into the Senate by MM. Merlin and Cordelet, by which all railway employees were to be placed under military discipline.

While these events and others, such as the agitation against octroi dues, were taking place in broad daylight and noisily forcing themselves upon public attention, another movement was being secretly set on foot. The Catholic bishops, having decided to resist the collection of the tax on lands in mortmain voted by the Chambers, had despatched to Rome, as their spokesman, Monsignor d'Hulst, Rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris. He was instructed to obtain from the Pope a formal assertion of the rights and privileges of religious congregations. The envoy's efforts were, however, of no avail. Leo III. declined to express his views; and, finally, the French clergy decided to act without the Pontiff's support. The Archbishops of Rheims and Cambrai were the first to offer resistance to the law. The See of Cambrai was especially well organised for the campaign; lying along the Belgian frontier, teeming with a laborious, simple-minded population, it had become the stronghold of the clerical party; whilst, as was to be seen elsewhere, the Catholics, all-powerful in the country districts, were confronted in the towns by dense groups of Socialists. The attempt to rouse in both Catholics and Socialists a spirit of resistance to the Government did not escape the notice of the authorities. The Prefect of the Department (Nord), M. Vel-Durand, kept a careful watch on the secret manoeuvres of the conspirators, and forwarded his report to the Minister of the Interior, for production before the Chamber at the proper moment.

Meanwhile the President of the Council, M. Ribot, was assisting at the opening of the Bordeaux Exhibition, and seized the opportunity (May 11) to explain that the aim of the Government was to establish a homogeneous Ministry based upon union among the Republican groups, and to pass an honest Budget. This appeal was violently attacked by M. Jaurès on the first day after the reassembling of the Chamber. He charged the President of the Council with coquetting with the Rallied, and at the same moment appealing to the old Republicans. This little storm passed over without damage, but a few days later M. Rabier, deputy of Loiret, attacked the Government more seriously on clerical propagandism in the ranks of the army. Supporting his contention by numerous cases, he urged that the order drawn up in 1844 by Marshal Soult should be put in force. The Government, to avoid defeat, accepted an order of the day drawn up by M. Lhopiteau, in the sense of respecting the right of conscience, and this was accepted by 355 to 218 votes.

The election of the Budget Committee was not allowed to pass without a serious struggle between the rival parties, and the rejection of M. Rouvier, who had been President of the Committee in the previous year, in favour of the comparatively

unknown M. Salis, was not without significance. More important, however, was the election of M. Lockroy, a Radical, as President, and M. Godefroy Cavaignac and M. Camille Pelletan, reporters on the Army and Navy Estimates respectively. The duties thrown upon them were all the more serious, as it was difficult to arrive at a correct idea of the expenditure of the two Departments, where disorder, if not worse, had long held sway.

While the Budget Committee was sifting the demands of the Government, the Chamber gave itself up to the discussion of more abstract questions. M. Denis wished to raise a debate (May 25) on the dismissal of M. Levaillant, trésorier payeur général, but M. d'Hugues saw an opportunity of raising the wider question of the admission of Jews into the higher ranks of the Administration. Upon this M. Rouanet, the Socialist Deputy for Montmartre, intervened, and in the name of his party declared that this was not a Jewish but a social question; and that all capitalists should be tarred with the same brush whatever their religion might be. The debate, which lasted over two days, was closed by M. Naquet in a conciliatory speech deprecating these attacks upon any particular body of citizens, and the Government acting in the same spirit accepted the simple order of the day. A few days later, however, the struggle began again over another matter. The liquidator of the Southern Railway Company in the course of his investigations had come across several entries which suggested bribery or blackmailing. The funds of the company had been grossly squandered among bankers and politicians. Amongst the former, the best known was the Baron Jacques de Reinach, who had committed suicide during the Panama revelations; and amongst the latter, M. Edmond Magnier, Senator for the Var, director and editor of the Evénement newspaper. After a warm debate the Chamber, having negatived M. Jaurès' order of the day censuring the Government, and a similar one proposed by M. Goblet, at last accepted a vote of confidence proposed by M. Sauzet. At the last moment, however, M. Marcel Habert proposed an additional paragraph which ran as follows: "Considering that there is ground for members of Parliament holding aloof from all financial syndicates, etc., etc.," and these words were added without debate.

The sittings of the Chamber during the month were almost exclusively devoted to the discussion of the Liquor Bill. The aim of the Government was to lessen the taxation on the socalled hygienic liquors-wine, beer and cider-and to increase that on alcohol in its various forms. But in France as elsewhere such proposals raised serious questions and threatened important interests. In the first place the country itself was geographically divided into distinct areas, of which the interests seemed irreconcilable. The Northern Departments, the seat of the wholesale firms distilling from grain, beetroot, and

potatoes, protested vigorously against the land-owners of Eastern and Central France, who enjoyed the privilege of making spirit from their own fruits, and as was said, those of their neighbours, without paying any excise. The Southern Departments, mostly vine-growing and producing natural wines (so called), rebelled against the invasion of their country by the alcoholic products of the North, and called for the abolition of the taxes on the transport of wine and of the entry duties levied by the large towns. The most strange combinations of parties were therefore possible; but, as often happened, the dangerous elements discharged themselves in speeches, and the first reading of the bill (June 8) was carried by 412 to 97 votes, notwithstanding Dr. Lannelongue's denunciation of the dangers of alcoholism. Several days were then passed in discussing the details and in the attempt to remove certain illogical privileges enjoyed by a few. The most important amendment was that carried by M. Vallé, by 287 to 236, against both the Government and the recommendation of the Committee, which absolutely removed all taxes upon hygienic liquors, saddled alcohol with a greatly increased tax, and entrusted to the State the monopoly of the rectification of all alcohol. This fundamental change in the aim of the bill was, however, accepted by the Government, and the bill was passed through its final stage (July 6) by 394 to 136 votes. From one point of view at least the reform was in a democratic sense, but it remained to be seen how far such a fiscal revolution would be accepted by the Senate. Few even of the partisans of the amended bill believed that the Upper Chamber would be content to ratify the decisions of the Lower House on these matters.

The course of the debate on the Liquor Bill had from time to time been interrupted by questions which it was the habit to call urgent, but were in reality only personal. Amongst such was M. Millerand's interpellation on foreign policy, raised (June 10) upon the acceptance by the Government of the German invitation for the French fleet to be represented at the opening of the Baltic Canal. The debate owed its special importance in France and abroad to M. Ribot's nod. In reply to the distinct challenge whether an alliance existed between France and Russia the Minister of Foreign Affairs conveyed an affirmative reply by a slight movement of the head. It was not surprising that on this the Government should obtain a vote of confidence by an overwhelming majority-345 against 102. A week later, the President of the Republic received through the Russian Ambassador, Baron Morenheim, the insignia of the Order of St. Anne, and the same day the French and Russian fleets united entered together the harbour of Kiel.

On the morrow of this day of rejoicing, however, the Government had to submit to a serious rebuff from the Budget Committee in the matter of certain supplementary credits re

quired to defray the cost of the Monteil expedition to the Hinterland of the Ivory Coast. The Chamber was therefore called upon (June 27) to decide, and a warm discussion ensued, from which it appeared that the new Minister of the Colonies was supremely indifferent to all the rules governing the expenditure of public money. The impression created by the revelations made from the tribune was so adverse to the minister that by 423 to 81 votes the supplementary credits were refused, and the Ministry had to draw such consolation as it could from the fact that the motion for the Committee of Inquiry was rejected by 333 to 94 votes, and from an order of the day moved by M. Maurice Faure inviting it to make the decision of the Chamber effective.

A duel between the Socialist deputy, M. Mirman, and the Minister of Agriculture, M. Gadaud, came as a sort of interlude to the graver parliamentary conflicts. M. Mirman, who was also a soldier, thought fit to write a letter to the minister, couched in unusually offensive language. Having resigned his portfolio in order not to compromise his colleagues, M. Gadaud's friends arranged a hostile meeting between him and M. Mirman. The issue (June 29) was in accordance with previous encounters of the same kind. The civilian had the better of his adversary, whom he wounded enough to satisfy the code of honour, and then, at the request of his colleagues, resumed the portfolio he had temporarily laid aside.

The same day the Socialists in the Chamber learnt a more severe lesson. M. Jaurès, having endeavoured to raise a debate on the general policy of the Government, especially in its attitude towards Socialism, found himself in a minority of 83 to 332, who thus expressed their conviction that the Government should oppose the doctrines of the Collectivists by fostering the union of all Republicans, and by a policy of democratic reform. Beaten on this ground, the Opposition at once took up another position. The newspaper L'Eclair had published (July 9) a letter from the Archbishop of Cambrai explaining to the superiors of religious bodies the consequences of a refusal to obey the law, warning them against hasty decisions, and recommending them to come to a common understanding to oppose a passive resistance to the tax collector. M. Goblet judged the season opportune to catechise the Government upon the subject of clerical intrigues, and for eight consecutive hours the Chamber remained sitting. The Minister of Public Worship, M. Poincarré, read the report he had received from the Prefect, M. Vel-Durand, on the organisation of the Catholic party in the north of France; he further asserted that Monsignor Monnier, Bishop of Lydda, in partibus, and for many years Vicar-General of the See of Cambrai, was the real master of the district, and was more implicitly obeyed than the archbishop himself. It was he who pertinaciously supported the use of the Flemish language, opposed the use of the French

tongue and all given by the Chamber that

other means of instruction, except such as were Church. M. Poincarré further informed the the Government had summoned before the Council of State all bishops who had taken part in illegal meetings or had made in public declarations in opposition to the law. The Chamber, satisfied with these assurances, finally, by 296 to 184 votes, put aside M. Goblet's resolution.

Before separating for the vacation, the Council of State took cognisance of the complaints of the Government against the collective demonstrations made by the clergy in various dioceses throughout the country. In conformity with established precedent, the Council of State declared that such displays were illegal. The clerical party was thereby stirred to further activity, and the partisans of the separation of Church and State felt their hands proportionately strengthened. This was in itself a distinct advantage to the Radical party, which had always made this separation an article in its programme, although for some years it had ceased to arouse interest. The demands of the clergy and the short-sightedness of their supporters now gave point to the Radical demand.

Almost simultaneously the Government had found itself in an embarrassing situation in the Senate. M. Pauliat had brought before that body the question of the phosphate lands of Tebessa in Algeria. It was asserted that a concession of those deposits of remarkable richness had been made to certain persons of doubtful antecedents, who had forthwith transferred their rights to a foreign company. The avowal of the minister that the statement was correct created a profound impression not only in the Senate but throughout the country, as was shown in the subsequent proceedings of the Conseils-Généraux. The President of the Council, however, adroitly managed to avoid a vote of censure by promising to have the matter thoroughly sifted by a Committee of Inquiry.

The closing sitting of the session (July 13) was marked by another incident still more damaging to the Government. The Council of the Legion of Honour had been approached after the Panama trials, with the result that M. Marius Fontane was struck off the roll, and M. Eiffel retained. This result seemed, at best, illogical, and M. Pourquery de Boisserin, by 438 to 2 votes, carried an order of the day expressing regret that the actual state of the law did not allow the revision of the decisions of the Council of the Order, and declaring in favour of the need of a change in the existing system. As might have been expected, the Council was not disposed to accept so obvious a censure of its proceedings, and forthwith as a formal protest tendered its resignation (July 16).

The elections for the renewal of one half of the ConseilsGénéraux were the occasion (July 20) for a combined effort on the part of the Socialists to obtain a hold upon the departmental assemblies. In this attempt they were singularly unsuccessful,