conviction alone could have induced him to retire so abruptly from an administration in which were men with whom he had been intimately united during the fifteen years he had belonged to legislative assemblies.

The Assembly afterwards passed to the order of the day, and adjourned.

This happened on Saturday, and on the following Monday (Jan. 8) M. Jules Favre called the attention of the Government and the Assembly to the fact that a letter addressed by the President of the Republic to one of his Ministers had appeared in the public journals. He said: "I consider that the publication in question tends to bring one of the great powers of the State into disrepute; I think that it is attended with great danger, and that such publications would render all government impossible. I do not, besides, believe that a letter could be published without the authorization of the writer. I in no way incriminate M. de Malleville, but I have heard that that letter was communicated to some of our colleagues; I am ignorant by whom this was done, for I repeat I in no way incriminate M. de Malleville, who came to this tribune to make an honourable statement relative to the secrecy to be preserved concerning administrative documents. I demand how it has happened that the letter has been published in a journal whose political tendencies are well known (Legitimist), and in a department where its publication might have a disastrous effect? It is only, therefore, by a guilty breach of confidence that the letter in question has been published; and I ask whether the Government has ordered any inquiry into the

affair?" (Cries of "The order of the day.")

The President of the Council.We shall never leave to any one the care of defending the Government. An obscure and disgraceful act has been committed. I should be offending the dignity of the Government in condescending to disavow it; it is reprehended, not only in the name of political, but of public and Christian morality. Is it with such facts as these that we are to occupy ourselves? When every one feels the difficulty of the present state of things, when on all sides we see the indispensable necessity of restoring public confidence and credit, is it with such useless subjects that we are to lose our valuable time? Has not the gravity of our foreign relations been just now revealed from this tribune? Has not the necessity of union and strength been pointed out to extricate France from the serious embarrassments which have arisen? And yet, in spite of all this, since the accession of the new Ministry to power not a day has passed without interpellations and incidents; without our having had to occupy our attention with anecdotes, and I know not what frivolities, which are not only unworthy of us, but of yourselves. (Cries of "Enough, enough! The order of the day!")

The order of the day was then adopted by an immense majority.

On the same day a discussion arose on the subject of foreign affairs, in consequence of some questions addressed by M. Beaune to the Cabinet.

M. Beaune said that he did not object to the passage of the Ministerial programme, in which it was stated that the Government would not lightly engage the honour of

France. But the Constitution being now voted, and 6,000,000 of suffrages having elevated to the presidency the nephew of the Emperor Napoleon, France should no longer have an anonymous policy. It was indispensable that the conduct of the new Government should be worthy of her. Although Brussels had been fixed for the seat of the mediation on Italian affairs, although M. Lagrenée had been appointed to replace M. de Tocqueville as the Plenipotentiary of France, the conferences, he affirmed, would not take place, because Austria refused to recognise the mediation, and England had no interest in Italy common with that of France. What course did the Cabinet mean to pursue towards the Roman people? Did it intend to join Austria in reinstating the Pope, who had preferred to the hospitality of France that of a king who was only known by the massacre of his people and the conflagration of his cities? As respected the Sicilian question,

was war to recommence, or was the armistice concluded on the ruins of Messina to be continued? He demanded a categorical reply to those questions, in the interest of humanity and the honour of France. M. Beaune next adverted to Spain. He wished that country to be allowed to govern itself freely, and that France should renounce that dynastic policy that had pressed on both during the last eighteen years, and that no less disgraceful system pursued since February, which converted the soldiers of France into agents of the holy Hermandad. He then passed over to Prussia and Austria. The latter, he maintained, was the soul of the Holy Alliance, and to show the ill

will of her rulers towards France, he cited an expression of one of her diplomatists, who recommended that "the French revolution be left to stew in its own

gravy." The emancipation of Italy, the alliance with free Germany, and the reconstruction of Poland, should be the main objects of the policy of France. After alluding to Constantinople, and recommending the Government to send a French fleet to protect the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, M. Beaune descended from the tribune.

M. Drouyn de Lhuys, Minister for Foreign Affairs, declared that the pending negotiations imposed upon him the utmost reserve. Although he could not believe that a portion of the Assembly systematically wished to create difficulties for the Government ("No, no!"), yet he would not utter imprudent words for which he might be brought to an account at a future day. He maintained that the negotiations opened at Brussels were not broken off, and that the mediation had not been refused by Austria. The question at issue was one of peace and war. There were two policies in presence since February; one favourable to peace, and the other inciting to war. He advocated the former, and would never be a partisan of the latter.

M. Lamartine then rose and justified the foreign policy pursued by the Provisional Government with the full concurrence of all its members, and invited its opponents to a public discussion on its merits.

M. Ledru Rollin, who followed, contended that the policy of the Provisional Government had been pacific and fraternal. He was

ready to repeat the explanation he had already given respecting the expedition to Risquons Tout. The manifesto of the 5th of March proclaimed the propaganda of ideas; it declared the treaties of 1815 at an end, at the same time that the boundaries of the different states, fixed by those treaties, should be respected. He then examined the policy pursued with regard to Sicily. There, also, negotiations were at an end, in consequence of the protest of Spain, and the declaration of the Emperor Nicholas that he would defend with the sword the treaties of 1815. What was the conduct of France in Rome? She knew that Austria was marching her troops towards the Pontifical dominions. She knew that a compact existed between Austria and Naples to restore the Pope, and he understood, but could not believe, that France had joined the league. He had heard that a Cabinet Council had been held at the close of December, and that it was resolved to allow the intervention of Austria and Naples to be proposed for the restoration of the Pope. He also was informed that, on the 1st of January, the President of the Republic went up to the Papal Nuncio, and, in presence of the whole Corps Diplomatique, had given him an assurance that the Pope would soon be reinstated in his temporal power. If it was true that Austria and Naples were preparing to enter the Roman States, the Government was bound by the manifesto of the 5th of March to oppose that intervention, for that manifesto declared that France would cause Italian independence to be respected. The Roman revolution was legitimate. The Roman people were justified in rising against a

temporal sovereign. Ministers, when asked what was the course pursued by the Cabinet, replied, negotiations were pending, instead of acting. The situation was grave in the extreme. Russia declared that she would maintain by her arms the treaties of 1815. A Russian fleet was at present in the Adriatic, supported by 80,000 men of the Moldo-Wallachian army. Prussia was marching troops to the Rhenish provinces, and a Prussian general had lately proposed, at a dinner given to his officers, the following toast-" To our next meeting on the banks of the Rhine." England herself had been alarmed by these military movements, and had lately sent one of her ablest statesmen to Belgium to inquire into their object, after which he repaired to Paris. M. Ledru Rollin maintained that energetic measures were indispensable, in presence of the military preparations of Russia and the other Absolutist Powers, and the recent declaration of the Emperor of Russia that he would defend with arms the treaties of 1815.

Napoleon had said that Europe would be either republican or overrun by the Cossacks in the course of fifty years. The Czar appeared disposed to realize the latter part of the prediction. It was not only the cause of the Republic but that of civilization which France had received the mission to protect. By following another course, the Government would betray the country and promote the cause of barbarity.

M. Drouyn de Lhuys, having risen, called on M. Ledru Rollin and his friends, if they wished to substitute a question of war for a question of negotiation, to bring forward a proposition to that effect. (Cries of The order of the day.")

M. Larochejacquelein said that he opposed the order of the day, because it was necessary that the Ministry should tell the Assembly if the facts denounced by M. Ledru Rollin should be imputed to that Cabinet or to the preceding one.

M. Drouyn de Lhuys replied, that the mediation relative to Sicily was said to be at an end. This was not the case; the negotiations were still pending, and no declaration of the nature described by M. Ledru Rollin had been made to the English and French Governments. There was no truth, either, in the assertion of a meeting of a Cabinet Council at which a combined invasion of Italy with Austria and Naples had been agreed to. The veto of Russia had not impeded the Sicilian negotiations, and if another Power wished to participate in them, France could not object to it. If 200,000 Russians menaced France, which he denied, France had 500,000 men to oppose to them. It was not accurate to say that Prussia was arming. The Government, having applied to the Cabinet of Berlin for information on the subject, was assured that, since April last, no increase had taken place in the Prussian army. On the contrary, its effective force had been reduced.

M. Ledru Rollin again rose, and maintained the accuracy of the facts he had adduced, and which were furnished to him by foreign diplomatists. In reply to an allusion of M. Larochejacquelein, M. Ledru Rollin said that he was so sincerely converted to the Republic, that he offered, on the 25th of February, to accept the embassy to St. Petersburg.

M. Larochejacquelein replied, that when the Revolution occurred he had been sent for by M. Lamar

tine, who had offered him an embassy.

M. Lamartine confirmed that statement.

After a few words from MM. Drouyn de Lhuys and De Tracy, Minister of Marine, the Assembly passed to the order of the day.

Much dissatisfaction was felt throughout France at the indefinite prolongation of the existence of the National Assembly, whose functions seemed already accomplished, and whose views, as had been clearly shown in the question of the election of the President of the Republic, were not in unison with those of the nation at large. One reason of the disinclination of the Assembly to dissolve itself was doubtless to be found in the fact of the daily payment of 25f. to each member. This was to many the means of a comfortable subsistence, such as they would have little chance of procuring elsewhere, and they were naturally anxious to secure it for as long a period as possible. In the mean time, however, the country was becoming impatient of the delay, and numerous petitions from all quarters were presented, praying for a dissolution. That the Assembly was not popular in France may be inferred from the fact that, up to the end of January, the petitions addressed to it in favour of the continuance of its powers contained only 2612 signatures. The question was brought to an issue by M. Rateau, who submitted to the Assembly the following propositions, which were discussed on the 12th of January :

"Art. 1. The Legislative Assembly is convoked for the 19th of March next. The powers of the National Constituent Assembly shall expire on the same day.

"Art. 2. The elections for the nomination of the 750 members, who are to compose the Legislative Assembly, shall take place on the 4th of March, 1849. Each department shall elect the number of representatives determined by the table annexed to the present Bill.

"Art. 3. Until the period fixed for the dissolution, the National Assembly shall confine itself to frame the electoral law, and the law relative to the Council of State."

M. de Gèze, the first speaker, said that he belonged to the minority of the Committee of Justice, which had combated the expediency of the propositions of M. Rateau. The majority grounded its principal objection on an alleged violation of the Constitution, and a desertion of the mission confided to the Assembly by the people. The minority was of a contrary opinion, and could not be persuaded that the 115th article of the Constitution, providing that the Constituent Assembly should proceed to draw up the organic laws, the enumeration of which should be determined by a special law, was a peremptory argument. Now, that article was silent respecting the number of those organic laws, which was enumerated in the decree of the 15th of December. But that decree was not constitutionally binding on the Assembly, and might be repealed by another. The majority itself had admitted that the number of the organic laws could be reduced; and, consequently, a proposition, tending to fix a period which would not allow the Assembly time enough to pass the ten organic laws, could not be construed into a violation of the Constitution. The charge of

deserting its mission was equally unfounded. M. de Gèze would not examine the decree of the month of March, in virtue of which the Assembly existed, to define the extent of its powers. In his opinion a constituent assembly should alone perform what it had been specially charged with per forming, but it should not encroach on the province of a legislative assembly. The moment the former had voted the Constitution it was its duty to retire. When it was proposed to fix a period for the termination of the labours of the Assembly, it was with a view to extricate it from the situation in which it had placed itself, by its decree of the 27th of October, convoking the electoral colleges for the 10th of December to appoint the President of the Republic, that is, before it could have terminated its labours. That situation, created by the Assembly, had rendered the proposition indispensable. The Assembly could not remain a constituent power in presence of a constituted power. It was not in the nature of things that they could live long together on friendly terms. Public opinion, besides, strongly manifested itself in favour of the dissolution. He did not speak of the journals, which contained many exaggerations, but when he found the elective councils of the nation raising their voice to recommend it, it was impossible not to regard that circumstance as a strong appeal to the patriotism of the Assembly.

M. Pierre Bonaparte next rose, and said that he did not intend to speak in so grave a discussion, but he wished to refute a calumny directed against the Assembly. It was asserted that the latter was hostile to the President. This was untrue.