316 



FRANCE. 



to retire after nine years, those in the second 

 after three years, and those in the third after 

 six years. The second category of senators 

 thus obliged to retire at the expiration of three 

 years includes at present fifty- one members 

 of the Right and eighteen of the Left. 



The Chamber of Deputies, on March 80th, 

 appointed a committee to consider the bill re- 

 storing to the state the sole power of confer- 

 ring university degrees. The majority of the 

 committee, as constituted, were in favor of the 

 bill. Thirty French bishops held a conference 

 on the subject at the same time. The Cham- 



ber of Deputies for some time continued to 

 annul the elections of deputies for various rea- 

 sons, most of them Legitimists and Bonapart- 

 ists. Among them was the Count de Mun, 

 whose election was canceled on account of un- 

 due clerical influence, and M. Rouher, on ac- 

 count of the letter of the prince imperial. 

 The Count de Mun was reflected, while M. 

 Rouher was defeated at the second ballot by 

 Prince Napoleon Jerome. 



On April llth the Bonapartist deputies pro- 

 posed that the House should proceed immedi- 

 ately to the debate upon the amnesty question. 



CATACOMBS OF PABI8. 



The Government, on the other hand, advo- 

 cated its postponement until after the recess, 

 and this course was adopted by a large ma- 

 jority, all the groups of the Left, without ex- 

 ception, voting with the Government. The 

 proceedings commenced by M. Leblond read- 

 ing the report of the amnesty committee, 

 which concluded by recommending the rejec- 

 tion of all the amnesty motions, whether of a 

 general or partial character, and proposing in- 

 stead that the President of the Republic should 

 exercise the right of pardon to the fullest ex- 

 tent. M. Leblond said the Commune was a 

 great crime, and the proclamation of an am- 

 nesty would spread terror through the rural 

 districts, compromise the existence of the re- 

 public, and, moreover, be an act of weakness. 

 When M. Leblond concluded, the Bonapartists 

 brought forward their motion in favor of the 

 report being discussed at once, and they de- 

 manded to know the views of the Government 

 on the subject. M. Ricard, Minister of the 

 Interior, said the Government had certainly 

 asked that the proposal should be dealt with 

 as urgent, but he considered it useless for the 

 House to vote a law which the Senate would 

 be unable to discuss for a month namely, 

 when it resumed its labors. He added that 

 the country was not uneasy in regard to the 

 amnesty, since it knew the views expressed 

 by the Government and the conclusion of the 

 report on the subject. M. Raoul Duval (Bo- 

 napartist) replied that his party was anxious 



to see of what value the Republicans would be 

 as a Government party. He thought the am- 

 nesty question ought not to be subject to any 

 delay. He added that the Bonapartists would 

 offer no systematic opposition to the Constitu- 

 tion. At this juncture M. Duval was inter- 

 rupted by M. Ricard with the observation that 

 a fallen party like that of the Bonapartists had 

 no abdication to offer. M. Duval retorted that 

 the minister's interruption was malignant. He 

 regretted the tendency of the cabinet to take 

 up the inheritance of the Government of com- 

 bat, and said, " An offensive interruption may 

 cause a digression in the discussion, but it will 

 not induce us to deviate from our sentiments 

 regarding the amnesty." M. Ricard again ad- 

 dressed the House, stating that on the eve of 

 the recess the discussion could not be of a ma- 

 ture and well-considered character. He was 

 surprised at M. Duval being vexed at his in- 

 terruption, which simply stated indisputable 

 facts, inasmuch as it affirmed the vote depos- 

 ing the empire, which had been ratified by 

 the country at the recent elections. The min- 

 istry could not let pass unanswered the asser- 

 tion that the Bonapartists would not sys- 

 tematically oppose the Constitution they who 

 spoke unceasingly of its revision, and were 

 concentrating all their hopes upon the period 

 when a revision would be possible. M. Duval 

 replied that he was not accustomed to see such 

 firmness in a member of the Government. The 

 habit of power would break the minister of 



