CHAPTER IV

THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MARÉCHAL DE MAC-MAHON

May, 1873, to January, 1879

"L'ordre moral," such was the political catchword of the new administration. Just what it meant was not very clear. In general, however, it was obviously intended to imply resistance to radicalism (republicanism) and the maintenance of a strictly conservative policy, strongly tinged with clericalism.[5] The victors over M. Thiers had revived their desire of a monarchical restoration and many of them hoped that the maréchal de Mac-Mahon would shortly make way for the comte de Chambord. But though an anti-republican he was never willing to lend himself to any really illegal or dishonest manœuvres, and his sense of honor was of great help to him in his want of political competence. So he did not prove the pliant tool of his creators, and his term of office saw the definite establishment of the Republic.

The first Cabinet was led by the duc de Broglie who took the portfolio of Foreign Affairs. The new Government was viewed askance by the conquerors at Berlin, who disliked such an orderly transmission of powers as an indication of national recovery and stability. Bismarck even exacted new credentials from the French Ambassador. Meanwhile, the Minister of the Interior, Beulé, proceeded to consolidate the authority of the new Cabinet by numerous changes in the prefects of the departments, turning out the "rascals" of Thiers's administration to make room for appointees more amenable to new orders.

The time now seemed ripe for another effort to establish the monarchy under the comte de Chambord. It culminated in the "monarchical campaign" of October, 1873. The monarchical sympathizers were hand-in-glove with the Clericals and for the most part coincided with them. The Royalists were inevitably clerical if for no other reason than that monarchy and religion both seemed to involve continuity, and the legitimacy of the monarchy had always been blessed by the Church. The revolutionary Rights of Man were held to be inconsistent with the traditional Rights of God and the monarchy. Moreover, the founders of the third republic had, with noteworthy exceptions like the devout Trochu, been mildly anti-clerical. They were for the most part religious liberals and deists, rarely atheists, but that was enough to array the bishops, like monseigneur Pie of Poitiers, against them. Indeed, a quick religious revival swept over the land, as was shown by numerous pilgrimages, including one to Paray-le-Monial, home of the cult of the Sacred Heart. France herself should be consecrated to the Sacred Heart, and the idea was evolved, afterwards carried out, of the erection of the great votive basilica of the Sacré Cœur on the heights of Montmartre.

The first step toward the restoration of "Henry V" was to persuade the comte de Paris to make new efforts for a fusion of the two branches. Swallowing his pride, the comte de Paris generously went to the home of the comte de Chambord at Frohsdorf, in Austria, in August, and paid his respects to him as head of the family. As the comte de Chambord had no children, it was expected that the comte de Paris would be his successor. But the old difficulty about the white flag cropped up, and the comte de Chambord stubbornly refused to rule over a country above which waved the revolutionary tricolor.

Matters dragged on through the summer, during the parliamentary recess, and the conservative leaders were outspoken as to their plans to overthrow the Republic. It was hoped that some compromise might be reached by which could be reconciled, as to the flag, the desires of the Assembly which was expected to recall the pretender and those of the comte de Chambord who considered his divinely inspired will superior to that of the representatives of the people. It was suggested that the question of the flag might be settled after his accession to the throne. The embassy to Salzburg, in October, of M. Chesnelong, an emissary of a committee of nine of the Royalist leaders, achieved only a half-success, but left matters sufficiently indeterminate to encourage them in continuing their plans. Matters seemed progressing swimmingly when, on October 27, an unexpected letter from the pretender to M. Chesnelong categorically declared that nothing would induce him to sacrifice the white banner.

The effect of this letter was to make all hopes of a restoration impossible. Everybody knew that the majority of Frenchmen would never give up their flag for the white one, whether this were dignified by the name of "standard of Arques and Ivry," or whether one called it irreverently a "towel," as did Pope Pius IX, impatient at the obstinacy of the comte de Chambord. In the midst of the general confusion only one thing seemed feasible if governmental anarchy were to be avoided, namely, the prorogation of Mac-Mahon's authority, as a rampart against rising democracy and a permanent republic. This condition the Orléanist Right Centre turned to their advantage. By a vote of November 20, the executive power was conferred for a definite period of seven years on the maréchal de Mac-Mahon. Thus a head of the nation was provided who might perhaps outlast the Assembly. The vote might be interpreted either as the beginning of a permanent republican régime, as it proved to be, or as the establishment of a definite interlude in anticipation of a new attempt to set up a monarchy, this time to the advantage of the younger branch. Many hoped that the comte de Chambord would soon be dead, his white flag forgotten, and the way open to the comte de Paris. The Orléanists were pleased by this latter idea, the Republicans were glad to have the republican régime recognized for, at any rate, seven years to come, accompanied by the promise of a constitutional commission of thirty members. The Legitimists alone were disappointed, and, oblivious of the fact that the comte de Chambord had lost through his folly, they were before long ready to vent their wrath on Mac-Mahon and his adviser, the duc de Broglie, who was responsible for the presidential prorogation.

The pretender had been completely taken aback at the impression produced by his letter. Convinced of his divinely inspired omniscience, and certain that he was the foreordained ruler of France, he had thought that the Assembly would give way on the question of the flag, or that the army would follow him, or that Mac-Mahon would yield. His state coach had been made ready and a military uniform awaited him at a tailor's. He hastened in secret to Versailles, where he remained for a while in retirement to watch events, and where Mac-Mahon refused to see him. Then, after the vote on the presidency, he sadly returned into exile forever.

Never was a greater service done to France than when the comte de Chambord refused to give up his flag. Completely out of touch with the country through a life spent in exile, inspired with the feeling of his divine rights and their superiority to the will of democracy, he would scarcely have ascended the throne before some conflict would have broken out and the history of France would have registered one revolution more.

The duc de Broglie had considered it good form to resign after the vote of November 20, but Mac-Mahon immediately entrusted to him the selection of a second Cabinet. In this Cabinet the portfolio of Foreign Affairs was given to the duc Decazes, a skilled diplomat, but the Legitimists were offended by some of the cabinet changes and their dislike of the duc de Broglie gradually became more acute. Finally, after several months of parliamentary skirmishing the second Broglie Cabinet fell before a coalition vote of Republicans and extreme Royalists with a few Bonapartists, on May 16, 1874. The Right Centre and Left Centre had unsuccessfully joined in support of the Cabinet. The nation was taking another step toward republican control and the overthrow of the conservatives.

From now on, Mac-Mahon's task became increasingly difficult. After the split in the conservative majority it was necessary to rely on combination ministries, representing different sets and harder to reconcile or to propitiate. The result of Mac-Mahon's first efforts was a Cabinet led by a soldier, General de Cissey, and having no pronounced political tendencies.

Party differences were becoming accentuated. The downfall of the Broglie Cabinet had been largely due to the extreme Royalists and the Orléanists could not forgive them. The situation was made worse by differences in interpretation of the law of November 20, establishing the "septennat" of the maréchal de Mac-Mahon. Some of the Monarchists maintained the "septennat personnel," namely, the election of one specific person to hold office for seven years, with the idea that he could withdraw at any time in favor of a king. Others interpreted the law as establishing a "septennat impersonnel," a definite truce of seven years, which should still hold even if Mac-Mahon had to be replaced before the expiration of the time by another President. Then, they hoped, their enemy Thiers would be dead. The Republicans were, of course, desirous of making the impersonal "septennat" lead to a permanent republic, and declared that Mac-Mahon was not the President of a seven years' republic, but President, for seven years, of the Republic.

In this state of affairs the Bonapartists now became somewhat active again. Strangely enough, the disasters of 1870 were already growing sufficiently remote for some of the anti-Republicans to turn again to the prospect of empire. This menace frightened the moderate Royalists into what they had kept hesitating to do; that is to say, into spurring to activity the purposely inactive and dilatory constitutional commission.

The stumbling-block was the recognition of the Republic itself and the admission that the form of government existing in France was to be permanent. There was much parliamentary skirmishing over various plans, rejected one after the other, inclining in turn toward the Republic and a monarchy. Finally, some of the Monarchists, discouraged by the rising tide of "radicalism," and frightened lest unwillingness to accept a conservative republic now might result still worse for them in the future, rallied in support of the motion of M. Wallon, known as the "amendement Wallon," which was adopted by a vote of 353 to 352 (January, 1875): "The President of the Republic is elected by absolute majority of votes by the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies united as a National Assembly. He is chosen for seven years and is re-eligible."

In this vote the fateful statement was made concerning the election of a President other than Mac-Mahon and the transmission of power in a republic. The third Republic received its definite consecration by a majority of one vote.

The vote on the Wallon amendment dealt with only one article of a project not yet voted as a whole, but it was the crossing of the Rubicon. The other articles were adopted by increased majorities.

The Ministry of General de Cissey had already resigned upon a minor question, but had held over at the President's request. Mac-Mahon now asked the Monarchist M. Buffet to form a conservative conciliation Cabinet, which was made up almost entirely from the Right Centre (Orléanists) and the Left Centre (moderate Republicans) and accepted at first by the Republican Left. By this Cabinet still one more step was taken toward Republican preponderance.

During the Buffet Ministry three important matters occupied public attention. One was the completion of the new constitution. A second was the creation of "free" universities, not under control of the State. This step was advocated in the name of intellectual freedom, but the whole scheme was backed by the Catholics and merely resulted in the creation of Catholic faculties in several great cities. A third matter was the intense anxiety over the prospect of a rupture with Germany. Bismarck was renewing his policy of pin-pricks. The French army had been strengthened by a battalion to every regiment, and so Bismarck complained of the strictures of French and Belgian bishops on his anti-papal policy. Whether he only meant to humiliate France still more, or whether he actually desired a new rupture so as to crush the country finally, is not clear. At any rate, with the aid of England and especially of Russia, France showed that she was not helpless, and Bismarck protested that he was absolutely friendly.

By the close of 1875, the measures constituting the new Government had been voted and, on December 31, the Assembly, which had governed France since the Franco-Prussian War, was dissolved to make way for the new legislature. During the succeeding elections M. Buffet's Cabinet, antagonized by the Republicans and rent by internal dissensions, went to pieces, M. Buffet personally suffered disastrously at the polls. The slate was clear for a totally new organization. The Assembly had done many a good service, but its dilatoriness in establishing a permanent government, its ingratitude to M. Thiers, its clericalism, and its stubbornness in trying to foist a king on the people made it pass away unregretted by a country which had far outstripped it in republicanism.

The "Constitution of 1875," under which, with some modifications, France is still governed, is not a single document constructed a priori, like the Constitution of the United States. It was partly the result of the evolution of the National Assembly itself, partly the result of compromises and dickerings between hostile groups. Particularly, it expressed the jealousy of a monarchical assembly for a President of a republic, and the desire, therefore, to keep power in the hands of its own legislative successor. The Assembly took it for granted that the Chamber of Deputies would have the same opinions as itself. As a matter of fact, the political complexion of the legislature has been consistently toward radicalism, and the result has hindered a strong executive and promoted legislative demagogy.

The Constitution of 1875 may be considered as consisting of the Constitutional Law of February 25, relating to the organization of the public powers (President, Senate, Chamber of Deputies, Ministers, etc.); the Constitutional Law of the previous day, February 24, relating to the organization of the Senate; the Constitutional Law of July 16, on the relations of the public powers. Subsidiary "organic laws" voted later determined the procedure for the election of Senators and Deputies. The vote of February 25 was the crucial one in the definite establishment of the Republican régime. The Constitution has undergone certain slight modifications since its adoption.

By the Constitution of 1875 the government of the French Republic was vested in a Senate and a Chamber of Deputies. The Senate consisted of 300 members, of whom 75 were chosen for life by the expiring Assembly, their successors to be elected by co-optation in the Senate itself. The other 225, chosen for nine years and renewable by thirds, were to be elected by a method of indirect selection. In 1884, the choice of life Senators ceased and the seats, as they fell vacant, have been distributed among the Departments of the country. The Deputies were elected by universal suffrage for a period of four years. Unless a candidate obtained an absolute majority of the votes cast, the election was void, and a new one was necessary. Except during the period from 1885 to 1889, the Deputies have represented districts determined, unless for densely populated ones, by the administrative arrondissements. From 1885 to 1889, the scrutin de liste was in operation: the whole Department voted on a ticket containing as many names as there were arrondissements. The prerogatives of the two houses were identical except that financial measures were to originate in the Chamber of Deputies. As a matter of fact, the Senate has fallen into the background, and the habit of considering the vote of the Chamber rather than that of the Senate as important in a change of Ministry has made it the true source of government in France. The two houses met at Versailles until 1879; since then Paris has been the capital, except for the election of a President. After separate decision by each house to do so, or the request of the President, they could meet in joint assembly as a Constitutional Convention to revise the constitution.

The Senate and Chamber, united in joint session as a National Assembly, were to choose a President for a definite term of seven years, not to fill out an incomplete term vacated by another President. The President could be re-elected. With the consent of the Senate he could dissolve the Chamber, but this restriction made the privilege almost inoperative in practice. He was irresponsible, the nominal executive and figurehead of the State, but all his acts had to be countersigned by a responsible Minister, by which his initiative was greatly reduced. In fact the President had really less power than a constitutional king.

The real executive authority was in the hands of the Cabinet, headed by a Premier or Président du conseil.[6] The Ministry was responsible to the Senate and Chamber (in practice, as we have seen, to the Chamber), and was expected to resign as a whole if put by a vote in the minority. By custom the President selects the Premier from the majority and the latter selects his colleagues in the Cabinet, trying to make them representatives of the wishes of the Parliament. The French Republic is therefore managed by a parliamentary government.

The first elections under the new constitution resulted very much as might be expected: the Senate became in personnel the true successor of the Assembly, the Chamber of Deputies contained most of the new men. The Senate was conservative and monarchical, the Chamber was republican. Therefore, the President of the Republic entrusted the formation of a Ministry to M. Jules Dufaure, of the Left Centre, the views of which group differed hardly at all from those of the Right Centre, except in a full acceptance of the new conditions. Unfortunately, M. Dufaure found it impossible to ride two horses at once and to satisfy both the conservative Senate and the majority in the Chamber of more advanced Republicans than himself. He mistrusted the Republican leader Gambetta, though the latter was now far more moderate, and he sympathized too much with the Clericals to suit the new order of things. So his Cabinet resigned (December 2, 1876), less than nine months after its appointment, and the maréchal de Mac-Mahon felt it necessary, very much against his will, to call to power Jules Simon. He had previously tried unsuccessfully to form a Cabinet from the Right Centre under the duc de Broglie.

The duc de Broglie remained, however, the power behind the throne. The President was under the political advice of the conservative set, whose firm conviction he shared, that the new Republic was advancing headlong into irreligion. The course of political events now took on a strong religious flavor. Jules Simon was a liberal, which was considered a misfortune, though he announced himself now as "deeply republican and deeply conservative." But people knew his unfriendly relations with Gambetta, which dated from 1871, when he checkmated the dictator at Bordeaux. It was hoped that open dissension might break out in the Republican party which would justify measures tending to a conservative reaction, and help tide over the time until 1880. Then the constitution might be revised at the expiration of Mac-Mahon's term and the monarchy perhaps restored.

Gambetta was, however, now a very different man. Discarding his former unbending radicalism, he was now the advocate of the "political policy of results," or opportunism, a method of conciliation, of compromise, and of waiting for the favorable opportunity. This was to be, henceforth, the policy closely connected with his name and fame. So Jules Simon soon was sacrificed.

The efforts of the Clerical party bore chiefly in two directions: control of education and advocacy of increased papal authority, particularly of the temporal power of the Pope, dispossessed of his states a few years before by the Government of Victor Emmanuel. This latter course could only tend to embroil France with Italy. So convinced was Gambetta of the unwise and disloyal activities of the Ultramontanes that on May 4, in a speech to the Chamber, he uttered his famous cry: "Le cléricalisme, voilà l'ennemi!"

Jules Simon found himself in a very difficult position. Desirous of conciliating Mac-Mahon and his clique, he adopted a policy somewhat at variance with his former liberal religious views. On the other hand, he could not satisfy the President, who had always disliked him, or those who had determined upon his overthrow. The crisis came on May 16, 1877, when Mac-Mahon, taking advantage of some very minor measures, wrote a haughty and indignant letter to Jules Simon, to say that the Minister no longer had his confidence. Jules Simon, backed up by a majority in the Chamber, could very well have engaged in a constitutional struggle with Mac-Mahon, but he rather weakly resigned the next day.[7] Thus was opened the famous conflict known in French history, from its date, as the "Seize-Mai."

No sooner was Jules Simon out of the way than Mac-Mahon appointed a reactionary coalition Ministry of Orléanists and Imperialists headed by the duc de Broglie, and held apparently ready in waiting. The Ministers were at variance on many political questions, but united as to clericalism. The plan was to dissolve the Republican Chamber with the co-operation of the anti-Republican Senate, in the hope that a new election, under official pressure, would result in a monarchical lower house also. The Chamber of Deputies was therefore prorogued until June 16 and then dissolved. At the meeting of May 18, the Republicans presented a solid front of 363 in their protest against the high-handed action of the maréchal de Mac-Mahon.

The new Cabinet began by a wholesale revocation of administrative officials throughout the country, and spent the summer in unblushing advocacy of its candidates. Those favored by the Government were so indicated and their campaign manifestoes were printed on official white paper.[8] The Republicans united their forces to support the re-election of the 363 and gave charge of their campaign to a committee of eighteen under the inspiring leadership of Gambetta. In a great speech at Lille, Gambetta declared that the President would have to "give in or give up" (se soumettre ou se démettre), for which crime of lèse-majesté he was condemned by default to fine and imprisonment. In September, Thiers, the great leader of the early Republic, died, and his funeral was made the occasion of a great manifestation of Republican unity. Finally, in spite of governmental pressure and the pulpit exhortations of the clergy, the elections in October resulted in a new Republican Chamber. The reactionary Cabinet was face to face with as firm an opposition as before.

The duc de Broglie, in view of this crushing defeat, was ready to withdraw, and Mac-Mahon, after some hesitation, accepted his resignation. Mac-Mahon's own fighting blood was up, however, and he tried the experiment of an extra-parliamentary Ministry led by General de Rochebouët, the members of which were conservatives without seats in Parliament. But the Chamber refused to enter into relations with it, and as the budget was pressing and the Senate was not disposed to support a second dissolution, Mac-Mahon had to submit and the Rochebouët Cabinet withdrew.

Thus ended Mac-Mahon's unsuccessful attempt to exert his personal power. The Seize-Mai has sometimes been likened to an abortive coup d'état. The parallel is hardly justifiable. Mac-Mahon would have welcomed a return of the monarchy at the end of his term of office, but he intended to remain faithful to the constitution, however much he might strain it or interpret it under the advice of his Clerical managers, and though he might have been willing to use troops to enforce his wishes. One unfortunate result ensued: the crisis left the Presidency still more weak. Any repetition of Mac-Mahon's experiment of dissolving the Chamber would revive accusations against one of his successors of attempting a coup d'état. There have been times when the country would have welcomed the dissolution by a strong President of an incompetent Chamber. Unfortunately, Mac-Mahon stood for the reactionaries against the Republic. His course of action would be a dangerous precedent.

The new order of things was marked by the advent of another Dufaure Ministry, very moderate in tendency, but acceptable to the majority. Most of the high-handed doings of the Broglie Cabinet were revoked, much to the disgust of Mac-Mahon, who frequently lost his temper when obliged to sign documents of which he disapproved. Finally, in January, 1879, in a controversy with his Cabinet over some military transfers, Mac-Mahon resigned, over a year before the expiration of his term of office. Moreover, at the recent elections to the Senate the Republicans had obtained control of even that body. Thus he was alone, with both houses and the Ministry against him.

In spite of the unfortunate endless internal dissensions, France made great strides in national recovery during the Presidency of Mac-Mahon. His rank and military title gave prestige to the Republic in presence of the diplomats of European monarchies, the German crisis of 1875 showed that Bismarck was not to have a free hand in crushing France, the participation of France in the Congress of Berlin enabled the country to take a place again among the European Powers. Finally, the International Exhibition of 1878 was an invitation to the world to witness the recovery of France from her disasters and to testify to her right to lead again in art and industry.

The Presidency of Mac-Mahon shows the desperate efforts of the Monarchists to overthrow the Republic, and then to control it in view of an ultimate Restoration, either by obstructing the vote of a constitution or by hindering its operation. Throughout, the Monarchists and the Clericals work together or are identical. The end of his term of office found the whole Government in the hands of the Republicans.

CHAPTER V

THE ADMINISTRATION OF JULES GRÉVY

January, 1879, to December, 1887

The resignation of the maréchal de Mac-Mahon was followed by the immediate gathering, in accordance with the constitution, of the National Assembly, which chose as President for seven years Jules Grévy. The new chief magistrate, elected without a competitor, was already seventy-two, and had in his long career won the reputation of a dignified and sound statesman, in whose hands public affairs might be entrusted with absolute safety. He represented a step beyond the military and aristocratic régime which had preceded him. The embodiment of the old bourgeoisie, he had, along with its qualities, some of its defects. Eminently cautious, his statesmanship had been at times a non-committal reserve more than constructive genius. His parsimony soon caused people to accuse him of unduly saving his salary and state allowances, while his personal dislikes led him to err grievously in his choice of advisers, or rather in his elimination of Gambetta, to whom circumstances now pointed.

Jules Grévy hated Gambetta, undeniably the leading figure in the Republican party since the death of Thiers, and neglected to entrust to him the formation of a Cabinet. Thiers himself had shown greater wisdom. He, too, had disliked the raging and apparently futile volubility of the young tribune during the Franco-Prussian War, but Thiers got over calling Gambetta a "fou furieux." On the contrary, just after the Seize-Mai and before his own death, when Thiers was expecting to return to the Presidency as successor to a discredited Mac-Mahon, he had intended to make Gambetta the head of his Cabinet. For Gambetta with maturity had become more moderate. Instead of drastic political remedies he was gradually evolving, as already stated, the policy of "Opportunism" so closely linked with his name, the method of gradual advance by concessions and compromises, by taking advantage of occasions and making one's general policy conform with opportunity.

If Gambetta, as leader of the majority group in the Republican party, which had evicted Mac-Mahon, had become Prime Minister, it is conceded that the precedent would have been set by the new administration for parliamentary government with a true party leadership, as in Great Britain. Instead, Grévy entrusted the task of forming a Ministry to an upright but colorless leader named Waddington, at the head of a composite Cabinet, more moderate in policy than Gambetta, who became presiding officer of the Chamber of Deputies. The consequence was that, after lasting less than a year, it gave way to another Cabinet led by the great political trimmer Freycinet,[9] until in due time it was in turn succeeded by the Ministry of Jules Ferry in September, 1880.

It must not be inferred that nothing was accomplished by the Waddington and Freycinet Ministries. Indeed, Jules Ferry, the chief Republican next to Gambetta, was himself a member of these two Cabinets before leading his own.

The lining-up of Republican groups, as opposed to the Monarchists, under the new administration was: the Left Centre, composed as in the past of ultra-conservative Republicans, constantly diminishing numerically; the Republican Left, which followed Jules Ferry; the Republican Union of Gambetta; and, finally, the radical Extreme Left, which had taken for itself many of the advanced measures advocated by Gambetta when he had been a radical. One of its leaders was Georges Clemenceau. Between the two large groups of Ferry and Gambetta there was little difference in ideals, but Gambetta was now the Opportunist and Ferry made his own Gambetta's old battle-cry against clericalism.

The Chamber elected after the Seize-Mai was by reaction markedly anti-Clerical, and the Waddington Cabinet, to begin with, contained three Protestants and a freethinker. Obviously steps would soon be taken to defeat the "enemy." In this movement Jules Ferry was from the beginning a leader, by direct action as well as by the educational reforms which he carried out as Minister of Public Instruction. Jules Ferry became, more than Gambetta, the great bugbear of the Clericals and the author of the "lois scélérates."

During the Waddington Ministry Jules Ferry began his efforts for the reorganization of superior instruction, and among his measures carried through the Chamber of Deputies the notorious "Article 7" indirectly aimed at Jesuit influence in secondary teaching as well: "No person can direct any public or private establishment whatsoever or teach therein if he belongs to an unauthorized order." The Jesuits had at that time no legal footing in France, but were openly tolerated. The Senate rejected this article under the Freycinet Ministry and the law was finally adopted thus apparently weakened. But Jules Ferry, nothing daunted, immediately put into operation the no less notorious decrees of March, 1880, reviving older laws going back even to 1762, which had long since fallen into disuse. By these decrees the Jesuit establishments were to be closed and the members dispersed within three months. Moreover, every unauthorized order was, under penalty of expulsion, to apply for authorization within a like limit of time. The expulsion of the Jesuits was carried out with a certain spectacular display of passive resistance on the part of those evicted. Later in the year similar steps were taken against many other organizations.

It is evident from the above that the promotion of educational reform under Republican control was definitely connected with measures directed against clerical domination. The French Catholic Church, on its part, treated every attempt toward laicization as a form of persecution. But Jules Ferry unhesitatingly extended his policy when he became Prime Minister. His measures were genuinely neutral, but his reputation as a Voltairian freethinker and a freemason inevitably afforded his opponents an excuse for their charges.

Jules Ferry's reforms in education, extending over several Cabinet periods as late as 1882, included secondary education for girls, and free, obligatory, lay, primary instruction. To Americans accustomed to such methods of education it is difficult to conceive the struggles of Jules Ferry and his assistant on the floor of the House, Paul Bert, in carrying through these measures for the training of the democracy.

In foreign affairs Jules Ferry inaugurated a more active policy symptomatic of the return of France to participation in international matters. At the Congress of Berlin, France had avoided entanglements, but, even at that early period, Lord Salisbury had hinted to M. Waddington, present as French delegate, that no interference would be made by England, were France to advance claims in Tunis. This suggestion came, perhaps, originally from Bismarck, who was not averse to embroiling France with Italy. That country longed for Tunis so conveniently situated near Sicily. England, moreover, was probably not desirous of seeing the Italians thus strategically ensconced in the Mediterranean.

In 1881, financial manœuvres and the plundering expeditions into Algeria of border tribes called Kroumirs afforded a pretext for intervention, to the indignation of Italy, which was thus more than ever inclined to seek alliances against France, even with Germany. Here, indeed, was the germ of the Triple Alliance. An easy advance to Tunis forced the Bey to accept a French protectorate by the Treaty of the Bardo on May 12, 1881. Later in the year the situation became rather serious, and new and rather costly military operations became necessary, including the occupation of Sfax, Gabès, and Kairouan.

Thus France came into possession of valuable territories, but at the cost of Italian indignation. Moreover, Jules Ferry, who was always one of the most hated of party leaders in his own country, reaped no advantage to himself. His enemies affected to believe that the whole Tunisian war was a game of capitalists, or was planned for effect upon elections to the new Chamber. The boulevards refused to take the Kroumirs seriously and joked about "Cherchez le Kroumir." Finally, on November 9, 1881, the personal intervention of Gambetta before the newly elected Chamber of Deputies saved the Cabinet on a vote of confidence. Jules Ferry none the less determined to resign, and Gambetta, in spite of Grévy's aversion, was the inevitable man for the formation of a new Cabinet.

Gambetta's great opportunity had come too late to be effective. The undoubted leader of the Republic, he had grown in statesmanship since his early days, but was still hated by men like Grévy who could not get over their old prejudices. Then the advanced radicals, or intransigeants, thought him a traitor to his old platforms or programmes.[10] They blamed his Opportunism and said that he wanted power without responsibility. Gambetta's enemies, whether the duc de Broglie or Clemenceau, talked of his secret influence (pouvoir occulte), and accused him of aspiring to a dictatorship, in fact if not in name. Their suspicions were somewhat deepened by Gambetta's ardent advocacy of the scrutin de liste instead of the existing scrutin d'arrondissement.[11]

It was asserted that Gambetta wanted to diminish the independence of local representation and marshal behind himself a subservient majority. To Gambetta the scrutin de liste was the truly republican form of representation, the one existing under the National Assembly and abolished by the reactionaries under the new constitution.

Thus, Gambetta had against him, during the campaign for renewal of the Chamber of Deputies in the summer of 1881, not only the anti-Republicans but also timid liberals like Jules Simon, the influence of President Grévy, and the intransigeants. The Senate was averse to the scrutin de liste and rejected, in the spring of 1881, the measure which Gambetta carried through the Chamber. Gambetta, formerly the idol of the working classes of Paris, met with opposition, was hooted in one of his own political rallies, and was re-elected on the first ballot in one only of the two districts in which he was a candidate.

The elections of the Chamber of 1881 resulted in a strongly Republican body, in which, however, the majority subdivided into groups. Gambetta's "Union républicaine" was the most numerous, followed by Ferry's "Gauche républicaine," and the extremists. A certain fraction of Gambetta's group, including Henri Brisson and Charles Floquet, also tended to stick together. They were the germ of what became in time the great Radical party.

It had been hoped that Gambetta would bring into his Cabinet all the other leaders of his party, and at last form a great governing ministry. But men like Léon Say and Freycinet refused their collaboration because of divergence of views or personal pride. Gambetta then decided to pick his collaborators from his immediate friends and partisans, some of whom had yet a reputation to make. The anticipated "Great Ministry" turned out to be, its opponents said, a "ministère de commis," a cabinet of clerks. The fact that it contained men like Waldeck-Rousseau, Raynal, and Rouvier showed, however, that Gambetta could discover ability in others. But it was declared that the "dictator" was marshalling his henchmen. The extremists, especially, were furious because Gambetta also magnanimously gave important posts to non-Republicans like General de Miribel and the journalist J.-J. Weiss.

The "Great Ministry" remained in office two months and a half and came to grief on the proposed revision of the constitution, in which Gambetta wished to incorporate the scrutin de liste. In January, 1882, it had to resign and Gambetta died on the last day of the same year. Thus, the third Republic lost its leading statesman since the death of Thiers.

The year 1882 was filled by the two ineffective Cabinets of Freycinet (second time) and of Duclerc. Under the former, France made the mistake, injurious to her interests and prestige, of withdrawing from the Egyptian condominium with Great Britain and allowing the latter country free play for the conquest and occupation of Egypt. Thus the fruits of De Lesseps' piercing of the Isthmus of Suez went definitely to England. The death of Gambetta under the Duclerc-Fallières Ministry[12] seemed to reawaken the hopes of the anti-Republicans, and Jerome Napoleon, chief Bonapartist pretender since the decease of the Prince Imperial, issued a manifesto against the Republic. Parliament fell into a ludicrous panic, various contradictory measures were proposed, and in the general confusion the Cabinet fell after an adverse vote.

In this contingency President Grévy did what he should have done before, and called to office the leading statesman. This was now Jules Ferry. At last France had an administration which lasted a little over two years. But Ferry was still intensely unpopular. He had become the successor of Gambetta and the exponent of the policy of Opportunism, which he tried to carry out with even more constructive statesmanship. But he was totally wanting in Gambetta's magnetism, and his domineering ways made him hated the more. The Clericals opposed him as the "persecutor" of the Catholic religion, and the Radicals thought he did not go far enough in his hostility to the Church. For Jules Ferry saw that the times were not ripe for disestablishment, and that the system of the Concordat, in vogue since Napoleon I, really gave the State more control over the Clergy than it would have in case of separation. The State would lose its power in appointments and salaries. Jules Ferry knew that the Church could be useful to him, and the politic Leo XIII, very different from Pius IX, was ready to meet him part way, though the Pope himself had to humor to a certain extent the hostility to the Republic of the French Monarchists and Clericals. Jules Ferry, like Gambetta, also had to put up with the veiled hostility of President Grévy, working in Parliament through the intrigues of his son-in-law Wilson. Moreover, Ferry was made to bear the odium for a long period of financial depression, which had lasted since 1882, starting with the sensational failure (krach) of a large bank, the Union générale. So his career was made a torture and he was vilified perhaps more than any man of the third Republic.

The extremists had in time another grievance against Jules Ferry in his opposition to a radical revision of the constitution. The enemies of the Republic still feigned to believe, especially when the death of the comte de Chambord in 1883 had fused the Legitimists and Orléanists, that an integral revision would pave the way for a monarchical restoration. The Radicals demanded the suppression of the power of the Senate, whose consent was necessary to summon a constitutional convention. A Congress was summoned in 1884 at which the very limited programme of the Ministry was put through. The changes merely eliminated from the constitution the prescriptions for senatorial elections. After this, by an ordinary statute, life-senatorships were abolished for the future, and some changes were made in the choice of senatorial electors.

Jules Ferry was what would to-day be called an imperialist. In this he may have been unwise, for the French, though intrepid explorers, do not care to settle permanently far from the motherland. The north coast of Africa might have been a sufficient field for enterprise. But Jules Ferry thought that the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria, and Italy, formed in 1882, was going to isolate France permanently in Europe. So she was to regain her prestige by territorial annexations in the Sudan, the Congo, Madagascar, Annam, and Tonkin.

The French had some nominal rights on Tonkin since 1874, and disturbances there had caused a revival of activities. When the French officer Rivière was killed in an ambuscade in May, 1883, Jules Ferry sent heavy reinforcements and forced the King of Annam to acknowledge a French protectorate. This stirred up the Chinese, who also claimed Annam, and who caused the invasion of Tonkin by guerillas supported by their own troops. After various operations in Tonkin the Treaty of Tien-tsin was signed with China in May, 1884, by which China made the concessions called for by the French. Within a month Chinese troops ambuscaded a French column at Bac-Le and the Government decided on a punitive expedition. Thus France was engaged in troublesome warfare with China, without direct parliamentary authorization. The bombardment of Foo-chow, the attack on the island of Formosa, and the blockade of the coast dragged along unsatisfactorily through 1884 and 1885.

While Jules Ferry in the spring of 1885 was actually negotiating a final peace with China on terms satisfactory to the French, the cession of Annam and Tonkin with a commercial treaty, and while he was categorically affirming in the Chamber of Deputies the success of military operations in Tonkin, a sudden dispatch from the East threw everything into a turmoil. General Brière de l'Isle telegraphed from Tonkin that the French had been disastrously defeated at Lang-son and General de Négrier severely wounded. The news proved to be a grievous exaggeration which was contradicted by a later dispatch some hours after, but the damage was done. On March 30, in the Chamber of Deputies, Jules Ferry was insulted and abused by the leaders of a coalition of anti-Republicans and Radicals. The "Tonkinois," as his vilifiers called him, disgusted and discouraged, made little attempt to defend himself, and his Cabinet fell by a vote of 306 to 149. On April 4, the preliminaries of a victorious treaty of peace were signed with China.

The fall of Jules Ferry was a severe blow to efficient government. It marked the end, for a long time, of any effort to construct satisfactory united Cabinets led by a strong man. It set a precedent for innumerable short-lived Ministries built on the treacherous sands of shifting groups. It paved the way for a deterioration in parliamentary management. It accentuated the bitter hatred now existing between the Union des gauches, as the united Gambetta and Ferry Opportunist groups called themselves, on the one hand, and the Radicals and the Extreme Left on the other. The Radicals, in particular, were influential, and one of their more moderate members, Henri Brisson, became the head of the next Cabinet. Brisson's name testified to an advance toward radicalism, but the Cabinet contained all sorts of moderate and nondescript elements, dubbed a "concentration" Cabinet. Its chief function was to tide over the elections of 1885, for a new Chamber of Deputies. In anticipation of this election Gambetta's long-desired scrutin de liste had been rather unexpectedly voted.

The workings of the new method of voting were less satisfactory than had been anticipated. Republican dissensions and a greater union of the opposition caused a tremendous reactionary landslide on the first ballot. This was greatly reduced on the second ballot, so that the Republicans emerged with a large though diminished majority. But the old Left Centre had practically disappeared and the Radicals were vastly more numerous. The great divisions were now the Right, the moderate Union des gauches, the Radicals, and the revolutionary Extreme Left. The Brisson Cabinet was blamed for not "working" the elections more successfully and it resigned at the time of President Grévy's re-election. He had reached the end of his seven years' term and was chosen again on December 28, 1885. He was to have troublesome experiences during the short time he remained in the Presidency.

The Freycinet, Goblet, and Rouvier Cabinets, which fill the rest of Grévy's Presidency, were largely engrossed with a new danger in the person of General Boulanger. He first appeared in a prominent position as Minister of War in the Freycinet Cabinet. A young, brilliant, and popular though unprincipled officer, he soon devoted himself to demagogy and put himself at the head of the jingoes who called Ferry the slave of Bismarck. The expeditions of Tunis and Tonkin had, moreover, thrown a glamour over the flag and the army.

Boulanger began at once to play politics and catered to the advanced parties, who adopted him as their own. He backed up the spectacular expulsion of the princes, which, as an answer to the monarchical progress, drove from France the heads of formerly reigning families and their direct heirs in line of primogeniture, and carried out their radiation from the army. The populace cheered the gallant general on his black horse, and when Bismarck complained that he was a menace to the peace of Europe Boulanger's fortune seemed made. At a certain moment France and Germany were on the brink of war in the so-called Schnaebele affair.[13] So, when Boulanger was left out of the Rouvier Cabinet combination in May, 1887, as dangerous, he played more than ever to the gallery as the persecuted saviour of France and, on being sent to take command of an army corps in the provinces at Clermont-Ferrand, he was escorted to the train by thousands of enthusiastic manifestants.

Meanwhile, President Grévy was nearing a disaster. In October, 1887, General Caffarel, an important member of the General Staff, was arrested for participating in the sale of decorations. When Boulanger declared that the arrest of Caffarel was an indirect assault on himself, originally responsible for Caffarel's appointment to the General Staff, the affair got greater notoriety. The scandal assumed national proportions when it was found to involve the President's own son-in-law Daniel Wilson, well known to be a shady and tricky politician, who had the octogenarian President under his thumb. The matter reached the scale of a Cabinet crisis, since it was by an overthrow of the Ministry that the President could best be reached. Unfortunately, Grévy could not see that the most dignified thing for him to do was to resign, even though he was in no way involved in Wilson's misdemeanors. For days he tried to persuade prominent men to form a Cabinet; he tried to argue his right and duty to remain. But finally the Chamber and Senate brought actual pressure upon him by voting to adjourn to specific hours in the expectation of a presidential communication. He bowed to the inevitable and retired from the Presidency with the reputation of a discredited old miser, instead of the great statesman he had appeared on beginning his term of office.