The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-04 00:00:00

' -
-........,
- /
.....--/ j--,'-'7- e------7r-- ----------1---_
--0-
.. -
.
. ,
. ,;,. • -- .'l. ;---))
.4., , ----ii
t----------) ' .
Ithit.'...t 14"..ii.. - 'i • '''"
' 08.40,-r• ?.1.4%000,‘17t4iKti-2, ‘,.4 , I.o_ ( ,74-4,•,,e4
--.",4,
:- '4..,7- 11r- •
li 0 -4, 5-4;!
.‘, ;....1-e (-r - 1-- ''" *V • Ci'll I• at ' 7- f-',.
- "4
i ' ;111
\ ~410,....-,
~ ,- '' -44. ii- • - . ' to
~..,......., •.,,ii.. ~..;.0,,,,‘...
~
_,.../„..,....,4„,_...,::..i..„3147,
......,..........„,4:„... '4:i1ik.77,1 DID ' ~;...'11'a,;,.,, .4ii(...F4' .I:.js'tfC)l!l-' 11.0,, ;;11":_.., aR 07 , ''. •4 - .:A%—.• - ' ..) ..4-
.... tax, 11. . • ate

,

2.)

near its dissolution ; another majority may be formed, and we
shall have a different vote. Do you then forget that the amend-
ments which cast censure on your act was passed unanimously
Have you promised to make the Chamber retract its own
expression of feeling ? If you have done so, you will have
lowered its character and your own, in showing that you
were resorting to a trick to gain time. The question is not
as to whether we shall enjoy supremacy on the ocean ; it is to
know whether we shall there exercise equal right? What
Ministers demand is what would be asked by English deputies.
.—(Murmurs and ironical laughter.) The question is to know
whether the interest of France is to be paramount to that of
England ; the question will be to know whether at the ap-
proaching elections we are to have French or English Depu-
ties. There will beno modification of the Treaty; the present
Minister of Foreign Affairs swill obtain less concession than
yrse makes England the Magistrate
it without being subject to
her search. She may proscribe any nation at her will, and
aonfythe other.oce an ; The
no
preventing her ships from navigating any sea she may point
out. Should France consent to such pretensions, she would
abandon every principle and abandon herself. I wish to call
the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the situation
in which he is placed, and to the serious difficulties with which
he is surrounded. I pause for his reply.
M. Guizst sad—lii the lengthened discussion which has
already taken place on the question which is again brought
before you, I maintained in all its constitutional freedom the
prerogative of the Crown—viz. its right to rattly the Treaty
which had been concluded ; but at the same time 1 acknow -
ledged that the feeling manifested by the Ch amber was entitled
to tt.e serious consideration of the King's Government.. I
have acted upon this principle. My language has formed. the
rule of my conduct. When the momeet for ratification arrived,
tie Crown, upon the advice of the Cabinet, an
of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, instructed thed particularly
An bassador
in London to declare that the Crown felt that it ought not to
ratify the Treaty. It declared, moreover, that it could not say at
what period it might be able to do so ; and, at the same time
reserved to itself to propose modifications in the Treaty. The
_
Hon. Deputy who has spoken may tranquilise his mind. The
propositions of the Crown did nct.meet with the repulsion, the
antipathies, of which he has informed the Chamber. The
position of the King's Government and the motives which de-
termined the conduct which it thought itself called upon to
adopt were perfectly understood. It thoroughly understood
that the other Powers, having no motive similar to that of the
French Government for not exchanging the ratifications, would
exchange them as soon as the period fixed for that act should
arrive ; and that the Protocol would remain indefinitely open
for France up to the moment when the modifications which
were to be the object of the negotiations so be entered upon,
and which w;11, in fact, be entered upon, should have been
made. Such is the real state of things. No fixed delay has
been assigned for the closing of the Protocol. No engage-
ment, direct or indirect, has been entered into for ratifica•
tion by France at any period, nor has any even been hinted
at. Not one of the hypotheses set up by the Honourable
Deputy has presented itrelf. No person has even si eculated
upon a possible change of opinion in the Chamber. Such
an idea would have been alike offensive to the Chamber, to
the Government, and to the Crown. All the facts of the case
were siinpiy and honestly exposed. The truth only has been
told, and in a country in which the principles of constitutional
Government are in f tree the state of things was understood
just as it was exposed. The Protocol remains open ; France is
not separated from the other Powers ; France is not even upon
this special question isolated from the rest of Europe. Grave
legitimate and constitutional motives induced the Crown to re-
fuse its ratificarion, as it had a right to do. Such a state of
things has not besides been of such rare occurrence as the
Honourable Deputy pretends, for there have been numerous
examples of reservations in the ratification of treaties. The
state of things then is perfectly simple, perfectly regular. The
ratification has not been given. A new negotiation has been
opened with the Powers with a'view to obtain modifications
which would satisfy, as far as the honour of the Cha cher will
permit, the feeling which has been manifested by the Chamber
and the public. What the precise object of these negotiations
is, and what the result as to the proposnl modifications may be,
is a question uron which my sense of duty does not permit me
to enter now. The al it is pending, the negotiation is opened,
and it will be followed up with the desire not to violate the
engagements of France, and not to abandon the cause, the
great cause, which is the object of the 'Treaty, but, at the
same time, to satisfy the feeling which has been manifested
by the Chamber. It is opened with the intention of guaran-
teeing the independence and the legitimate interests of our
flag. Such is the object of the negotiations. The Chamber
will comprehend that I cannot at this moment enter into any
further details. I have been merely anxious to state the
case as it. realty stands There is nothing irregular in it; it
is a delicate one, and requires to be treated with prudence and
care. There is reason to believe that we shall attain the
double object which we have in view. This is all that I can
say to-day.
M. Mauguin said he had felt it to be his duty to call the
attention of the Chamber to a situation which the Minister
himself called a del.cate one. The Minister had said that the
Protocol remained open. He would repea• that France would
not obtain any modification. —(This expression was received
with disapprobation from various parts of the Chamber.)
M. July said he did not think the Treaty could ever be
ratified, as a grave question of constitutional right was in-
volved. The treaty, in one of its clauses, stated that any
vessel ellieh should be I roved to have been engaged in the
slave-trade should le confiscated. By one of the causes of
the Charter tic penalty of confiscation was abolished. They
could not revise th.s penalty in a 'I reaty with Foreign Powers.
M. July then procee.!ed to remark on several 'clauses of the
Treaty, partieJfai ly clati.e. 1, which placed the slave-trade on
the same ground as pit acy, and the signs by which the cruisers
were to rt cognise vessel, engaged in that trade. Ile spoke also
of the ineonveeit race to ronimerce of the right of search, and if
the difficulty that there would be fur the owner of a suspected
vessel t.. show that it eas not engaged in the traffic which it
was the oiject of the 'Treaty to suppress.
M. Berry( r—'lhe very simple arid clear manner in which
the Minister for Foreign Affairs has placed the question
does not, in my opinion, permit us to prolong this dis-
cussion. The Matitte r tells us that the Government sus-
pended the ratification, and did not say et what period it
would be liven. lie also iteorms us that modifications have
been proposed by Fratee, and that hitherto they have not been
rejected by the other Cabinets. In this stat of things it
is es ident that the Minister for Foreign Affairs could give no
other answer to the ques ions vailch have been put to him
than that which be has given, and that he e_nuot fairly be
exposed to further questions whilst things remain in the
present state. I have, therefore, merely one observation of
'make to him. In the discussion on the address, I spoke to
the dangers of the Treaty to France. It is not necessary for
me to say that the lerusal of the Treaty gives additional im-
Pertance to the tsbservatious which I have made. Every-
thing in the Treaty is clear and precise on one point—viz. the
number of cruisers. I roust confess that the way in which the
clause giving to the contracting parties the right of regulating
the number of cruisers according to their own views, arid that
which declares that the cruisers of one Power shall have no autho-
rity to act without the consent of the other Powers, are drawn
up, is of a nature (o offer sufficient guarantees on this important
point. But Ido riot find precisely the same guarantee in aticle
I I, ehich contains the stipulations of indemnity in the case of
a vessel having been improperly divei ted fri:rn its route. This
clause is so drawn up as to be, in my opinion, altogether illu-
sory. There is, besides, a clause, not in the Treaty itself, but
annexed to it, which teems to me to be pregnant with danger.
Everybody has remarked that it is a strange Treaty in which
parties figure who have so little interest in it, and Russia,
which has no maritime interest except on the African sea, by
her alliance with the Americans has been particularly alluded
to. Now, it is declared by the Treaty that in the African sea
vessels of commerce, as well as vessels of war, are to be ex-
empted from the right of search. 1 have a right, therefore,
to assert, that the Treaty is entered into with Powers which
have no interest in the question. I will now rep y to the
speaker who preceded me. He is in error in saying that our
laws no longer pronounce confiscation. Confiscation May be
and is pronounced under certain circumstances by our laws.
If a vessel were proved to have been engaged in the slave
trade, it would be contiseated without the violation of any con-
stitutional right.

SPAIN.
M. Glais-Bizoin now said—ln the last siting I applied for
permission to put certain questions to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs relative to Srain. Doubtlessly the President did not hear
me, for my demand does not figure on the order of the day.
I now ask whether the Chamber is disposed to hear me?
M. Guizot —I have already explained myself at great ler gth
on the Spanish question on another occasion. It would be
imprudent, indeed it is impossible for me to change or add to
any thing that I have said. I have, therefore, no reply to make
to M. Glans-I3izoin.

M. Glair-Bizoin—On the eve of a conspiracy organised
under the auspices of a Queen—( Great opposition to M. Glais-
Bizoin continuing was here expressed.)
M. Guizot said with some warmth—l leave to the Chamber
to judge of the propriety of such language. Will you allow it
to be said that a Queen, residing in France, has organised a
conspiracy ?

The President said—The language employed by M. Glais-
Bizoin was altogether unparliamentary.
.M. Glais-Bizoin—lt was declared in the English Parlia-
ment, that a flagrant conspiracy was being organised, and that
the day and hour of the explosion were agreed upon. The
Prime 'Minister of England stated that the chief of this con-
spiracy was in Paris. I ask whether if, after such a declara-
tion by a Prime Minister, it is not necessary for France to
protest with energy ? There already are sufficient grounds
for discord between France and Spain. We must not allow
new causes to arise. I ask the Cabinet to say what truth there
is in the declaration of the English Minister.
M. Guizot— I affirm that the person alluded to, Cabrera, for
it is he who has been mentioned, has not come to Paris. Per-
mission was even ref used to him to enter France. The Eng-
lish Ministry is in complete error on this subject
BANKS.

The next CrJer of the Day was the discussion of the pro-
ject of law for tho prolongation of the privilege of the Bank of
Rouen.

M. Fould considered the best model to be followed was
that of the actual o-ganisatiun of the Bank of France, where
the nomination of the Governor and of two Sub-Governors
was vested in tote Government. Although the Bank of
Rouen did not demand similar precautions, yet he consi-
sidered it ought to 13: under the special surveillance of an
agent of the Government, who would prevent its statutes
from being deviated from. With this view, he should give his
support to the article of the Gsvernment, the rejection of
which was proposed by th'. Committee. The Honourablo
Member considered that the capital of the Bank was not pro-
portionate to the operations which the Bill authorised it to
enter into. An augmentation of 500,000 francs, he said, was
not sufficient to carry on discount transactions in seven.
places. The Honourable Member then proposed, in discussing:
the statutes, to carry up the capital to five millions. The pro-..
fits, he admitted, would have to be divided amongst a greater
number of shareholders, Lut the operations of the Bank would'
be more secure. lie wished the nominal capital f the Bank.
to be stated in the law, and not in the statutes. He demanded
the re-establishment of Art. 3 of the project of law,
his amendment were not adopted. He then proposed art amend-
ment to the effect that a weekly return of the operations of
the Bank should be made to the Minister of Finance; that the-
capital of the Bank should be raised to five million; and that
the Batik should be authorised to discount paper in all towns.
where the Bank of Fiance has branch establishments. Then
Honourable Deputy also proposed several amendments on the
statute of the Bank of Rouen.
The Chamber then passed to the discussion of the articles
of the Bill.

Art. 1. " The privilege of the Bank of Rouen, constituted.
in virtue of the law of the 24th Germinal, year 2, by the Roya3
ordonnances of March 7, 1817, June 7, 1826, and June 144
1840, is pro'onged to Dec. 31, 1863."—Adopted.
The follnaing additional paragraph was proposed by 64
committee:—

" Nevertheless it may be put an end to or modified on. the.
31st December, 1855, if thus ordered by a law passed in one of
the two sessions preceding that period."—Adopted•
M. Victor Grandin proposed to place the following between
the first and second articles :
" The departmental Banks, legally created, are authorised to.
discount paper payable in all towns in which similar establishes
ments exist, and to exchange it."
e to the Ba k
rarreolrip 0
The amendment, not being seconded, VMS not put to '43'0,04..
At five o'clock the discussion was adjourned.
SITTING OF MARCH 1.
The Chamber met to-day at the usual hour.
of Tnhoueooor,dberototfhtehAsodbyeewt was the dediscnuotashi
The remainder of the sitting was 00,..,. • general interest,.
organisation of the bureaux, - .apied in the monthlly