conferences which preceded this sitting. Was M. Desjardins' captious formula intended to cause them to be broken? M. Bérenger, an upright man, put the question with his habitual firmness. "An unexpected fact has taken place at the opening of the sitting. An amendment has been introduced that nothing could have led us to expect; this amendment may be devoid of gravity; it may, on the other hand, have considerable importance. I have the honour to demand that the honourable M. Desjardins will kindly make its meaning more precise. If it merely signifies an allusion. to the engagement taken, by the Left as well as by the other political groups in the Assembly, that a revision clause should be inserted in the Constitution, we will make no objection; we are men of our word. If this amendment has another bearing, I ask that it should be clearly stated; and, if it carries with it a modification of the Wallon amendment, that we should be told in what this modification consists."

M. Albert Desjardins answered, but in a more involved manner than before. Finally, he "referred to the Assembly's vote." The Right intended that the Desjardins wording, added to the Wallon proposition, should make one and the same article, which would be dealt with by one and the same vote. A most wily stroke destruction would be simultaneous with construction. The Wallon motion, correcting the Ventavon clause, would in its turn be corrected by the Desjardins motion. This was the last word in Parliamentary politics. Everything was to revolve on this needle point.1

1 "Our friends on the Right have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. For the last three years, we have been telling them that, by refusing all organisation, they would drag us to the abyss; for the last three months, we have been telling them that, by refusing the impersonal Septennate, they would lead us to a Republican Septennate; nothing has been of any

The Wallon

From that moment, President Buffet took a Amendment leading part. The question was one of order, Voted. and he, as President, was empowered to deal with it. He pronounced in favour of a ballot, refusing to accept the tactics urged upon him by M. de Kerdrel in the name of the Right, and which consisted in including both motions in one sentence. He decided that the Desjardins amendment should be voted separately. This amendment thus lost all its chances: it was rejected by 522 votes against 129.

The effect was such that M. Dufaure, who had reserved. himself until then, immediately assumed the direction of the debate. He had abstained from the Desjardins vote, not wishing that he and his friends should appear to be evading the promise they had given to include amongst constitutional laws the facility of revision. This time, he ascended the tribune and spoke out clearly and explicitly.

Together with the honourable M. Wallon and a great number of my friends, I admit perfectly, in the first place, that, by M. Wallon's amendment, we will in no wise infringe upon the powers which were conferred on the 20th November upon the President of the Republic, and, in the second place, that we admit the right of Revision." The compact was publicly ratified. Now there remained but to vote.

The Wallon amendment had once more been modified in the course of the debate. This was its final formThe President of the Republic shall be elected, by an absolute majority, by the Senate and Chamber of Deputies united in one National Assembly. He shall be appointed for seven years and capable of re-election.

use. And again, the day before yesterday, they nearly rent de Broglie and forsook him when he tried, by means of the Desjardins amendment, to cause the abortion of the Wallon motion. He came within two votes of doing so. But read the speech of M. Chesnelong at that wretched sitting of last Saturday, and admire their blindness."-(Private unpublished letter from the Duc Decazes to M. de Gontaut-Biron.)