the sitting on the 18th of January; and the principal objections to it-as that there would be perpetual jealousies between first and second captains, or that the second captain would have nothing particular to do were answered without much difficulty by General Chareton. The Chamber then proceeded more rapidly with the Bill. The last matter of much interest was the discussion, on Tuesday, regarding the superannuation of Generals. The law of 1831 and 1834 originally superannuated all officers whatsoever at 65 years of age. In 1839 Generals were exempted from this rule by a special statute. Colonel Langlois, urging the repeal of the exemption, diverted the Assembly by comparing superannuation to a sinking fund, and Generals past 65 to unproductive capital; but this comparison failed to have that triumphant persuasiveness which a joke sometimes has, and it was decided to retain the statute of 1839, protected, however, by a specification of the conditions under which a General who has passed the prescribed age can be retained in the first portion of the Reserve Cadre.

It was remarked, with some amusement, that had the fiery Colonel's motion been carried, its first victim would have been the Marshal-President himself, now in his 67th year; while one of its next would have been the actual War Minister, General de Cissey.

The debate on the Army Bill lasted ten days. While the various parties in the Assembly were preparing for the Constitutional fight which was to follow, a departmental election in the Hautes Pyrenées occurred to startle the Moderate Right, the Right Centre, and the Left Centre, from the contemplation of the small but stubborn differences that held them apart. A Bonapartist candidate, M. Cazeaux, had been returned triumphantly, after a second ballot. The contest had originally lain between an Imperialist, a Republican, and a Ministerialist, and when it was found that the first ballot gave none of the candidates an absolute majority, the Republican, who stood lowest of the three, withdrew, believing that his supporters would transfer their votes to the Ministerialist rather than do anything to favour the upholders of the late Empire. But as it turned out, instead of being beaten out of the field, M. Cazeaux polled 10,000 votes more than he had done on the former occasion, and 6,000 more than could be counted on the side of M. Alicot, the Ministerialist candidate. M. Adolphe Fould, who possessed great influence in the department and supported the Bonapartist, had said to the electors, "Do not vote for M. Alicot, who is supported by the Republicans. The Republic will bring about the ruin of the country." This reasoning to the populace brought something of satisfaction to the more Conservative minded of the defeated Government party.

The Bonapartist spectre was a formidable one. Of all the parties in the State, that which aimed at restoring the rule of the Imperial dynasty was by far the most steady and purposelike in its immediate aims, and by far the best organised and the most systematically drilled. The recent habits of official life had made the men of the Empire men of business, in a sense which neither Orleanists nor Republicans were, and much less Legitimists. And the Bonapartists could afford to wait. Whether the result of the election in the Hautes Pyrenées was due to the dislike of the Conservatives for their Radical allies, or to the misgivings of the Radicals at any close union with Conservatives, either way the Empire was the gainer by their disunion, and the continuance of the present political stagnation seemed to afford the best chance that the nation would turn to the re-establishment of Bonapartist rule as the ultimate solution of its difficulties.

The general discussion of the Constitutional Laws began on the 21st of January. Two schemes were before the Assembly. First, that of M. Ventavon, who, representing the politics of the Moderate Right, proposed a measure comprised in the following articles :-

"Art. 1.-Marshal MacMahon, President of the Republic, continues to exercise the Executive Power with which he is invested by the Law of the 20th of November 1873. Art. 2.-It is only in the case of high treason that the Ministers are responsible as a body before the Chambers for the general policy of the Government, and individually for their personal actions. Art. 3. The Legislative Power is exercised by two Assemblies, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. The Chamber of Deputies is named by Universal Suffrage under the conditions named by the Electoral Law. The Senate is composed of members elected or named in the proportions and under the conditions regulated by a special Law. Art. 4.--The MarshalPresident of the Republic is invested with the right of dissolving the Chamber of Deputies. In the event of a dissolution, another Chamber shall be elected within a delay of six months. Art. 5.At the expiration of the term fixed by the Law of the 20th of November 1873, as in the case of a vacation of the Presidential power, the Council of Ministers convokes immediately the two Assemblies, which assembled in Congress, decide what is to be done. During the period that Marshal MacMahon exercises his powers, revision of the Constitutional Laws can only be proceeded with on his suggestion."

The counter scheme, which was embodied in the shape of an Amendment to the Ventavon project, was substantially the same which M. Casimir-Périer had endeavoured to pass during the previous year's Session, and which was now under the patronage of M. Corne, as President of the Left Centre; its mover on the present occasion being M. Laboulaye, an able and judicious member of the party. It proposed that the "Government of the Republic" should consist of two Chambers and a President; that at each vacancy in the office of President of the Republic the two Chambers should have power to form themselves into a Congress to examine whether the Constitution stood in need of revision, and that, if a majority should decide in favour of that step, the work should be entrusted to a new National Assembly. The difference in the wording of the first Article opened as by a side door the entrance for the Republican theory of the State: it was not formally enunciated, but it was taken for granted. The first Article of the Ventavon project studiously kept within the bounds of the hitherto existing provisorium.

The debate beginning on the 21st of January, the anniversary of Louis XVI.'s execution, naturally caused an overflow of Royalist inspiration in the oratory of the Extreme Right. But scarcely less decidedly did the approximating Centres turn their opposing poles towards each other on the occasion. M. Ventavon, hopeless from the first of any success for his scheme, brought forward its recommendation in temperate language. He reminded the Chamber of the origin of the Bill he was now called upon to defend. Fifteen months ago, he remarked, an important event occurred-the two branches of the House of Bourbon had been reconciled, and the Legitimate Monarchy was on the point of being restored, when an unexpected gust closed the mouth of the harbour, the partisans of Legitimate Monarchy deferred their hopes, and not without pain dropped their bulletins into the urn, firmly resolved, however, to accept all the consequences of their vote in favour of the Septennate. The Appeal to the People was rejected, the Republic succumbed with the Casimir-Perier proposition, and lastly a member of the Assembly, sacrificing to his convictions the dignity of Ambassador, proposed the Restoration of the Hereditary Monarchy. "That proposition, I regret to say," said M. de Ventavon,

66

was referred to a Committee, who declared there was no reason for taking it into consideration." After defending the different articles of the proposed Law, the speaker continued, "We ask you to carry out to the letter the Law of the 20th of November. Conscience and honour make it your duty to do so. We must render the mission which we have entrusted to the Marshal practicable; and if we do not want to prepare his fall we must vote the Constitutional Laws. When a man has given his word, even when he has done so rashly, honour compels him to keep his word; honour goes before every other consideration. There is a crisis. It is not asking too much of the Assembly to ask it for a few years of peace and quiet. Everybody will retain his convictions and hopes, and during that time we shall place your peace of mind under the loyal protection of Marshal MacMahon. Then, after a speech from M. Lenoël in favour of the Republic, and from M. Lacombe in favour of the Impersonal Septennate, M. Carayon-Latour declaimed with vehemence on behalf of the Restoration of Monarchy in the person of Henry Cinq. "For eighty years," cried the fiery Royalist, "France has tried all the forms of Government invented by the cleverest Revolutionists. We have seen the Republic, the Empire, whose follies we have experienced. We cannot accept the Septennate, we do not share your opinions on that subject. It is as if all parties were told, 'Take up your positions; prepare your arms. In six years you will offer the great battle.' We do not want a Republic, and France does not want one either. It has not forgotten the Reign of Terror. It has not forgotten the petroleum of the Commune, inaugurated by the same persons who a few months before had established the Government of the 4th of September, which had admitted into its ranks Rochefort, one of their chiefs." He adduced the tokens of national feeling in the past. Why was Louis Napoleon made President of the last Republic, but because he was competing with a General who, though honest and intelligent, was stained with Republicanism. Why was the subsequent coup d'état sanctioned by eight millions of votes, but because a Republic in any form was hated. Why was it that the present Assembly contained a large majority of Monarchists in its ranks, and among them a former Minister of Monarchy, who, though he had not remained true to his ancient pledges, had once declared that the Red Republic led to ruin, and the moderate Republic to imbecility? and when this former Minister, M. Thiers, had, as President, shown his tendency to favour the Republicans, had he not then been replaced by an illustrious Marshal, bearing a name closely connected with the memories of Monarchical rule? The orator went on to show how the uncertainties in which the nation had been plunged owed their origin to the discord and indecision of the Assembly, and especially to the change of mind of M. Thiers, who had adopted a form of Government which he had attacked all his life. France, M. Carayon-Latour said, awaited hopefully the restoration of the Monarchy, but when a Monarchical restoration had failed, it was attempted to establish a sort of Provisional Government, and France, delivered again from uncertainties, remembered the few days of prosperity which it had enjoyed before 1870. "If you do not take care," he said, our country will hang on again to the Empire as a drowning man catches at a straw, and you will endure once more that form of Government which has three times brought the foreigner into our country. There is only one means of avoiding the Empire-namely, by proclaiming the Monarchy. If you establish the Republic you may be told with certainty the Empire is founded; and if the Bonapartists were not restrained by a feeling of shame, they would, I have no doubt, assist you in establishing the Republic. The Monarchy alone can insure the salvation of France. What the sovereignty of the people that is, numbers-does one day it undoes the next. The Monarchy knew how for centuries to maintain tranquillity in the country-enabling it to pursue the glorious course of its destinies. The principle of authority placed above the caprices of the crowd is the first guarantee of order and stability. Moreover, the alliances which France needs are contingent on a stable Government, inspiring confidence in Europe. Read Prince Bismarck's despatches, and here I appeal to your patriotism." Amidst noisy protests of "Yes" and "No," and the ringing of the President's bell to enforce a hope

66

less calm, the paper in question was read; and in conclusion M. Carayon-Latour recommended that in due time the King, the due representative of Legitimacy, should be recalled, and that meanwhile, simply as a locum tenens, the Marshal should have the safeguard of such Constitutional Laws as might be necessary to maintain order and give security to the country.

Next day the general discussion was renewed and brought to a conclusion, amidst continually increasing excitement. Recriminations abounded. M. Lucien Brun accused the Duc de Broglie of obtaining the votes of the Legitimists for the Septennate by unfair means. M. Baragnon, in an official position, declared that the Government was not bound in any way to the Republic. But the speech of the day was that of M. Jules Favre. Letting loose the reins of his Republican eloquence, he said, in reply to General Chabaud Latour's demand to pass to a Second Reading:

"The Assembly must be grateful to the Minister of the Interior for having informed it of the view of the Government on so serious a question. We have before us a Cabinet whose patriotism and devotion are unimpeachable, but which has not the authority necessary to take part effectively in our debates. That is owing to the deadlock in which it is entangled. Ought the solution contained in the Act of the 20th of November to be provisional or definitive? That is the question. M. de Ventavon says the question is one of power for an individual, and not of an institution for the country. M. de Carayon-Latour wished to satisfy both his conscience and his passion, and to travesty history for the benefit of his political interests. He proposes to remain in statu quo, that is, to await a Royalty which refuses itself to a nation which will not have it. He asks you not to fix a limit to the provisional state of things, not to proclaim a King who is always talked of, and will never be seen, but to wait for the propitious moment for that restoration. The end of yesterday's discussion threw an unexpected light on the situation. It was explained how the respect due to the Law of the 20th of November was reconciled with the possibility of bringing back the King. How, by a sort of understanding, the Marshal was to efface himself in case the King might return. That is what is called the sincerity of the vote. Such a construction is a declaration of war against the Septennate."

M. Favre then reminded the Assembly of the tactics pursued by the Legitimists in old times; how Louis XVI. had sent for the Austrians and Prussians to invade France, how the emigrés had fought against their country, and how the Monarchy eventually returned in the baggage waggons of the enemy. He refuted with no less vigour the pretensions of the Orleanists and Bonapartists, and concluded his speech amidst the constant interruption of the three parties against whom he had taken arms, and the enthusiastic plaudits of the Republicans. One or two ardent Royalists