sperity and the security of the social state. No person can be ignorant that (in England in particular) it is to the influence of the landed proprietors, to the influence of what is usually termed the territorial aristocracy, that England owes her power, and a great portion of her liberties and of her prosperity. I am persuaded that Sir R. Peel never entertained an idea of taking from the landed interest the ascendancy which it so happily possesses in England. He thought that he would be enabled to improve the condition of the manufacturing classes without altering the institutions of his country. I hope that he will succeed in this double end. Now let us turn to France: The first of these measures, the social reform which interests the manufacturing population, I do not hesitate to say is not applicable to this country. Not that the condition of the manufacturing classes is not capable of many ameliorations; but there is no comparison in that respect between England and France. With us the agricultural population dominates; the manufacturing population is very inferior in point of numbers, and it is not subject to those violent oscillations from which the manufacturing population of England suffer so severely. I conceive that we ought to proceed with more moderation, more prudence, more reserve, than the English Minister, in our reforms, in this respect. When we look narrowly into the reforms proposed by Sir R. Peel and their motives, it will be seen that those great reforms are not in anywise applicable to France. I will but make one more observation, and which will answer a question proposed to me by M. Lestiboudois: What is

the object of commercial treaties?" Did you not say yourself that it was much better not to conclude them, and to confine oneself to reciprocal tariff modifications? I have stated such to be my opinion, and I am far from altering it."

During a discussion on the estimates, which took place on the 27th of May and two following days, M. Thiers seized the opportunity of making a long and energetic attack upon the policy of Ministers; and he was ably replied to by M. Guizot. These two speeches were the most interesting that occurred during the Session, and we, therefore, give them at greater length than usual. The immediate occasion of the debate was an amendment proposed by M. Odillon Barrot, to reduce, by 10,000 francs, the item in the budget of the Minister of the Interior for the payment of the Secret Police.

M. Thiers said, that it was in order not to interrupt the discussion of the Chapters that he addressed the Chamber at that moment. He stood there to support by anticipation the amendment of M. Odillon Barrot. The Chamber would comprehend that it was not a vote that he came forward to solicit, nor did he want, on the eve of an election, to excite men's minds by a highly coloured picture of grievances. His only design was to expose to all impartial and enlightened men the motives of his opposition. In his opinion a reaction had been for some years going on, not of a violent character, for such could not take place in the present times, but a moderate reaction, such as had been manifested at the Revolution of 1830. He had contributed to found and consolidate the present Government, and he now attacked it,

not in its essence-God forbid!but in some of its acts in the acts of its servants, the present Ministers, who, in following their own tastes, imagined they were serving its interests. Some months back he said that all Governments commenced by being right, and finished by being in the wrong. He cited the Revolution, the Empire, and the Restoration; the Revolution, humane at first, and cruel afterwards; the Empire at first sage and well ordered, and then despotic and mad after senseless conquests; and, lastly, the Restoration, which came in 1815, as it declared, to preserve all lawful rights, and yet violated in 1830 all the rights of the nation. Was the present Government following the example of the three preceding ones? He should say, what it ought to have been, what it had been, and what it now was, and then a judgment could be formed on the subject. He should first examine what its conduct ought to have been at its birth. There were two courses open to it-a warlike or a pacific one. A government young and ardent, taking advantage of the enthusiasm which prevailed in France, and the agitation which pervaded Europe, might endeavour to take a glorious vengeance for the events of 1815, but the result of such a course was doubtful, and that was sufficient to condemn it. The new Government beheld Europe, the higher classes of society, and the church, withdrawing from it. In such a position, the policy of the Government should have been pacific and moderate, but firm. Europe should have been made to feel that France wished for peace, not from fear, but from calculation; the upper classes of society should comprehend that, in respecting their posi

tion, the Government of the country was not to be rendered subject to them; and that, if they were hostile, it would be maintained with a firm hand; the church should be made to see that in preserving to it its dotation and honours, no principle was to be sacrificed. In fine, an able and prudent administration was required-an administration, placing on a strong basis the navy, army, and finances. On these two conditions, of a peaceful and firm policy, and of a prudent administration, the new Government could have arrived at the destiny of those officers of fortune, who, having become Catinats and Vaubans, marched on an equality with the Condes and Montmorencis. He might be told that this was what it had been, and what it now was; he would reply, 'No, it is what it commenced by being, but what it is no longer. What was seen at the origin of the Government ? A liberal alliance with England, which upheld the influence of France in Europe. All the statesmen of the day were in accord in endeavouring to put down disorders without effusion of blood; and when the Government demanded 100,000,000f. to complete the public monuments and public works, the Chamber gave it them, great as the sum was, with confidence. The conduct of the Government was then proper and prudent-such, in fact, as suited their situation. But afterwards that prudence was changed into a desire to preserve their positions: it became mere inertness: and complete immovability appeared to govern all their acts. The honourable deputy then proceeded to sketch the various circumstances in which this unwillingness to move was manifested. He instanced

Spain, where France refused to interfere; he referred to Belgium, which, from the refusal of France to act, had lost Luxembourg, and the French troops were obliged to evacuate Ancona. This last circumstance appeared so heinous that then was formed the coalition, in which M. Guizot, M. Duchatel, and the Duke de Broglie had united to overthrow the Molé ministry. Afterwards came the coolness between France and England. In consequence of the checks which arose from it, France desired to take her revenge, and went to seek it in the East. He had not placed credit in the illusions which were entertained on this point; and, in fine, it came to pass that the eastern question was lost like the others. What was the proper course to be pursued at the period just alluded to? Evidently to keep apart-in a state of isolation, completely removed from hostility; but it was desired to renew the alliance, and for that purpose an extension of the right of search was conceded. The country became greatly agitated in consequence, and the Government was obliged to demand back the concessions that were made. Then, to turn the attention of the public mind in another direction, a lure was thrown out, and the expedition to the Marquesas was devised. Here, again, it was found necessary to recoil, but this time it was not before the country, but before England, that the withdrawal took place. Admiral Dupetit-Thouars was disavowed, and an indemnity was granted to the arrogant missionary who had caused the blood of their soldiers to be shed. But this was not all. Worse than this was done. A difference arose between England (the chance ally of France) and the United VOL. LXXXVIII.

States, her fundamental ally, and France took the part of England. The very utmost that the Government ought to have done, was to have observed a kindly neutrality. But from all these concessions, had France, at least, reaped any advantage? No. In Syria, where she asked for a little humanity to the Christian populations, her voice was unheard; and in Greece, where she only desired to see sound policy established, her wishes were thwarted. It was said that peace had been observed. He allowed that peace was a great blessing; but let the Chamber not forget, that on the occasion of the miserable affair of the Marquesas, and at the moment of the Pritchard amendment, France was nearer war than she had been for fifteen years before. The hon. Deputy here again referred to the state of Spain, and accused the Government of wishing to appear to exercise an influence there, which, in reality, it did not possess. He referred to the cases of Espartero and Narvaez, both of whom were at first supported by the French Government, and then utterly neglected. How, he would ask, was Spain situated at present? Queen Christina, whom he had been anxious to succour in her distress, and whom he had not flattered in her prosperity, had admitted into her heart a most unjustifiable hatred for the sons of her sister, and, under the influence of that most lamentable sentiment, had sought in Naples a husband for her daughter in the Count de Trapani. He had no intention to give any opinion relative to that candidate, but every one well knew that the choice was impossible; he was opposed by all parties in Spain, and was particularly odious to the [S]

Moderado party. By that unhappy selection, that Queen, whom France could not devise the means of effectually succouring, and whom she had flattered beyond measure, had divided that party, and at present that was the greatest difficulty in Spain. But to return to the policy pursued in France. For some years a change had been gradually going on in the majority. Whilst some men, and his own party amongst others, had separated from it, others had joined it. He was convinced that the greater number had been influenced by honourable motives. But he must be permitted to say, that to many the attraction of power had been a predominant reason. What was the consequence of this change? Formerly the Government confined itself to defending itself against parties; it was, in fact, with hesitation that it ventured to avow a candidate at the elections. At present the Government, far from limiting its action to self-defence, assumed the offensive, and the result of this conduct would be that in a short time the administration would be nothing else than a political instrument. He admitted, however, the right of the Government to defend itself, but it ought to do so with some reserve-it ought to impose some reserve on its defenders.

M. Guizot. The Government could not answer for newspaper articles.

M. Thiers was glad to find that the hon. Minister understood his allusion. But though the Government could not answer in all things for its defenders, yet there was between a Ministry and the journals which defended it a certain common bond. Whilst of late the Opposition press became more

moderate, that of the Government became more violent. But that only proved that the Opposition press was in the right. In 1830 the moderate press belonged to the Opposition, the violent one to the Government, and every one knew what had taken place. The hon. deputy then reproached the Cabinet with departing from the national party to draw closer to the legitimist and religious one. He said that, though the journey to London to see the Duke of Bordeaux was attacked so violently by the Government in the Chamber, yet it showed itself very accommodating afterwards with the legitimist party when the great question of national education was at stake. The hon. deputy then referred to the state of the navy, army, and finances. He accused the Government of allowing the navy to fall to ruin, and said that had not the Chambers interfered it would have done nothing. The army, he allowed, was active, ardent, and intelligent, but he denied that it was properly organized; the recruitment regulations were insufficient, and the cavalry was not certain of procuring horses. In allusion to the state of the finances, he complained of the loans that the State had been forced to contract, and adducing the example of the father of Frederick the Great, who had left his son an army and treasures which enabled him to conquer Silesia, he declared that he could pardon the Government their faults, if they left treasure sufficient for a similar purpose.

Next day M. Guizot ascended the tribune, and said that, in replying to the observations of the hon. M. Thiers, he should endeavour to avoid all personal re