(Feb. 6) by nine votes to two against the Government proposal to interfere with the Court of Cassation. On the following day a newspaper published in full an absolutely confidential letter addressed by the first President M. Mazeau to M. Dupuy, the Prime Minister, and on the same day M. Loew, President of the Criminal Chamber, quietly announced that that court had closed its inquiry, and notified the fact to the Minister of Justice. Two days later (Feb. 9) a manifesto was issued signed by the representatives of all the Republican groups in the Chamber, from the most moderate to the Socialists, protesting against the Government proposal as contrary to all precedent and justice.

In most instances their eloquence and their courage did not go beyond the written document, for on the bill coming forward for discussion (Feb. 10) the leaders of the Moderates and of the Radicals alike preserved silence, and it was left to MM. Pelletan and Millerand to protest against this violation of tradition. The Minister of Justice astutely urged members to think only of their seats, and with such effect that the bill was accepted by 326 to 206 votes and at the same sitting was passed unamended by 324 to 207 votes.

Its fate in the Senate was even more dramatic. The committee selected to report on it (Feb. 16) was composed of five members who were favourable and four opposed to the bill, and a keen debate was anticipated. But during the night President Félix Faure died suddenly, under circumstances which were never satisfactorily explained, and the whole situation was abruptly changed. In the latter days of his life it seemed as if the President of the republic was altogether in the hands of the military party, the Elysée became more and more accessible to the Conservative leaders, and the Republicans finding their presence little desired soon absented themselves.

There was serious danger of a prolonged crisis, but the Senate rose to the emergency, and determined to cut short the intrigues which promptly wove round the situation. Negotiations were at once commenced and on the same day (Feb. 17) it was announced that M. Loubet's candidature would have the support of 177 senators. The Republican groups in the Chamber at once declared their adhesion, and M. Charles Dupuy, the President of the Council, found it convenient to let it be known that he was not a candidate for the Presidency of the republic. The two Houses met in congress at Versailles (Feb. 18) and at once proceeded to business. The Conservatives and the Rallied had fixed upon M. Méline as their candidate; but in a total of 812 voters he only found 279 adherents, whilst 483 rallied to M. Loubet. About fifty votes were scattered among a number of insignificant names, but the majority was decisive.

The Dupuy Ministry was temporarily continued in office, but from the moment of his election M. Loubet had grounds for distrusting its support. On driving from the railway

station to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the newly elected President was grossly insulted, and the attitude of the police and of the Prime Minister during this street uproar was more likely to provoke than to control disorder.

The Nationalists were not slow to take the hint. The same evening one of their chiefs, M. Jules Lemaitre wrote to the papers declaring that his party would not accept M. Loubet's election. MM. Coppée and Déroulède paraded the streets reviewing their partisans. For several days, notwithstanding numerous arrests, the streets were practically in possession of organised bodies of rioters, who, however, contented themselves with shrieking seditious cries. It was, however, openly asserted that a popular rising would take place on the occasion of President Faure's funeral. This contingency the Ministry were not prepared to face. They therefore determined that the only ceremony should be a religious one at Notre Dame, where all those invited should meet. Loud protests were raised against this proposal in the Chamber, which finally agreed to assemble in a body at the Elysée and to walk thence in procession; the Republican senators undertook to bring pressure to bear upon the Ministry to keep order in the streets, and the Municipal Council of Paris addressed a manifesto to the people urging peace, and at the same time endeavoured to stimulate the activity of the Prefect of Police. M. Loubet, moreover, announced his intention of conforming to the precedent set by M. Casimir Périer at the funeral of M. Carnot, and that he would consequently proceed from the Elysée to Père la Chaise. This decision was favourably received by the Paris populace, and the Ministry thought it advisable to intimate to the League of Patriots and to the League of the Patrie Française that places would not be allotted to them in the official procession. Nevertheless M. Déroulède continued to issue instructions to his followers, and the Duc d' Orléans was summoned in all haste to Brussels to be ready for any event.

The funeral ceremony passed off (Feb. 23) with less disturbance than had been anticipated. M. Loubet walked on foot from the Elysée to Notre Dame and thence to Père la Chaise, and his confidence in the Paris populace was amply rewarded. Those who might have wished to display their hostility were restrained by the attitude of the crowd. No sooner, however, had the official procession broken up than M. Déroulède made his attempt to get up a riot or a revolution. Accompanied by a few friends he endeavoured to persuade General Roget, who had been M. Cavaignac's chef du cabinet, to march with his brigade upon the Elysée. He went so far as to lay hold of the horse's bridle; but the general shook off his compromising friend and marched his men into their barracks. The deputy for La Charente and his colleague M. Marcel Habert followed in with the troops and with impassioned appeals urged them to make a pronunciamento. For their pains the two deputies were

taken into custody and locked up, and so the projected revolution miscarried. On the next day the Chamber without a moment's hesitation acceded to the Prime Minister's proposal that the two deputies should not be allowed to plead parliamentary privilege from arrest.

The situation was a strange one. The Government was perplexed, and not knowing on which shoulder to carry its gun most advantageously, endeavoured to conceal its embarrassment under a series of incoherent manœuvres. One day it ordered searches to be made in the houses of the secretaries of the Leagues, the next it announced that Déroulède was not to be prosecuted for an attempt to upset the republic, but for some mere press offence. As a matter of fact the crafty Auvergnat was anxious to conciliate the Nationalists, thinking that they were the more strong because the more noisy party. He gave them a proof of this in the eager insistence with which he urged the Senate to agree to the bill for depriving the Criminal Chamber of its authority, which had aroused strong opposition. Three sittings were occupied in its discussion. MM. Monis, Waldeck-Rousseau, Bérenger and others spoke strongly against the innovation which the Government sought to introduce. By only nine votes an amendment was lost which would have returned the bill to the Chamber, but at length the Senate having extracted from the Government a formal promise to publish the evidence taken before the criminal courts the bill was allowed to pass (March 1). Some days later the Figaro saved the Ministry the annoyance of breaking their promise by publishing in extenso the depositions of the witnesses summoned before the court. This publication, which the Government in vain attempted to hinder, produced an extraordinary sensation throughout France, and rallied a large body of the nation to the side of the Revisionists.

There were not wanting other indications that the change in the Presidency would necessarily involve a change in the policy of the responsible Government. M. Fallières, a former Prime Minister, known for his devotion to Liberal Republicanism, was elected President of the Senate; M. Urbain Gohier, a writer in L'Aurore, the organ of the extreme Dreyfusards, was summoned (March 16) before a civil court for insulting the Army, and on the same day Captain Picquart was transferred by order of the Court of Cassation from the military to a civil prison-whence a few weeks later he was definitely released. Even in the literary arena the fates were hostile to the Nationalists, for the AntiDreyfusards of the Société des Gens de Lettres, wishing to exclude from the committee on its annual renewal the friends of M. Zola, found themselves left in a minority, and M. Jules Lemaitre had only a single vote to support his candidature.

Meanwhile the Chamber was wearily plodding its way through the mazes of the ever-swelling Budget. Interpellations were frequently addressed to ministers, who managed to

escape defeat by misleading all parties. In reply to an inquiry addressed to the Minister of War with regard to the factious behaviour of certain officers, M. de Freycinet replied, "I strike in silence"; but no one believed that he would do anything of the sort.

The Easter session of the General Councils gave rise to no matters of general importance. The choice of M. Loubet was generally hailed with satisfaction, and the method in which business was conducted or rather neglected in the Chamber with dissatisfaction. One or two of the northern departments, which suffered most from the scourge, insisted upon some restriction being placed upon the number of cabarets opened in the district. M. Max Regis alone seemed anxious to keep up popular excitement. For the part he had taken in the recent disturbances at Algiers he was sentenced to four months' imprisonment, and to his own surprise was made to undergo it forthwith, and from that moment his influence in the colony waned. By a skilful combination of energy and concessions the governor-general and the prefect managed to create a division between the Anti-Semites and the Republicans, and to oblige the former to join hands with the reactionaries. The inauguration at Tunis of the statue to Jules Ferry was made the occasion of officially endorsing his colonial policy, and the substitution of General Pennequin for General Gallieni as Governor of Madagascar marked a change in the administration of that dependency.

When the session was resumed (May 2) no time was lost in calling upon M. de Freycinet to explain the suspension of the course of lectures at the Ecole polytechnique by M. Duruy, who had written several articles in the Figaro which clearly showed his bias in favour of a revision of the Dreyfus case. The students had thought proper to exhibit their feeling by disturbing the professor's lectures, and the Minister of War, instead of insisting upon order being maintained, thought fit to suspend the professor. Challenged in the Chamber to defend his action, M. de Freycinet tried to prove that the demonstration had been general and spontaneous, and that the reprimand he had addressed to the more culpable was severer than any imprisonment. The Chamber, as might be expected, received such transparent evasions with derision, and M. de Freycinet gladly seized upon the pretext that he had not been treated with respect to tender his resignation.

M. de Freycinet's position in the Cabinet had for a long time been unsatisfactory. In a measure he was held prisoner by the military camurilla, which among other things had forced him to pass a law by which appointments to all the high military commands were transferred from the Minister of War to a committee of generals. This abdication of the civil government raised the hopes of the military part to the highest, and its leaders entertained no doubt that they could hold their own. against Republican opinion.

M. de Freycinet's immediate successor was M. Krantz a deputy and already Minister of Public Works, but his career as War Minister was brief. A certain Commandant Cuignet had tendered to the Court of Cassation a document, purporting to have come from the Foreign Office and relating to the Dreyfus case. The inaccuracy of this document was at once recognised by M. Paléologue of the Foreign Affairs, and the matter reported to M. Delcassé, the Minister, who protested warmly against the manœuvre. The matter was brought before the Chamber (May 12) and M. Krantz in order to defend his department threw over Commandant Cuignet and placed him on half-pay. By this means he was able to obtain a vote of confidence by 378 to 54 votes, and for the moment the situation was saved.

Public attention, however, at this time was absorbed by what was going on outside Parliament, and the petty intrigues of a Ministry clinging to office were neglected for the trial of M. Déroulède and the gradual unveiling of the Dreyfus case. The Government had shown the most remarkable tenderness in dealing with the leader of the Nationalists. The more serious charges of having aimed at the safety of the State, which would have brought him before the High Court of Justice, were abandoned, and he was only charged before a jury with having attempted to decoy soldiers from their duty, and to having provoked street gatherings. After two days' hearing, under such circumstances, it was not surprising that the jury acquitted him (May 31), and the hero of the day was carried back in triumph to the meeting place of the Ligue des Patriotes, and later in the evening, at a noisy meeting packed with Nationalists, it was proposed to march at once to the Elysée.

On the following day (June 1) the arrival in Paris of Commandant Marchand, the hero of Fashoda, seemed to offer the Nationalists a better opportunity. Their idea was to put forward this bold soldier as the victim of the Government, in the hope that by some imprudent word or step he might be induced to become the "strong man" whom the discontented were seeking as a leader. This plot was rendered abortive by the prudence of the person chiefly interested, who thoroughly grasped the situation, and satisfied with the practical results of his campaign, quietly withdrew himself from the compromising ovations of his admirers. Two days later (June 3) the united chambers of the Court of Cassation gave their decision in the Dreyfus case, which was identical with that of the Criminal Chamber. The judgment of the Paris court martial was set aside, and Dreyfus was to be tried afresh before a court martial assembled at Rennes.

This decision drove the Nationalists and their allies to a state of wild exasperation. On the following day (June 4) M. Loubet, whilst attending the Auteuil steeplechases, was assaulted by "a sportsman," who struck him on the head with a loaded cane, and the members of the royalist Society of the