CHAPTER X

THE TWENTY-FOURTH OF MAY.

Party Struggles-The War Contracts; Attacks on M. ChallemelLacour The Municipal Government of Lyons-Petition of Prince Napoleon on the Subject of his Expulsion; Compact between the three Monarchical Parties-Resignation of M. Grévy; M. Buffet President of the National Assembly -The Elections of April 27, 1873; M. Barodet elected in Paris-Fresh Elections, May 11-Resignation of MM. Jules Simon and de Goulard-Meetings for the Choice of a Candidate for the Presidency; an Agreement upon the Name of Marshal MacMahon-M. Thiers remoulds his MinistryInterpellation of the Right-M. Thiers brings forward Bills relative to the Organization of the Public Powers-Sitting of May 23; Speeches of de Broglie and Dufaure-Sittings of May 24; Speech of M. Thiers; Declaration of M. CasimirPérier; the Target Group-M. Thiers, put in a Minority, resigns-Marshal MacMahon elected President of the Republic-Conclusion.

The Debate

on the War

and M.

Lacour

WHILE

I

HILE the Government had SO much trouble to hold the balance

Contracts between the parties, they for their part Challemel- having reached the height of exasperation, flung themselves upon one another with fury. The shabby edifices constructed by the Committee of Thirty, the fragile barriers raised by the foresight of M. Thiers, nothing could resist the agitation which was soon going to shake the National Assembly and universal suffrage itself.

The Duc d'Audiffret-Pasquier had declared in a menacing tone in his recent reply to M. Gambetta on the subject of the petitions, that the Committee on Contracts had not yet said its last word. This, in fact, became an engine of war.

In the last days of January an attack had been aimed at a deputy of some distinction on the Left, a friend of M. Gambetta, one of the principal collaborators in the République Française, M. ChallemelLacour, a former prefect of the Rhône; the attack was in connexion with the Lyons contracts. M. Challemel-Lacour was one of the highest physiognomies of the Republican party. A former pupil of the higher Ecole Normale, proscribed on the 2nd of December (1851), a writer of great talent, an eager and sarcastic intellect, an orator already in repute, whose full amplitude was, however, not yet known, he was one of those who keep mediocrities in a respectful attitude. But little made for action, he had, however, developed great energy as a prefect under the National Defence at Lyons; he had made numerous enemies. Marseilles had made him a member of the National Assembly in the bye-elections. He had to reply to accusations under two heads; bad financial management, and a weakness in respect to the proceedings of the International. The direct attack, prepared a long while in advance, was intended. to have a powerful action upon public opinion. The Comte de Paris was present at the sitting of the 30th of January in which the matter was discussed.

They had thought that they had to do with a mere man. They unchained eloquence. M. Challemel-Lacour, a man of strong build, high colour,

with blue eyes, his beard already white, cold and haughty, entered the tribune. He remained there for three hours, speaking slowly, weighing his words, sometimes hurling an unexpected shaft, holding out against his opponents, who were irritated by his coolness, and attacked him furiously.

He refuted the accusations of the Committee by entering into a detailed account of the facts, but also by tracing an animated picture of the work of the National Defence in the East. He then raised his voice and paid a magnificent homage to France, struggling under the foot of the stranger." On the other hand, he brought an indictment against the Committee on Contracts, which he accused "of setting to work to supply France with pretexts for despising herself." He epitomized in a passage loftily moderate, and animated with a philosophic irony the whole work of the Committee: "You do not bring forward one act of malversation, you do not bring forward one deed of dilapidation. These are wanting in your report. But of some things there is an abundance, insinuations, railings, harsh words, terms which the public misuses; these you have not spared. You have given the rein to your passions! You said to yourselves: Who will demand a reckoning of us for a little show of temper against political opponents? There are minds which believe that political passion is an excuse for anything; that it is permitted to stain the honour of an adversary in order to fight him, that one may create belief in the existence of deeds which soil honour, and do not exist! I say that such men deceive themselves. Political passions themselves have their bounds; these bounds are justice and truth! And there is

something still more serious than the maltreatment of an adversary, than the perversion of truth, than an outrage on justice; it is the sad and fatal example thereby given to a nation which it is proposed to instruct and moralize!"

The Right listened in silence to these fine words, an honour to French thought and to the French language. But its admiration did not disarm its wrath. Political frenzy does not allow itself to think. It wraps itself in its infatuation like the Roman in the fold of the toga which blinds him. This art, these words, are the patrimony of the nation. To-morrow you will honour them yourselves...

No! Passion had its way.

M. Challemel-Lacour, not being a dishonest man, they strained their efforts to make him a sanguinary prefect. Hardly had he stepped down from the tribune when M. de Carayon-Latour took his place. He affirmed that he saw on the desk of General de Bressoles a report from the Mayor of Vénissieux (Rhône) which incriminated the battalion of mobiles of the Gironde at the time when he, M. de Carayon-Latour, had been their leader. On the margin of this report there was written, he said, in the hand of the former prefect of the Rhône, these words: "Have all those fellows shot."

M. Challemel-Lacour could only with great difficulty obtain silence to make his explanation. He demanded the production of the document. Fresh confusion, which the President succeeded in quelling only by suspending the sitting.

Twice over the incident returned before the Assembly with increasing violence. M. Challemel

Lacour always protested that his memory did not recall to him anything of the kind, and demanded the production of the document, repeating with notorious persistence one phrase, always the same: "I demand the document ! I must have the document ! " It could not be found.

The debate remained without a solution, in the same way that the incident-supposing that it had ever happened—had remained without effect in reality.

The Committee had been obliged to modify its conclusions and confined itself to demanding that its report should be referred to the Ministers of War, Finance and Justice, in order that a settlement might be made as to a claim of eight millions formulated by the town of Lyons. To this motion was added a reprimand of the revolutionary proceedings of the municipality of Lyons, which had substituted the red flag for the national colours. Now M. Challemel-Lacour had struggled against the municipality at the risk of his life. This, however, was the motion which was adopted by 559 votes to 42. A most violent attack directed against the Government of National Defence, one in which it appeared at first that there was a question of tyrannical deeds, and of dishonesty, had ended in a unanimous vote against the red flag.

However, the whole of the debate upon the Lyons question was not yet cleared up. It was soon to open again on the occasion of the municipal organization of that great town. The Assembly had cried a truce to its passions to vote the law of liberation. The debate on the municipal organization of Lyons was fixed for the 31st of March. On the day before, the majority reckoned itself up, so to