TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE FALL OF M. BOURGEOIS. THE three great forces opposed to M. Bourgeois have proved too strong for him, and for the moment be has fallen. The Conservatives of France were very greatly, and perhaps justifiably, irritated by his administration, not indeed by what he had done, for he had done little, but by the tendencies they detected in his speeches and by some of his appointments, especially his preference for anti-religious bigots. The propertied classes and the older Radicals were frightened by his Income-tax Bill, which, though not in principle very different from the English Income-tax law, appeared to them to contain the germ of a Socialist system of finance. Besides detesting inquiry into their incomes, they are seriously afraid of admitting the principle of exemptions, which they say logically admits the right of the community to throw all the expenses of the State upon those who earn more than is necessary for bare maintenance. Indeed the Councils-General of the Departments which represent those classes pronounced against the tax by a majority of three to one,—a vote which indicated, at all events, doubt in the peasant mind. And there can hardly be a doubt—it is said that all Ambassadors admit it—that the Russian Government, which practically dismissed M. Berthelot, was extremely unfriendly to M. Bourgeois,—that, in fact, it felt at once the absurdity and the danger of a strict alliance with an Administration fundamentally opposed to its own principles of existence. The ill-will of Russia greatly affected the President, and the lead- ing Senators, aware of his disquiet, were encouraged to take the extreme step of refusing supplies unless the Bourgeois Cabinet resigned. On Tuesday M. Deloncle formally proposed that the Senate, which had three times " refused its confidence to the Ministry," should postpone the voting of the credits for Madagascar "until it had before it a constitutional Ministry having the confidence of the two Houses." M. Bourgeois of course protested, but he uttered no great speech, the Senators opposed to him repeated again and again that " the Cabinet was respon- sible to the Senate," and after a debate unexpectedly brief the Senate adopted M. Deloncle's " declaration " by 171 votes to 90, a majority of nearly two to one. M. Bourgeois thereupon informed the President that he must summon the Chamber, but that when he had explained himself he would resign, and the President " rather stiffly " replied that this was his only course. The Chamber was, there- fore, summoned for Thursday, and M. Bourgeois read to it a declaration of policy which seems to Englishmen rather vague, but which clearly means that in his opinion the "supreme direction" of politics belongs to the Chamber, " direct universal suffrage " beings superior to " indirect," and that the right of disowning or affirming this view belongs to the National Assembly alone,—a direct demand for a revision of the Constitution. The Chamber, so excited that it was intolerant of long speeches, then accepted in two separate divisions two separate halves of a resolution proposed by M. Ricard. It declared, by 309 votes to 38, that " the Chamber affirms once more the preponderance of the elect of universal suffrage," and, by 417 to 37, that, " resolving to continue a policy of democratic reforms, it passes to the Order of the Day." This was, of course, victory of a very complete kind for M. Bourgeois, but the value of the victory was greatly reduced by a bit of Parlia- mentary adroitness. The opponents of the Ministry demanded the appel nominal, thus extinguishing all the proxies which it has become etiquette to count in a division under the ballot, and at the same time resolved to abstain from voting. It then appeared that of the Deputies present not half were voting, and a dispute arose as to whether a quorum could be considered present. M. Brisson decided that it could, and the vote was recorded as a unanimous one, but of course its moral weight was materially diminished.
M. Bourgeois, under pressure, as we believe, of fears for the Russian alliance, will not avail himself of the vote of the Chamber, but persists in his resignation, and M. Faure therefore will summon a fresh Ministry from among the Moderates,—a Ministry, however, which can hardly live long. It cannot have a majority in the Chamber, and it cannot live by the favour of the Senate alone. It can, it is true, dissolve, but that is precisely what a Moderate Ministry will be unwilling to do, more especially- as the Dissolution, by effiuxion of time, occurs next year. It must therefore be a weak Ministry, living by the con- ciliation of groups, and avoiding all serious questions, especially the one which is most serious of all, the neces- sity of filling up the permanent deficit in the revenue of. France. M. Bourgeois will be a powerful and an un- sparing opponent, and the Senate, inflated with its victory,. is nearly certain to give trouble.
The Republic has survived more difficult situations, and as yet France is not disturbed, but it cannot be denied that constitutionally the situation is very grave. M. Bourgeoia and his Moderate enemies have succeeded between, them in reaffirming in a most conspicuous way the doctrine that the two Chambers are truly co- ordinate, can both of them dismiss Governments, and can both of them dictate a financial policy. That is a doctrine to which there is no objection so long as it is not acted on, or is acted on only as an alternative to. armed resistance, but if it is acted on habitually, and in- comparatively unimportant crises, any Constitution must become unworkable. Ultimate power must lodge some- where, and no two Houses, even if chosen by the same electors from the same class of candidates, will ever display for any long period the same drift. Even in England we could not get along if the House of Lords could dismiss a Ministry or stop the supplies until its will was obeyed, and in England we do not care whether we are logical or not. In France men do care, and the dispute between the Chambers may, therefore, at any moment bring the Constitution to a deadlock. The cry for " Revision" will, therefore, be fierce, and it is diffi- cult to see how it can be avoided except by an ex- pedient to which all parties in France seem reluc- tant to resort. " Co-ordination" would not be dangerous if, whenever grave differences occurred, it was etiquette for the President to demand, and for the Senate to con- cede, a Dissolution. The people would then decide, and every grave conflict would be settled as soon as it arose. It is improbable, however, that this device will be resorted to in France, where the theory is that every man should use his legal powers to their full extent in freedom from appeal, and no alternative has as yet been so much as- suggested. The Chamber will not long be content to accept Ministries at the hands of the Senate, and we look to see all present disputes merged in a single quarrel round the pivot of the word " revision."
Previous page
