strongest ligament which bound that country to Great Britain seems, for the time, to have been severed by this local controversy. It remains to be seen whether the new malcontents will unite with the old to effect a separation, or whether the same general causes which formerly attached the former to Great Britain, and made them uphold the power of the crown, may not return, and again make them loyalists. It deserves to be remarked, that an address from the Canadian Parliament to the British Government, in January last, asking a repeal of the navigation laws, as to the St. Lawrence, received a unanimous vote. The people of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are still more interested in the repeal of these laws, and in the unrestricted navigation which such repeal would lead to, as they can build vessels yet cheaper than the United States, and they are navigated by the same frugal, hardy, enterprising race as the people of New England. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at that Mr. Webster inquired on the floor of the Senate, if Mr. Bancroft had given the British Government assurance that the United States would agree to a reciprocal removal of the restrictions on its coasting trade, and that he very clearly indicated his decided opposition to such a policy. The present administration of the United States, it is said, has countermanded the instructions on this subject, which Mr. Bancroft had received from their predecessors. Discontents still continue in Jamaica, whose sugars, no longer protected in the English market by less duties than the sugars of foreign countries, cannot enter into competition with those produced in Cuba and Brazil by slave labour; which, in spite of the general principles of political economy, have proved to be much cheaper than any free labour the British West Indies have yet been able to produce. The value of the estates in that Island (as in Demerara, Trinidad, and most of their other sugar colonies,) has been steadily declining in value, and its legislature show their dissatisfaction in unavailing bickerings with the representative of the British Government; but the present Ministry cannot give the protection they ask, without departing from their own favorite and avowed principles of free trade, and without producing discontent among the people of Great Britain by raising the price of sugar. This retrograde movement from the system of free trade would be far more difficult than to return to the protecting duties on corn: since, in that policy, they would be supported by the whole agricultural interests, comprehending land owners, farmers, and their dependants; whereas all classes, except a small number connected with the West India interests, are in favor of cheap sugar, and, of course, opposed to those duties which would raise its price, and which constitute the only mode of protecting the West India planter. Mr. Cobden, who seems lately to have limited his efforts at reform. to a reduction of the public expenditure, made a long speech recently in support of his plan of retrenchment; according to which, there would be an annual saving of £10,000,000-leaving the charges of the na tional debt unchanged-but his proposition received the support of only about one-fifth of the members voting. FRANCE. France was now about to bring her new constitution to the test of experiment, after having failed in some twenty or more, which she had tried within little more than half a century. Her first President under that constitution, was installed in office on the 20th of December, in the hall of the National Assembly, without any of the pomp which both the people and the occasion would have led us to expect. His inaugural address, too, had a correspondent brevity and simplicity. After expressing his fidelity to the republic, and his gratitude for so striking a proof of the popular confidence, he said that "animated by a sincere spirit of conciliation," he had called around him "capable and patriotic men, who, in spite of the diversity of their political origin, were ready to devote themselves to the application of the constitution, the improvement of the laws, and the glory of the republic." With great good taste, then, as well as policy, in a commendatory notice of his predecessors, he particularized General Cavaignac, whose conduct, he said, had been "worthy of the generosity of his character, and that sentiment of duty which is the first quality of a statesman." They had, he added, a great mission to fulfil. To found the republic, he pronounced to be the interest of all, and that "a just and firm government should be animated by a sincere desire of progress, without being re-actionary or utopian." "Let us," he concluded, "be the men of our country, not the men of party; and, with the aid of God, we shall at least do good, if we cannot achieve great things." Having read the address, the new President, suiting the action to the word, turned to General Cavaignac, and shook him cordially by the hand, which incident called forth the plaudits of the Assembly. The next day, the President announced to the Assembly the members of his Cabinet, which, it is understood, he had empowered M. Odillon Barrot to form. Minister of Justice and Premier-Odillon Barrot, who had been in opposition to Louis Phillippe. Minister of Foreign Affairs-Drouyn de Lhuys, who had supported the reform banquets. Minister of the Interior-Leon de Malleville, an adherent of Thiers. Minister of War-General Rulhiers, uncommitted. Minister of the Marine and Colonies-De Tracy, a liberal. Minister of Public Instruction and Worship-Falloux, a legitimist. All of whom, except the Minister of War, were members of the National Assembly. This Cabinet did not long remain unchanged. A few days after its appointment, the President applied to M. de Malleville for sixteen boxes of papers relative to his own former attempts at Strasburg and Boulogne, but the Minister refused to deliver them, because they formed part of the public records. The President then wrote to the Minister a letter, in which he renewed the application for these papers, and complained of other acts of disrespect from M. de Malleville, and the Ministers generally, in a style of more frankness than dignity. "I do not intend, either," he said, "that the Minister of the Interior should prepare articles personal to myself. This was not the case under Louis Phillippe, and should not be the practice now. Besides, I have not received, for some days, any telegraphic despatches. On the whole, I perceive that the Ministers I have named wish to treat me as if the famous constitution of Sieyes was in vogue, but I will not suffer it." This letter having been laid by M. de Malleville before his colleagues, they all sent in their resignations. The President, alarmed at this result, immediately waited on the assembled ministry, expressed so much regret for what he had done, which he attributed to his inexperience, and made such excuses and entreaties, that they all resumed office, except M. de Malleville and M. Bixio. In consequence of these resignations, M. Leon Faucher was appointed Minister of the Interior, in the place of M. Leon de Malleville; M. Lacrosse, Minister of Public Works, in the place of M. Leon Faucher; and M. Buffet, Minister of Agriculture and Commerce, in the place of M. Bixio. Though Louis Napoleon had been elected by so large a majority of the people, it was known that a majority of the National Assembly were opposed to his election, and, as is usual, their opposition was extended to the acts of his administration. It was headed by Ledru Rollin, who was the leader of the socialists and ultra republican party, and it commonly received the support of the friends of General Cavaignac and other moderates. But notwithstanding this hostility, and his indiscreet letter to De Malleville, he seemed to be steadily gaining ground in the public confidence. That alarm which the insurrection in June and the wild doctrines of the communists excited among the holders of property and lovers of order, which had occasioned them to rally round one who bore a revered name, continued to uphold him, and generally to secure to his ministers a majority in the national administration. They were, however, far from being personally popular in that body, and sometimes they seemed to have a separate set of interests of their own, independent of the President and the legislature. Thus, of the three names sent to the legislature, from which one was to be selected for Vice President, it was understood that M. Vivien was their choice, and M. Boulay de la Meurthe that of the President. The third was added for form's sake; and although when the name of De la Meurthe was announced, it occasioned a general laugh in the Assembly, they gave him a decisive majority-417 to 277-for the sake of thwarting the ministry. In this state of feeling, one of the first objects of the ministers was that of the dissolution of the National Assembly, and, accordingly, a proposition to that effect was brought forward in January by M. Rateau, to dissolve on the 19th of March, but after giving rise to several debates, a middle course between widely different views was adopted on the 14th of February; and it was decided that as soon as four or five important laws were passed, the Assembly should be dissolved. The suppression of the political clubs was also a bone of contention between the ministers and the National Assembly; and when it was first proposed in January, the ministers were in a minority, 342 to 418, but when the proposition was renewed in March, they succeeded by a vote of 378 to 359. On the 17th of April, the ministry obtained the sanction of the National Assembly to interfere, by an armed force, in the affairs of Italy, for the alleged purpose of preserving the integrity of the Roman States, not, however, without strenuous opposition from Ledru Rollin, who deprecated the restoration of the civil authority of the Pope. The vote in favour of the proposed appropriation and authority, was 388 to 161. The expedition thus authorized, was to consist of 14,000 men, under. the command of General Oudinot. The advance of their force landed at Civita Vecchia on the 25th of April without opposition. The Roman prefect, then commanding, was immediately suspended; and General Oudinot declared in a proclamation next day, that had the French troops not been amicably received, he would have entered the town by force. He suggested that his object was to preserve the Roman States from Austrian invasion, and to seek to effect a reconciliation between the Pope and the Roman people. He then marched his troops from Civita Vecchia to Rome, but the Constitutional Assembly having, in the mean time, decided on opposing his entrance into the city, a deputation was sent from that body to the General, protesting against his invasion of their territory, and informing him that his entrance would be forcibly resisted; to this he replied that his instructions were peremptory, and that if not permitted to enter peaceably, he would do so by force. Two attempts were accordingly made on the 30th, but the French were repulsed with the loss of some 500 men in killed and wounded, besides several hundred prisoners. They then retreated, to wait for re-enforcements. This affair created a lively sensation in France, and the opposition in the National Assembly readily profited by the public discontent and mortification to assail the ministry. On the 7th of May, M. Jules Favre opened the debate on the subject. He said that the expedition had been professedly to prevent the interference of Austria, and to secure the liberty of Italy, yet the conduct of the French General had been any thing but that of the leader of a friendly force; and that ministers were responsible for the French blood that had been spilled. He should be opposed to sending re-enforcements, and he contrasted the present conduct of the French government with that in which it had assisted America to achieve her independence. He proposed a committee of inquiry. M. Odillon Barrot reminded the Assembly that it had been unwilling that France should interfere in the affairs of the Roman Republic, and had authorized the expedition to Civita Vecchia, because she would not allow the interposition of Austria. He suggested that the French army had probably "fallen into some snare.' After some further debate, a committee was appointed. In the evening of the same day, the committee reported that the instructions given to the expedition were not conformable to the previous declarations made to the Assembly by the government; that the General also appeared to have transcended his instructions, and the committee propose that the government should take immediate measures that the expedition should no longer be diverted from the object for which it was designed. This proposition was adopted by 328 to 241. The next day, a letter from the President to General Oudinot was published, in which, after expressing his regret at the check the French had received at Rome, he said he had hoped the people of Rome would have given a cordial reception to an army which had arrived to accomplish a friendly and disinterested mission. That, on the contrary, they had been received as enemies, and the military honor of France was injured. He would not "suffer it to be impugned,” and added that re-enforcements should be sent. This letter furnished a new theme of complaint and attack in the National Assembly, as it was in direct opposition to the resolution passed in the Assembly the day before, and seemed to set that body at defiance. On the following day, the 9th, M. Grevy, referring to the President's letter, inquired if that letter, which was not countersigned by a minister, was to be considered an official or a private one. M. Odillon Barrot replied that it was evidently of a private character, dictated by sympathy and gratitude to the soldiers in Italy. There was nothing in it, however, which the government should disavow. Referring to the resolution of the 7th, he said, that on the earnest application of the cabinet to the committee, as to the course the government ought to pursue, the committee had unanimously declared they did not wish to bind the government to any fixed line of conduct. He warned the Assembly against allowing the force and influence of France to be weakened by internal divisions; and he disavowed all intention on the part of the President of acting contrary to the intentions of the legisla ture. |