The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-20
THE DAILY UNION.

ment, M. de Kemusat expressed his satisfaction al
the alliance existing between England and France,
declared that il was necessary for both countries
and for the peace Of the world, and hoped that il
would be continued. But he required that in cases
In which the interests Of the two nations might diff
fer France should sacrifice hers for the benefit
Of England. He took the case Of the United States
as an example Of what he meant. The increase Of
the marine and the power OF the United States was
naturally Objectionable to England, but il was de-
cidedly for the advantage Of France and, there
fore, France should lean rather to the United
States than TO England, or, at least, main
tain a strict Independence. "There is differ
ence," said ne, sin the views Of England and France
with respect TO the United States, and difference,
also, in their policy. To characterize the policy
OF France | will not invoke ancient sympathles,
for know that would be TO make an appeal TO
sentiments no longer in fashion, and to employ
words gone out Of use. | know well that IL is now
accepted that we ought not TO conduct government
by sympathy; and, besides, that the American de-
mocracy does not merit much sympathy. We have
before our eyes examples Of de;acy so exquisite,
Of disinlerestedness so general, that many people
willingly regard the American democracy as an
interested and mercantile nation, which merits no
longer the respect Of the world. But that not
a reason why France should adopt the policy Of
England, as she had done in the affairs Of Texas"
To prove this he made use Of several Of the argu-
ments previously Employed and concluded ty a
condemnation OF the ministerial pOHcY, az
trucking TO England and wanting in independence
Referring to the Oregon question, he expressed his
conviction and hope that II would not end in war,
but he blamed ministers for having, by their
conduct in Texas, deprived France Of the task Of
arbtrating between the United States and England,
TO which her rank in the world and her relations
with the two countries, entitled her. M. Guizot
in reply eontended that the policy he had pursued
IN Texas was not, and could not, be considered
an act Of hostility to the United States. 1t was
the result Of difference Of opnionj and IL a
mere difference Of opinion such a matter were TO
be considered hostile, all independence between two
governments would be impossible; and Il they were
obliged TO follow the Uniied States in all things,
could that be called independence lie was proceed
ing with his arguments, when M. Theirs interrupt
ed him to blame the policy pursued in Texas.
France, he said, had no interest in Texas, and had
no RICH TO interfere TO prevent its anne xauon TO the
United States. But she did il to oblige England
and yet M Guizot talked about the independence Of
his policy. Both countries were, indeed, indie
pendent in cases In which England would not
assist France but they were not independ-
ent when England needed the assistance Of this
country In Syria and Greece, for example, where
France had need Of England, England stood aloof,
and the policy pursued by each country was indie
pendent but in America, where England needed
| France, the policy Of both countries united.
| NJ. Guizot combated these arguments with similar
France had an interest in Texas, and that interest
required III at Texas should not be annexed to the
United States. He denied that he had nterfered in
the matter to oblge England His interference first
commenced on the invitation Of Texas herself, when
Ashbel Smith, her agent in Paris, begged him to
resist annexation. All that he had done he would
unhesitadngly do again. His conduct was the be-
ginning Of that independence towards the U. States
which France intended for the future to pursue. Un-
less the determination to maintain that independence
had been distinctly stated and clearly manifested he
foresaw that il broke out between England and
the U. States the government would have had to
struggle strongly against the popular feeling for
dragging France into it. M. de Remusat, in con-
Guiding the debate, maintained that France had done
wrong to separate from that country, which, like
her. was interested in the maintenance Of the lber-
ty Of the seas; and he censured the feeling which
| had been manifesto in the chamber and elsewhere
Of taking grand airs with the United States, and
treating them as turbulent democracy. On a d.
vision, a majority Of 65 votes rejected the amend
ment Of M. de Remusat, and thereby pronounced
| in favor Of the ministerial policy.
| After the disposal Of M. de Remusat's amend
raen, the everlasting question Of the right Of visit
was discussed. An amendment was proposed con-
demnatory Of the conduct Of the government; and
in the debates that ensued thereon the proceedings
Of the United States towards England, with respect
TO the right OF visit, were conrasted with those OF
France. majority Of 70 votes, however, approved
and sanctioned all that the government had done.
The address was eventually voted by the large ma
orty Of 81, and presented to the king. His Ma
iesys reply to it contained nothing worthy of OBJ
seryation Since the voting of the address, the two
chambers have been occupied in the discussion of
matters of mere domestic interest. The vote of the
secre, service money is to come on shortly II is
generally considered vote OF confidence in the gov
eminent, and gives rise to lengthy and stormy de-
bates. But this wear il will probably be carried
without any discussion whatever, as the debates on
the address have exhausted eyery question.
!, On the orders of the dav of the Chamber of Dep-
niles annears the lono-expected and long talked OF
proi,t de loi for the Establishment of number of
nacketboa,s between France and the United States,
and other narts of the American continent The
packets are TO be steamers and to sail at stated in
eryals from the principal seaports in this country
Their establishment viii be yerv useful both to the
limited States and France and will facilitate the
COMMUNICATIONS between the two countries. Thew
W II. however. depriye the Liverpool steamers of a
con,;dsr,ble nnmber NJ nsssenoeIs and the Eoplish
no. otEc. of . Ora, ri,uobor ~ later. If os is
sad tbe limited States GOVERNMENT also intends to
o., nm a linz of s,cama,s bs,ween New York and
|