Cabinet question; such a course being, he maintained, an act of intimidation. He taunted the Government with being a "Ministry of indecision, adopting at times an arbitrary tone, which their predecessors would never have dared to assume, and at other times. an ultra-liberal language that was positively alarming. Still," he added, "as I am unwilling to run the risk of disorganizing the country I shall vote with you." M. Ollivier replied that there existed a feeling of distrust against the Ministry among a certain portion of the Chamber, checking that sympathy which rendered solutions easy and combats light. "Such a situation," he continued, "is false for every one, and we take advantage of the first opportunity to escape from it. We cannot consent to offer to the country the spectacle of men who cling to a power which is escaping from them. I do not, therefore, accept the vote of Baron Jerome David in our favour." At this Baron Jerome David rose to explain, and ended by apprising the Government that in the vote of the day before his party had "given them a first warning." M. Clement Duvernois added an equally insulting observation from the Right, to which he belonged. His party, too, he said, were only biding their time. When the question came to the vote, however, the order of the day, pure and simple, was carried without a division, the Left abstaining from voting in a body. It had been brought to an issue of confidence or no confidence in the Ministry, and none of the hostile parties were as yet prepared to oust them. Taunts and recriminations continued not the less to be bestowed upon them at almost every sitting of the Chamber; and between the distrust of the Sovereign and the distrust of the people, they assuredly occupied a position which was none of the most dignified in a moral point of view. That the Sovereign was playing a game of his own behind their back was evident from the affair of M. Clement Duvernois, which next attracted notice. A few days after the vote of the 4th of June there appeared in the Moniteur Universel (evidently with Ministerial approval) an article which informed the public that the Emperor was more than ever determined to support the Cabinet "in the difficult task of combining the principle of authority with the rights of liberty;" and that in order to give the Ministry a signal mark of confidence, the Sovereign had determined to take efficacious measures to prevent the recurrence of the singular incidents which had marked the parliamentary skirmishing (escarmouche) of the 3rd and 4th." The writer then proceeded to explain the origin of that escarmouche in these words:"1t is well known that a certain journal which is supposed, rightly or wrongly, to be the reflex of the Emperor's opinion, had declared war against the Ministry. This journal hinted very plainly that the Chamber would be doing the Emperor good service by driving from office Ministers who no longer enjoyed his confidence. The devoted loyalty of the Right was misled by these insinuations, and the deputies belonging to that fraction of the Chainber joined their votes to those of the Left,

thereby endangering the safety of the Cabinet. But on the morrow the faithful of the Right, having made due inquiry, found out to their great surprise that they had been led into error, and that their coalition with the Irreconcileables had been in no way agreeable to the Sovereign." So on the morrow, adds the journalist of the Moniteur, they were obliged " to adore what they had burned" the day before. But such manœuvres, he says in conclusion, implicate most unfortunately the responsibility of the Sovereign and the dignity of the Ministry; he therefore rejoiced that "efficacious measures were to be taken to prevent their return.

رو

The journal alluded to as reflecting the Emperor's opinions, was Le Peuple François, edited by M. Clement Duvernois. His confidential dealings with the Tuileries were no secret. More than one article of his journal, in former times, was known to have been revised and corrected, if not altogether written, by the Emperor; and his interviews with him were not unfrequent at the present time. M. Ollivier therefore called the Emperor's attention to the necessity of disowning or discontinuing the supposed complicity; and the result was that Duvernois retired from the editorship, assuring his readers, however, that he had "voluntarily quitted, though not without regret, the journal which he had founded," because the policy he advocated was too "bold and liberal" for the paper.

A debate took place on the 20th of June relative to a proposed new railway through the pass of St. Gothard, for which a convention had been concluded in the preceding October between Prussia, Switzerland, and Italy. Subsequent events gave an interest to the subject greater even than was felt at the time, though no small amount of irritation was even then entertained by those politicians who were jealously sensitive to any possible diminution of the external influence of France, and who saw in every advantage gained by Prussia a source of disquietude.

The discussion of the subject drew numerous auditors to the Legislative Chamber; the galleries were filled with ladies. The Duc de Gramont's reply however to the question raised by M. Morny was pacific. He said he would not follow an example given elsewhere, and appeal to patriotism which in France it was unnecessary to excite. If Swiss neutrality were menaced France would be the first to defend it. But Government was perfectly at ease respecting the political consequences of the new St. Gothard Railway, and was neither bound nor indeed entitled to oppose it.

On this ground then it was clear Ministers were not minded to dare the extremity of a quarrel with Prussia; but every fresh cause of public disquietude connected with that Power seemed to bring the probability of a collision nearer; and it was now repeated from mouth to mouth, that France must be on the alert, and not allow herself to be placed in such a position as that she was forced to accept after Sadowa. There was much talk of the great camp at Châlons, where 30,000 men were now assembled, and where the Prince Imperial was to go and receive lessons in military engineer

ing from his governor, General Frossard. It was said that Châlons was to be made a large entrenched camp and place d'armes, capable of sheltering a corps d'armée in case of war, and of constituting a magazine for the first army entering the field.

A petition was laid before M. Schneider in the Corps Législatif, at the sitting of the 21st, which led public thought and discussion into a new train. The Marquis de Piré had lately proposed to the Chamber to repeal the law of exile. Encouraged by this suggestion the banished Princes of the House of Orleans now signed a request for the abrogation of the edict in force against themselves. The letter was addressed to the Chamber, and was dated, Twickenham, June 19th. In it the Princes said, "Messieurs les Députés— You have had laid before you a proposal to abrogate the exceptional measures levelled against us. In the face of this proposition we feel bound not to remain silent. Since 1848, under the Government of the Republic, we have protested against the law which exiles us, a law which nothing justified then, and nothing has justified since, and we now renew our protest before the representatives of our country. It is not a favour that we ask; it is our right, a right which belongs to all Frenchmen, and of which we alone are despoiled; it is our country to which we ask to be restored -our country which we love, which our family has always loyally served, from which not one of our traditions separates us, and whose name alone ever makes our hearts beat; for nothing can compensate the exiled for their absent country." This address was signed by the Count de Paris, the Prince de Joinville, the Duke d'Aumale, and the Duke de Chartres. The Duke de Montpensier and the Duke de Nemours did not sign; the first, as was said, because he had become a Spanish citizen, and the second because he wished to consult his absent sons. The letter was referred by M. Schneider to the Committee on Petitions of the Corps Législatif, and on the demand of M. Ollivier, who argued that it ought to have been addressed direct to the Emperor, it was rejected there by eight votes against one. However it was recommended to the Chamber for a full discussion; and this discussion took place on Saturday, the 2nd of July.

The most interesting speech on that occasion was delivered by M. Estancelin, an old schoolfellow of the citizen Princes, who stood up to advocate their cause. He laid great stress on the way in which the Prince de Joinville and the Duke d'Aumale, when the Government of July was overthrown, accepted the decision of the nation, and retired, the one from his command in the Navy, the other from the Army in Algeria. The Princes, he said, had no hereditary right to the throne. Their family had been called by the nation to reign; it had been deposed by the nation, and its members were consequently French citizens, and nothing more. M. Estancelin, who spoke throughout with a moderation which was of great service to the cause of the Princes, denied that they were conspirators. He gave a brief sketch of the conduct of the peti

tioners during their exile, winding up with a reference to the very creditable manner in which the Duke de Chartres had conducted himself during the Italian campaign, never seeking to get into communication with French officers. For twenty years the Orleans Princes had respected the country, and it was right that the law of proscription should be now rescinded.

M. Ollivier urged, on the other hand, that there were situations stronger than individuals, and that the Princes, if allowed to return, would become centres of disorder and intrigue in spite of themselves. M. Jules Favre, speaking in favour of the petition, took occasion to remind M. Ollivier how a similar law of proscription had been set aside in the case of the present Emperor, adding that the way in which he had observed the promises then made might, indeed, be some excuse for suspicion in the present case. M. Grévy, though an austere member of the Left, spoke against the petition, and qualified its supporters as dupes and accomplices, thereby causing a split between himself and M. Favre, and a violent remonstrance from the last-named gentleman. In the end, the petition was negatived by a majority of 143.

A debate which took place on the 1st and 2nd of July, on the Ministerial Bill for fixing the army contingent for 1870 at 90,000 men, deserves special attention in connexion with the catastrophe which this very month was to bring forth, and not least for that sanguine utterance of M. Ollivier, to which events were about to give the lie in so signal a manner. M. Latour opposed the reduction of the contingent on account of the military organization of Germany. M. Garnier Pagès contended that the French system was the most irksome for the people and the most costly to the country, and said that the military expenditure of France exceeded that of Prussia and Austria put together. He advocated an obligatory service for two years on active duty and five years in the reserve, and the compulsory education of the soldiers. M. Jules Favre made a speech, in which he said that the maintenance of the law of 1868 would weaken or ruin France. M. Thiers, he observed, should come to an understanding with his new clients respecting the position of France towards the other States of Europe. This called up M. Thiers, who denied that he had become a Ministerialist, observing, "We have not entire liberty, but some steps have been taken towards it. The two conditions of peace are-first, to be pacific; secondly, to be strong. Prussia requires to be pacific, in order to attract the South of Germany. We need to be pacific in order not to give it her." M. Thiers maintained that after Sadowa it was impossible for France to dispense with her army. Then M. Ollivier, replying to a question of M. Jules Favre, said, " The Government has no uneasiness whatever. At no epoch was the peace of Europe more assured. Irritating questions nowhere exist. The European Cabinets understand that treaties should be maintained. We have developed liberty to assure peace, and the accord between the nation and the Sovereign has achieved a French Sadowa, the plebiscitum." M. de Kératry re

proached M. Ollivier for using the expression, "A French Sadowa." M. Ollivier replied that he attached no meaning of victory or defeat to that expression. The plebiscitum had, however, given the same strength to French policy as Sadowa had to Prussia. M. Ollivier repelled the insinuation of M. Jules Favre, that the will of the Emperor controlled the Ministry. On the contrary, he said, no Sovereign more loyally followed the parliamentary system. M. Jules Favre rejoined, "If all this be true, why not disarm?" This brought on such a tumult that M. Favre was unable to finish his speech, and the House adjourned. The following day the debate was resumed. M. Glais Bizoin's amendment, proposing to fix the contingent at 80,000 men in 1871, was rejected by 191 votes against thirty-nine, and the bill fixing it at 90,000 men for that year was subsequently adopted by 203 votes against thirty-one.

It was just about the same time that in England the UnderSecretary for Foreign Affairs had made to Lord Granville, the newly appointed Minister for his department, a statement similar to that of M. Ollivier in the French Chamber. "Never in his experience," he said, "had there been such a lull in foreign affairs." In point of fact the subject which troubled the French public most at present was one wholly unconnected with politics of any sort. It was the intense and every where prevailing drought, which under the scorching sun of this unusually hot summer, threatened to exhaust all the productive powers of the earth. The Emperor gave orders that the forests belonging to the Crown, as well as those of the State, should be thrown open for grazing purposes to the cattle of the landowners in the provinces. The Minister of War, it was reported, had decided to sell some of the horses belonging to the army, on account of the scarcity of fodder. Strict regulations as to economy in the use of water at Paris were issued. In some places religious processions were organized, prayers offered up, and relics carried round the churches, to propitiate the favour of heaven.

The ravages caused by small pox at Paris had of late been a matter of serious uneasiness. Two hundred and thirty-eight deaths took place in one week in June. The Emperor, whose health was disordered during the early part of this summer by rheumatism or gout, or, as some would have it, by yet more serious maladies, put off his accustomed departure for St. Cloud till the 18th of June. Before leaving the Tuileries, he admitted to an interview his newly appointed Envoy to the United States of America, M. Prevost Paradol, whose acceptance of this post under Government, from a Minister as Imperialist and reactionary in his principles as the Duc de Gramont, was not a little commented upon by his friends of the Liberal party. As a writer, M. Prevost Paradol had long been well known and admired. He had devoted himself to political pamphleteering, and his sarcasms and inuendoes against the Emperor and his regime were models of that dexterous art which can inflict wounds without baring the hand that strikes them. Yet he had, on occasion, been compelled to suffer for his hos