Although the Ministers had thus ness, their talents, and their standgained the victory, yet it was by ing in the community, although so small a majority that they con- less numerous than the Orleanists, sidered it equivalent to a defeat, if we may so call the zealous adand M. Perier accordingly re- herents of Louis Philippe and signed, with several of his asso- the juste milieu system. The reciates. But on receiving intelli- publicans, including those friends gence of the invasion of Belgium of monarchy who were for limitby Holland, he was induced, in view of the urgent necessities of the government, to resume his office, and await the demonstrations of the Chamber on the subject of the customary address of the King. The result was that the direction of the government remained in the hands of Perier.

And here, for the present, we close our account of the affairs of France. We have abstained from any circumstantial analysis of the debates in the Chambers upon domestic or foreign affairs, because it would require more space, to enter into them satisfactorily, than would be consistent with due attention to the important events in other parts of Europe. It will be sufficient to remark briefly on the great distinction of parties, and on some of the subjects, which gave occasion to the development of their differences. In the discussions of the press and in the votes and speeches of the deputies, it was easy to discriminate four parties, all clearly defined. The friends of the reigning dynasty, of the present order of things, and of peace with foreign nations even at some hazard to the national honor, constituted, it would seem, the majority of the deputies, and therefore gave the tone to the acts of the government. The Carlists were powerful from their united

ing the royal authority still more than at present, by giving additional vigor to the liberal elements of the constitution, were in high repute with the people, and were next in visible influence to the administration party. Finally came the Bonapartists, who were far from being a small or powerless party. In the elections, and perhaps we may say in ordinary proceedings of a public nature, the two latter parties often acted together, against the two former. But in times of confusion, whenever there was the least prospect of endangering or embarrassing the authority of Louis Philippe, the Bonapartist and Carlist parties appear to have lent their aid and exerted their influence, wherever they thought they could accomplish the most mischief; and thus it is, in political matters, that extremes act together in the promotion of the most opposite and irreconcilable purposes.

Independently of the affairs of Belgium, there were two great topics of foreign policy, which gave frequent occasion for disquisition in the Chambers, and excited the deepest interest among all the intelligent classes in France. These were the affairs of Poland and of Italy.

In regard to Italy, it is undeniable that the patriots in Lombardy and the Roman State not

Of

they might be, and however dan-
gerous their example to the Ital-
ian subjects of Austria.
course, the conduct of the Em-
peror was clearly an act of inter-
vention. Nicholas, on the other
hand, marched his armies into
Poland, in order to reclaim his
subjects to their allegiance; and
if France had engaged in war in
behalf of the Poles, here would
have been the intervention, an
intervention, necessarily implying
the invasion of Prussia and the
Germanic Empire, and, of course,
involving France in war with
Prussia and Austria, as well as
Russia. Admitting, therefore,
that the Russians had contem-
plated the invasion of Belgium,
and perhaps of France, in a war
against liberal principles, and
that the Polish insurrection was
all that saved the French from
this contest, yet for France to
have commenced hostilities in be-
half of Poland, would have been to
kindle the flames of war through-
out Europe, and might have been
disastrous to France herself, in
the same proportion that it was
beneficial to the Poles.

only were invited to take up independent states, however small arms against their rulers by the example of France, but received some encouragement in their undertaking from responsible sources in that country. When, therefore, Austria marched her troops into the disturbed cities and districts, in violation of the principle of non-intervention, and thus suppressed, or enabled the local authorities to suppress, popular movements, which, otherwise, would have ended in revolutionising Italy, the revolutionary party in France demanded of their government that the proceedings of Austria ought to be taken as a ground of war, and in fact as a declaration of war against the revolution of the Three Days. But the French ministers adhered unchangeably to their pacific policy, and contented themselves with remonstrances against the conduct of Austria, and with insisting that her troops should evacuate the Papal territory and other parts of Italy, which they had invaded. Austria, of course, made the fairest promises in the world, and withdrew her troops, after the short period which was necessary to effect the object of apprehending the leading patriots, and re-establishing the legitimate rulers in their ill-used authority. In regard to Poland, the question of inter-national law presented was a very different one from that of Italy, and the conduct of the French ministers was dictated by somewhat different principles. Austria interfered, in Italy, between the subjects and the rulers of countries over which she had no right of control. They were Russia on the other, then indeed

While, therefore, it is impossible to applaud the conduct of Louis Philippe's cabinet as to Italy, it seems equally impossible to condemn very pointedly their conduct in the case of Poland, in so far as regards their abstinence from war in her behalf. If, as the. Poles allege, they were indirectly sacrificed by means of the negociations and secret proceedings between France and England on the one side, and

LOCAL HISTORY

AND

DOMESTIC OCCURRENCES,

FOR THE YEARS 1830-31.