position brought to the Assembly on the 15th of May likewise concealed a battery, as also that of the 13th of June. M. Girardin admitted that convictions changed, but that numbers were invariable. Now if convictions changed, numbers also changed, and he did not despair of seeing, in the course of time, the proportion between the two numbers M. Girardin had cited greatly modified.

The taking into consideration of the proposition of M. Morin was afterwards agreed to, and the Assembly decided that the two propositions should be referred to the same Committee.

On the 5th of June, numerous petitions for the revision of the Constitution were laid on the table of the Assembly by different Members, and the following proposition was also brought forward by M. Larabit, calling upon the Assembly

"1. To express a wish in favour of the revision of the 45th Article of the Constitution, as respects the re-eligibility of the President of the Republic.

2. To refer the revision, not to a new Constituent Assembly, but to the sovereignty of the French people, assembled to vote freely for the election of a President of the Republic.

"3. To issue a proclamation, informing the French people that to them always belongs, in virtue of their sovereignty, the right to declare, by their votes, whether they wish or not to re-elect the same President of the Republic."

M. Léon Faucher, Minister of the Interior, having ascended the tribune, said that he was coming, in the name of the Cabinet, to demand the continuation in force, during another year, of the law of the 19th of June, 1849, prohibiting clubs and

political meetings. In June, 1850, the Assembly re-enacted, with additional rigorous clauses, a law which, notwithstanding its provisional character, powerfully contributed to maintain orderand tranquillity in the country, and defend society against anarchy. (Murmurs on the Left.) The Government would use the powers conferred upon it by the law with the moderation it had hitherto displayed, for the repression of the scandal that had disgraced the year 1848. He should not undertake to demonstrate the incompatibility existing between a regular Government and the regimen of clubs. The Cabinet had never interfered with the exercise of the right of meeting, but had thought proper to prohibit réunions in certain houses and cabarets, because they were focuses of an anarchical propaganda. Between the 19th of June, 1850, and the 1st of May last, the Government had enjoined the prefects to suppress 184 réunions, independently of the "circles," societies, and banquets prohibited by the local authorities. The law had produced a most salutary influence upon public morals, and the Government would, at some future day, submit to the Assembly a definitive law in accord with the opinion of the founder of the American Union. In conclusion, M. Faucher demanded the prolongation until the 22nd of June, 1852, of the law against clubs and political réunions, of the 19th of June, 1849.

M. Pierre Leroux said that the President of the Republic had stated in the speech he delivered at Dijon, that the Assembly had constantly lent him its support when his Government presented laws of repression, but that it had withheld it when he submitted to its deliberation laws and measures in favour

The Minister having demanded "urgency," it was put from the chair, and adopted by a considerable majority.

Soon afterwards the Assembly resolved itself into bureaux, for the purpose of choosing a Committee (each bureau nominating one member), to consider and report upon the various propositions for revising the Constitution.

In one of these bureaux (the 9th) an interesting discussion took place, in which M. de Falloux, formerly one of the Ministers of the Republic, and M. Léon Faucher, Minister of the Interior, spoke as follows:

M. de Falloux-"I could not at the present moment accept the laborious office of being a member of the Committee which is about to be named. But the gravity of the circumstances, and the presence of the Minister of the Interior in this bureau, impose it on me as a duty to submit to you in a few words my thoughts on what ought to be the aim of each member of the Committee. The Moniteur of the 2nd of June was perfectly correct in saying that the interest of France is superior to that of all parties, and that the Government ought to place it

self in a position to be above them all; but it is neither by offensive allusions, nor by violence, that such a mission can be accomplished, if even the indication be given that it is understood and will be carefully prosecuted. It must not be forgotten that in France parties, in the acceptation, a little elevated and a little political, of the word, represent henceforward something else besides passions or egotism; they represent also interests, principles, and fundamental conditions, which it is not in the power of any person to destroy; but which, on the contrary, ought to be conciliated and induced to co-operate for the common safety. Do you suppose that you elevate authority in France when you attack, under a false and calumnious name-that of the ancient régime-the principles and the men of the Monarchy? Do you suppose that you respect liberty when you stigmatize at the same time, under the name of factions and intrigues, the principles of our 30 years of constitutional government, as well as men who still preserve some parliamentary habits and susceptibilities? Do you wish to struggle against anarchical passions, and at the same time to flatter that which is of all things the most anarchical, the Government of one-to calumniate all the political situations honourably achieved, and all the services which have been honourably rendered? Do you want to endeavour to oppose Utopian schemes, and at the same time to aim at the most chimerical project of all—that of a personal and isolated Government, opposing the sole prestige of a name to the real difficulties of each step and each hour? I am profoundly grieved that any official act should call forth such questions.

For my part, I have had the honour, for a time, of seconding the President in a very different policy; consequently I do not think that I am wanting in any respect when I remind him of the fact, or when I persevere in my former course. I never spoke to my friends or my adversaries but in such language as permitted, with frank and sincere acts of conciliation, every honourable effort in view of the good of the country, and of that alone. I am less than ever disposed to change such sentiments and such language; but they are entitled to reciprocity, and where that shall not be afforded the country will immediately know how to discern the fact, and the motives which prompted it, and the extent of the responsibility attached to such conduct. In consequence, I propose that the member whom we name to the Committee shall support the revision in that sensethat is, in seeking out in all their liberty and all their extent the real durable wants of the country, and in paying attention absolutely to them alone. And when the Government is thus warned, let it be well understood that such warning is not given it through jealousy, but, on the contrary, from a sad prevision of the dangers in which it is placed. Every exclusive power will henceforward inevitably perish in France-we as well as you, you as well as we-and with the first Government that will so perish, all society will run the risk of falling to pieces."

The Minister of the Interior then said," I did not wish to speak in this preliminary discussion. The Government has not taken the initiative in the propositions submitted to you: it belongs to the Assembly. The Government thinks that

the Constitution should be revised; it unites in the wish which it considers as being that of the immense majority in the Assembly and in the country. But until the moment arives for the public discussion it thinks it its duty to act with great reserve. The bureau will, therefore, permit me to confine myself to this declaration of my opinion without entering into further developments. What has been just stated by the hon. M. de Falloux obliges me, however, to reply. There are here three members of the Cabinet formed by the President of the Republic on the 20th of December, 1848. My hon. friend M. de Falloux has there left souvenirs which will never be effaced from my memory. These souvenirs give me the right to tell him that the policy with which he inspired the Cabinet of the 20th of December is the same as that which animates the present Ministry. M. de Falloux is mistaken as to the bearing of the speech delivered by the President of the Republic. At a solemn moment, when the country had its eyes fixed on him, the President was obliged to explain his ideas. He was compelled to say what he was and what he was not, separating himself equally from a past which would not return and from a chimerical future. The President of the Republic has been often and unjustly attacked; he makes use of no reprisals. He explained himself as to his ideas, and committed no act of aggression against persons. The hon. M. de Falloux declines for himself and his political friends any kind of joint reponsibility with retrograde doctrines. I accept from my heart this declaration. I always thought that he belonged to a generation which was necessarily impregnated

with the spirit of the age. I will add' that, far from rejecting the cooperation of the hon. M. de Falloux and of his friends, we call for it with our wishes and our efforts. The Government proposes, before all things, the union of the two great powers of the State. Far from wishing to divide the majority, it labours to strengthen and to extend it. It believes that the fascis formed by the friends of order is not too compact, and that society requires all its force against anarchy; it knows that the great shades of opinion of which the majority is composed differ in some tendencies, but it also believes that these opinions have still more common tendencies, and it would reproach itself if it said a word or did an act which might compromise that accord on which the safety of all depends."

On the question of the revision of the Constitution, the general sentiments of the nation were pretty clearly manifested during the autumn by the Conseils Généraux. These are not political bodies, but correspond more nearly to our own Courts of Quarter Sessions, meeting

for the purpose of settling matters of local finance; but of late years they have been accustomed to take a part in politics by expressions of opinion on public questions. With respect to the revision, forty-eight simply expressed a wish that the Constitution should be revised, conformably to Article 111 - which required a majority of four-fifths of the Assembly in favour of the revision. Seventeen wished for the pure and simple revision. Six demanded the revision as promptly as possible. Three refused to express any opinion. Six demanded the abolition of Article 45-making the existing President ineligible. One demanded that the Constitution be revised so as to strengthen Republican institutions; and one demanded the same thing, that France might return to traditional and hereditary monarchy. In a number of instances the decision was that of a bare majority over a large minority; and in many instances the mass of the Council abstained from the question, as beyond the legal competency of their body.