[1871. themselves the "Union of the Parisian Press," entered into a league for the purpose of carrying certain candidates of their own nomination, pledged to the cause of order. Against this league an opposition was raised, by a combination of six radical journals, under the title of the "Republican Press Union." And the dreaded International Society itself showed that though subdued it was not killed. It held clandestine meetings, and managed to post up various inflammatory notices on the walls of the capital. The elections came off on Sunday, the 2nd of July, and the Government organs triumphantly proclaimed that the result had been to add a large majority to the moderate or Conservative Republican party, acting in harmony with the Chief of the Executive. Other observers, however, even at the moment, judged differently, and prognosticated rather an increase of the antagonism which from one side or the other subsisted between Thiers and the Assembly. The Conservative element was decidedly preponderant in the Paris elections. The Parisian Press Union carried nearly all its candidates. The "Left" had made some gain in the Provinces, and the return of Gambetta-for Paris and for two departments besideswas no insignificant incident in their favour. That on the whole, Radical principles remained at a discount in the Assembly was clear. The question was what party, or section of a party, was really the strongest among the numerous subdivisions, no less than sixteen, as one contemporary observer declared, into which the caprice and self-will of French opinion within the walls of the Chamber at Versailles distributed itself. The want of a substantial understanding between the Assembly and its Executive Chief revealed itself in every event of the session.

On the 18th, the Budget Committee decided to reject the duties on raw material proposed by M. Pouyer-Quertier, as injurious to the industry of the country, and declared its preference for taxing the home consumption of manufactured produce. It also stated that on examination, M. Thiers' estimate of the deficit had proved below the mark; instead of 488 million francs (or 19,200,0007. sterling), it had turned out to be 600 million francs (24,000,000l. sterling). New methods of meeting this deficiency must be found. M. Pouyer-Quertier acquiesced in the decision of the Committee, and promised to bring forward a reformed financial scheme after the

recess.

On the 22nd a question of ecclesiastical politics came on for debate. It turned upon the petition of a certain minority of the French Bishops, praying for interference on behalf of the Pope's temporal power. The principal speakers were Bishop Dupanloup and Thiers. Dupanloup urged interference, though deprecating war. "Without taking up arms," he said, "France might yet do something for the Pope, and it would be glorious for her to take the initiative of an European intervention." He could "not believe it to be in the designs of Providence that after a reign of eighteen centuries, the Popes were to be salaried chaplains of the wretched

King Victor Emmanuel." Thiers took occasion to deplore the doctrine of nationalities, and the Imperial policy which had allowed, first Italian unity, and then German unity, to become accomplished facts, upsetting the traditional "balance of power" inaugurated by Henri Quatre. He refused, however, to commit himself to any rash engagements. France would be always open to the Pope as a land of refuge; but he had no advice to tender to his Holiness. The appearance of Gambetta in the tribune on this occasion for the first time since his election caused great excitement. He supported Thiers, but the Right made a powerful rally, and amidst great noise and vehemence a motion was carried by a large majority, for referring the petition to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It was ostensibly in consequence of this vote, but really for other reasons, partly of a public and partly of a personal nature, that M. Jules Favre resigned the Ministry of Foreign Affairs a few days afterwards. He was succeeded in it by M. Charles Rémusat.

The Paris municipal elections, in accordance with the law of April the 14th, took place on the 23rd and 30th of July. Of the eighty successful candidates, half had been put forward on the lists of the Paris Press Union: nevertheless, it was observed with something of surprise that more than thirty belonged to the advanced Radical ranks; that, in fact, some agitators well known during the supremacy of the Commune had again come to the front. The most noted of these was M. Ranc, who had been a member of that body up to an advanced period. His daring assumption of a place in the new Municipal Council, while his friends were awaiting their trial at Versailles, attracted so much notice in the Assembly that he soon found it prudent to retire for a while. The new municipality, in conjunction with M. Léon Say, Prefect of the Seine, an able economist, applied themselves without delay to the consideration of the Paris finances. It was the first time since 1851 that a regularly elected Municipal Council had met in conclave to direct the internal affairs of the city.

Among the leading questions on which the Executive Government at this time found itself in marked disagreement with the Assembly were the Army Reorganization Bill, the Decentralization Bill, and the Bill for Indemnification of the Invaded Departments. The Decentralization Bill was framed with the object of remodelling throughout France the old Departmental Councils, and empowering them to attend to all matters of local interest as apart from politics -truly a line not always easy to draw-to transfer to them, in fact, the principal functions hitherto monopolized by Government Prefects. The measure found its chief supporters in the reactionary deputies of the Right. The Radicals, however clamorous for the civic independence of communes, objected to giving the right of self-government to departments where territorial wealth and rank were sure to assert their superior influence among the rural population. Thiers himself was fixed in the opinion that vigorous government could only be carried on when all the reins of the

State vehicle were in the hands of the central authority. He had fought against the decentralizing tendencies of the municipal law of the 14th of April. He fought now against the projected law of the "Conseils Généraux." The debates upon its different clauses were sharp and numerous. A speech of M. Louis Blanc on the 31st of July gave a lucid exposition of the views entertained by the Left, of which he was a prominent member. The following day the two leading divisions of the Assembly came to a noisy quarrel, which all the temper and tact of the President, M. Grévy, could hardly abate. The point in dispute was as to the right of each General Council to appoint a Standing Departmental Committee. This, in fact, constituted the chief feature of the new law. Its object was to prevent any evasion by the Executive power of the decrees passed in the Council. The Right succeeded in carrying it against Government by a majority of 218, and Thiers, in a fit of vexation, declared that he would no longer consent to govern on such terms, and would demand a vote of confidence. However, a day or two afterwards he had reconsidered the matter, and accepted the Departmental Standing Committees, only with the proviso that the chairman of each committee should be ipso facto its senior member, and not be appointed by election. Some further compromises were made. The Councils-General might be convoked on the request of any two of its members. The Chief of the Executive was to have the right of dissolving a Council after giving his reasons to the Assembly. Finally, the question Finally, the question as to the guardianship of the communes-whether by the State or by the Councils-was to be adjourned till after the settlement of the municipal law. The Bill was then adopted by 519 votes against 129.

With regard to the indemnity to be paid to the invaded departments, the majority of the Assembly desired that the whole of France should bear the weight of the pecuniary losses inflicted by the enemy's occupation. Thiers, on the other hand, held it undesirable to create a precedent for making the entire country liable for any devastations committed on its frontiers, and maintained that relief should be given by way of charity, but not as a legal tax. On this question, too, there was a vehement debate in the Chambers on the 5th of August. Again Thiers lost his temper, and threatened to quit the Tribune. Again a compromise was effected. A sum was to be voted by the Chamber and placed in the hands of delegates, who were to ascertain the cases of greatest distress and relieve them accordingly. Whether this relief was to be considered matter of State obligation or of State benevolence remained an open question.

The Army Reconstruction Bill involved several fundamental questions. First, as to the adjustment of the anomalous relations between the three military forces which had served the Government during the late war; the Army of Sedan, the Army of Metz, and the supplementary army which Gambetta had gathered together, when the two first had been carried into captivity. On this subject,

General Cissey, the War Minister, brought forward a motion in the month of July, proposing to quash the decree passed by the Delegate Government of Tours on the 13th of October, 1870, and to institute a general revision of grades by the Bureaux of the Assembly. The opposition, however, of Gambetta and General Faidherbe, and the military element on their side, proved too strong for Cissey, and his motion was rejected. Next, there was the important question as to the principle on which the new military forces of France should be raised. The majority of the Assembly were in favour of compulsory service after the pattern adopted in Prussia, making it necessary for every able-bodied man to go through the ranks. Thiers was of opinion that this would be ruinous to the productive industry of the country, and desired only to maintain the old system of conscription. With this question was closely connected that of the disbandment of the National Guard. Here the majority of the Chamber were for at once disarming the whole force throughout the country. Thiers held it still to be a useful force; capable of regulation, with a standing army to confront it; and refused to sanction its dispersion except as this might be gradually effected, and in proportion to the increase of the regular forces. The views of the majority on both these questions were adopted as a preamble by the Committee appointed to elaborate the Reorganization scheme; and when they brought up their Report on the 19th of August, the provisions of the proposed Bill, as read by General Chanzy, stipulated compulsory service for all able-bodied men between 20 and 40 years of age, the abolition of the system of substitutes, and of soldiers voting while on service, and the dissolution of the National Guard. The Assembly voted "urgency" for the Bill. The acrimony with which all these questions were debated in the Assembly afforded a spectacle neither dignified nor reassuring. M. Thiers, fixed in his opinions, and impatient of contradiction, lost his temper, and gave way to tears of vexation; threatening, when hard pressed, to resign his functions; in other words, as the French phrase had it, to insist on the "droit de s'en aller." This threat invariably told with the Chamber, for antagonistic to him as its general spirit was, and various as were the aims and crotchets of its factions, still the feeling prevailed that there was no one but him, who could from years' experience and prestige fitly hold the helm of state at the present juncture of affairs. Some suggested, indeed, that a possible substitute might have been found in M. Grévy, who as President of the Assembly had acted throughout with remarkable tact and ability. But Grévy was not to be cajoled, nor was a change really desired; and when Thiers, at the close of this or that angry discussion on first principles, consented to some compromise, sufficient to save his honour or his pride, his antagonists were satisfied with reaping as much as they could of the fruits of their struggle. One of the stormiest debates of the whole session took place on the 24th of August, in reference to the proposed disbandment of the National Guard. The Assembly had, by a sudden vote, affirmed the principle

Р

of its immediate dissolution; and it was expected that the Government meant to acquiesce in its decision. But a speech from General Pelissier dispelled the illusion, and this was presently followed by an harangue from Thiers himself, in which he rated the Assembly in vehement terms, and proceeded to expound the relation in which he conceived himself to stand towards it.

"You are not respecting yourselves," he said, "if you do not respect the man to whom you have given your confidence." Great was the excitement-" agitation prolongée"-in the language of French reporters. When, however, he taunted the Right with having the protection of an army of 120,000 men and still being afraid, the Duc de la Rochefoucauld indignantly protested. Thiers begged to be allowed to proceed, and to explain that the danger was not from the Revolutionists of Lyons and elsewhere, but from the divisions in the Chamber, "not, perhaps, according to your idea, but according to mine," he pronounced in an irritating tone. "The whole object of my life, from day to night," he went on, "is to prevent the rival parties here from precipitating themselves on each other; the whole cause of a moral disorder without parallel among nations lies in our passions." After comparing his position with that of the President of the United States, he went on to say, "Your will is the sovereign will. If I were a weak man I should flatter you. When I think you are wrong, my duty is to tell you. If you wish to be absolute -if when the Government you have chosen thinks you are wrong, you refuse to listen, it has only one thing to do." The storm which succeeded this remark drowned every thing for some time. He remarked that from the interruptions he met with, it would seem that confidence in him was shaken." (Loud cries from the Left of "No, no," but silence on the Right.) "As for me," he continued, "considering that I have spent my life in the service of my country, I have the right to be rewarded by a little attention, and I may venture to say by a great deal of esteem."

The inconvenience of this strained state of things between the chief of the Executive and the Assembly had already given rise to sundry projects of readjustment in their mutual relations. A proposition was started by the Left-which, on account of its mouthpiece, M. Rivet, acquired the name of the " Proposition Rivet "for conferring on Thiers the title and authority of" President of the Republic" for the term of three years, with power of appointing his own Ministers, but without himself possessing a seat in the Assembly. The Right, however, felt that such a scheme involved the practical recognition of a Republic; and, in the Committee which was appointed to consider it, their objections prevailed. The result was a modification, which went by the name of the "Proposition Vitet "-M. Vitet being the presenter of the Report. The title of "President of the Republic" was accorded for as long as the present Assembly itself should last; and the responsibility of the President's Ministers to the Assembly was decreed, with the right of the President himself to appear in the Assembly on occasion, and