one under those old monarchies where so many abuses existed, but he was not one in the present day; when, therefore, he supported the proposition, he did so because he considered the reform which it demanded to be an absolute necessity. The hon. deputy then proceeded to discuss at great length the merits of the proposition. Going back to the reigns of Louis XIV. and Louis XV., and examining in an historical point of view their various positions as young monarchs, and then as men advanced in years, he showed that all Governments, whether absolute or free, had their abuses, their dangers, and their flatterers. In absolute Governments, he remarked, flattery was manifested above to the monarch himself; in free ones below, in the bosom of deliberate assemblies, and to those also who named the members of such assemblies. From this tendency arose the abuses which the proposition aimed at putting down. Not that these abuses were as extensive as had sometimes been represented. France was by no means the most corrupt country in the world, as some persons took a pleasure in representing it; there was now, perhaps, less elevation of mind than thirty years before, but there was infinitely more purity of morals than existed then. But evils had decidedly taken root, of the kind referred to in the proposition, and there could be no doubt that they ought to be checked in their growth, if not altogether eradicated. The hon. deputy then referred to the example of England, which, he said, could be cited as a model, not of a social institution, but of a political one. He referred to the similitude which existed between the revolutions of 1688 and 1830,

and showed that, under William III. and succeeding monarchs, laws had been introduced to exclude government functionaries from the House of Commons, just as the present proposition aimed at keeping them from the Chamber of Deputies. He went on to argue, that though a certain number of functionaries were necessary in the Chamber, to give information on special questions, yet that it did not follow that because a man was not a functionary he might not be perfectly well able to enlighten the Chamber. M. O. Barrot, he said, was no functionary, nor was the Duke de Broglie, nor Count Molé, nor M. Guizot, and yet they were men of great knowledge. therefore merely meant to say, that public functionaries, no doubt, had great information, but they had not a monopoly of it. The Chamber ought to be a body representing all classes of society, but no one would speak seriously of a majority representing advocates alone, or manufacturers alone, nor ought it to represent public functionaries alone. And yet the present one was exclusively composed of public functionaries. There were 184 of these in the Chamber.

He

M. Liadieres-152. M. Thiers.-Yes, 152, if the Deputies composing part of the King's Household or Councillors of State in extraordinary service, and such like employés, were excluded, but of those 184 functionaries, 130 at least were Ministerial. The number of deputies usually voting was about 400. Of these 225 sided with the Ministry, and 175 for the Opposition, which gave an average majority of 50 to the Government. But if 130 functionaries were found amongst the 225, could it be

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. In 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," said 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

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."

ma

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 jority, 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 M.

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 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 elec

tors.

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 mem ber 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