No. 240.
Mr. Washburne to Mr. Fish.
Paris , August 21, 1874. (Received September 3.)
Sir: As we are in the long recess of the National Assembly, and, without [Page 420] waiting for the expiration of the year, I have thought you might now be interested in a brief retrospect of the prominent events which have taken place in France since the first of January last. I have written you very fully from time to time in regard to what was taking place, together with my own appreciations of the situation, but what I now propose to do is to group together in one dispatch certain important incidents which have a real importance to all who are interested in the political affairs of France. In doing this, and in order not to break the thread of my narrative, I shall go over some ground more fully covered by my detailed dispatches.
the situation at the beginning of the year.
The close of the year 1873 was rather gloomy, but the first half had witnessed the accomplishment of three great objects, which had excited the wonder and admiration of all nations: the payment of the immense indemnity to Germany, the liberation of French territory, and the restoration of French national credit. But in the advent of the new year the political situation was not reassuring. When the Assembly came together after the new year’s recess the Duke de Broglie cabinet had to confront the fact that after having been in office some seven months it had not succeeded in definitively constituting the powers of Marshal MacMahon. After M. Thiers had been thrust from power by the skillful and extraordinary combination of all the hostile elements opposed to him, it was not long before the members of the extreme right began to give indisputable evidence of intractability and intolerance. The evidently increasing strength of republicanism in the country at that time added greatly to the annoyance of that division of the Assembly which could see no salvation except in the absolute triumph of unadulterated legitimacy. Whatever disposition the government might have had to yield something to the exigencies of public opinion, whatever action it might take in political affairs, it was almost certain to find the legitimists in the Assembly in compact opposition to it. In the presence of such discordant and clashing views an open rupture sooner or later was inevitable.
the mayor’s bill—first repulse suffered by the cabinet, january 9, 1874.
The first and open and public symptom of disagreement between the government and the right appeared on the subject of the mayor’s bill, an account of which I gave you in my No. 918. Though the ministers had declared before the Assembly and the country that it would be impossible for them to govern without that law, and had made the immediate discussion of it a cabinet question, the right was in no way moved, but, on the other hand, the Marquis de Franclien, who belongs to that coterie in the Assembly denominated chevau-légers, because their enemies charge them with being equally inconsiderate, rash, and intransigent, made a proposition for the postponement of the measure. Notwithstanding the declaration of the ministers, and the imminence of a ministerial crisis, the motion of the marquis was carried by a majority of forty-two votes; thereupon the ministry immediately tendered their resignations. The President, however, believing that he might avoid a change in the ministry at this time, refused to accept them for the moment. Then a compromise was patched up, and the chevau-légers, going back on their action, gave the cabinet a vote of confidence and reconsidered the postponement [Page 421] of the mayor’s bill. This sweeping measure was passed a few days afterward; it gives the government the appointment of all the mayors in France, and invests it with absolute control over seventy-two thousand communal officers.
the univers newspaper incident—the declaration of the duke decazes, january 20, 1874.
This compromise between the cabinet and the right proved hollow and insincere. The chevau-légers still maintained an independent and haughty attitude, particularly on religious questions, the natural consequence of which was to greatly embolden the clerical party outside of the Assembly. The clergy, especially, soon forgot their usual prudence, and availed themselves of every opportunity of vindicating the claims of the Pope, and openly or impliedly censuring the German government. Such manifestations could not but touch the Berlin cabinet, and Mr. de Fourtou, then minister of public worship, found it necessary to send to the heads of the clergy an official circular, requesting more moderation and prudence on their part. This circular proved of no avail, for the bishops still persisted in their irritating language. The government was therefore called upon to take more decisive measures. It suspended for two months the most combative organ of the clerical party, the Univers, which had just published a mandemten (bishops’ charge) still more emphatic than the preceding ones. To this vigorous measure was added an earnest declaration of the Duke Decazes in the Assembly, on the occasion of an interpellation of General du Temple touching the policy adopted by the government in Italy. This declaration was to the effect that the government was firmly resolved to limit itself to filial sympathy toward the Pope, and to keep up with the Italian government, such as circumstances had made it, cordial and friendly relations. This frank statement, which so well conformed to the public sentiment, restored to the ministry a strength which was rather beginning to fail. It was especially favorable to the Duke Decazes, who from that time enjoyed an increased influence both in France and throughout Europe.
scission between the extreme right and the cabinet—the duration of the septennat.
It only required some new incident to show how superficial was the harmony which apparently existed between the cabinet and the right. In order to explain the application of the “mayor’s law “the vice-president of the council, the Duke de Broglie, had issued a circular, (January 23, 1874,) in which he spoke of the septennat as not revocable even by the sovereign Assembly. This was the first announcement of such a doctrine, either in the Assembly or elsewhere.
The members of the extreme right were startled by this bold declaration. They had always claimed the septennate as a mere temporary arrangement, doomed to disappear so soon as the Assembly should succeed in establishing a definitive government, which was in their estimation to call Henry the Fifth to the throne.
The most advanced organs of the party, the Union and the Gazette de France, immediately undertook to show that the prorogation law had not the meaning and significance attributed to it by the Duke de Broglie. There seems to be in this law a strange ambiguity, and it is now claimed that it was intentional, and used to secure the votes of all [Page 422] the various factions of the Assembly who stood in opposition to the supporters of Mr. Thiers. But when the vice-president of the council gave an official construction to the law which did not suit the views and purposes of the extreme right, who contributed so much to the overthrow of Mr. Thiers, these gentlemen became furious, and announced their determination to repay their adversaries for playing on them what they called a “parliamentary trick.” It was at this time that the President took occasion to express his views on the subject in an address to the tribunal of commerce of Paris, (February 4, 1874.) In his address he declared plainly that he had been elected President irrevocably for seven years, and would defend his power till the end of that term. His frank and unequivocal language astonished the legitimists, who did not expect any such firm declaration. From that time they rallied all their forces in the Assembly, determined to overthrow the ministry on the very first occasion that should offer.
bonapartist and republican movements—adjournment of the assembly.
While the Assembly was the theater of all sorts of intrigues, the Bonapartists outside were not idle. On the 7th of February, 1874, they secured the election of their candidate for a vacancy in the Assembly, M. Seus, from the department of the Pas de Calais. Encouraged by this success, Prince Napoleon and M. Rouher each published letters a few days after. The former boldly declared that he did not acknowledge any government that had not been established by universal suffrage, while the latter, more cautious, accepting the septennate, pointed out at the same time the many and weighty objections to it. A few days after the Duke de Padone, through a government functionary, publicly invited the Bonapartists to go to Chiselhurst on the 16th of March, and pay their homage to the Prince Imperial on the occasion of his reaching his political majority. A large number of the “faithful “went on the mission, and among that number many government officials, in defiance of a circular of the Duke de Broglie forbidding any public functionaries from participating in the manifestation.
On their side the legitimists were up and doing, and seemed to fancy they had a chance of success. Even the Count de Chambord went so far as to announce that idea himself to M. Laurente, the director of the Union, in a letter published on the 21st of January, 1874.
Neither had the republican party remained idle. On the 7th of February they returned M. Herisson as a deputy to fill a vacancy from the Haute Saone, and on the 1st of March they elected as deputies to fill vacancies Ledru Rollin from the Vaucluse, and M. Lepetit from the Vienne. These three elections showed that the republicans were making obvious advances in public opinion. To sum up the whole business, outside of the Assembly the republicans and Bonapartists were alone gaining ground. As for the legitimists, they were simply the victims of a self-delusion. As to the Assembly itself, after three months of hard and real labor it took a recess from the 28th of March to the 12th of May, 1874.
the sixteenth of may—the duke de broglie’s cabinet overthrown.
On its return the Assembly was called upon to organize the powers of President MacMahon, as it was impossible to put off the question any [Page 423] longer. Bat the legitimists had made up their mind that, so far as they were concerned, they would not allow anything to be done that might impair their assumed right of restoring, whenever they could, the traditional monarchy. While acknowledging the legality of President MacMahon’s powers, they contended that they were inseparable from his person; thus refusing to acknowledge the septennate as an institution. Their idea was this: “We accept the marshal, but only the marshal. He is in office, and we do not propose to remove him; but we maintain we have the right to do so whenever we choose; and should he die or resign, the septennate is at an end.” Such was the position assumed by the two authoritative newspaper organs of the party, the Union and the Univers; the one representing pure legitimacy, the other the intransigent Roman Catholics. Both papers plainly declared that in the present state of affairs, should the cabinet presume to introduce the “constitutional law,” the legitimists’ party would take the act as a declaration of war. The ministers, under the pressure of public opinion, and of the members of the left, were obliged to accept the challenge and to bring forward the “laws.” The proposed three bills: The first, and most important, provided for the transmission of powers in case of a vacancy in the presidency, the second created an upper chamber; while the third, and last, regulating the electoral system, was divided into two parts, the former concerning political and the latter municipal elections. Of these three laws, the first two only had a constitutional character, and were, therefore, the most obnoxious to the extreme right. In the interest of conciliation, the cabinet proposed to first discuss the political electoral law; but, apparently as a pretext, the right insisted that it had a constitutional character, and, through one of their most prominent members, M. Lucien Bran, demanded that the municipal electoral law should be first discussed. To this the Duke de Broglie interposed a formal and emphatic objection, thereby raising, squarely and directly, a question of cabinet; and here the chevau-légers found their opportunity. There was no discussion whatever, and, upon a vote being taken, it was found that the ministry was overthrown by a majority of sixty-two voices. In this memorable sitting, (May 1.6, 1874,) in which the friends of Mr. Thiers obtained a signal revenge, the cabinet had been opposed by fifty-two members of the extreme right, most of the Bonapartists, and all the fractions of the left. Thus fell suddenly, and, as it were, in the twinkling of an eye, the celebrated “De Broglie cabinet.” Born of one coalition, it was summarily committed to an inhospitable grave by another.
the twenty-second of may—the decazes-fourtou cabinet.
The overthrow of the De Broglie cabinet left President MacMahon in an embarrassing position. According to parliamentary usage, he should have taken his new ministers from the victorious majority, but that was rendered impossible by the warring and incongrous elements of which that accidental majority happened to be composed. Hence, the ministerial crisis became very serious, and lasted a whole week. Finally, after attempting ten different combinations, not one of which was successful, the President constituted anew ministry belonging wholly to the minority. Three of the former ministers had been retained, M. Magne, for his influence in financial circles; the Duke Decazes, whose talents and diplomatic ability were universally acknowledged; and M. de Fourtou, whose energy and oratorical power were beginning to be noticed. M. Magne was a Bonapartist and former finance minister of the Emperor, [Page 424] the Duke Decazes was an Orleanist, while the tendencies of M. de Fourtou were undecided, but after a few weeks he sided more or less openly with the Bonapartists.
action of the bonapartists, etc.
The new ministry had hardly been constituted when the political factions, the plague of all countries where they exist, began new intrigues. The Bonapartists had been greatly encouraged by having elected a deputy to fill a vacancy in the Niêvre, (May 24, 1874,) the Baron de Bourgeing. At a previous election the department had gone strongly republican. In the face of such a real success, and finding themselves supported in the ministry by Messrs. Magne and de Fourtou, who, in all branches of their departments, put in men who had served the empire, the Bonapartists became aggressive and elated. On the 9th of June, Mr. Girerd, a republican deputy, produced before the assembly a document tending to show that the Bonapartists had a secret organization, contrary to law. M. Rouher flatly denied that such organization existed, and a stormy debate arose, in which M. Gambetta denounced the Bonapartists as “miserable,” (villains.) This language incensed the members of the party to the highest degree, and caused an immense tumult in the body. When the incident became known in Paris, it produced a great sensation among the Bonapartists, who on the next day organized, at the St. Lazare railway-station, a manifestation against the republicans, in which M. Gambetta was insulted and attacked with personal violence. Some of the Paris journals grew very violent over this event, and the agitation increased. To put an end to this, the government suspended for the period of fifteen days three newspapers: the Pays, an ultra-Bonapartist organ; the Rappel, the organ of the radicals and the Hugo family; and the XIXe Siècle, a republican conservative paper, but very violent in its anti-Bonapartist tendencies. This was on the 12th of June.
second of july—count de chambord’s manifesto—interpellation of the eighth of july.
The agitation caused by the St. Lezare disturbance had hardly died away when a new incident arose: the “King” issued a manifesto. In this paper, written in a tone of apparent sincerity, and in an elevated and chivalrous style, Count de Chambord boldly addressed the French people. Commencing by the announcement “My birth has made me your King,” he proceeded in eloquent language to exhort them to rally behind the “House of France,” whose members were sincerely reconciled and could alone give them security and dignity. Unfortunately for the legitimists, and fortunately for the other parties in France, this manifesto said not a word of the only important question—the question of the flag. It was, indeed, like the play of Hamlet with Hamlet left out. Hence it made no impression on the Assembly or the country. But the government could not permit such a paper, striking at the very foundation of its existence, to pass unnoticed. It deemed it its duty to adopt severe measures, and it therefore suspended the Union, an ultra montane journal of Paris, which had first published the document. This vigorous treatment greatly exasperated the legitimists, and, as I wrote you in a dispatch at the time, M. Lucien Brau, in their name, interpellated the government in the assembly. The debate on this interpellation took place on the 8th of July, and was one of the most exciting [Page 425] and serious that has ever taken place in the Assembly. The question raised by the legitimists was this: “By striking down the Union, and thus reaching Count de Chambord himself, did the government intend to deny the legitimists the right of restoring the monarchy?” In a clear, energetic, and, at times, eloquent speech, M. de Fourtou declared that such was the intention of the government. The septennate, he said in substance, is above all parties, and we will no more allow the legitimists than the republicans and Bonapartists to question its principle or its duration.
The situation being thus clearly stated, the votes were taken, first on the “order of the day,” proposed by the legitimists, which, excluding from the debate the law of the 20th of November, 1873, (instituting the septennate,) blamed the suspension of the Union. This was rejected by an overwhelming majority of three hundred and seventy-nine votes. Then was considered another “order of the day,” introduced by M. Paris, and accepted by the government, affirming the duration of President MacMahon’s powers for seven years, but reserving constitutional questions. All parties in the Assembly who did not acquiesce in the sentiments expressed by M. de Fourtou touching the septennate, voted against this order of the day, and the ministry was defeated by a majority of thirty votes. But before the end of the sitting a proposition of the “order of the day pure and simple,” (laying the whole subject on the table,) was introduced and adopted. The real meaning of this whole action was this, that the assembly opposed the government when it opposed the legitimists, and blamed it when it set up the septennate as irrevocable.
message of president macmahon.
After that memorable sitting, where the right had unwittingly served all the other parties, the ministers felt bound to tender their resignations, but the President refused to accept them, and sent to the Assembly a very plain message, in which, after declaring his powers irrevocable, he declared that he would use in their defense such means as the law had placed at his disposal. He reminded the deputies of the obligations which they had assumed to give him constitutional laws, adding that he would instruct his ministers to specify such as were necessary. This emphatic message plainly indicated that the President had no leanings in favor of the republic. A fortnight later the government openly declared against it in the discussion of the bill of M. Casimir Perier.
resignation of messrs. magne and de fourtou.
Meanwhile a new modification of the ministry had taken place. M. Magne, defeated on a question concerning the budget, resigned on the 15th of July, and M. de Fourtou, having vainly endeavored to have his colleagues select another Bonapartist in place of his retired colleague, resigned, in his turn, July 20, 1874. The two vacancies were filled by the appointment of General de Chabaud-Latour, an avowed Orleanist, to the interior, and Mattbieu Bodet, not belonging to any of the divisions of the assembly, but an Orleanist at heart, to the ministry of finance. Adding, these two names to that of the Duke Decazes, the Orleanist princes have now a large influence in the MacMahon government.
rejection of m. perier’s bill.
A few days after July 23, the bill introduced by M. Casimir Perier was discussed, the urgency of which had been voted by the Assembly [Page 426] on the 15th of June. This bill declared that the republic was the definitive government of France, but at the same time provided that it might be revised. Had the cabinet declared in favor of the proposition, it would have been carried immediately, but at the beginning of the sitting in which it was to be discussed General de Oissey, speaking in the name of the government, read a declaration opposing it, and demanding instead thereof that laws should be made to more thoroughly organize the septennate, and especially that a second chamber should be created, and that the President should have the right to dissolve the lower assembly. In the discussion which followed the Duke de Broglie supported the government. His speech was able, bitter, and energetic, appealing skillfully to all the prejudices that could be evoked against a republic and republicanism. The bill was lost by a majority of forty-one votes. This result, which showed once more how utterly unable the Assembly was to organize anything, induced Mr. Leon Maleville to bring forward a motion for the dissolution of the Assembly. This motion was rejected on the 29th of July, by a vote of three hundred and seventy-five against three hundred and thirty-two. Devoting a few days most diligently to closing up the annual budget, on the 5th of August the Assembly adjourned over until November 30, 1874. This vacation has been well earned. Whatever political faults may be charged against the members, they cannot be reproached with any neglect of official duty, for they have addressed themselves diligently and intelligently to the practical legislation demanded by the country.
There are other matters I intended to allude to in this dispatch—the complaint of Spain against France in regard to supplies of war-material sent to the Carlists over the French border; the recognition of the Spanish republic by the European powers, Germany taking the lead here, but all following in the lead of the United States 5 and the result of the recent election in the Calvados. But this dispatch has already extended to such extreme length that I know you will be glad to have me postpone the discussion of these matters to some future time.
I have, &c.,