Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1846-04-02
FRANCE.

PARIS, FEB 25-Chambcr of Deputies-On the dis
cussion OF the paragraph of the address in answer TO the
kings's speech, in which satisfaction was expressed at
the closeness of the alliance with England, NJ. Remusat
proposed an addition TO the effect that each nation
should preserve its entire liberty of action in the two
worlds" In speaking IN support OF tlls amendment, Nj.
de Remusat expressed his satisfaction at the alliance ex-
isting between England and France, declared that il was
necessary for both countries, and for the peace of the
world, and hoped that IT would be continued. But he
required that in cases in which the interests of the two
nations might differ, France should not sacraice 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 it was decidedly
for the advantage of France; and, therefore, France
should lean rather to the United States than to England,
or. at least, maintain a strict independence. "Ihere IS
a differ ence," SAID he, ain the views of England and
France with respect TO the United States, and a differ
ence, also, in their policy. To characterize the policy Of
France I will not invoke ancient sympathies, for | know
that would be to make an appeal 10 sentiments no longer
in fashion, and 10 employ words gone out of use. L
know well that il is now accepted that we ought not 10
conduct government 10y sympathy; and, besides, that the
American democracy does not merit much sympathy.
We have before our eyes examples oil a delicacy so ex-
qulsite, of disinterestedness so general, that many people
willingly regard the American democracy as an interest
ed and mercantile nation, which merits no longer The
respect of the world. But that was 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 arguments previously employed;
and concluded by a strong condemnation OF the ministe-
rial policy, as trucking TO England and wanting IN inde-
%pendence. Referring to the Oregon question, he express
ed his conviction and hope that 1t would not end IN a
war, but he blamed ministers for having, by their conduct
in Texas, deprived France Of the task OF arbitratlng be-
tween 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, commended that the pol
lev 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 a difference OF opinion and IT a mere dbl
ference of opinion on such a matter were 10 De consider
ed hostile, all independence between two governments
would be impossible and if they were obliged 10 follow
the United States in all things, could that be called inde-
PENDENT He was proceeding with his arguments, when
M. Theirs interrupted him to blame the policy pursued
in Texas. France, he said, had no interest in Texas,
and had no right to interfere 20 prevent its annexation to
the United States. But she did j. TO obige England; and
vet NJ. Guizot talked about the independence Of his pol
lev. Both countries were, indeed, independent IN cuses
in which England would not assist France; but they
ance of this country. In Syria aud Greece, for example,
where France had need Of England, England stood aloof,
and the policy pursued by each country was independent;