ence of the delirium of passions, of the confusion of doctrines, of the division of parties, when everything is combined to attack morality, justice, and authority, we ought to leave shaken and incomplete the only principle which in the middle of the general chaos Providence has kept standing to rally us around it.

Since universal suffrage has reconstructed the social edifice by substituting a right for a revolutionary fact, is it wise in us to narrow its basis any longer? Finally, I have asked myself if, when new powers shall preside over the destinies of the country, it would not be compromising their stability beforehand to leave behind us a pretext for questioning their origin or for misrepresenting their legitimacy?

No doubt on the subject was possible; and without wishing to swerve for a single instant from the policy of order which I have always followed out, I have been obliged, much to my regret, to separate from a cabinet which possessed all my confidence, in order to choose another, which, equally composed of honorable men, publicly known for their conservative sentiments, has moreover consented to admit the necessity of re-establishing universal suffrage on the broadest possible basis.

You will therefore have presented to you the draft of a law which restores the principle in all its fulness.

The project has no features which can offend this Assembly; for if I think it expedient to ask to-day for the withdrawal of the law of the 31st of May I do not mean to deny the approbation which I gave at that time to the cabinet which claimed from the chief of the majority, whose work it was, the honor of presenting it.

If we remember the circumstances under which this law was presented we shall not, I believe, refuse to allow that it

was an act of policy rather than an electoral law, that it was really and truly a measure to ensure the public tranquillity. Whenever the majority shall propose to me energetic measures for the safety of the country it may rely on my loyal and disinterested support. But even the best of such measures have but a limited time.

The law of the 31st of May has in its application even gone beyond the object intended to be attained. No one foresaw the suppression of three millions of electors, two thirds of whom are peaceful inhabitants of the country. What has been the result? Why, that this exclusion has served as a pretext to the anarchist party, who cloak their detestable designs by appearing to conquer back a right of which they had been despoiled. Too weak in numbers to take possession of society by their votes, they hope under favor of the general emotion and the decline of the powers of the State to kindle at several points of France, instantaneously, troubles which would be quelled, no doubt, but which should inevitably throw us into fresh complications.

Another serious objection is this: The constitution requires for the validity of the election of a president by the people at least two millions of suffrages; and if this number is not made up the right of election is conferred on the Assembly. The Constituent Assembly had therefore decided that out of ten million voters inscribed on the lists one fifth was sufficient to render the election valid.

At the present time, the number of electors being reduced to seven millions, to require two millions is to invert the proportion; that is to say, it is to demand one third instead of one fifth, and thus in a certain eventuality to take the election out of the hands of the people and give it to the Assembly. It is therefore positively changing the condition of the eligibility of the president of the Republic.

Lastly, I call your particular attention to another reason, which perhaps may prove decisive.

The re-establishment of universal suffrage on its principal basis furnishes an additional chance of obtaining the revision of the constitution. You have not forgotten why the adversaries of this revision refused last session to vote for it. They used this argument, which they knew how to render specious: "The constitution," said they, "which is the work of an Assembly taking its rise in universal suffrage, cannot be modified by an Assembly issuing from a restricted suffrage.' Whether this be a real motive or only a pretext it is expedient to set it aside and be able to say to those who would bind the country down to an immutable constitution, "Behold universal suffrage re-established. The majority of the Assembly, supported by two millions of petitioners, by the greater number of the councils of arrondissement, and almost unanimously by the councils general, demands the revision of the fundamental compact. Have you less confidence than we in the expression of the popular will?"

The question therefore may be thus stated to all those who desire a pacific solution of the difficulties of the day: "The law of the 31st of May has its imperfections; but even were it perfect, should it not nevertheless be repealed if it resists the revision of the constitution, that manifest wish of the country?"

It is objected, I am aware, that on my part these proposals are inspired by personal interest. My conduct for the last three years ought to repel such an allegation. The welfare of the country, I repeat, will always be the sole moving spring of my conduct. I believe it my duty to propose every means of conciliation and to use every effort to bring about a pacific, regular, legal solution, whatever may be its issue.

Thus then, gentlemen, the proposal I make to you is neither a piece of party tactics nor an egotistical calculation, nor a sudden resolution; it is the result of serious meditation and of profound conviction. I do not pretend that this measure will banish all the difficulties of the situation. But to each day its own task.

To-day to re-establish universal suffrage is to deprive civil war of its flag, the opposition of its last argument. It is to furnish France with the possibility of giving itself institutions which may ensure its tranquillity. It is to give the future powers of the State that moral force which can only exist so long as it reposes on a consecrated principle and on an incontestable authority.

FAMOUS SPEECH AT DIJON

WISH that such persons as entertain apprehensions regarding the future had accompanied me through the populations of the Yonne and the Côte d'Or. They would have had their minds set at rest by being able to judge for themselves of the real state of public feeling. They would have seen that neither intrigue, nor attacks, nor passionate discussions of parties are in harmony with the sentiments and the situation of the country.

France does not wish either the return of the ancient régime—no matter under what form it may be disguised-or the trial of evil and impracticable Utopias. It is because I am the most natural adversary of the one and the other that she has placed her confidence in me. If it be not so, how else can be explained this touching sympathy entertained by the people toward me, which, whilst it repels the most

ruinous controversies, absolves me from being the cause of their sufferings?

In fact, if my government has not realized all the ameliorations which it has had in view, the blame lies in the manœuvres of factions which paralyze the good dispositions of Assemblies as well as those of governments the most devoted to the public good. For the last three years it could be remarked that I was always seconded whenever the question was to subdue disorder by coercive enactments. And whenever I wished to do good, to establish the landed influence, or to ameliorate the condition of the poorer classes, I met with nothing but inertness. It is because you have shared those convictions that I have found in patriotic Burgundy such a reception as is at once for me both approbation and encouragement.

I take advantage of this banquet as if it were a public tribune, to open to my fellow citizens the bottom of my heart. A new phase of our political life is commencing. From one end of France to the other petitions are being signed in favor of the revision of the constitution; I await with confidence the manifestation of the country and the decision of the Assembly, which can only be actuated by the sole thought of the public good. If France feels that she must not be disposed of against her will, France has but to say so; she shall not be without my courage and my energy.

Since I came into power I have proved how much, in the presence of the grave interests of society, I disregarded whatever affected myself personally. The most unjust and the most violent attacks have failed to affect my attitude of calmWhatever duties the country may impose she shall find me resolute to execute her will. And believe me, gentlemen, France shall not perish in my hands.

ness.