FRANCE. 



not possess its confidence. If they did not, mitted common-law crimes against property, 

 tliev were ready to retire, 521 had been pn-viou-Iy r<.n\ji-i ( -d i,,r non- 



<>n tin- 8th M.Jules Simon in the Senate political offenses, and 51 belon-.d t., ii,- claw 

 presented tlie report of the Committee on the described by M. Le lioyer as " persons who, 



irrespective of all political considerations and 

 for causes of unquestionable un worthiness, 

 ought to be excluded from a measure of cl.-m- 

 ency, or men who, seriously implicated in the 

 insurrection, evince abroad, according to all 

 the information obtained, such an attitude as 

 to render any measure of clemency toward 

 them impossible." 



I niversity Bill. l)iit it was not to be discussed 

 until January. Un the 12th M. Le Royer, 

 Minister of Justice, resigned ; but on the 16th 

 he was interpellated by M. Lockroy regarding 

 the manner in which the partial amnesty law 

 had been executed. M. Lockroy said the law 

 had not been carried out in accordance with 

 tin- intention of the Chamber, and he accused 

 M. Le Royer of having 

 considered the persons 

 notably Henri Rochetbrt 

 and not their offenses, 

 in drawing up categories 

 of those who should be 

 excluded from the bene- 

 fits of the bill. M. Le 

 Royer replied that the 

 power of granting am- 

 nesty rested with the 

 President of the Repub- 

 lic, lie read a number 

 of offensive letters to 

 President Grevy, sent by 

 some of those who had 

 been deported, and also 

 the manifesto of twenty- 

 eight convicts who were 

 excluded from amnesty, 

 in which they assume the 

 responsibility for the as- 

 sassinations during the 

 Commune. M. Le Royer 

 said the Cabinet would 

 not have fulfilled its duty if it had pardoned 

 such people as the writers of these documents. 

 M. Jules Ferry, Minister of Public Instruction, 

 stated that the whole Ministry shared M. Le 

 Rover's opinion. M. C16menceau vehemently 

 attacked the Ministers, accusing them of inac- 

 tion. Premier Waddington having refused to 

 accept the order of the day pure and simple, as 

 implying censure upon the Government, M. Cle- 

 menceau fell back on that motion, which was re- 

 jected by a vote of 276 to 109. The Chamber 

 then, by a vote of 255 to 57, adopted an order 

 of the day, which was accepted by the Cabinet, 

 declaring that the Chamber adopted the views 

 of the Ministers, and, approving their explana- 

 tions, passed to the order of the day. A report 

 published by M. Le Royer on November 28th 

 showed that of the 4,311 Communists still un- 

 pardoned at the end of last January, 8,1 18 were 

 admitted to the benefit of the partial amnesty, 

 while 203 had their punishment commuted. 

 Of the remaining 1,198, 868 have been par- 

 doned since the expiration of the amnesty law, 

 and 209 have received a commutation of sen- 

 tence, thus leaving only 830 excluded from 

 clemency. Of these 830, 554 were tried in 

 person and 276 by default; 65 were members 

 of the Commune, 89 had committed common- 

 law crimes against the person, 104 had com- 



CHERBOCRO. 



On December 21st M. Raynal, after hav- 

 ing unsuccessfully asked General Gresley, the 

 Minister of War, in private, to dismiss from 

 the army M. de Carayon-Latour, lieutenant- 

 colonel in the territorial army, for the part 

 he took at a Chambord banquet on Mich- 

 aelmas day, publicly demanded it from the 

 tribune, and pointed out that while M. Latour 

 remained unpunished two of his subordinates, 

 who were present on the same occasion, had 

 been removed from their commands. The 

 Minister of War replied : "I in no wise either 

 approve or excuse the conduct of the officers 

 of the territorial army who were present at 

 the Legitimist banquets at Bordeaux or else- 

 where. I took with regard to these officers 

 the disciplinary measures within my power: I 

 suspended them. Toward M. de Carayon-La- 

 tour I acted differently, because I thought that, 

 he being a superior officer, and deprived of his 

 position as mayor, what I had to obtain was 

 his dismissal as lieutenant-colonel. I handed 

 him over with a view to this to the council of 

 officers; the decision it gave did not permit 

 me to cause his being superseded. I hold my- 

 self wholly responsible; but as to reversing 

 my decision as you desire by setting at naught 

 the decision given by the council, I refuse, and 

 will never consent to do so." General Gresley 



