notice two incidents of pleasing_import which occurred shortly before the close of the year. First, the acquittal of M. Paul Cassagnac, the noted Bonapartist journalist, for the publication in the Pays of an Imperialist speech delivered by himself at Belleville, an offence-not the speech itself but the publicationon account of which he was tried before the Paris Assize Court, together with his fellow journalists, for "exciting to hatred and contempt of the Government." Secondly, the re-erection of the statue of Napoleon I. on the Vendôme Column, a function which took place quietly, without any pomp or ceremony.

Rumours of a Cabinet crisis followed on the Senatorial elections. It was said that the antagonism long known to exist between M. Buffet and the more Liberal members of his Cabinet, MM. Dufaure, Léon Say, and Wallon, was about to declare itself; that one or the other was going to resign office. However, no such result had taken place by the end of the year; and meanwhile, amidst all political enmities, very general satisfaction was caused by the declaration made by M. Léon Say, as Minister of Finance, to a Special Committee of the Assembly. He informed them that the receipts of the first ten months of 1875 exceeded the estimate by 82,367,000f., to which must be added an increase of 3,000,000f. to the tax on stocks and shares, making an excess of 85,000,000f. on the Budget estimates. Assuming, at a fair guess, 13,000,000f. as the excess to accrue in the last two months of the year, 1875 will in that case show a total excess of 98,000,000f. over the estimate. In view of such a result it seems not unnatural to conclude that, notwithstanding political embroilments, a country in this position must in the full meaning of the term be in a state of prosperity. In connection with financial as well as other considerations, we may notice that the purchase of the Suez Canal shares by England about this time could not fail to excite lively remark and emotion in French political and commercial circles. M. John Lemoinne wrote acrimoniously on the subject in the Débats; but the circular of the eminent originator of the canal himself, M. Lesseps, was judicious and conciliatory. He said, "Some shareholders are uneasy at the purchase by the British Government of the 17,602 shares which belonged to the Egyptian Government, and several are manifesting disquietude. It will be enough to recal a page of the history of the canal to allay anxieties and remove uneasiness. At the commencement of the enterprise, when the moment came for obtaining the necessary capital, a considerable part of the subscription was reserved for English capitalists. At that time France and Egypt insured by their relations the construction of the canal. The subscription was almost entirely covered by the French public and the Egyptian Government. The British Government, entirely uninterested financially in the success of the enterprise, interposed numerous difficulties to the accomplishment of the work, and even recently the intervention of the English agents was injurious to

the special interest of the French and Egyptian shareholders. The English nation now accepts that share in the Canal Company which was loyally reserved for it at the outset; and if this step is to have any result it can only be, in my view, by the abandonmert by the British Government of an attitude which has long been hostile to the interests of the shareholder founders of the Maritime Canal, so energetic in their intelligent perseverance. I regard, therefore, as a fortunate event this powerful solidarity about to be established between French and English capital for the purely industrial and necessarily pacific working of the Universal Maritime Canal. Kindly show this letter to those of our shareholders who may ask your opinion."

To return to the Assembly. In the intervals of the Senatorial elections, the Bill regulating the number and extent of the electoral conscriptions was passed, the changes made in the Government's project being but few and unimportant. On the 20th a somewhat exciting debate was provoked by a proposition emanating from M. Naquet and a few other "intransigéant members of the Left, that a complete amnesty should be accorded for all crimes and offences committed in connection with the Commune of Paris, no matter whether they were purely political or consisting of offences at common law. The debate which ensued showed that merely a fraction of the Republican party were agreed upon this question, M. Naquet and his friends finding numerous opponents on all sides of the House. The majority of the members of the Left, while declaring that they were in favour of a partial amnesty, refused their consent to setting at liberty individuals who had been guilty of murder and

arson.

The last week of the year was occupied in the Assembly by stormy debates over the Press Bill and the State of Siege Bill, introduced together by M. Dufaure. The Committee to which they had been referred had reported against them in decided terms. Though one of these Bills proposed to raise the state of siege in every district of France, except the Departments containing Paris, Versailles, Lyons, and Marseilles, M. Dufaure, it was complained, took away with one hand what he gave with the other, for his Press Bill contrived one of the most astonishing series of checks on freedom of publication ever devised. It multiplied the number of things that the journals must not do on pain of being fined or put out of existence. It handed them over more abjectly than ever to the discretion of tribunals which are, unhappily, not always free from political bias. The report of the Commission represented that, in the trial of charges against the press, juries would become the exception rather than the rule. One of the boldest of the propositions was that charges of having defamed public functionaries should not be submitted to a jury, but be judged by the Correctional Police alone. This device was manifestly intended to guard the party in power, and the Committee declared that the

Empire never in its worst days gave so much authority to the judges. The Bill, in fact, they said, would make it all but impossible for any journal to avoid committing some offence every day in a time of political animation.

On the 24th of December M. Buffet made his expected declaration of policy on the Press Bill, which, if rejected by the Assembly in accordance with the Committee's Report, must infallibly have brought with its rejection the fall of his Ministry. He referred to the programme of policy which had been given to the Assembly on the 12th of March, and which had indicated a Press Bill as a necessary preliminary to raising the state of siege:"This," he said, "has been described as making one liberty the ransom of another, but it is not so. The Bill does not strike a blow at the liberty of the press. It guarantees it by permitting a less illusory repression of excesses which would tend to make the liberty of the press an object of disgust and horror for all men of order. The Bill creates no new offences, and does not aggravate penalties, but it takes away offences which can no longer enjoy a deplorable impunity from a privileged jurisdiction which has pronounced unexpected acquittals. The Government think the state of siege can be raised immediately in most Departments, and in three or four great centres shortly after the definitive constitution of the public powers." Referring constantly and bitterly to the tactics of the Republicans, the speaker culminated in a declaration that, however the Chamber might try to oust him and his colleagues, it would never succeed in imposing a Radical Ministry upon Marshal MacMahon, who was resolved only to govern with the support of the soi-disant Conservatives. This most unconstitutional assertion apparently received the sanction of the Chief of the State, for he is stated to have written to M. Buffet, congratulating him upon the speech in question. Monday's sitting at Versailles was one of the most exciting that has occurred during the existence of the present Legislature. The first article of the Press law enumerates the penalties to be inflicted on writers attacking the Government of the Republic, and naturally enough it was scarcely to the taste of the Royalist and Imperialist Deputies. Two violent speeches from MM. Raoul Duval and de Castellane brought M. Dufaure, Minister of Justice, to the Tribune, and an allusion having been made by the firstnamed speaker to the scandalous manner in which France had been governed by the Duc de Broglie, the latter also rushed into the mêlée, but only to encounter a powerful and crushing rejoinder from M. Ernest Picard. Fierce contests arose over several of the clauses before the Press Bill was finally adopted on the 29th, after the rejection of an amendment proposed by M. Vente on the previous day to empower Government to suppress any journal which by its writing might seem to endanger the integrity of French soil. The State of Siege Bill was next discussed, and M. Challemel-Lacour, of the Extreme Left, made an eloquent speech

in support of the proposal that the state of siege should be raised throughout France. He was replied to by M. Buffet, who declared that the proposal would be dangerous; at the same time the Minister promised to respect electoral freedom. The clause demanding that the state of siege should be raised throughout France was put to the vote and rejected by 377 against 329. M. Buffet then announced that the Government relinquished the provision maintaining the state of siege in Algiers. The House, in accordance with the Government's proposals, voted the maintenance of the state of siege in Paris by 381 against 273; in Versailles, by 329 against 279; in Lyons by 382 against 257; and in Marseilles by a show of hands. Before the whole Bill was voted, M. Gambetta, in the name of his friends, declared that the Bill was detestable; but that being unable to obtain the abolition of the state of siege throughout France, they would vote for the adoption of the Bill in its entirety, so as to obtain at least the liberation of a portion of the country. The whole Bill was then adopted almost unanimously.

And now this memorable Assembly, the Long Parliament of Versailles, as it has been called, though rather from its pertinacious refusal to die earlier than from its actual length of life, which had not quite reached five years as yet, was called on to execute its last will and testament. On the 30th of December the Dissolution Committee invited the Chamber to decree its prorogation for the next day, but an amendment proposed by the Minister of Public Works was adopted by 32 majority, binding the Assembly to dispose of the measures on the Order of the Day before it should separate. The 16th of January was fixed for the nomination of the Senatorial Delegates to the next national representation, the 30th of January for the election of Senators, the 20th of February for the election of Deputies, and the 8th of March for the meeting of the two Houses.

The next day, being the last day of the year, the Permanent Committee was nominated in the Bureaux, It consisted of two members of the Extreme Right, four of the Moderate Right, four of the Right Centre, one Bonapartist, seven of the Left Centre, three of the Moderate Left, two of the Extreme Left, and two of the Lavergne Group.

Then the Assembly having disposed of all the business on its Order of the Day, the President, the Duc d'Audiffret-Pasquier, addressed it as follows:

you

"Gentlemen,-After a legislative period which has lasted five years, you have now arrived at the term which fixed for your labours. You are about to remit to the country the mission it confided to you under circumstances which increased the peril and honour attaching to it. Hardly had you assembled when to the pain of invasion was joined the hateful example of an insurrection without precedent. With our heroic army you vanquished the Commune, you made peace, paid our ransom for a madly undertaken war. Victory had failed us, but on the morrow of our

disasters the foreigner could judge what still remained of our resources and credit to this honest and industrious country. At that moment you approached the second part of your task, reorganised your internal administration, determined your political institutions. Every one had brought into this Chamber his convictions, his recollections, his hopes. They were all overridden by one sole thought-the love of their country. Thence issued the Constitution of the 25th of February-a work incomplete, perhaps, but outside of which you had to fear that the country would find itself afresh exposed to despotism and anarchy. This work you now confide to the loyalty of Marshal MacMahon, to the patriotism of future Assemblies, to the wisdom of this country, which for five years has so nobly seconded you. Never was an authority more respected than yours; never a will better obeyed. An admirable response made beforehand to those who pretend that France is not worthy of liberty. Depart, then, with confidence, gentlemen. Go, and submit yourselves to its judgment. Do not be afraid. It will not reproach you with the concessions you have made to its peace and repose, for there are two things you give it back intact-its Flag and its Liberty."

The President added that, in conformity with its resolution of yesterday, the Assembly would prorogue till the 8th of March, the day when its powers would expire. The Deputies separated with cries of "Vive la République !" " Vive la France!”

CHAPTER III.

GERMANY AND AUSTRO-HUNGARY.

GERMANY.-Landsturm and Civil Marriage Bills--Papal Encyclical of February 5th -Protests-Bills for withdrawing State grants, and altering Constitutional clauses-Debates-Bismarck's speeches-Bills concerning Church property, and abolition of Convents-Bills for District organization-Visit of Russian Emperor -War rumours raised and dispelled-Dispute between Germany and BelgiumBavarian politics-Emperor's visit to Italy-National festivals: Great Elector: Hermann Stein-Reassembling of German Diet-Taxes proposed-Opposition to Bismarck-Count Arnim-Suggestion for national disarmaments-Clerical prosecutions-Protestant church-Old Catholics-Elector of Cassel. AUSTRO-HUNGARY.---Reichsrath-Ofenheim trial-Trade agitation of Protectionists -Ministerial crisis in Hungary - Emperor's tour in Dalmatia, &c. Floods at Buda-Pesth-Deaths of Ex-Emperor Ferdinand, Ex-Duke of Modena, and Cardinal Rauscher-Eastern Question-Trade Protectionism.

GERMANY.

THE Diet of the German Empire was opened on the 8th of January. Before the end of the month the Landsturm Bill and the Bill for rendering Civil Marriage obligatory throughout the Empire, passed their Third Reading and became the law of the