To day this important question was debated in the tribunate; and I must confess, that the expectations, which I had formed, were not a little disappointed. I did not, it is true, flatter myself with the idea of hearing either a Fox, a Pitt, a Sheridan, or a Mirabeau; but I imagined, that among the members of the only deliberative assembly, now in France, some few men would be found capable of discussing with sense, argument, and extended views, a measure so important, not only to the present happiness of the country, but to that also of the latest posterity. It would be too presumptuous to say, that there are no such men in the tribunate. On the contrary, I know, that there are some members of very superiour knowledge, great genius, and liberal principles. I shall be forgiven, however, for remarking, that the talent displayed on this occasion was by no means equal to the dignity of the subject in question, or worthy the assembly in which it was discussed. Five or six members had put their names down, as intending to speak, and each was heard in his turn. Nothing could be duller than these speeches; every one of which was read from a written paper. A very ridiculous circumstance arose from this manner of speaking. As each of the discourses had been previously prepared, there was no reference to the arguments used in the debate; and the advocates and opposers of the measure, equally disregarded, and left unanswered, the remarks of those who happened to precede them in the debate. I was not a little entertained with the conceit of one of these lamp-oil orators, who discovered, that unless they restored _la loi d’aubaine_[36], englishmen might buy up all the woods of France, and thus, at one blow, deprive the government of its ships, and the people of their fuel. The only decent speech delivered on the occasion was by the celebrated Boissy d’Anglass[37], who adduced some very strong reasons against the proposed project. Speaking of England, he called the climate, “_ce climat ténébreux et humide_[38].” The expression may apply; but from the damp and foggy weather, which, during some time has prevailed at Paris, I am apt to think, that it is not exclusively descriptive of Great Britain. After this tame and languid debate, more resembling the dull repetition of school boy’s exercises, than the speeches of a great popular assembly, the measure was rejected by a large majority. I shall make no remarks on this decision, as doing so would necessarily lead into a political discussion, which it is my great object to avoid.