1808: it was wri First Empire the and that the paleme old propositive worship, was prime But it was we of the Press what see the candidate á tommy it is that of impunity based upon powerlessness.") He advised that the matter should be allowed to drop. Nothing was more painful to the Left than to have to sanction in fact the application of the Law of 1875, of which it unanimously demanded the repeal. However, on the 16th March, M. Cyprien Girerd presented the report of the Committee which, by seven votes against four, had pronounced in favour of the authorisation to prosecute. The discussion took place at once. Never had M. de Cassagnac a better opportunity of attacking a Republican. His triumph was easy. " It was difficult for M. Jules Simon to answer; he did not do it very well. He declared that he had "personally" demanded a prosecution. He was not believed. . . "The laws exist, I am obliged to apply them. . . . I am in favour of the liberty of the Press. But I am in office. Can I place my own will before the law? . . . M. de Cassagnac himself would prosecute if he were Keeper of the Seals. . . At last, losing patience, he spoke with some heat. "It must be well understood that, when I ask others to show some energy, I do not lack the same, and that I am ready to stand up to you here and elsewhere. . . .” “What does that mean? . . ." interrupted M. Robert Mitchell. A sudden charge against Bonapartism, so active, so militant, so dangerous through all that period, wrenched some applause from the Left. "You are a party which depends upon Fear and which intends to live, to reign, to be restored through Fear. We know now that you are not inviolable; we also know that whoever attacks the Republic may be sure to meet with men who are resolved to defend it. This time it was a man who spoke. The Left awoke. Applause burst out. In spite of protests from M. Madier de Montjau, in the name of "Sacred Principles," the prosecution was authorised by 286 votes against 174. The number of absentees was considerable. The motion of M. Cunéo d'Ornano to rescind Heading II. of the Law of the 29th December, 1875, on the Press, was on the agenda. M. Jules Simon was not there; M. Cazeaux, a Bonapartist, asked that one should wait for the President of the Council, "who has spoken and written so much on that question." The Left was embarrassed. M. René Brice proposed an adjournment, which was carried by 239 against 199. The Ministerial majority was falling from day to day. And, in spite of all, the Cabinet still treated it with too much consideration in the eyes of the Élysée. The Yet those questions of internal organisation. Municipal necessary to complete and to consolidate the Organisation new institutions, had to be considered. The Bill. Municipal Bill had remained in suspense. since the time of the National Assembly. The communes were waiting for their final regulations. Everybody knew and felt that this must be done. Local life, and, through the Senatorial Elections, national life were equally concerned in the matter. M. Jules Simon presented to the Chamber, on the 15th March, a Bill on the powers of Municipal authorities. On the same day, M. Jules Ferry read the Report on the first part of the Municipal Organisation Bill. Amongst the new facilities and liberties granted to Municipal Councils, the report demanded that sittings should be public. This apparently unimportant suggestion should not be lost sight of. The second fortnight in March was almost Railways. entirely taken up in the Chamber by the discussion on railway systems. The monopoly of the great companies was, on the whole, a survival of the time when the great bourgeoisie of Louis Philippe could dispose of this prodigious increase in national wealth and industry. Did the advantages offered by the companies compensate for the burdens, trammels and responsibilities imposed upon the Republic and upon the taxpayers? The question was raised as soon as the principle of government was modified. Democracy fears privileges whatever they may be. Private interests spurred the ardour of the men who led this campaign; small companies were being founded in answer to local needs. The debate opened on the 12th March; several new lines were to be declared of public utility and a convention with the Orleans Company had to be approved. MM. Wilson and Laisant warmly attacked the great companies. M. Bethmont thought that the State should become the banker of small companies; M. Lecesne supported an immediate and general purchase by the State, which was was opposed by MM. Léon Say and Christophle. These discussions were much more financial than political. The young Republic was considering "interests." On an amendment supported by M. Allain-Targé, a friend of Gambetta, the Bill was referred back to the Committee to be remodelled. The Lyons The industry of Lyons was at that time going through an extremely grave economical crisis. Numerous labourers were without work, and starving. Parliament, before adjourning, voted a sum of 500,000 francs destined to be spent in orders to the manufacturers of that city. Madame de MacMahon organised a gala evening at the Opera; Victor Hugo and Louis Blanc lectured in the theatre of the Château d'Eau. After those lectures, some disorder took place at the doors of the theatre, which revealed much excitement among the Parisian population. Papal III Pope Pius IX held, on the 12th March, a Consistory. Consistory in which he recommended several Cardinals, in particular Mgr. Caverot, Archbishop of Lyons, nominated against Mgr. Dupanloup, who was the candidate of the French Government. On that occasion, the Pope pronounced a speech in which he protested against the Mancini Law on the abuses of the clergy, passed by the Italian Chamber but soon afterwards rejected by the Senate. A clause of that law specified that "the Tribunals might prosecute the publication of insulting words against the Italian Government, whatever the ecclesiastical authority from which they might emanate." The Pope saw in this a violation of the Law of guarantees, an obstacle to the liberty of pontifical speech. Pius IX was ageing; his moral sufferings had made him very sensitive; he had just lost Cardinal Antonelli and had replaced him by Cardinal Simeoni, who was awaiting an opportunity of asserting his fidelity to the policy of the Vatican. The Holy Father's address was full of effusions, objurgations and tears. The speech ended by an appeal to Catholic souls. "We desire nothing more earnestly than to see shepherds exhort the faithful to make use of all the means placed at their disposal by the Laws of our country, in order to influence the men who are in power, so that the latter should consider with more attention the painful situation of the Head of the Church, and that they should take efficacious steps to set aside all the obstacles. which stand in the way of his entire independence." A few days later, Cardinal Simeoni, in a circular to the Nuncios, gave to this protest the diplomatic form of a complaint to the powers. Catholics in all countries became greatly excited. Petitions were drawn up. |