. That Sovereign had charged the nobility with the exercise of the most onerous and oppressive part of the Austrian system of government. The Galician nobles had to carry into effect the conscription law, to collect the taxes, to administer justice, to preside at the infliction of corporal chastisements, &c. The nobility vainly asked the Austrian Government to be relieved from such painful duties, and last year again they had forwarded an address to that effect to that Government. It had been denied that Austria had set a price on the head of the Galician nobles. He had received a document which he produced, and from which it appeared that that Government had actually offered a premium of 12f. to the peasant who should denounce the intrigues of the nobles to the Austrian police, and 25ƒ. to those who should deliver their landlords, handcuffed, into the hands of the authorities. This was a certain and incontrovertible fact. M. de Montalembert then contended that the existence of Poland was indispensable to the balance of European power, and quoted a passage from a work of M. Salvandy, in which that truth was ably developed. M. de Salvandy does not, he said, disown his former sentiments, and it was with sorrow he saw him remain the silent accomplice of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, when

the latter expressed such inhuman feelings in the Chamber of Deputies. Poland, he maintained, would resuscitate; 22,000,000 of souls were not easily exterminated, and so long as justice should be denied to them they would revolt. And why should Poland cease to hope, when she sees Greece and Ireland, so long oppressed, and like her effaced from the map of Europe, resume their rank among nations? M. Montalembert declared, in conclusion, that Poland was imperishable, and that he hoped to live to witness her resurrection, and to see M. Guizot himself come forward to proclaim the legitimacy and equity of her revolution.

M. Guizot then rose to reply, and observed that he did not consider it useful and expedient to enter on the present discussion. It was not, he said, the duty of the Government to interfere in favour, or take part with the Polish insurrection; all the Government could possibly do was to afford a hospitable refuge to Polish exiles, and give them all the assistance due to their misfortune.

A Government, after mature reflection, having adopted a political resolution, should shape its actions to its words. Now, the partition of Poland was an accomplished fact, upon the justice of which the present Government had not been called to pronounce, and which it had merely accepted with the rest of Europe.

The following passages, in a speech delivered on the 31st of March in the Chamber of Deputies by M. Canin Gridaine, the Minister of Commerce, while defending the treaty of commerce between France and Belgium, will be read with interest, as showing the point of view in which the Free-Trade measures of the English Legislature

were looked upon in France. M. Canin Gridaine said:

"Is it necessary for me to refer to the causes which produced the ordinance of 1842, and the motives which determined the Government not to render it applicable to linen, thread, and cloth? The injury arose from the invasion of cloths and threads from England; the importation of Belgium threads amounted to 500,000 kilogrammes. The importation of cloths remained stationary; there was no reason, then, that we should not treat Belgium as we have done. The treaty of 1842 was concluded. Has our commerce been benefited by it? The results show that it has. If we examine the general movement of our commercial relations with Belgium between that period and the year 1844, we find that in 1842 the general commerce between France and Belgium amounted to 144,000,000f. It rose in 1844 to 170,000,000ƒ. The Government engaged itself not to renew the treaty of 1842 under the same conditions in which it was concluded. Has it observed its engagement, and obtained the best terms? Most assuredly it has. The treaty of 1842 accorded to Belgium the most favourable conditions respecting its cloths and threads. The convention of the 13th of December imposes a double limitation upon that country. It has been said that we have obtained nothing in favour of our produce and industry. That is not the case. We obtained the modification of the Royal ordinance of 1843, which was so injurious to our manufactures. We obtained more favourable terms for what are called Parisian articles-a larger reduction in the duties upon salt. We obtained for our other productions the means of advan

tageously competing with other countries. So much for the treaty. The economical reforms proposed in the British Parliament cannot fail to have fixed the general attention. Those who think that we should not hesitate to imitate the example given us by the English Parliament advise a premature and dangerous act. England has never pursued any other line of conduct than that of her interest, and she was right; it is in that particular we should imitate her. From the earliest period it has been the aim of England to extend her manufactures, her navy, her commerce, and to obtain in all cases an advantage over her competitors. She did not suffer herself to be carried away by theories; she consulted facts; she studied her position and compared it with that of other nations, and acted accordingly. The prohibitive system was long most rigidly pursued in England; it may be traced as far back as the year 1283. In the time of Edward III. all foreign stuffs were forbidden to be imported, and woollens forbidden to be exported. The protection upon iron came next. The present discussions in the English Parliament prove what we knew beforehand—namely, that by maintaining certain onerous duties in the tariff, England expects to make the nations interested purchase their repeal by obtaining from them concessions favourable to her own manufactures. I must here remark, however, that England does not in any way modify her colonial system; that is to say, she continues to reserve for herself the manufactures, navigation, and commerce, which ought to administer to the wants of 100,000,000 of consumers. All that explains itself. The more England produces, the