liament. A bill to continue the act in aid of the colonial legislature of July, 1834, was brought in on the 25th of March, read a second time on the 28th, passed through committee on the 29th, and was reported on the 30th, without any opposition, when its further progress was stopped for a short time by the Easter recess. Lord Glenelg informed the marquess of Sligo of this proceeding in a dispatch of the 31st of March, neither blaming nor approving of what the colonists had done, but stating that, in the condition in which matters stood, with no act of aid at all, the measure was one of imperious necessity. At the same time, he informed the governor that, in the opinion of the government at home, his message to the House of Assembly on the 1st of February, was an unequivocal breach of privilege; that it was impossible to deny that the act in aid was a pending question at that time; that the king's representative was not entitled to interpose with his advice upon a measure pending before the other two branches of the legislature; and that reparation was due to the House of Assembly for the infringement, however unintentional, of their privileges. His lordship was farther directed again to convene the general assembly, and invite them to resume the business of last session, especially the revival of the act in aid, laying before them, at the same time, the bill which was then passing through the British parliament for effecting that object. He was directed to refuse any bill, in which any of the visions of the act of 1834 having for its object the protection of the apprentices, or of the stipendiary magistrates should be omitted, or

pro

in which any of those enactments should be contained, which had led the government to reject the second bill of the same year.

The general assembly met again on the 24th of May. The governor, in recommending to their earliest notice the renewal of the act in aid, told them, that, having been informed, by authority of more experience than his own, and to which it was his duty to submit, that the message of the 1st of February did involve a breach of the privileges of the assembly, which he had never contemplated, he had only to express his regret that it should have taken place. The House of Assembly, in its answer, expressed itself perfectly satisfied with the reparation thus made; and their address was, in other respects, almost an echo of the speech, for the speech had avoided everything but a general reference to the necessity of taking the aid bill into immediate consideration. The House, however, took alarm at the bill, which had been brought into the British parliament. On the 14th of June they voted a long address to the king, complaining of the unconstitutional outrage committed on their rights, by the introduction of a bill into the House of Commons to revive an act of their legislature, intituled "an act in aid of the abolition act," which had just expired. They asserted that all laws for internal regulation could be prepared and framed only in their own House; that this was a principle which they had always maintained, and which had always been conceded to them likewise went at great length into the history of the different acts in aid, and particularly of the last. bill, which had been stopped by

They

an unjustifiable prorogation, in order to show that delay had never been occasioned by them. They insisted, however, upon their right to enact the measures best suited to carry the abolition act into effect, and denied that they had ever proposed a single provision which could be charged with having an opposite tendency. "That the success of this measure," said they," will depend mainly upon the equity and wisdom of the laws which shall be provided to guide an ignorant population through so sudden and so mighty a change, the House presumes is not to be denied, and that to provide such laws, an intimate and thorough knowledge of the people is altogether indispensable. The House are deeply sensible how extremely difficult it will be even for them, with the fullest knowledge of the state of society, to provide laws and regulations which, under providence, may be the means of guiding the colony safely through the great approaching change; but if, in addition to the many other, almost insurmountable difficulties which present themselves,

the two classes which divide society, are to continue to be viewed as the oppressors and the oppressed, if the one class is to be distrusted, and the other specially favoured, and if the laws passed by the legislature of the colony, are to be viewed through this medium and sanctioned or rejected as they shall suit these views, then, indeed, is there little hope for the colony.'

It was impossible, however, that the situation of the governor could now be a pleasant one, in constant contact with an unfriendly assembly, to which he had found it necessary to confess that he had treated them ill; it was a position, likewise, which was injurious to the dignity of his office. The marquess of Sligo either was recalled, or was allowed to resign. The governor of Barbadoes, sir Lionel Smith, succeeded in his place. The latter arrived on the island, and the former left it, in the beginning of September; the British parliament in the mean time, having passed the bill for reviving and continuing the act in aid of the colonial legislature.

"My government has continued, on the Spanish frontier, to take such measures as were best fitted for the faithful accomplishment of the clauses of the treaty of the 28th of April, 1834. I entertain the most ardent wishes for the internal pacification of the Peninsula, and for the consolidation of the throne of Queen Isabella II.

"I regret that the treaty of the 4th of July, 1831, with the United States of America, should not yet have received its complete execution. The king of Great Britain. has offered to me and to the United States his friendly mediation. I have accepted it; and you will share in my desire that this difference should terminate in a manner equally honourable to two great nations.

"The state of the finances is satisfactory. The public revenue increases by the sole effect of the general prosperity. The laws of finance will be presented in a few days to the Chamber of Deputies.

"The laws which have already been announced, or presented to you, will also be submitted to your examination, as well as those which were reserved for the deliberations of the present session.

"I trust, gentlemen, that the moment is come for France to gather the fruits of her prudence and her courage. Enlightened by the past, let us profit by experience so dearly acquired: let us apply ourselves to calm the passions, to perfect our laws, to protect, by judicious measures, all the interests of a nation, which, after so many storms, presents to the civilized world the salutary example of a noble moderation-the sole pledge of durable success. The care of its repose, of its liberty, of its grandeur, is my first duty; its

happiness will be my dearest recompense."

In the discussions on the address, which was agreed to without much opposition, the attention of the Chamber of Deputies was principally directed to the quarrel with the United States and the condition of Poland. The former arose out of the delay or refusal of France to execute a treaty of 1831, by which she was bound to pay a certain sum, in certain instalments, as an indemnification for losses which American citizens had unjustly suffered at her hands under the empire. In our former volume will be found the manner in which the dispute had arisen, and the consequences to which it had led. The French chambers had passed an act, authorizing payment of the money, but not till reparation should have been made to France for what were considered to be menaces, contained in the messages from the president to Congress, touching this matter, and, in the meantime, she had "satisfied her own dignity," by recalling her minister from Washington. In December, 1835, the mediation of Great Britain was tendered; it was immediately accepted by France, and by the United States, so soon as the offer could reach Washington. Before that could happen, however, the message of the President to Congress in December, 1835, had been delivered, in which maintaining very properly and naturally that the United States were the injured party, that from them no explanation or reparation was due, and that he would never degrade his office by apologizing to a foreign power for the terms of communications passing between himself and the legislature, he observed no less naturally that "an

own

attempt to extort from the fears of the French nation anything inconsistent with its feelings of justice would have been futile and ridiculous." What America had said was very different. She said to France, you have broken faith with us; you have refused to discharge a debt which you were bound by a solemn treaty to pay; and while that refusal continues, we shall do what is necessary for our honour, not by going to war to compel you to pay, but by placing our commercial relations with you on such a footing as, if it does not make it your interest to be honest, will at least shew that we wish to have as little as possible to do with persons who are not so. This was the substance of what America said; and accordingly, on the 15th of January, after this message had been delivered, the president sent down another to Congress, informing them that France still demanded an apology. He transmitted, likewise, the correspondence which had taken place, from which it appeared that the demand of the French government was in these words: We will pay the money when the government of the United States is ready, on its part, to declare to us, by addressing its claim to us officially, in writing, that it regrets the misunderstanding which has arisen between the two countries; that this misunderstanding is founded on a mistake; that it never entered into its intention to call in question the good faith of the French government, nor to take a menacing attitude towards France. If the government of the United States does not give this assurance, we shall be obliged to think that this misunderstanding is not the result of an error." As America was deter

mined to give no such assurance, the president recommended to Congress to pass an act prohibiting the entry of French vessels, or of French productions, into American harbours. On the subsequent arrival of the offer of mediation on the part of Great Britain, he recommended that any proceedings on this message should in the meantime be suspended.

The President's message of December, 1835, did not arrive in Paris before the king had pronounced his speech at the opening of the session on the 29th, but it had arrived before the committee on the address made its report, and the committe, therefore in echoing the paragraph of the speech upon this topic, said, that "the declarations contained in a recent act enable us at length to hope for a termination equally honourable to two great nations," instead of expecting this result, as the king had done, from the mediation of Great Britain. These declarations were the president's expressions in his message to Congress, that any attempt to extort from France, by force, what her scuse of justice would deny, would be futile and ridiculous. This was something very different from the official declaration which had been required of the president: it was not even addressed to the French government; it was an observation addressed by the president to Congress; and, assuredly, general Jackson would have been much astounded at the idea, that, in using these words, he was giving the reparation which France demanded. It was construed; however, in France, to be full, sufficient, and explicit reparation, and thus ended a dispute in which the conduct of France was wrong in the be