Six hundred thousand francs had been collected. It was now necessary to associate the National Assembly with this work, in order to give it the character of a "national votive offering."

The Archbishop of Paris had written to the Minister of Cults on March 5th, 1873. The Government received favourably Mgr. Guibert's demands, and Batbie, Minister of Cults, brought forward a bill granting a declaration of public utility to the construction of the votive church.

M.

The bill, on being referred to a special committee, nearly provoked a rupture between the different fractions of the majority. While the ultramontane Legitimists declared themselves enthusiastic supporters of the bill, most members of the Right Centre hesitated. The lobbies of the Assembly resounded with impassioned discussions. Altercations took place between M. de Belcastel, who had dedicated France to the Sacred Heart at Paray-le-Monial, and MM. Baze and Baragnon, who were more reserved.

At last, on July 11th, M. Keller laid on the table

fell into the hands of M. Legentil, a member of the General Council of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, who had taken refuge at Poitiers during the war. He obtained the support of Mgr. Pie, and in the month of January 1871, the project of erecting by public subscription in Paris a monument dedicated to the Sacred Heart was promoted by a widely circulated religious publication, le Messager du Sacré-cœur (P. Victor Alet, La France et le Sacré Cœur, p. 319). This proposal obtained the pontifical blessing on February 11th, 1871 (see, too, Paguelle de Follenay, Vie du Cardinal Guibert, vol. ii., p. 589 seq.).

A committee was formed, of which the first members were : MM. Beluze, founder of the Catholic club of the Luxemburg; Baudon, General President of the meetings of St. Vincent de Paul; Rohault de Fleury, Léon Cornudet, etc.

of the Assembly a report in favour of the adoption of the bill, with the following first clause: "The construction of the church which, as the result of a national subscription, the Archbishop of Paris proposes to erect on the hill of Montmartre, in honour of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ, to bring upon France, and, above all, upon the capital, divine mercy and protection, is declared to be of public utility." In consequence, says the third clause, the Archbishop of Paris, "alike in his own name, and in the name of his successors, is authorised to acquire the ground necessary for this construction either by free purchase or, if occasion arise, by expropriation."

The publication of M. Keller's report did not bring peace; on the contrary, the members of the Right Centre still refused to follow their colleagues. After long negotiations, in which the Archbishop of Paris intervened, it was decided to suppress, what a periphrase, somewhat fashionable at the time, called "the sacred vocable."

At the opening of the debate, July 22nd, M. de Belcastel announced that the Committee had decided to draw up the first clause in the following terms: "The construction of a church upon the hill of Montmartre, to bring upon France, and specially upon the capital, divine mercy and protection, is declared to be of public utility." M. Baze, chairman of the Committee, observed that "this decision was not that of the Committee, but the wish of a minority. The negotiations continued. Lastly, in the sitting of July 24th, M. Baze, in the name of "the unanimity of the members present," proposed the following form for the first clause : "The construction of a church upon the hill of

he wrote to M. de Cazenove de Pradine on the subject of his intervention: "You know me too well to expect a commonplace phrase from me on your energetic insistence in the memorable contest from which you have come out, as at Patay, glorious though conquered. I congratulate you, I thank you, and I embrace you, happy to add to the witness of your conscience that of my admiration and old friendship."

The

Sole

III

The Comte de Chambord thus recalled Count de himself to the memory of France by Chambord demonstrations which were not always to Bourbon the taste of all the monarchical party. Claimant He had periods of persistent silence, disappearing, escaping even from his most faithful followers; and when he spoke, his words were at times more embarrassing than his silence.

He was

People had remained under the impression of his manifesto concerning the white flag, dated from Chambord, which had once already ruined so many hopes. What were his thoughts now? the lawful heir. The dynasty was himself. Nobody thought of an immediate restoration of the House of Orleans. The reign of Louis Philippe was ignored. It was recognized that there was no solution other than the return of the elder branch. But under what conditions? The constitutional question was still more delicate than the dynastic question.

Mgr. Pie had solved it at Chartres in singularly bold terms: Divine Right, with all its consequences. The question was before the Assembly, but under very different conditions. It will be remembered

that, in conformity with clause 5 of the Bill of March 13th, 1873, M. Dufaure, Keeper of the Seals, had proposed, in the name of the Government of M. Thiers, three Bills with reference (r) to the election laws; (2) to the organisation and manner of transmission of the legislative and executive powers; (3) to the creation and attributes of a second Chamber, which was not, however, to enter upon its functions till after the dissolution of the National Assembly.

Thus we have on one side the rights of the King, and on the other side the rights of the Assembly.

What were the views of the Government? In its first communication to the Assembly, it had indicated its position: for the moment they consisted in waiting and gaining time.

The Duc de Broglie was too wise not to understand that the work of restoration, over which he would doubtless have been happy to preside, was not ready, and that it was necessary to create in the country, in the Royal family, and in the Pretender himself, a state of mind which would allow him to enter on it with a reasonable chance of success. The part of the Cabinet, as it was conceived by the most prudent among its friends, was fairly accurately defined by M. de Meaux : According to the terms of the order of the day which formed the Cabinet, it was bound on the one side to oppose a resolutely Conservative policy to Radicalism, and on the other, not to oppose the monarchical undertaking, without, however, taking any initiative in it.” 1

The impatience of the more ardent and optimistic

1 Vicomte de Meaux, Souvenirs politiques, Correspondant of October 10, 1902, p. 12.

spirits submitted unwillingly to these precautions and delays. Signs of a new spirit, and of an evolution in the direction of monarchical ideas were looked for everywhere.

Opening

Campaign

In the Assembly the notable increase of the of the majority, which had risen from Monarchical fourteen votes on the 24th of May to sixty votes in the last divisions in June, might encourage these hopes. Further, defections were counted on in proportion as the victory should appear more certain. M. de Falloux, who prided himself on his mental balance, affirmed that "it is not rare to hear Republicans say: We would not vote for the Monarchy, but we should see it revive with pleasure, if it can give France a repose which we are not yet in a position to promise her." 1 It is difficult to discover to-day who these Republicans were; but the remarks which were attributed to them circulated and maintained ardour, if not confidence. The Monarchists believed themselves to be certain of a majority in the event of the Assembly having to exercise the constituent mandate, which it had always claimed.

The Shah

In the country, favourable dispositions of Persia were also discovered. At this very time

in France Paris was indulging in magnificent festivi

ties on the occasion of the visit of the Shah of Persia. From the manner in which the capital received the Oriental potentate, a proof of her "infatuation for monarchy" was discerned. "The excitement with which the population welcomed this sovereign was, indeed, a symptom which could not be mistaken." Thus did the wise M. de Falloux express himself.

1 Cte. de Falloux, Mémoires d'un royaliste, vol. ii., p. 352.