No. 97.
Mr. Hoffman
to Mr. Fish.
Paris, December 19, 1872. (Received January 6, 1873.)
Sir: A very interesting debate took place in the assembly on Saturday last upon the right of petition, and especially upon the petitions now in circulation for the dissolution of the assembly. The ablest orators were heard on both sides, among others M. Gambetta and M. Louis Blanc. The session lasted far into the night, and was closed by an able and eloquent speech from M. Dufaure, the minister of justice. The government associated itself closely and unequivocally with the Right, admitting the right of petition in theory, but surrounding it with such obstacles as very materially to trammel it, and above all prohibiting the Signing of petitions in wine-shops, the only places in France where the people congregate. The combined vote of the government and conservatives as against the Left was about in the proportion of five to two.
This renewed alliance of the government with the Right, after their bickerings and coldness of the last few months, was exceedingly satisfactory [Page 242] to the conservatives, and proportionally disagreeable to the Left. It was received with cheers and great enthusiasm by the Eight and Right Center. Its effect was seen a few days subsequently in the committee of thirty, when M. Thiers appeared before it. He was received with the greatest deference and listened to with the most profound attention.
Rut it was not only in the bearing of the Right toward M. Thiers that the renewal of the “old love” was apparent; it was to be seen in the gentle words and extreme moderation of the views expressed by M. Thiers. You may remember, in connection with one of my former dispatches, that he had with difficulty carried an amendment instructing the committee of thirty to consider the relative attributes of the executive and legislative powers in connection with ministerial responsibility. In his late interview with the committee, M. Thiers stated that all he insisted upon was that they should fully and thoroughly examine and discuss all these questions; but that if, after such examination and discussion, the majority of the committee should see fit, as he expressed it, to draw but one article from the bag, he should have nothing to say, though that solitary article might be ministerial responsibility. He went on to urge that ministerial responsibility did now exist in its full integrity—witness the prompt resignation of M. Lefranc—and that the article that ought to be drawn from the bag, if but one was to be drawn, was a second chamber. M. Thiers then urged, with great adroitness, that he pressed the formation of a second chamber in the interest of conservatism, for if hereafter, as might well happen, a radical assembly should be returned, there would be no safety for conservatism except in a second chamber, acting in accord with the executive power and armed, in connection with it, with the right of dissolving the assembly. In the course of his remarks, M. Thiers referred as usual to the Senate of the United States, and stated that the principal function of that body was to deal with foreign relations. The veteran historian appears to have studied the ten modern constitutions of his native land considerably more closely than the solitary one of the United States.
I have, &c., &c.,