the duration of which is fixed at the minimum of five months per annum; 4. The right of suspending the promulgation of laws, by requesting the Chambers, by means of a message, to consider their decision the two Chambers cannot refuse; 5. The right of demanding or proposing the entire or partial revision of the constitutional laws; 6. The right of disposing of the army and navy, of nominating to all civil and military appointments, &c., on the condition of each act being countersigned by a Minister; 7. The right of proclaiming martial law with its consequences. The President of the Republic can also choose his own Ministers."

During the four weeks' prorogation the Duc de Broglie and M. de Fourtou, in view of an approaching dissolution, were energetically employed in preparing the country for the approaching elections. Accordingly, a clean sweep was made of all Republican functionaries-prefects, sub-prefects, judges and justices of the peace, the press was sternly regulated, political meetings were forbidden, and the Government screw was tightened in every possible manner, but, at the same time, Marshal MacMahon repeatedly declared that he would lend himself to no coup-de-main of any kind whatever. He believed that the nation was with him, and, though it had been entrapped into returning Radical candidates in 1876 by a misuse of his name, he felt confident that the result at the next elections would be very different.

CHAPTER II.

FRANCE continued.

Reopening of the Chambers-The President's Message-Debate upon the MinistryDissolution of the Chamber-Death of M. Thiers-Its Political Importance-M. Thiers' Funeral-Marshal MacMahon's Tour-His Manifesto-Official DecreesDeath of M. Le Verrier.

THE Chambers reassembled at Versailles, after a four weeks' prorogation, on June 16, and the opening of the session was as stormy as might have been anticipated from the nature of the crisis. Political excitement was at fever heat, party animosity had become virulent, and the result was that the minorities in both houses denounced each other in the wildest excesses of language and demeanour.

In the Senate, the Duc de Broglie read the President's new message, asking the consent of that body to an immediate dissolution of the Chamber of Deputies.

His message (which was at least outspoken and to the point) stated plainly why he considered that a dissolution was necessary--viz., that he could appoint no Ministry capable of working with the Chamber of Deputies then sitting, but one which must be of itself more or less subservient to the Radicals, whose instrument he would then be in carrying into practice their pernicious doctrines.

The Left expressed their disapprobation by loud vociferations;

but as the Right kept silence an unseemly conflict was avoided. The text of the President's message was as follows:—

"MM. les Sénateurs,-By virtue of Article 3 of the Constitutional Law of the 25th of February, 1875, the President of the Republic is invested with the right of dissolving the Chamber of Deputies, with the concurrence of the Senate. This serious step now appears to me necessary. I ask you to give your assent to it. My Ministers are deputed to explain to you the reasons which actuate me. On the 16th of May I had to declare to the country that disagreements existed between the Chamber of Deputies and myself. I showed that no Ministry could maintain itself in that Chamber without seeking the alliance and meeting the conditions of the Radical party. A Government bound to such a necessity is no longer master of its own actions. Whatever its personal intentions, it is reduced to serving the ends of those whose support it has accepted and to paving the way for their accession. It is this to which I would no longer lend myself. When such want of accord exists between the public powers, dissolution is the means provided by the constitution itself for putting an end to it. I should, however, have preferred the date of it being delayed, in particular that before separating the Chambers should have been able to vote the Budget of 1878. The month's prorogation which has just elapsed might have served to pacify men's minds and restore to them the calmness necessary for the discussion of affairs. This result has not been obtained. Scarcely was the prorogation pronounced when more than 300 deputies protested in a manifesto, with whose terms you are acquainted, against the use I had made of my constitutional right. That manifesto has been circulated wholesale. A large number of those who signed it have supported it either by their letters to their constituents or by speeches delivered at numerously attended meetings. Some, even under the protection of Parliamentary privilege, have made use of such expressions that justice has had to proceed against the newspapers which reproduced them. Such an agitation could not be prolonged without causing profound trouble. Those indulging in it cannot be surprised at my summoning them before the country which they have themselves addressed. I confine myself, therefore, to asking the Chamber of Deputies to vote some urgent bills which the patriotism of all parties will surely not allow to be challenged. The dissolution, then, promply pronounced, will enable the new Chamber to meet in time to ensure the supplies of next year. I shall address myself with confidence to the nation. France, like me, desires to maintain intact the institutions which govern us. She desires as much as I that these institutions should not be disfigured by the action of Radicalism. She does not desire that in 1880-the day when the Constitutional laws may be revised-everything should be prepared beforehand for the disorganisation of all the moral and material forces of the country. Warned in time, guarding against all misunderstanding and ambiguity, France, I am sure, will do justice to

my intention, and will choose for her representatives those who will promise to second me. You will feel the necessity of deliberating without delay on the important resolution which is submitted to you."

In the Chamber of Deputies another version of the message was read by M. de Fourtou, and was received with cheers or clamorous expressions of disapproval, according to the section of the Chamber to which the deputies belonged.

Then followed a violent debate on the composition of the Ministry, which reflected little credit upon either of the contending schools of politicians. Nor did the weather tend to cool the fever of excitement; for outside the Chamber the thermometer stood at about 85 degrees, and the hot sirocco-like wind seemed a fitting emblem of the feeling that reigned within.

Three of the obnoxious ministers-M. de Fourtou, General Berthaut, and M. Caillaux-were present to pacify or defy the hostile Assembly. After some credits necessary to the War Department had been granted, and a few personalities exchanged, the discussion of the interpellation commenced. Its terms were the following:"The undersigned deputies, considering that the Ministry is composed of men whose policy has already been condemned by the country, and whose return to office is calculated to compromise the public peace both at home and abroad, demand to interpellate the Government on the composition of the Cabinet."

M. Bethmont, who introduced the motion, said that the reason of the Marshal's sudden dismissal of the late Ministry and change of policy on the 16th of May last was, that the Government had found, that in spite of every obstacle opposed to that Ministry, at the Presidency and elsewhere, "the country was becoming every day more and more passionately attached to Republican ideas." This caused such an outburst that, amidst a tumult of confusion, the President of the Assembly threatened to close the sitting, to put an end to such scandalous scenes. M. Bethmont denounced the new Cabinet as a "Clerical" Cabinet, but "the Republicans," he declared," were united and determined to secure the Republic and the repose of France."

M. de Fourtou, in his reply, met denunciation with denunciation, and charge with countercharge. The disagreement, he said, between the President and the majority, was so deep that it could be settled only by the country. "You say we have not your confidence," exclaimed the minister; "we reply that you have not ours." It was time that the political situation, which had been put in a false light, should be made clear. Since 1876 the struggle had been one between Conservative and Radical tendencies. Even a statesman so Conservative and really Republican as M. Dufaure had been unable to maintain himself before a Chamber which made no account either of the President or the Senate, and wished to erect itself into a new convention. The real programme of M. Gambetta, and which he had sworn again and again to carry out, if ever in

power, was the cahier des electeurs as comprehending the principles of Radical democracy. This cahier M. de Fourtou read to the Assembly. One of its items was the suppression of standing armies; and in his report on the Budget M. Gambetta advocated a complete change in the system of finance; and the substitution of taxes on the public funds and salaries, in place of all existing direct taxation. The act of May 16 was directed against this plan of social disorganisation, and against Radicalism, and it had nothing to do with monarchical or clerical influences. That act had been misrepresented; but the country approved of it. Such were some of the chief points of M. Fourtou's defence of the Government, but one striking incident must be noticed. M. de Fourtou having claimed the confidence of the country, on the ground that he and his colleagues had been members of the Assembly of 1871, which had liberated the territory, was answered in a way for which he could hardly have been prepared, for the effect produced by his words, which were no sooner uttered than, "as if by a magical impulse," said an eye-witness, "the whole house started to its feet, with the exception of the Right, which this time was awed into silence, and turning towards M. Thiers, whose white hair was visible just above the top of his seat, there arose one shout- Voilà le libérateur du territoire!' and peals of deafening applause, repeated again and again, lasted for upwards of five minutes. The enthusiasm gained even the public galleries, where most people stood to their feet. A more impressive scene I do not think I ever witnessed. Thiers sat perfectly still the whole time; but when this grand and spontaneous tribute of respect to him was over, he could be seen passing his hand once or twice across his eyes. M. de Fourtou was evidently taken aback by this display, for he said a few words in an embarrassed sort of way about yielding to none in respect for l'homme illustre."

M.

But the great speech of the day was made by M. Gambetta, who next ascended the tribune. He denied that he had any idea of succeeding Marshal MacMahon as President of the Republic, and after an exchange of personalities and insults with M. Cassagnac, which occasioned the wildest uproar, and called forth threats of an instant closing of the sitting from the President, he attacked the Ministry of May 16 as enemies of the Republic, who sought to "sophisticate" universal suffrage. Some of them, he said, would have a presidency for life, others a "locum tenens" for a king, others thought that a battalion of foot would be "the Saviours of Society." Finally, M. Gambetta said that the blow of May 16 came from the Vatican. It was a coup des prêtres, and it was the answer of the Ultramontanes to the order of the day against Ultramontanism and the Jesuits. The Ministry thought to change the majority by administrative manœuvres; but in three months they would be discomfited. The majority was then 363; it would return 400. And so ended this long speech, which was fully as remarkable for the manner of its delivery as for the denun

ciations and sarcasms it hurled against the unpopular ministers. "It is impossible," said an eye-witness, "to describe this terrible struggle of one man against a hundred-this orator, with his heavy manner, his pale face, his soaking brow, drinking cup after cup of coffee or beer, using up pocket-handkerchief after pockethandkerchief, stalking up and down the tribune, defying his adversaries with gesture and voice, mingling vulgar tones and trivial expressions with the finest French eloquence, throwing back his head with contempt, gesticulating furiously when declaring himself indifferent, and presenting to the breathless galleries the spectacle of a struggle which elicited in turn admiration and criticism. Nor can I describe the Assembly of the country of elegance and wit, shrieking, hissing, imitating the voice of the speaker, and presenting to the alarmed spectators the picture of a lamentable decadence and unbridled violence."

At the sitting on June 18 the Duc Decazes, Minister of Foreign Affairs, declared it to be his duty to reassure Italy as to the intentions of France. The foreign policy of France would, he said, remain unchanged.

The discussion on the dissolution was begun on June 21 by Victor Hugo. In a very rhapsodical speech, he made a hit when he said: "There is a nation marching with uncovered visage which shows distinctly the aim it seeks, and facing that nation a masked government which knows not whither it is going, or which, if it does know, either cannot or will not say so." He was succeeded by M. Jules Simon, who showed that the dismissal of the late Ministry was uncalled for and wholly unnecessary; but the Duc de Broglie declared that the country could not hesitate between Marshal MacMahon, the defender of the national institutions, and the Dictator of Bordeaux, "the orator of Belleville, assailing society at the head of his army of Radicals." In fact, the Ministry maintained that the contest lay not between Republicanism and Despotism, but between Conservative Republicanism and Radicalism-between the "esprit conservateur," as the Duc de Broglie put it, and the "esprit radical," and between these, as was remarked, "there is nothing short of an abyss." Upon the position of the Marshal and the Ministry at this time a political reviewer observed, with much truth as it would seem :-" On some points there appears to be a general consensus. It is admitted that the Marshal acted in perfect good faith in the dismissal of M. Jules Simon; that he could not reconcile it with his supposed duty to France to maintain any longer in power a minister whose policy he believed would, if consummated, be her ruin. . The Duc de Broglie has simply accepted the difficult task of coming to the Marshal's aid, and endeavouring to extricate him. from an embarrassing and untenable position. So far he is hardly more to blame than were the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel in 1834, when they came to the rescue of a King who had dismissed a Whig Ministry possessing the confidence of the House