Leave the set

with each other. tling of the question between the two Governments-between two Governments in earnest well disposed towards one another, who are aware of the difficulties they have to contend with; profit by their good understanding, instead of complaining of it; give force and means to your negotiator, instead of depriving him of both.

M. Bethmont, who succeeded M. Guizot, said that the paragraph of the address, which had obtained the unanimous sanction of the committee, was sufficiently explicit to satisfy the susceptibility of the members of all sides of the house; and to avoid a fatal division on a question in which unanimity was most desirable, he hoped that M. Billault would see the necessity of not pressing his amendment.

M. Billault, having ascended the tribune, said that the Chamber and Government being both agreed as to the suppression of the right of mutual visitation, and that it being necessary that all should unite against foreigners in vindicating the rights and honour of France, he consented to withdraw his amendment.

The last paragraph of the address, as finally proposed by the Committee, stood as follows:

"Yes, Sire, your family is truly national. Between France and you the alliance is indissoluble. The rights of your dynasty, founded on the imperishable principle of national sovereignty, are guaranteed by your oaths and ours. The public feeling brands with reprobation guilty manifestations. Our Revolution of July, by punishing the violation of sworn faith, has consecrated among us the sanctity of an oath.”

M. Berryer, who led the opposition to this paragraph, addressed the Chamber amid loud interruptions. He declared that he respected the oath which he had taken-"To whom?" was asked, many times, before he answered, "to the King of the French;" but he insisted on his right to discuss opinions which seemed to him best for the country. The Marquis de la Rochejacquelin also respected the oath "promising fidelity-to the King-of the French." [There was much laughter at the hesitating way in which this was said.] But he gave it a limited interpretation: it did not mean love, or devotedness; nor did it promise, as the oath of former times, to sacrifice one's life and all one possessed to the King. The Legitimists, said the Marquis, went to London "to see him who would have been King of France if the constitution had been respected by all;" but he admitted that an intimate friend thought proper to go into the saloon of M. Chateaubriand, after having been with the Prince, saying, "After having saluted the King of France we come to salute the King of Knowledge." The Prince, however, expressly said, that in England he was not even Duc de Bordeaux, but only Comte de Chambord. M. Guizot, who also spoke several times, insisted on a larger interpretation of the oath. It differed from that of the Restoration, but resembled it in being a contract: when the elder branch of the Bourbons violated the contract, France was released from her oath; but after 1830 it was not permitted to attempt the overthrow of the constitution-the oath did not permit the recognition of two Kings at the same time

and the attempt on the part of the Legitimists to realize their wishes and dreams for the future, was a violation of the oath taken by them in 1830. He stated also, that political morality had been outraged by the visit of the Deputies to the Duc de Bourdeaux in London.

Messrs. Cordier and de Courtais moved the suppression in the paragraph of the words, "The public feeling brands with reprobation guilty manifestations."

M. Čordier having been called to the tribune, explained his amendment. He denounced the expression of blame inserted in the address as illegal, a violation of the Charter, and tending only to bring back the country to the times of civil war; as an insult to the national character, and a highly imprudent and impolitic

measure.

M. Harlé followed, and spoke in favour of the original paragraph. It behoved the Chamber, in his opinion, to stigmatize the Frenchman who, after taking the oath to the King and Charter, had gone to London to flatter with hopes the representatives of a party which deceived itself respecting its strength and the sympathies of the nation, which would never submit to the humiliation of a third restoration.

M. Ledru Rollin next rose, and said that he was opposed both to the paragraph and the amendment. After the explanations entered into on the preceding day by the Legitimatist members who had declared that they had sincerely taken the oath to the Constitution, and that there no longer existed a Legitimatist party, he thought that the Chamber could not brand colleagues because of their individual political opinions.. It

would, moreover, be giving importance to and reviving that party. M. Ledru Rollin then indulged in vehement attacks against the ministry, and described as preparing for the dynasty of July the fate which the elder branch had experienced from the same causes. The speaker was repeatedly interrupted by the murmurs of the Centre, and having uttered some expressions which the Centre construed into an offence to the King, he was called to order by the President. In conclusion, M. Rollin said, that if their colleagues were guilty, they should be brought to trial, but that the Chamber had no right to dishonour them. He then called on the Government to return to the principles of July, to confide in democracy for support instead of striving to arrest its progress, and predicted the downfall of the dynasty, if it persevered in the fatal course pursued by the Restoration.

M. Jolland, who spoke next, defended the paragraph, and contended that the oath taken to the revolution of July had been violated by the members of the Chamber who had repaired to London to pay homage to the Duc de Bordeaux, and that their conduct should be visited with a just and severe reprobation.

M. De Lamartine, who followed, said, that he had resolved to remain silent; but that after the sitting of the preceding day, he deemed it his duty to take a part in the debate. He contended that nobody had a right to question the sincerity of an oath; he believed in political morality, and instead of suspecting or branding the intentions of hon. colleagues, he thought that the Chamber should prove itself animated with

He

sympathy and a liberal toleration towards them. He was attached in his heart, sentiments, and recollections to the Bourbon family; he had served it with loyalty; he deplored its misfortunes; but he recognised no other right than of the sovereignty of the nation, which alone was inviolable and indétronable. The dogma and principle of the Legitimacy was not his. He then proceeded to excuse the conduct of the Legitimatists who had gone to London. himself had been placed in a nearly similar position. On his return from Turkey, he had passed near the residence of the dethroned family of France, and felt most anxious to go and present his homage to those he had been attached to from his infancy. He resisted, however, with pain. The friends who accompanied him had repaired to Goritz, but he did not consider himself free to do so, having just been returned a deputy to the Chamber. He might, nevertheless, have imitated their example, and felt his conscience perfectly at rest: but because he had not used his right, did it follow that he should blame others for not being stopped by the same scruples. M. Lamartine, in conclusion, said that the house could not incriminate in its address an act which could not be incriminated before a court of law, and asked that the word "brand" be expunged from that document.

M. Dangeville and M. Béchard next addressed the assembly amidst the greatest confusion. Messrs. Cordier and Courtais having withdrawn their amend ment, the president read another, of Emile de Girardin, who demanded the suppression of the portion of the paragraph beginning

with these words, "The public feeling brands," &c., and the substitution of the following “Factions are conquered, and their vain demonstrations would only tend to demonstrate their im potence."

M. Lasteyrie was about to develope another amendment, when the President put to the vote the first portion of the paragraph of the committee, which was unanimously voted by the Assembly.

M. Lasteyrie next ascended the tribune, and, after reading the definition of the word flétrir given in the dictionary of the French Academy, contended that the Chamber could not mean to brand with infamy a demonstration which in itself had nothing criminal, and demanded the suppression of that word.

M. Duchatel, the Minister of the Interior, said that it was not the signification attached to a word by a dictionary that the Chamber should consider, but the moral effect produced by the vote. He maintained that the manifestation in London had been hostile to the King's Government; that the Legitimatists had proclaimed the Duc de Bordeaux a pretender to the throne of France; that the Legitimatist party was permanently conspiring; that it was the party of insane hopes and of civil war; and that it was indispensable that the powers of the State should check those manifest

ations before they degenerated into open insurrection; and that the most efficacious means of arriving at that end was to condemn them solemnly in the address.

After a few words from M. Crémieux, the amendment of M. Lasteyrie was put to the vote and rejected.