Simon, with his obstinacy in refusing to understand; angry, especially, at being praised by him. "The praise which he received from him at such a moment disgusted him. He wanted to dismiss him at once." He sent for the Duc de Broglie. The latter advised him against any hurried action: "He pointed out that, if a rupture with the Cabinet and, consequently, a conflict with the Chamber, which the Cabinet obeyed, had become inevitable, yet it was against the interest of the Church and against a favourable issue to the conflict that this should take place on a religious question. In order to persuade the Marshal to wait for another opportunity, he had to promise him that, if that opportunity should supervene, he would not fail him.""

Illusions were no longer possible. A crisis was at hand. M. Émile de Girardin wrote on the 7th May, "The policy of the Left Centre is a thing of the past.. More, there is now room in France but for two policies: the Republican policy and the Monarchical policy. In this respect, the vote of the 4th May, 1877, is a great and decisive victory; it has divided the Chamber of Deputies into two camps, that of the enemies of an Elective Government and of Religious liberty, and that of the enemies of Dynastic inheritance and Clericalism, making no distinction between the Head of the Cabinet, M. Jules Simon, and the Leader of the Majority, M. Gambetta."

In the In the Senate, the Right wished to end the Senate. matter at once; the ever-eager M. Chesnelong wanted to question the Government. It was again the Duc de Broglie who proved a pacificator. Mgr. Dupanloup also intervened. He declared, in his own. name and in that of Cardinal Guibert, that "almost unanimously, the Bishops, considering the situation in 1 De Meaux, Souvenirs, p. 310.

France, preferred that no that no debate should be raised concerning them at that moment." Shelter for the religious question was being sought in prevision of the great storm which was coming.

The Cardinal Guibert published, on the 9th May. Bishops. a Pastoral letter in which he gave his apprecia tion of "the new situation created by the motion of the 4th May, in which the Government was associated." He gave counsels of moderation: "If the expression of our sorrow sometimes went beyond the limit because our hearts were overflowing, should this be called a crime?

In justice, no importance should be given to some slight exaggeration of language. . . . It is Catholicism which is attacked. It is Catholicism as a whole which is called 'the enemy!'" Cardinal Guibert, after the Comte de Mun, denied the reproach made to the Catholics of lacking patriotism. "After having protested in our name and in the name of France, our Mother, whose feelings are misunderstood when her cause is separated from ours, we will continue to learn from our Divine Master to vanquish injustice by patience and hatred by charity."

At

As for Pope Pius IX, he attacked not so Rome. much Gambetta's speech, as that of M. Jules Simon. He said, on the 11th May, to the French pilgrims who had come to Rome for his Jubilee: "If we look towards Europe, we see little cause for hope. What can be hoped, indeed, from those who have the courage to give a formal denial to the words of the Pope and to say that he is a liar?" (This was a direct allusion to the word lying pronounced by M. Jules Simon.) "Such language is absolutely improper; it is not worthy of a Catholic Government. I will not say which Government has said that, but I have read it."

The ultramontane newspaper, Germania, wrote, a few days later: "The Pope could not tolerate that the

President of the Council should give him the lie-however respectful the form-and he has determined to act. The Nuncio has received instructions to inform Marshal MacMahon that the Vatican had resolved to break all relations with France if M. Jules Simon remained a Minister," and the newspaper added: "The Pope has spoken and has been obeyed." In fact some letters were exchanged between the Vatican and the Marshal on the occasion of these events.

It now remained to find an occasion less directly compromising the religious cause: this was a question of time and opportunity.

The

V

Let us now look into the mind of those who Marshal's had the strongest influence upon the Marshal. Advisers. One of them, M. le Vicomte de Meaux, describes his own feelings with much clearness and force. "As for me," he says, "I did not hide from the Duc de Broglie that I was one of those who wished for the struggle. Not that I did not see the peril, but, since weapons still remained to us with which to defend, not only the cause of this or that Dynasty, but French Society itself, it seemed to me that the worst that could happen would be to let those weapons drop from our hands without having been used. Let not the Marshal, supported by the Senate, bind himself imprudently, but let him bind himself before everything was lost. . . . It was important that resistance should emanate from him, and it was important that this resistance should not be deferred too long, nor begun at the wrong time. Municipal Councils in all Communes and one-half of the General Councils and arrondissement Councils in all

Departments were to be re-elected in that very year, and one-third of the Senate one year later; if they should be elected under deleterious influence, the strongest point of resistance, the Senatorial majority, would fail the Marshal. The fact that some of the Right seats had been captured by the Left reduced this majority to a small number of votes; there was not much time to lose if it was to be preserved." 1

The elections were more and more alarming. In Brittany itself, at St. Malo, M. Durand, a Republican, defeated by 7,347 votes M. de Kerloguen, a Legitimist, with 4,975 votes (6th May). Public and Parliamentary life was unbearable; the Press, unchained, kept up polemics of an extraordinary violence. In the Chamber. the Government was as if it no longer existed. On the 8th May, à propos of the dismissal of a religious schoolmistress, M. Jules Simon, questioned, was hardly allowed to answer; he was insulted. He cried from the tribune: "This is not a Parliamentary discussion but a pugilistic séance." The Bonapartist party intended to push things to extremes. . . M. Jolibois, M. Tristan Lambert, M. Paul de Cassagnac, did not leave the Government a minute's respite. Deputies left their benches and faced each other in the arena. The majority was decided to keep the debates under control, and the Presidents of the three Left groups introduced, on the 11th May, a resolution intended to amend the disciplinary insufficiency of the standing orders.

It was in the midst of this tumult that two Bills were tackled which were to form a ground of conflict for the two parties, the Municipal Organisation Bill and the Press Bill; in one word: the elections and public opinion.

The

Organisation

Bill.

The Municipal Organisation Bill was discussed on its first reading, on Saturday, the 5th May. During the whole of the week, the debates continued in the midst of growing agitation. The Government was not even represented. The principal effort of the debate bore upon the publicity of sittings. The Vicomte de Meaux says: "The publicity of the sittings of Municipal Councils which, since then, has seemed harmless, at that time alarmed men of order; they had visions of violent and coarse disputes taking place in the villages and in the towns, of a revolutionary tumult," and M. de Marcère says in his turn: "Those fears astonish us now-a-days, as if we did not know the exaggerated importance which party fever gives to any question. . . .'

M. Raoul Duval called for M. Jules Simon (12th May). M. Méline came to say that M. Jules Simon was detained in Paris by a passing indisposition. The principle of publicity was voted by 216 against 165. On Monday, 14th May, the debate ended and the Chamber decided to pass on to a second reading.

The President of the Council was present at the sitting (Tuesday, 15th May). The Press Bill was discussed. The Committee merely asked that the Law of 1875 be repealed. At a Council Meeting, in the presence of the Marshal, M. Jules Simon had bound himself to resistance. Before the debate, he ascended the tribune. "The Cabinet would have preferred," said he, "that the Chamber should consider general Law." In any case, the Government saw some disadvantages in altering the Law of 1875, particularly in what concerned offences. against Foreign sovereigns and nations.

The Right desired the maintenance of Police Court jurisdiction for Press offences. M. Albert Grévy, Reporter, claimed, amidst applause from the Left, the