The King in reply, said, that he felt greatly flattered by those sentiments; that it was for the sake of saving the country that he had undertaken the fearful task of conjuring the hurricane which was gathering round France; that he was happy to find that, thanks to the progress of public tranquillity, the institutions were daily acquir ing additional strength; "but," observed His Majesty, "the depositaries of authority, in order to crown the work, must have the courage to obey the dictates of their conscience; they must not be discouraged by chimerical dangers, nor suffer themselves to be deluded by the desire of gaining a vain popularity; the laws must be executed with equitable firmness, so as to afford protection to all, and to be oppressive for none."

The debates that took place during this Session of the French Chambers were singularly devoid of interest. Both the Chambers adopted addresses in answer to the Royal Speech, which were echoes of it. In the Chamber of Deputies, however, an animated discussion took place, relative to the recent treaty between the principal European powers, mutually granting the right of search for the suppression of the Slave-trade. Several amendments were proposed on this subject; amongst others the following, by M. Jacques Lefebvre:

"We have also the confidence that in granting its concurrence to the suppression of a criminal traffic, your Government will know how to preserve from every attack, the interest of our commerce and the independence of our flag."

This amendment was after considerable discussion adopted una nimously with the exception of

the votes of the five ministers who were deputies.

M. Thiers, in the course of the debate, vigorously attacked the treaty.

The address contained the usual paragraph, a protest concerning the oppression of the Poles, in the following words:-"The Chamber reminds Europe of the rights of the Polish nation so positively stipulated by treaty."

A subject of dispute had arisen with Spain, which, although it seemed to turn merely upon a point of etiquette, was unfortunate in the precarious state of the relations between France and that country. An ambassador, M. de Salvandy, had been sent to Madrid as an acknowledgment on the part of France of the rights of Queen Isabella. As she, however, was a minor, and Espartero was the sole Regent of the kingdom, the latter required that the credentials of M. de Salvandy should be presented to him. This the French ambassador refused to do, and an undignified dispute ensued, which terminated in the departure of M. de Salvandy from Madrid.

During the debate on the address, M. Eustace de Beaumont moved an amendment, which expressed a hope that the differences which had arisen between France and Spain would not seriously disturb the friendly relation existing between the two countries,

M. Guizot opposed the amendment, on the ground that it was full of inconveniences for the Government, for the country, and for the dignity of the Chamber. He declared that Government had complied with all the chief demands of Spain: the Carlists who were flocking to join the late insurrection were sent into the interior,

and so were the Christino emigrants. Government had only refused the expulsion of Queen Christina. And then, as a mark of affection and deference (France considering herself the natural protector of the young Queen), an ambassador was sent to Madrid

"The presence of the ambassador, besides, must have facilitated the adjustment of the differences between the two governments. The French government could not expect that the presentation of his credentials would have led to any unpleasant consequences. The claims of the ambassador were in conformity with the practice observed in every monarchy, with the public law of Europe, and with all the precedents. In Greece and the Brazils, during the minority of the sovereigns, the same pretensions had been raised by the regents, and all the powers had declared against them. The presentation by an ambassador of his credentials to the real sovereign was an European right; and the moment the affair became known, the governments, both absolute and constitutional, and Great Britain among the rest, supported the demand of France."

M. de Beaumont's amendment was rejected.

With reference to the Spanish question M. Guizot in the Chamber of Peers on the 12th of January said, "That the speech from the throne was silent on the subject, but that silence was im perative in consequence of the negotiations pending between France and Spain. He admitted that the treaty of Bergara had given the French government great pleasure, because it had put an end to the civil war, but it had never expected that this treaty would terminate

all the differences between France and that country. As respected the last insurrection, France, he declared, had taken no part in it, either directly or indirectly. When the Spanish government had demanded of France to remove the Christino refugees into the interior, that demand, and several others equally reasonable, had been immediately acceded to: one request only (the expulsion of Queen Christina) had been formally refused, for considerations which the Chamber would appreciate. The government was actuated by two feelings towards Spain-namely, a desire to contribute with all her might to the consolidation of a regular monarchy, and the pacification of the country; and secondly, a firm resolution to prevent any exclusive influence from establishing itself in the Peninsula to the prejudice of France, without pretending to monopolize for France an exclusive influence of the kind. Proceeding afterwards to examine the eastern question, he announced that he would confine himself to

recapitulate the facts which had

occurred since the accession of the cabinet of the 29th of October to power. After describing the painful opposition in which he and his colleagues had been placed, and the ingratitude with which the services they had rendered had been requited, he compared the situation in which they had found the eastern question and what it now was. When they took office the Pasha of Egypt was driven from Syria, and his very existence menaced. Now the Pasha's existence was no longer in danger, and all the Powers of Europe had solemnly pledged themselves to protect him. The hatti-scheriff of 13th of February only granted

to Mehemet Ali a doubtful and precarious heredité; he was deprived of the administrative power, nor did he enjoy the reality of military power, since he could not appoint an officer above the rank of captain. By the hatti-scheriff of the 25th of May the Porte granted him the heredité unconditionally; he was fully invested with the administrative power; no financial officers were to be commissioned by the Porte to controul his acts; he had the nomination of all the officers of the army, with the exception only of the generals, which required the sanction of the Sultan. The Pasha was now on good terms with his Sovereign, and deeply interested in the main tenance of the Mussulman power. M. Guizot regarded the convention for closing the Straits as highly important, for it guaranteed the security of the Ottoman empire and the duration of the peace of Europe. Were the Russian and European navies free to navigate through those Straits, there would be no security for the Sultan. It was a measure strongly recommended from the beginning by the Duke of Wellington, and he did not hesitate to say, that if such a convention had been proposed some years ago to Europe, it would have been received, and accepted as a conquest.' When the ministry of the 29th of October took the reins of government, war was imminent, and France condemned to remain in a state of armed isolation. That ministry had extricated her from that situation, restored a good understanding between all the Powers, and at the same time that France reduced her burthens to a considerable extent, she had obtained a similar reduction from the other nations. France had not adhered

to the treaty of the 15th of July, for she could not adhere to what she had at first disapproved. The adhesion of France was not demanded by Europe; but she could not but be convinced that the Turko-Egyptian question was definitively settled. All sorts of advances had been made to induce her to re-enter the European concert; no sacrifices, no conditions were required, and France could not possibly withhold her adhesion. Her conduct had been dictated by reason, good sense, and sound policy. France, he admitted, had sustained a check in the East, but this was owing to her having conceived a false opinion of the importance of her interests in Egypt, and of the power of Mehemet Ali. England had likewise committed a fault in sacrificing the alliance of France to the consideration of Syria passing some years sooner from the hands of an old man into those of a child. This error she would long deplore. Prussia and Austria were not aware of their power, or they would have prevented all that had subsequently occurred; and as to Russia, she had abandoned on that occasion her secular policy. M. Guizot then contended that con cessions had been made to France in order to prevail on her to re-enter the European concert; that Europe was persuaded that no solid treaty could be concluded for the mainte nance of peace in the East without the co-operation of France; that Europe would not now be tempted to

recommence what she had done, notwithstanding that her undertaking had been crowned with success; she had measured the perils of the situation, and would not again embark in an enterprise to which France should not be a party. With regard to the Christian

population of Turkey, France did not encourage them to revolt; she disapproved all attempts on their part to shake off the Ottoman yoke, because such an act would inevitably kindle a general conflagration. The policy of France towards Turkey was loyal; she wished her integrity to be respected at home and abroad. France endeavoured to impress the Divan with the idea, that the real danger with which the empire was menaced proceeded from its Christian population, and the cabinet was doing everything in its power to prevail on the Porte to better the situation of the latter, and to treat them with more justice and lenity. M. Guizot, desirous to prove the sincerity of France in that respect, then read a despatch addressed by him, on the 13th of December last, to the ambassadors at the foreign Courts, in which he protested against those insurrections, and denounced and disapproved the machinations of the propagandist committees to rouse them to revolt."

And in defence of the conduct of the government in regard to the affairs of the East, M. Guizot, in the Chamber of Deputies, on the 19th of January, proceeded to examine the situation of the Eastern question when he accepted office, and read a series of diplomatic documents in proof of the active part which France had taken in its adjustment. In one of them, dated the 9th November, 1840, M. Guizot notified to the Pasha of Egypt that he had no assistance to expect from France; that the latter would not expose herself to the chance of a war for the sake of upholding his power in Syria, and that he had nothing left, if he wished to preserve Egypt, but to submit to the authority of the Sultan. France,

seeing that the very existence of the Pasha was menaced, interfered on his behalf, and Prussia and Austria had at first evinced an inclination to obtain better terms for him; but after the capture of Beyrout and St. Jean d'Acre those Powers declared that the events had decided the point, and that they could not undo by negotiations what had been achieved by the force of arms. M. Guizot then read various despatches, addressed by him to his government during the negotiations, and which demonstrated that he had met with support from the German ministers. One of those despatches was written by Prince Metternich, who declared that he would not co-operate in the overthrow of Mehemet Ali as governor of Egypt, and that if Austria abstained it was through deference for France. At a conference held in Constantinople on the 20th of December, 1840, between the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Porte and the representatives of the four Powers, Baron de Sturmer, acting up to the instructions which he had received from Prince Metternich, announced that he considered the submission of Mehemet Ali to be sincere and complete, and that it should be accepted. M Guizot maintained that it was in consideration of France, that the conference had adopted that resolution; that the Pasha was not disturbed in the possession of Egypt, and that the principle of his heredité was conceded. In the course of January following the whole affair was arranged, and England, who had at first opposed this settlement, at last yielded, from the fear of Austria's secession from the coalition. The original hatti-scheriff, by which the power

and heredité of Mehemet Ali had been rendered illusive, was actually modified from an anxiety on the part of the Powers to be agreeable to France, and the hatti-scheriff of the 25th of May, granting all the reasonable demands of the Pasha, had been received with gratitude at Alexandria. On the 12th of June Mehemet Ali had assured the French Consul of his satisfaction at the manner in which the affair had been concluded, and he repeated his thanks to the same agent when the intelligence of the conclusion of the convention of the 13th of July had reached Alexandria.

M. Guizot then vindicated the motives which had induced the French Cabinet to re-enter the European concert. It was that concert, he said, that had insured, since 1830, the duration of general peace; it was that concert which had erected Greece into an independent state, and consolidated the power of Mehemet Ali, without producing the least perturbation. M. Guizot next proceeded to give a glowing account of the advantages which France had derived from her intimate alliance with Great Britan, that generous nation, he said, had been the first in 1830 to declare in favour of her revolution, and accept her alliance; and the events which had lately come to pass ought not to impair the gratitude which the French people owed to Great Britain. M. Guizot then defended the policy which the cabinet had pursued in respect of its abandonment of the policy of isolation, and its re-entering the European concert. He observed that by persevering in the policy recommended by the Chamber, France would have placed the four Powers in the necessity of

forming a closer alliance. His intention, however, was not to recommend the renewal of the alliance with England, as it would be arraying Europe into two camps -the despotic against the constitutional governments. France had assumed an honourable and independent position, and if she was not on friendly terms with some, her relations with all were regular and pacific. M. Guizot in conclusion, protested against the pretended debasement of France since 1830, and her dereliction of Poland, Italy, and other nations who had followed her example, and declared that at no former period did she hold a prouder rank among nations. As respected Algiers, France had proclaimed her firm determination not to evacuate that country, and no power now dared to disturb her in its possession. Speaking one day with Lord Aberdeen on the affairs of Tunis, M. Guizot assured his Lordship that France would not stop at any sacrifice to consolidate the security of her African establishments. Lord Aberdeen, after listening to him attentively, replied that he could make many objections to what had taken place since 1830 with regard to that question, but that, assuming the direction of affairs in 1841, he accepted them in the situation in which he found them, and that he now considered the occupation of Algeria as an accomplished fact.

In the month of July, a most melancholy event occurred, which plunged the Royal Family of France into the deepest affliction. This was the sudden death of the heir to the Throne, the Duke of Orleans, who was accidentally killed by a fall from his carriage. The event is thus narrated by the Gazette de France :