The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-14 00:00:00

FR AN CE.

CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES.
SITTING OF THURSDAY, JAN. 10.
After speeches little listened to, from Messrs. Beaudin and
Coyne,
M. Lamartine ascended the tribune : an observation of M.
Titters had torn him from intended silence. M. Thiers said
esterday, that all the capacities of the Chamber were on one
side (interruption).
M. Thiers denied his having said so.
M. Lamartine maintained, that conscientious deputies might
be as important, however silent, and however little candidates
for place, as the most eloquent candidate for office. He then
declared the address unconstitutional. Still he thought
that the acts of M. Mole were but the consequence of treaties,
and of the acts of his predecessors. The present Cabinet
had done three great acts—the amnesty, the dissolution of
the Chamber, and the maintenance of French supremacy
in Africa. All of these he approved. He did not censure
the Address for leaning to the Left, represented as the
Left was by the sincerity and moderation of M. Barrot ;
but he accused the Address of being extra-parliamentary.
The paragraph relative to the responsibility of the Crown
represented the Ministry to be transparent, and behind it
were visible the King and his personal influence, which were
thus exposed to serious and dangerous responsibility. The
orator then entered into a very profound and not very clear
disquisition on the three powers of constitutional Government,
and this Government in general. He accused the Opposition
of seeking to make Royalty a mere abstraction. He declared
that the Ministry covered the Throne with sufficient responsi-
bility. He would give no vote which might bring in an equi-
vocal Ministry ; but would support the present until a majority
declared itself capable of forming an united and frank Admi-
nistration.

M. Jouffray said he had supported every Administration
which had held power for the last seven years, and if he now
abandoned the present Ministry, and went into momen-
tary opposition, it was for the same conservative reasons. He
did not oppose the Ministry, because it wanted capacity. M.
Mole had ample intelligence and patriotism to satisfy him.
This was not his cause of complaint. What he objected to
was the weakness of the Ministry; its want of root in the
Chamber, and of influence in the country.
M. Jars complained of the systematic opposition of the
coalition, and conceived that the Chamber in addressing a
lecture to all the Powers of the State had exceeded its own.
He wished to know the object of putting forward the maxim,
Le Roi regne et ne gouverne pas. What was meant by
reigning? Was it to be wished that in a country like France,
where men were held in consideration only for their acts,
there should be one individual intrinsically worth nothing,
or fit only tolflgure on occasions of idle ceremony 2—(Cries
of " Order.")

M. Havin—This language is unconstitutional. The King
should never be alluded to within these walls.

M. Odillon Barrot was astonished that• the true principles
of a constitutional Government should be put in question at
every moment, and he considered it most dangerous to place
the Crown and the parliamentary powers in opposition to each
other. It was decidedly for the interest of the Crown that
the Ministry should be parliamentary, and should be supported
by the Chambers.

- M. Amilhau, who was loudly called for by the Deputies of
the Centre, proposed the following amendment to the first two
paragraphs of the Address :—" Sire--The Chamber of De-
puties congratulates itself with you on the prosperity of the
country. The prosperity has necessarily increased amidst the
peace which France owes to your Majesty's Government, and
to the regular co-operation of the powers of the State.
" Under this Government, jealous of our dignity and the
faithful guardian of our alliances, France still bolds in the
world, and in the esteem of nations, the rank which belongs to
her, and which she cannot forfeit."
M. Sauzet said that if he had conceived the prerogatives of
the Crown to be invaded by the Address, he would have un-
hesitatingly separated from his friends, for he regarded the
royal authority as the palladium of liberty ; but he thought
that the reality of Ministerial responsibility was of equal im-
portance. He considered it necessary that the monarchy should
be protected. This was the spirit and meaning of the Address,
which, thus understood, was a respectful and confident appeal
to the Sovereign.—( From the Centre, " Enough, enough I")
Yes, a confident appeal, for, on the day after the Revolution,
the Monarch had said—" The Charter shall henceforth be a
reality."—(Prolonged laughter from the Centre.)
M. Thiers—lt seems that certain Hon. Deputies have no
longer faith in the Charter.---( From the Left, " Silence.")
M. Sauzet—The amendment makes over the whole address
to the Ministerial side.—( Loud cries of " Question" were
here uttered by the Centre, and of " Ballot" by the Left. )
The President—Twenty members have called for a ballot.
I shall proceed to have the names called over.
The Chamber here demanded that the paragraphs of the
amendment should be put to the vote separately, and the
President accordingly again read the text of the first paragraph
of the amendment.

M. Guizot wished it to be well understood that the Com-
mittee on the address rejected the amendment as expressing a
fallacy ; there must be no misconception on this subject.—
('` We know that," " Enough, enough," from the Centre.")
M. Guizot stood with folded arms, awaiting silence.—
" Enough, enough," from the Centre. "Go on, go on "
. ,
from the Left.

M. Guizot—The amendment expresses adhesion to the
policy of the Cabinet. The intention of the Committee was
very different. The Committee rejects the amendment.
The Chamber having decided upon voting only on the first
paragraph of the amendment, the ballot took place with the
following result :

Number of voters, 425; Absolute majority, 213. For the
amendment, 216 ; against it, 209. Majority in favour of
Miriisters, 7.

The first paragraph of M. Amilhau's amendment was then
declared to be adopted. The sitting was adjourned amidst
great tumult at half-past seven.
SITTING OF FRIDAY, JAN. 11.
M. Amilhau having adjourned the second part of his amend-
ment, the Chamber passed to the consideration of the Belgian
question.
M. Lanyer proposed, as an amendment, to insert the words
" with confidence" in the phrase of the " Chamber awaits the
issue of negotiations."
M. Fulcheron supported the amendment, which was opposed
by Messrs. Larabet and M auguin.
The President of the Council then spoke a repetition of the
argument, which he had uttered in the Chamber of Peers, and
ended by summoning the Commission to state its opinions.
M. Thiers accordingly rose, and began by saying, he was
delighted sit arriving at something positive, in lieu of the vague
di,;quisitions hitherto indulged in. He would not undertake to ex-
amine the force of the treaty. He would merely examine it,
premising, that when he heard M. Mole declare so perempto-
rily the treaty to be definitive and obligatory, except as far as
regarded the money question reserved in the Protocol, he saw
that the Minister had entered on the negotiation predeter-
mined to cede, and that the Belgians were thus from the first
abandoned. The origin of the Belgian revolution is well
known. In 1815 Belgium remained a great fragment of Na-
poleon's empire, which could not be given to any of
the Great Powers, and that for that reason it was
given to Holland. What was here attempted was an
impossibility, viz. : to force two people to bind together—
one Catholic, the other Protestant—with a rivalry of
interests and a permanence of hostility between them of four
centuries. Holland had of old established against the /lel-
gian provinces of Austria the most extraordinary of monopolies
—the closing of the Scheldt. Hence profound antipathy
between the nations ; so that in the united Chamber of the
Low Countries, the Dutch deputies always voted on the one
side, and the Belgian deputies on the other, no matter whether
the question was religion or finance. Even in France it was
difficult to reconcile sgriculture and commerce. How then
could commercial Hatted be got to agree with manufacturing
and productive Holland? The Kia.g. of Holland was a
monarch of great intelligence, but the tack imposed on him
was impracticable ; and in impracticable sitoe.tions, the greater
the character set to cope with them, the greeter the difficulties'.
In France it reqeieed all the madness of Charles the Tenth to
excite a revolution. In Belgium, the echo of that of France suf-
ficed. After the revolution, it must be owned that the great
powers of Europe showed much moderation and good sense, in
admitting tho separation of Holland and Belgium. But the dif-
ficulty was with regard to Luxemburg. Luxemburg was Bel.
glum as much as (and or Brussels, and had been ever so, under
the Governments of Spain and Austria. It had not taken the
word of command to insurge from Brussels. Limburg and
Luxemburg rose and accomplished their insurrection si-
multaneou4y with Brussels, animated with the same feelings.
It was not a wish for conquest or aggrandisement which made
a Belgian feel for the Luxemburgliers, but grief and shame
to see their comrades in sentiment and in act torn from them,
arid forced to resume the yoke of an irritated master. If it was
merely the ambition of Leopold, who wanted 300,000 ad-
ditional subjects to the four millions over which ho ruled,
he (M. Thiers) would not listen for one moment to the
claim. But tlse Claim was, on the contrary, made by a people,
not from ambition or encroachment, but on moral and
honourable grounds. He believed that Holland and the
Powers might hive yielded to these considerations but for the
argument of the confederation, Luxemburg having been given
to the King of Holland, in exchange for territories included
in the federation, and itself, in consequence, rendered fede-
rative. In the years which immediately succeeded the revo-
lution the Government had an excellent people behind it,
aroused to political susceptibility, and Jealous of the national
honour. This excited and huted spirit was dangerous, was
menacing, was difficult to repress. But it also gave force to
the cabinet in the eyes of Europe AO in its negotiations.
Now, thin spirit is allayed, and the tendency was in a con-
trary direction to a retrograde and pusillanimous policy. And
it was for that reason he had quitted office and refused to
continue in power—because he felt the
necessity of supplying
the moral support which the ex.aited state of the French l'o-
pulation once gevO, >;;y Increased firmness andtenacity in the
Govefement. He was as much aware as any one of the no.
eessity of avoiding war, and of leaving the people to the re-
pose which the/ needed. Is.4.et the t,conle 51Y:41:4,1`, he would

A ~ L-
v~'

say, but in that case let Statesmen wake.(—Applanse.) It
was said this was a question of peace or war. It was so. But
when it was said take prudent Ministers and you will have
peace, take bold Ministers and you will have war, it was a mis-
take. For in consequence of the over-prudent and irresolute
policy of the present ministers, there was a possibility of war
on both sides—war, if the great powers were resisted—and
war from the discontent and outburst of populations, if they
were ceded. The tame system of neutrality was that pre.
sumed by the words of the address.
Count Mole replied.—M. Thiers, he said, had left a doubt
whether he considered the treat of the Twenty-four Articles
obligatory or not. He (Count Mole) considered it so, though
he had not entered upon negotiation without hopes of obtain-
ing- a modification. The Cabinet had never hesitated. It
had been accused of encouraging the Belgians and King
Leopold. This was not true. The Cabinet had never dis-
guised its intentions. He felt all that was said for Luxem.
burgh ; but it was in 1832 that this cause ought to have been
pleaded.
The Chamber then proceeded to ballot, when out of 428
members present 216 were for the amendment, adding the
terms " with confidence," 212 were against it, leaving thus
majority of four for the Ministry.
Chamber adjourned.

►SITTING OF SATURDAY, JAN. 12.
The Chamber proceeded to the paragraph respecting
Ancona.

M. Jassieu developed the amendment proposed by the
minority of the commission, erasing from the address the ex-
pression of regret that the evacuation of Ancona had not taken
place under more opportune circumstances, and with the gua.
rantee that a wise policy demanded.
M. Duchatel complained that Ministers had refused, al-
though the evacuation of Ancona was an accomplished fact,
to produce the documents which might have thrown light on
the preceding negotiation. Casimir Perier's Cabinet, the
Duc de Broglie's, M. Thiers's—had all refused to evacuate
Ancona without guarantees for the liberation of the Legation.
The present Cabinet had adopted another policy ; it pleaded
that preceding Cabinets had bequeathed to it the necessity of
yielding ; but that he denied. France asked for the gift of
free institutions to the Romagna, not because it pretended to
force the Court of Rome to adopt French ideas, but because
their institutions were to provide for the independence of the
country, and to prevent its continued occupation by the Aus.
trians. The question of Ancona was intimately connected
with the Belgian one. There was a possibility of the Prussian
troops occupying Limburg and Luxemburg : he need not say
what would be the consequence of such an event. The
Chamber at once would foresee what must be the conse-
quences. He said that in such a state of things in which such
consequences were possible, it was highly impolitic to have
abandoned Ancona.

M. Jaques Lefevre'spoke in favour of the amendment.
Marshal Clausel accused the Government of precipitation
and neglect in having abandoned Ancona without their gua-
rantee, which Casimir Perier sent a division of troops to seek.
Ancona, he said, was Italy; and it was a serious fault to have
given it up.
General Lancy was of a contrary opinion.
General Bugeaud corroborated the opinion of Gen. Laney.
Ancona could not be defended. France had thirty millions of
men, and with steam-boats was mistress of any point.
M. Thiers said it would appear, from what Gen. I3ugeaud
said, that Casimir Perier, Marshal Soult, and Admiral de
Rigny must have been very imprudent persons to have ordered,
as Ministers, the expedition. Nevertheless these Ministers
had well examined the question. Napoleon had written—
" Ancona was an excellent port, at so many days' sail front Trieste and Constantinople, and France ought to keep Ancona
at the end of the peace, for the rule of French influence in the
Adriatic. It could support a long siege with a garrison of 1,500
men." This was the opinion of General Bonaparte.
Here General LANCY declared that since General Bonaparte
had written this, Ancona had stood a siege, and had some of its
fortifications rased.
M. TRIERS denied this. Ancona was much stronger now
than when Bonaparte wrote. It had the lunette of San Ste-
fano, the strongest of its works, which did not exist then.
After the battle of Trebbia, General Meunier had stood a
siege in Ancona with no more than 2,000 men, against a be-
sieging force of 42,000 men. Ancona could stand with 1,500
men for lb days against any sudden attack. It had 58 piezes
of cannon, and the population would infallibly aid the garrison.
Any number of thousands of men might be sent from Africa
to Ancona in a few days, without Europe's knowing any thing
about it till the troops had arrived and the Safety of the for-
tress had been assured.
Count MOLE then rose.—( Left speaking.)
FRENCH FUNDS.—Paais, JANUARY 12,
First Highest I ow, st Last
French 5 per Cents
Price. Price. Price. Price.
1t) 50... 110 20 110 10 ... 110 20
4 per Cents lO2 40 ... 1,2 40 le2 40 ... :3 r Cents 7B 85 ... 78 85 102
78 70 ... f 1 40
Bank of France 2651
—2650 —2635 —.2635 71
Lattitte Bank 5,0(1(1. Sh 5320
—5320 ...5310 Belgian 5 per Cents leo% 100y4 11,054 10014
580 ... 565 ... 580 ... 580
Spanish Acti,e
.. 17% . 17% ...
Passive 4 4.
.. 17%. 4 ... 4
Neapolitan
R