the difference was made by the dye in the manufactured silk adding greatly to its weight; and M. Thiers made out that the tax would in reality yield rather more than a million sterling, while again the silk-growers in the South of France would have the benefit of protection. Somewhat to the surprise of the Chamber, he adverted to the existing commercial treaties with England and other countries as being a "deplorable yoke" on the nation, and said that, although his own plans involved no infringement of them, he should, for his own part, be delighted to see those treaties at an end.

M. Thiers spoke with great force and animation, and, had he called for a division while the Chamber was still under the spell of his eloquence, it is probable he would have carried his point triumphantly. But the discussion was postponed, and by Monday, the 15th, heads had had time to cool, and the Ministerial battle of raw material had again to be fought against the Free-traders. Thiers' statements were challenged on all hands.

M. Johnston, the deputy for Bordeaux, maintained that the proposed duty would amount to a positive infringement of the commercial treaties. "I have shown," he said, "that, in virtue of the convention concluded with England, wools of Australian origin, coming from England, should enter free until the expiration of the Treaty of Commerce. What does the Government propose? To impose a duty of 88 centimes per kilogramme on wool. The English Government will reply, Very well, but by the terms of the treaty your own wool must be subjected to a similar duty.' I hardly think this is what the Government desires; for such a measure would bear heavily on French agriculture. I raise this objection as regards wool, but I might repeat it as regards silk," &c. &c.

To this Thiers made a petulant rejoinder. "Supposing," he said, "such an interpretation were admissible, it was very unpatriotic of M. Johnston to suggest it to the English authorities." (Ce n'est pas à nous de fournir des arguments à la diplomatique étrangère.) A somewhat angry altercation ensued. M. Johnston complained that the Assembly should be kept in ignorance of the negotiations now in progress respecting the English Treaty. Thiers objected to produce the correspondence, and spoke again in defence of his twenty per cent. duty, assuring the Chamber at the same time that he was not a Protectionist on principle, but simply a Minister in search of money for immediate State purposes. The Duc Decazes and M. Buffet followed to the attack. Thiers implored the House to come to a division, but in vain. The debate was again adjourned. The principal speeches the next day were those of M. Montgolfier and M. Ambrose Joubert, who both criticized M. Thiers' statement of facts as to the wool and silk trade, and enlarged on the damaging effects to the French manufacturers of the proposed new imports; M. Joubert maintaining that they would be compelled to employ sixteen millions sterling more than they had hitherto

invested, in order to find capital to pay the duties. "Do not," he said, "destroy by arbitrary taxes the admirable riches with which nature has endowed us. The drawback is a hothouse régime, by means of which you wish to keep alive sickly manufactures, to the prejudice of those wholesome ones which only require pure air to live and prosper."

On the next day of the debate the most remarkable speech against the Government proposals was made by M. Leurent, a large manufacturer of Turcoing. And now, while the Chamber appeared as hostile as ever to the measure of M. Thiers, and testified by loud applause its sympathy with each telling speech of the Opposition, the excitement out-of-doors was becoming serious. The great manufacturing towns were in a state of strong irritation. Delegates arrived at Versailles from Lyons, Marseilles, St. Etienne, Lille, and numerous other centres, sent by the Chambers of Commerce at each place, to protest against the taxation of raw material, and urge the deputies to bring forward some counter-measure. And not only the industrial interests of the country, but the agricultural likewise, arrayed themselves against the policy of M. Thiers. The situation was becoming one of considerable excitement, especially as the President, recurring to his old strategy, had expressed in the lobbies his intention of resigning should an adverse vote be given.

When the Assembly met on the 19th, the forces on both sides were prepared for a vigorous struggle, and every bench and box in the Versailles Theatre was crammed with eager listeners. M. Casimir Perier, who had not spoken since the commencement of the discussion, explained in a few words the attitude and the aim of the Government. He implored the Chamber to vote in favour of the principle of the tax on raw material, and to name a commission of fifteen members to be entrusted with the duty of regulating its application. His speech received the applause of the Right and Right Centre. He was followed by M. Marcel Barthe, who, amidst violent interruptions, proposed an amendment to the effect that, conceding the principle of the tax, the Assembly did so on the understanding that it was not to be acted upon except as a complementary means of adjusting the equilibrium of the Budget. This amendment was accepted for the Government by M. Casimir Perier. But another amendment was proposed by M. Féray, to the effect that the question of principle should be reserved, and the tax voted only if, after inquiry by a Commission appointed for the purpose, it should be found impossible by any other means to arrange the Budget. Upon this amendment hung the issue of the contest. M. Thiers gave offence to the House by observing in a querulous tone of voice that the discussion had now lasted eighteen days, and had placed France in a triste position before the eyes of Europe; that it was time to leave off repeating stale arguments, and for the dignity of the country to come to an immediate solution. When M. Féray, in reply, denied that the eighteen days' debate

had lowered the character of the Chamber, a storm of applause greeted him. Then ensued a scene of noise and confusion; but M. Johnston contrived to make his voice heard. "I fear," he said, "that the Government, in asking you to vote the principle of the tax on raw material, is seeking to make you implicitly vote also the denunciation of the Treaty of Commerce." "The Treaty of Commerce is reserved," replied Thiers, "and will come on for discussion next week." His efforts for a further hearing were drowned in the increasing tumult of the Chamber. At last a vote was called for. The first question put was, Should priority be given to the proposition of M. Barthe or to that of M. Féray? It was decided to take the opinion of the House on the proposition Féray; and when a second division was called for, on the merits of that proposition itself, the votes were 377 in its favour against 307 adverse to it. M. Thiers left the Chamber loudly declaring his intention to resign. Outside the walls of the theatre, as well as within, great and general agitation prevailed.

Next morning, an eager audience attended to hear the expected announcement that M. Thiers was no longer head of the Government. Meanwhile his opponents were themselves frightened at the responsibility they had incurred. Marshal M'Mahon visited the thwarted leader and urged upon him the perplexity which his course occasioned among the officers of the army. Agitated deputies met in the Hotel des Reservoirs. The Right and Right Centre drew up a motion, declaring that the vote just passed against the economical policy of the Government did not signify any intention on the part of the majority to refuse it the general support hitherto accorded. The terms of this motion. were communicated to M. Thiers; but he refused to be satisfied. Then the Left Centre suggested the substitution of the word "confidence" for the word "support.". Amid various rumours, the President of the Assembly, M. Grévy, took the chair. General dismay was felt when, presently, he proceeded to read out a letter addressed to him by M. Thiers, abdicating his authority as chief of the State; and then, at the instance of the Minister of the Interior, officially announced the resignation of the Government-an announcement which was followed by a general evacuation of the Ministerial bench, the heterogenous elements assorting themselves among the different positions in the Chamber to which their sympathies inclined them. Then M. Batbie read out the motion expressive of the continued "confidence" of the Assembly in the late Government-a motion which, being put to the vote, was carried almost unanimously, with this addition: "The Assembly appeals to the patriotism of M. Thiers, and refuses to accept his resignation." A deputation immediately set out for the Prefecture, the motion was laid before M. Thiers, and finally he consented to retract his resignation. "He was worn out," he said, "and discouraged by these incessant struggles. The vivacity with which he defended his opinions should only be regarded as a proof of the

energy of his convictions. His opinions had been too long fixed to change. Conflicts similar to that which had just taken place were likely soon to recur relative to the military reorganization and compulsory instruction, and the end must come sooner or later; perhaps it would be better at once. But since the Assembly appealed to his patriotism he would resume the direction of affairs, and try to make his way yet again with the assistance of the Ministers." And so the crisis came to an end. The strain had been considerable. Had Thiers persisted in his intention of resigning, the members of the Right were prepared with an alternative, and would have voted Marshal M'Mahon to the Presidential post. Perhaps, indeed, Thiers' retractation, though they felt themselves compelled to press it, was in some sort a disappointment to these politicians, whose hopes of a pronounced reactionary Government, supported by the army and conducted by an unquestionably able and honest military chief, were thereby frustrated. So it was that by most of the monarchist fractions of the Assembly, the announcement that the affronted chief had consented to retain office, was coldly received; and it became evident-more so than it had been before-that the real friends and supporters of Thiers' rule were to be found in the Left and Left Centre, on the Republican, and even the Radical benches.

A few days afterwards a revised tariff for the taxation of raw material was submitted to the Committee, in which no less than 350 articles hitherto imported free were enumerated. M. PouyerQuertier said he would assist the Committee in every way in seeking taxes to replace the proposed taxation on raw material, but he feared that their efforts would be fruitless. The Government was more than ever convinced that the taxation of raw material was the least onerous and the only resource.

M. Thiers' determined reliance on Protectionist principles for the present exigencies of the Finance was again exemplified by a Navigation Act which came on for debate in the Assembly a few days later, and as to which the Government policy proved victorious by a large majority, in spite of the objections raised against it by some of the most important ports of France; and in spite of the declaration of M. Fraissinet, one of the largest shippers from Marseilles, that since 1859 the mercantile navy of France had doubled, and that the increase was almost entirely owing to the free importation of foreign ships. It was now decided that any vessel entering a French port under a foreign flag, should be liable to a duty on its cargo, varying according to the extent of its voyage, from seven to twenty francs per ton.

But the interest of this measure, however really important in its bearings on the future, was, for the moment, lost sight of in the debate which came on the last day in January, on the subject of the Anglo-French Treaty of Commerce. M. Delsol, as reporter of the Committee appointed to examine into this critical question, gave in his Report on the 28th. It authorized the Government to

give notice in due time (en temps utile) of the termination of the Treaties of Commerce both with England and with Belgium. M. Tirard the next day demanded the adjournment of the debate, in order to enable the Chamber to study the question; but M. de Rémusat insisted on the necessity of a prompt settlement, and announced that he had just received a despatch from Lord Lyons stating that the British Government considered the Treaty as remaining in force for one year after notice of withdrawal, whatever might be the date of the notice. He asked the Assembly not to confound the question of the tariffs on raw material with the present question, but added that in the opinion of Government, foreign products ought to bear charges proportionate to those imposed on native products. Negotiations with England being still pending, M. de Rémusat declared himself unable to communicate the diplomatic documents. He put the question before the House in these terms :-" It is to be decided whether the Treaties are to be terminated, or whether you refuse to allow France to regain her fiscal liberty."

The debate commenced on the 31st of January, M. Raudot leading the way. He opposed the withdrawal from the Treaty, showed by figures the immense profits that French trade had already derived from it, and dwelt particularly on the alienation between England and France, and indeed between France and other continental countries, which the contemplated measure would produce. The following day M. Wolowski resumed the discussion, on the same side of the question. M. de Rémusat rose to advocate the policy of withdrawal, on behalf of Government, declaring it was propounded for fiscal purposes only, and not in order to establish the principle of Protection. He read a despatch from the English Foreign Office of the 28th of January, stating that if the French Government believed itself placed under the necessity of giving notice of withdrawal from the Treaty in a fiscal sense, her Majesty's Government would endeavour to obviate any weakening of the good relations subsisting between the two countries, and would be ready to modify the Treaty within the necessary fiscal limits, though objecting strongly to accept modifications in any protectionist sense. Then M. Gambetta broke the long silence he had maintained in the Assembly, and amidst the applauses of the Left delivered an animated opposition speech. He insisted that the Assembly ought not to decide on the course to be pursued until all the documents relative to the negotiations should have been communicated, and he censured the conduct of the Government in carrying on negotiations independently of the Chamber. He hinted that England might not be so ready, as was said, to accept the new tariffs which the Government proposed; and after alluding to the commercial life which free trade had awakened in the country, expressed his regret that during the debate little or nothing had been said about the consumers, that is to say the great body of the nation which had benefited largely by the measures of 1860. There was much