claimed the Republic over the ruins of monarchy. Direct suffrage was one of the roots of the sovereignty of the people, and it was for that reason it was eradicated. Under the monarchy the king had a right to dissolve the National Guard, but was bound to reorganize them within a year. The President of the Republic was invested with the same right, but was allowed three years to reorganize them. M. Pascal Duprat then attacked the reactionary tendencies of the Government, in introducing civil war in the laws and institutions, which to him was evident from the precaution adopted to arm the "frock coats" to the exclusion of the blouses.

M. de Riancey, the reporter, said that the Committee had rejected those preambles as useless, and after the interpretations given, he did not hesitate to declare them dangerous. He wondered at such a proposition emanating from a Member who had given repeated proofs of devotedness to the cause of order, particularly on the 24th of June, 1848, when he proposed to declare Paris in a state of siege. Here M. Pascal Duprat rose, and said that he had made the proposition when eminent men on the Right moved that the seat of the Executive Commission and the Constituent Assembly be transferred to a provincial town. ("No, no," cried voices on the Right; "that was not the case.") "They asked," continued M. Duprat, "that they should proceed to Bourges or Chalons, and there place themselves under the protection of an illustrious Marshal."

M. de Larcy here rose, and said that it was indispensable that history should not be deceived by words pronounced in the Legisla

tive Hall, which were always of a grave nature. He was a witness to the fact alluded to by M. Duprat, and he would tell him that the proposition emanated, not from a Member of the Right, but from a political friend of M. Duprat. ("Yes, yes," on the Right.) He did not blame him; on the contrary, the resolution was inspired by the purest patriotism.

M. de Riancey then said that the system developed by the two preceding orators would necessarily lead to civil war. The same doctrine had been advocated in the former Constituent Assembly by a man who, like the members of the Left, was anxious that the National Guard should be a contrepoids to the army, and an instrument to promote his subversive designs.

Here M. de Riancey was interrupted by violent murmurs and insulting interpellations from the Mountain. When silence was restored,

M. de Riancey observed that there was one way of settling the question at issue between them. "Do you, Gentlemen," turning towards the Left, concur in those sentiments?" "We do," exclaimed numerous voices on that side. "In that case," replied M. de Riancey,

66

66

I maintain my expression. The sentiments I read to you were professed by Robespierre, and they excited such indignation in the Constituent Assembly that the previous question having been called for was carried by the almost unanimous vote of that Assembly.'

After a few words from MM. Jules Favre and Chegaray, the discussion was closed, and the preamble proposed by M. Pascal Duprat having been put to the vote, was rejected by 416 to 224.

At the end of May, a speech was

made by the President of the Republic at Dijon, on the occasion of opening a railway from Dijon to Tonnerre, which gave great offence to the Assembly. Louis Napoleon was received with warm enthusiasm by the population, who flocked in crowds to witness the ceremony, and he thus addressed those who were assembled at a banquet given in his honour at the Hotel de Ville :

66

I wish that those persons who doubt of the future had accompanied me through the populations of the Yonne and the Côte d'Or. They would soon have had their minds set at rest, by being able to judge for themselves of the real state of public feeling. They would have seen that neither intrigues nor attacks, nor passionate discussions of parties, are in harmony with the sentiments and state of the country. France does not wish either the return of the ancient régime-no matter under what form it may be disguised nor the trial of evil and impracticable Utopias. It is because I am the most natural adversary of one and the other that she has placed her confidence in me. If it was not so, how else can be explained this touching sympathy of the people towards me, which, while it repels the most ruinous controversies, absolves me from being the cause of their sufferings? In fact, if my Government has not realized all the ameliorations it has had in view, the blame lies in the manœuvres of factions, which paralyze the good dispositions of assemblies as well as those of Governments the most devoted to the public good. The Assembly has given me its co-operation in every measure of repression, but has failed me in all the measures

which I have conceived for the interest of the people. It is because you have shared those convictions that I have found in patriotic Burgundy such a reception as is at once for me both approbation and encouragement. Since I have been in power I have felt much the pressure of the great interests of society. I have made abstractions of what touches myself personally. The most unjust and most violent attacks have not been able to induce me to give up my attitude of calmness. Whatever duties the country may impose on me, it will find me resolute to execute its will. And believe me, Gentlemen, France will not perish in my hands. I profit by this banquet as if it were a public tribune, to open to my fellow citizens the bottom of my heart. A new phase of our political life is commencing. From one end of France to the other, petitions are being signed in favour of the revision of the Constitution: I await with confidence the manifestation of the country and the decision of the Assembly, which can only be actuated by the sole thought of the public good."

The passage marked in italics was, however, struck out in the official report which appeared in the Moniteur, and for which alone the Ministry declared themselves responsible.

The subject of this speech was brought under the notice of the Assembly on the 3rd of June, on a motion by General Gourgaud to reward some soldiers for their conduct in defending the Chateau d'Eu against pillage in February, 1848, when Colonel Charras, referring to the attitude of the people at Dijon, asked what course ought to be taken by the military if they were ordered to march against the Assembly?

General Changarnier then rose and said:"The army, profoundly penetrated with the sentiment of its duty, with the feeling of what is due to its own dignity, desires no more than you to inflict on France the wretchedness and shame of the government of the Caesars, when emperors were successively raised to power or deposed by drunken Prætorian Guards. Discipline is deeply rooted in the French army. The soldiers will always hear the voice of their chiefs; but no one will ever induce the soldiers to march against the law-against the Assembly. Not a single battalion could be induced to follow for such a purpose, whoever might be the officers whom they are accustomed to obey. Consequently, representatives of France, deliberate in peace." Upon this M. Léon Faucher replied that no part of the Government could accept the lesson which the General had been pleased to offer it. He could not comprehend these references to conspiracy: Government only conspired in devotedness to the country. Why was it thus attempted to raise dissensions between the Government and the army?

M. Piscatory asked the Minister of the Interior, whether or not the phrase said to have been delivered in a speech insulting to the Assembly was really delivered or

not?

M. Faucher continuing silent, M. Piscatory said-" For want of an answer, I must address myself to several of my honourable colleagues." M. Faucher then said, with great emphasis, "The Government recognises no other text of the speech delivered by the President of the Republic than that inserted in the Moniteur." M. Desmousseaux de Givré-"It is

then understood that the phrase which I have before me, as follows-The Assembly has given me its co-operation in every measure of repression, but has failed me in all the measures which I have conceived for the interest of the people'-was delivered by no one. As the Government does not acknowledge that phrase, or as it retracts it, I shall not address the interpellations which I had purposed."

The Assembly then passed to the order of the day.

During the months of April and May, petitions in favour of a revision of the Constitution were everywhere got up in the departments, and numerously signed. The form of that which was adopted by the "General Committee in Paris for the revision of the Constitution " was as follows:

TO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
PEOPLE IN THE LEGISLATIVE
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.

"Gentlemen,-Experience has shown to France the faults in the Constitution of 1848, and the impossibilities and the perils which it contains; its revision becomes an imperious necessity. In the name of agriculture, of commerce, of industry, and particularly of the working classes,-in the name of all suffering interests,-in the name of the salvation of the country,-the undersigned make an appeal to your patriotic solicitude. It belongs to them to point out the danger to you; it is for you to cause it to disappear. Full of confidence in your high appreciation of the interests of the country, and of the means of safety which the Constitution itself has placed in your hands, the undersigned beg you, Messieurs les Reprèsentants, to

decide that the Constitution shall be revised."

One from the small commune of Marsalès, canton of Monpazier, ran thus:

"Messieurs les Représentants, -Revision of the Constitution, prolongation of the powers of Louis Napoleon-such is the wish which we confide to your patriotism. It is both just and wise to accomplish it. In the first place, we ought to be grateful to the Chief of the State for the good which he has effected, with your co-operation; and, in the next place, it is prudent not to forget that the instigators of disturbances have given a rendezvous for 1852, when all the powers will be suspended."

On the 28th of May, the Legislative Assembly entered upon the third year of its existence, and was then by law entitled to take into consideration the momentous question of the revision of the Constitution. But by a fundamental law of that Constitution no revision could take place unless it was voted for by a majority consisting of three-fourths of the members of the Assembly.

Previously to this (on the 22nd of May) M. Moulin had proposed in the Assembly, that all the petitions for the revision should be referred to a Special Committee.

M. Savatier Laroche denounced the proposition as revolutionary, unconstitutional, and oppressive for the minority of the Assembly. When the time legally fixed should come, he and his friends would accept the discussion, and if their rights were attacked, they would eously defend them. They ently listen to those who their fancies for Henry Prince de Joinville, or

for the Empire. They would discuss with them the merits of monarchical and republican institutions. They would meet them with history in their hands, and the country would judge. To the first, who would no doubt praise the glory of Louis XIV. and the magnificence of Versailles, his friends would oppose 20,000,000 subjects ground down by taxes, and persecuted by a worn-out despot, a woman, and a Jesuit. To those who extolled the glories of the Empire, and that brilliant period of fifteen years, they would oppose 2,000,000 of Frenchmen slaughtered on fields of battle, France twice invaded, and the country desolated by foreigners. To those who lauded the wisdom of an old King, they would oppose corruption pervading all ranks of society, and public defaulters seated in the very councils of the Sovereign. M. Savatier Laroche then attacked the electoral law of the 31st of May, and said that the country could not be consulted until that was abrogated.

M. Moulin replied, that the object of his petition was, merely to examine whether the present rules of the House could be applied to the revision of the Constitution. He should not consequently follow M. Savatier Laroche in his digression, but tell him that if he wished to attack the law of the 31st of May, he should do so in the regular form, and it would then be seen whether the majority, which voted that loi de salut, would not again rally for its defence. In conclusion, he declared that he had been actuated by no intention hostile to either of the two great parties into which the country was divided. It was a measure of order, regularity, and dignity, and