The son of

This personal intervention was an event. the most energetic minister of the July monarchy, who had when in power impersonated authority and vigour, whom his adversaries called a Reactionary! CasimirPerier! The name brought with it all the traditions of a great past. And the heir of that name was flinging those traditions into the Republican side of the scale. What long hesitations, what difficult situations, what conscientious perplexities could have given birth to such a decision?

Auguste Casimir Victor Laurent Perier, born in Paris in 1811, was the eldest son of Louis Philippe's celebrated minister. Having belonged to the Diplomatic Service until 1846, he was Minister Plenipotentiary at Hanover, when he was elected Deputy for Paris (1st circumscription). He therefore was a member of the Chamber which supported M. Guizot. Between a Perier and a Guizot, however, no complete agreement was possible; the young Deputy made some show of Liberalism and drew near to MM. Thiers and Odilon Barrot. Nevertheless, he remained an Orleanist under the second Republic and under the second Empire, and was violently opposed by the Imperial administration in the Department of the Aude, where he was a candidate on several occasions.

The advent of M. Thiers, in 1871, brought its reward to a faithful friendship. M. Thiers, when composing his first Cabinet, gave him the portfolio of the Interior. M. Casimir-Perier did not keep it long. Among the various vicissitudes which alternately gave him power or took it from him, he remained an avowed partisan of the illustrious President. However, he had not broken the bonds which attached him personally to the Orleans family; he sometimes entertained the Comte de Paris in his château at Pont-sur-Seine.

How were such early associations and family ties to be reconciled with the evolution brought about by the example and influence of M. Thiers? What share should be given, in this new orientation, to inward pressure, occult thoughts and recondite hopes? The public looks for self-interest and ambition in these slow modifications of opinion; good M. de Vinols seriously declares that Casimir-Perier wished to be again a minister, "in order to eat peaches at 75 cents each for his breakfast!" 1

If parties will not take altered opinions into account, let them at least admit the force of situations. In such critical moments, the greatest difficulties come from personal environment. A woman's smile, a shrug of the shoulders seen in a mirror, will sometimes arrest a decisive word on a man's lips. Society" placed obstacles before the Republic, as it ever will do before new men or new ideas.

66

M. Casimir Perier, a brother-in-law of the Duc d'Audiffret-Pasquier, was at the very meeting-point of all parties and of all social circles, within reach of the least movement of public or parliamentary opinion. Still youthful looking, although already sixty-four years of age, plump and curly haired, he looked "rather like an amiable Englishman." Intelligent and hard-working, his kindly nature led him to enjoy life without hurting any one's feelings, and to smile at events with a good grace. He had the strong digestion and the florid complexion of an optimist. It is probable that this steady, wellbalanced nature, added to that strange sense of the future which so often distinguishes great families, led M. Casimir-Perier, an Orleanist of yesterday, to become one of the founders of the Republic.

Never was he more eloquent. He read from the 1 Baron de Vinols, p. 206.

tribune an exposition of the motives of the resolution. "Put an end to this provisional state of things which is killing us. ... The Committee of Thirty has done nothing for six months; its work lacks a basis that you alone can give. Choose between a Republic or a Monarchy! With the revision clause, the National Sovereignty remains intact." Revision was in effect a great concession granted to Monarchists. The Extreme Left, highly opposed to the Casimir - Perier motion, shouted that this was creating a sham Republic in which was hidden the trap of a possible Restoration.

A member of the Right, M. Lambert de Sainte-Croix, raised a counter-proposition, recognising the Republic for seven years and adjourning to the end of that time the decision to be taken between the two forms of government. Against an immediate Republic, an adjourned Republic: to this were the Monarchists reduced!

M. Laboulaye supported the Casimir-Perier motion: "The events of the last few days must have enlightened you: we must constitute a Government. Last year, four alternatives were present. Now we can only do one of three things: either maintain provisional conditions, accept the Empire, or constitute the Republic." And he concluded with the argument which, from the first, weighed most strongly in favour of the Republic, the argument of fact. "You have had the Republic, practically, for three years. . . . What do you risk in adopting it?"

M. Raoul Duval urged an appeal to the country.

No one rose to demand the restoration of the Bourbons. In this monarchical Assembly, the Monarchists held their peace. As to the Government, it expressed no opinion.

A vote was taken, and the result proclaimed amidst "deep silence." Urgency for the Casimir-Perier resolution was carried by 345 votes against 341.

The Lefts and the Right Centre had voted in favour of it. Men like the Duc Decazes, Duc d'AudiffretPasquier, Comte d'Harcourt, Vicomte d'Haussonville, had abstained. Members of the Extreme Left, who continued to deny the constituent powers of the Assembly, MM. Louis Blanc, Edgard Quinet, etc., had voted against urgency. They accused the Casimir - Perier motion of casting a doubt over the existing form of government by submitting it to a vote. This first Republican victory was therefore a victory of the Centres.

It was then only that a member of the Assembly, the Duc de La Rochefoucauld-Bisaccia, Ambassador of the French Republic in London, moved this resolution: "The Government of France is a Monarchy. The throne belongs to the Head of the House of France." After a somewhat doubtful sitting and standing vote, this proposition was referred, not to the Committee on Constitutional Laws, but only to a Preliminary Committee, which was equivalent to an unconditional rejection.

Nothing remained now but to proclaim the Republic. The Wallon On the 16th June, M. Wallon introduced Proposition, the following Bill on the organisation of the President's powers and on the mode of revision of the Constitutional laws:

CLAUSE I.-The President of the Republic is elected, by a majority of votes, by a National Assembly composed of the Senate and of the Chamber of Deputies.

He is elected for seven years. He may be re-elected.

CLAUSE II.-The title and powers of President of the Republic, conferred on Marshal MacMahon by the Law of the 20th Nov., 1873, shall be continued to him without another form of election until the end of seven years from the passing of the present law, under the following conditions:-

CLAUSE III.-The rights and duties of the President of the Republic are settled by Clauses 44, 49 to 57, and 60 to 64 of the 1848 Constitution.

He may also, with the sanction of the Senate, dissolve the Chamber of Deputies before the expiration of its mandate.

In that case, new elections shall take place within three months.

CLAUSE IV.-In case of a vacancy through death or any other cause, the two Houses together will proceed to the election of a new President within one month.

During the interval, the Vice-President of the Cabinet will assume the Executive power.

CLAUSE V.-The Constitutional laws may be revised at the request either of the President of the Republic or of one of the two Houses.

This revision, however, may take place at the President of the Republic's request only during the term of authority conferred upon Marshal MacMahon by the Law of the 20th Nov. 1873.

CLAUSE VI.-If the President of the Republic should propose a revision of the Constitution, or if it should be resolved by one of the two Houses, both Houses shall meet within seven days in one Assembly, presided over by the President of the Senate, for the purposes of debate.

If the proposition should be rejected, it cannot be moved again before the expiration of one year.

If at the end of this time it is again moved and again rejected, it cannot be introduced again before a new election of the Chamber of Deputies.

CLAUSE VII.-If the proposition be carried by the two united Houses, the two Houses, forming one National Assembly, shall proceed to the revision of the Constitution.

CLAUSE VIII.-The President of the Republic is bound to promulgate and to enforce the execution of the new Constitutional Laws within the time fixed by the National Assembly.

This proposition was referred without discussion to the Committee on Constitutional Laws. Things were moving on apace. The Rights and the Cabinet held a conference. The recess was approaching. Was it possible to hold out until then?

Municipal

The Municipal Electoral Laws were not quite Organisation. completed. Whilst the Committee of Thirty took up the propositions which had been referred to it, the Assembly resumed its task.

Sittings from the 17th to the 22nd June were given up to the second discussion of the Municipal Organisation Bill. The principal difficulties now bore upon the cooption of the heaviest taxpayers, and on the right of electing Mayors. The partisans of the co-option of the heaviest taxpayers invoked the good administration of local finance. M. Jules Ferry, who led the debate on behalf of the Left, answered: "To divide Municipal