the Reporter, M. Wilson, whom Gambetta finally disowned in the name of the Committee. M. Dufaure sank back into the collar of his frock-coat. He scarcely intervened any more, and was beaten whenever he did so; beaten on the St. Denis Chapter, on Seminary scholarships, on diocesan buildings in Algeria.

In fact the Cabinet lost all interests, and the Budget of Worship was voted, not according to the Government's demands, but according to the proposals of the Committee. M. Haentjens exclaimed: "There is no Government!" (30th November).

M. Chesnelong

The last blow was to be dealt by the Senate. a Life- On the 24th November, the Right and the Left Senator. of the Upper Chamber had come into conflict once again, on the election of two Life-members to replace MM. Letellier-Valazé and Wolowski, deceased. The candidates of the Right were M. Chesnelong and General Vinoy, and those of the Left MM. Renouard and André. M. Chesnelong, the Frohsdorf negotiator, the lay chief of French Catholics, the ex-deputy for Orthez, beaten at the last election, was elected a Life-Senator by 147 votes, after two ballots. M. Renouard was elected after three ballots by 140 votes. The election of M. Chesnelong and that of M. Buffet, those two pieces of wreckage left behind the rushing stream, assumed, in the eyes of the Left majority in the Chamber, the appearance of a provocation.

On the 1st December, the Upper Chamber opened the discussion on the Bill, already carried by the Chamber, which related to prosecutions subsequent to the Commune. The Committee and its Reporter, M. Paris, accepted the Bill, but rejected Clause III., transferring the trials from courts-martial to civil courts. Urgency was declared. General Changarnier, hostile to the Bill, opened the debate. M. Bertauld, of the Left Centre,

proposed a counter Bill, which was none other than a paraphrase of the Presidential letter of the 27th June. M. Dufaure was in a singularly difficult situation, having taken upon himself the task of defending in the Senate a Bill voted in the Chamber in spite of his own opposition. But was not the Cabinet before everything an organ of conciliation between the two Chambers?

M. Dufaure explained himself with a detached air, but very clearly. He was opposed to the conclusions of the Committee and leaned toward the Bertauld counter Bill "We cannot complain," said he, "if the Chambers consent to adhere to the principles which are set out in the letter of the President of the Republic. We would look upon the vote of the Bertauld amendment as upon a legislative reproduction of the Marshal's letter, and though the Bill does not emanate from the Government, though the Government is firmly resolved to execute the letter of the President, whatever be the fate of the Bill, nevertheless I must not conceal the fact that the Government would prefer that the Bertauld amendment should be adopted rather than rejected."

This was a narrow plank, but one which might perhaps allow the Cabinet to pass and afterwards to try to obtain the adhesion of the Chamber. Could good-will and abnegation be carried farther?

The Left and the Centre supported the Cabinet. M. Paris rejected the amendment in the name of the Committee and of the Right, but added: "We are not your adversaries; we are your allies. We defend with you the policy which you defended in the Chamber. . . . And this was true. But there are different ways of doing things! A vote was taken. By 148 votes against 134, the Senate decided not to enter into the discussion of the clauses. The Bill was lost and the Bertauld amendment with it.

Fall of the

After the vote was over, a member of the Dufaure Right Centre, bound to M. Dufaure by the ties Cabinet. of a long friendship, came to his bench, and said to him, with an anxious air, "You are not going to leave us, are you, for a little thing like that?

"That little thing overthrows me, my good friend," answered the President of the Council. He said it quite without bitterness, with the kindly and malicious smile of a philosopher who has packed his boxes.1

That same evening, M. Dufaure announced his departure to his colleagues.

1 J. Ferry, vol. ii., p. 296.

CHAPTER IX

THE JULES SIMON CABINET AND THE 16TH MAY

I. Reasons for the fall of the Dufaure Ministry.—Last efforts to bring about the Union of the Centres.-Ministerial Crisis.-The Jules Simon Ministry.-M. Jules Simon and the Chamber.-Cold reception from the Left.-M. Jules Simon and M. Gambetta.-The financial rights of the Senate. The 1877 Budget voted.

II. First act of the Cabinet.-The Administrative Personnel.-Reopening of the Session. Momentary calm.- Policy of the Left Centre.-Gambetta re-elected Chairman of the Budget Committee.-Tactics of the Extreme Left.-Difficult position of M. Jules Simon.-Ministerial Incidents.Republican Programme.

III. The religious question.-Pope Pius IX and M. Jules Simon.-Easter Holidays.

IV. Interpellation concerning Ultramontane intrigues.-Speeches from MM. Jules Simon and Gambetta.

V. The Marshal decides to break with the Left Majority.—The Municipal Organisation Law and the Press Law. The letter of the 16th May.— Resignation of the Cabinet.—The "President's Policy."

Letter of M. Dufaure to the

letter:

I

On the next day, aned to

Mac

N the next day, 2nd December, 1876, M.
Dufaure addressed to Marshal
Mahon, President of the Republic, the following

MONSIEUR LE PRÉSIDENT,

Versailles, 2nd December, 1876.

I was not more fortunate yesterday, at the Senate, than I had been at the Chamber of Deputies. My resignation has become absolutely necessary. The difficulty, however, is fortunately an entirely personal one. It need not prevent my colleagues from continuing the task to which they are devoting themselves. I have the honour, Monsieur le Président, of handing you my resignation. I will continue to direct the work of my

department until my successor is appointed. I shall never forget, Monsieur le Président, the proofs of esteem and confidence which you have kindly given me for the last two years.-I beg you to accept the assurance, etc.,

etc.

M. Dufaure's letter clearly explained the reasons for his fall. Caught between the Chamber and the Senate, he could no longer govern. The attempt in which he had joined failed; the Presidency of the Republic, such as the law of the 20th November had instituted it, was not adapted to the Parliamentary régime, such as the Constitution had established it.

The majority of the Chamber had not lent itself to the policy of compromise or to the policy towards the Élysée which M. Dufaure had thought well to follow. Neither would the majority of the Senate help in the work of conciliation which the first Republican Premier had attempted. By making Life-Senators of M. Buffet and M. Chesnelong, both rejected by popular suffrage -the one, head of the Government beaten on the 20th February, the other, the notorious leader of lay clericalism-it divided the popular Chamber and created a conflict.

The difficulty lay rather in the institutions than in the individuals. Assuredly Marshal MacMahon was lacking in suppleness, but his good faith was unquestioned. The majority of the country was not hostile to him. There was in him the making of a good Parliamentary President.

On the other hand, in spite of occasional imprudence, the majority of the Chamber was not "ungovernable." The Republican party included a considerable number of moderate and prudent men. These men gathered willingly enough around Marshal MacMahon and would have supported a Conservative policy, under the one condition that it should be a Republican policy.