284 



FRANCE. 



tend meetings and to issue warnings to those 

 present, without, however, being entitled to 

 dissolve such meetings. This was agreed to, 

 and the whole bill was then adopted. 



As the Government, in the statement of its 

 principles, which was submitted to the Cham- 

 ber of Deputies on January 16th, said nothing 

 about an amnesty, M. Louis Blanc, on January 

 22d, introduced in the Chamber of Deputies 

 a bill for a general amnesty. The report of the 

 committee on the proposal, which was read on 

 February 5th by M. Perier, advocated its re- 

 jection, pure and simple. In the name of the 

 Government, M. de Freycinet declared on 

 February 12th that the Government consid- 

 ered it their duty to refuse the request for a 

 plenary amnesty. The country was not in 

 favor of the measure, and would not be until 

 it ceased to be an instrument of political agita- 

 tion. M. de Freycinet, therefore, urged the 

 partisans of an amnesty to unite with the Gov- 

 ernment in establishing calmness throughout 

 the country, and in giving effect to the reforms 

 required. The Government would then, per- 

 haps, be strong enough to propose an amnes- 

 ty. After a debate the Chamber rejected M. 

 Louis Blanc's proposal by 313 to 115. On June 

 19th the Government aftef long and careful 

 deliberation thought the moment opportune 

 for presenting to the Chambers a bill for grant- 

 ing a plenary amnesty to all persons who have 

 been convicted of political offenses. The bill 

 ran as follows: "An amnesty is accorded to 

 all who have been condemned for crimes and 

 offenses connected with the insurrection of 

 1870 and 1871, as well as to all who have been 

 condemned for political crimes and offenses, 

 or for press crimes and offenses committed 

 down to June 19, 1880." Only two days later, 

 the committee repored in favor of the accept- 

 ance of the Government's bill without modifi- 

 cation. M. Gambetta left the President's chair, 

 and when the moment came he rose from his 

 seat and delivered an oration, which carried the 

 House in favor of the bill. The amnesty was 

 voted by 333 against 140, out of 473 voters. 

 This was the first time that M. Gambetta ap- 

 peared in the tribune of the Palais-Bourbon 

 since September 4, 1870. 



In the Senate, M. Jules Simon, on July 3d, 

 made a brilliant speech against the Govern- 

 ment bill, and the Senate, by 143 votes against 

 138, adopted a limited amnesty proposed by M. 

 Bozerian which excepts assassins and incendia- 

 ries. The committee appointed by the Cham- 

 ber to report upon the Senate's amendment to 

 the Amnesty Bill, after hearing the views of 

 the Ministers and of delegates from the dif- 

 ferent groups of the Left, adopted M. Labiche's 

 amendment, proposing to grant an amnesty to 

 whomsoever the Government shall pardon 

 within the next three months. The commit- 

 tee, however, appended a proviso that all those 

 who previous to the Commune had undergone 

 sentences for common-law crimes shall con- 

 tinue to be deprived of their political rights. 



The committee subsequently held a second sit- 

 ting, when its former decision was, after a long 

 discussion, partially reversed, and it was re- 

 solved to adopt M. Labiche's amendment in its 

 original form, but limiting the period assigned 

 for the granting of pardons by the Government 

 to the interval between the present date and 

 July 14th, instead of fixing it at three months. 

 Finally, the Senate and the Chamber agreed 

 upon the following wording: 



All the individuals condemned for having taken 

 part iu the insurrectional events of 1870 and 1871, and 

 in the posterior insurrectional movements, who have 

 been or shall have been, before July 14, 1880, the ob- 

 ject of a decree of pardon, -with the exception of indi- 

 viduals condemned by iudgment to the penalty of 

 death or to penal servitude for life for the crime of ar- 

 son or assassination, shall be considered as amnestied. 

 This ^xception shall not be applicable to the above- 

 mentioned condemned persons who shall have been 

 up to the date of July 9tn the object of a commutation 

 of their sentence, etc. 



On July llth the "Journal Officiel" con- 

 tained two decrees, dated July 6th and July 

 10th, rendering the amnesty practically ple- 

 nary, and granting pardons and commutations 

 of sentence to all the Communists who at that 

 time were still in exile or in New Caledonia. 

 The number excluded from the amnesty was 

 seventeen. These seventeen were pardoned, 

 and none of them were political personages. 



The views of France are greatly divided on 

 the subject of free trade and protection. The 

 south, on the whole, favors free trade, the 

 north protection. On January 31st the de- 

 bate on the Customs Tariff Bill began in the 

 Chamber of Deputies. M. Tirard, the Minister 

 of Commerce, referred to the customs tariff 

 established in 1860, and said that that tariff had 

 not borne all the fruit which was anticipated 

 from it, because it was not previously made 

 the subject of an exhaustive discussion in the 

 legislative body; but, at the same time, the 

 reform then instituted had led to a consider- 

 able growth of trade. He replied to various 

 objections that had been made to the Anglo- 

 French commercial treaty, and asserted that 

 France sent twice as much of her products to 

 England as she received thence. He asked 

 the Chamber to adhere to the present tariff as 

 the basis of negotiations entered into with for- 

 eign countries for the renewal of the treaties 

 of commerce. On February 15th, M. Allain 

 Targe traced an intimate connection between 

 the question of customs duties and that of 

 transport. The speaker objected to the system 

 of octroi duties at the entrance of cities, say- 

 ing that it is no use abolishing customs duties 

 if these are to he maintained. 



One of the most important speeches was that 

 by M. Rouher, on February 21st and 23d. lie 

 defended the empire against the charge of 

 having concluded the treaties of commerce of 

 1860 by surprise, criticised successively the 

 tariffs proposed by the committee, which he 

 declared to be too high, and expressed his be- 

 lief that the dangers of foreign competition 





