of the Judges was suspended for a year. The large majority obtained on this point could only be explained by the attitude of certain of the courts of law which had, ever since the foundation of the Republic, given incessant proofs of hostile partisanship; and the Bill was deprived of all but political colour by the rejection of the clause proposing the suppression, on economical grounds, of all courts hearing only a very small proportion of cases annually. This last clause was re-established in the counter-project prepared by the Committee of the Senate, of which M. Jules Simon was president, and the Committee also reversed the decision of the Chamber as to the irremovability of Judges, but the Bill has not yet been discussed in the Upper House, and a conflict may perhaps be avoided by the acceptance, or partial acceptance, of a second counter-project which has been elaborated by the Senatorial Left with that view. After the Bill on the magistracy the Chamber next discussed and voted (December 24) that dealing with primary education, and making it both secular and compulsory. The Bill on the secondary education of girls, which was passed by the Senate on December 10, provides for the establishment of secondary day schools by the co-operation of the State and the municipalities, but leaves to the municipalities the option of determining whether or no the day school shall be supplemented by a boarding-house. The education given in these schools, as in those of an elementary character, is to be secular only, and this provision was passed in spite of a violent opposition in the Senate, headed by the Duke de Broglie, who, finding it impossible to carry his own point, proposed to strike out "moral" instruction altogether from the course of study laid down, on the ground that such teaching, unless given under clerical direction, would be "atheistic." The Duke introduced a variety of not very relevant personalities into the debate, challenging the private opinions of the Prime Minister, and trying to make capital out of the fact that he was a Freemason; under these circumstances it must be reckoned as important that his motion was defeated by a very large majority-166 to 121.

The collision between the two Houses on the Budget, which had at one time seemed inevitable, was also happily avoided. The Chamber had struck out the amendments made by the Senate-which consisted in the re-establishment of various credits for clerical purposes in the Budget of Expenditure for 1881, but the Senate, wisely advised, waived the point (December 22). On the Budget of Receipts an important amendment, taxing the property of recognised orders, was proposed by M. Brisson and carried by the Chamber, but replaced in the Senate by clauses subjecting all associations to the 3 per cent. tax on personal property. The Committee of the Chamber on the Budget decided, however, to recommend the maintenance of the amendment in question as it originally stood, and the least of the consequences involved in so doing would have been the postponement of the final vote on the Budget, and the necessity of making provisional arrangements for

public expenditure. Feeling ran high, but the powerful support of M. Gambetta was given to those who counselled concession, and his attitude, whilst M. Wilson spoke on behalf of the Government in favour of the Senatorial amendment (December 27), was described as that of a band-master who leads and directs the execution of a carefully concerted piece. Under this pressure the Chamber was brought to agree, with a slight modification, to the Senatorial amendment, and the Budget was voted by both Houses, which then adjourned.

The steady discussion of these important measures of home policy had been interrupted for a brief space by the debates which took place in both Houses during the last days of November on foreign affairs. Rumour had declared that the spirited tone of M. Gambetta's speech at Cherbourg indicated his decision to inaugurate a warlike foreign policy, and further asserted that the fall of M. de Freycinet was due rather to his instant and ostentatious disavowal at Montauban of any but the most pacific intentions than to his inopportune intrigues with the Vatican; consequently it was expected that the debate on foreign affairs might elicit some interesting disclosures. These expectations were, however, disappointed; and the debate, which fell exceedingly flat in both Houses, showed only that the Extreme Left and the Right were equally prepared to condemn the Government policy in any event, but had no very precise views of their own. The question of immediate interest was-what course should be pursued by the French Government in reference to the claims of Greece? In the spring of 1880 M. de Freycinet had pressed the English Cabinet for an answer to the proposal made by M. Waddington in December 1879; this last proposal made by M. Waddington had been that Janina should be left to Turkey, but that in Thessaly the boundaries should follow the extreme northern limit of the valley of the Peneus. This proposition Lord Salisbury had met by suggesting an international Commission to examine the frontier on the spot. To this, although M. de Freycinet at first objected the loss of time which it would involve, the French Government eventually assented, but immediately on the change of Government in England, they returned to the "tracé qui englobe Janina." The new English Government having on this proposed a Conference at Berlin, the Marquis de la Ferronays, the French military attaché in London, was directed by his Government to suggest a line which in Epirus followed the course of the Kalamas, but in Thessaly followed the northern limit of the valley of the Peneus, thus giving both Janina and Metzovo to Greece. England adhered to this proposal, which was formally made by the Comte de St. Vallier, the French ambassador, at the meeting of the Conference in June; it was then seconded by the Italian ambassador, Count de Launay, and unanimously adopted. The decision of the Conference having been communicated to the Porte in a Collective Note, and the Porte having replied on July 27, the French Government, through M. de Freycinet,

declared that the decision of the Conference must be looked upon as irrevocable, and that the Powers would not entertain any proposal for a different line. In September, however, France, whilst agreeing in principle to the naval demonstration, tried in vain to induce the other allies to greatly limit the powers of the senior Admiral, whom it had been agreed to regard as Commander-in-Chief. The result was that the ostensible instructions sent by the French Government to their Admiral were not in exact accordance with the identical instructions given by the other five Powers; for they directed him to refer home all questions of a delicate or difficult nature, and they at the same time gave him still more private instructions that under no circumstances was he to fire a shot. Not only so, but the French squadron arrived in the Adriatic a considerable time after the squadrons of the other Powers had reached the rendezvous, although ships might have been detached for the purpose from the ordinary Mediterranean squadron of four ships which had been sent to Tunis to engage in a demonstration against Italian intervention in that principality, and these four ships actually lay at Tunis in spite of the earnest representations of the Italian Government as late as October, during which month they were at last withdrawn on the friendly interposition of England. When, on November 30, M. Barthélemy de St.-Hilaire rose to reply to the interpellations on the foreign policy of the Government, he was, however, able to announce that the demonstration and "the negotiations carried on in respect of Dulcigno with Oriental slowness had been successful, but as regarded Greece he found himself unable, after defending the course taken by his predecessor, to say more than that "if the European concert were maintained, the Greek question would be solved by pacific measures, like that of Dulcigno."

The negotiations with England for a new commercial treaty had also proceeded during the year with "Oriental slowness," but without being brought to any conclusion. For a moment, when M. Léon Say arrived as ambassador in London, they had seemed likely to receive a satisfactory solution, but this tendency had been checked by the outcries of the Protectionist majority in the Senate. The bases at that moment agreed on for negotiation between the Government of Mr. Gladstone and M. Léon Say were:-"1. Recherche d'une classe de vins payant à l'entrée en Angleterre un droit réduit. 2. Maintien sous le régime du tarif général à l'entrée en France des bestiaux et matières agricoles, qui par conséquent ne devraient pas figurer dans le traité. 3. Recherche des moyens de faire disparaître les fraudes de Douane. 4. Amélioration du status quo dans le sens du développement des relations commerciales." On this last head the English Government stated that they could only understand it as meaning a reduction of duties on the principal products of English industry. It must be remembered that before the Cobden Treaty the percentage of imports from the United Kingdom to the total imports into France was

sixteen. On the conclusion of the Cobden Treaty it immediately rose to over twenty, from which point it has steadily declined until it is now lower than it was before 1860. Prices having fallen, whilst duties have remained the same, they have become protective. The percentage of French exports to the United Kingdom to the total of French exports from France before the conclusion of the Cobden Treaty was 23 per cent.; on the conclusion of that treaty it at once rose to over 29 per cent., and remains at that point. The table of percentage also shows that the proportion of trade with the other nation to the total trade of the country is much greater in the case of France with the United Kingdom than in that of our trade with France. Franco-English trade is about 22 per cent. of the total trade of France, while Anglo-French trade is only about 11 per cent. of the total trade of the United Kingdom. From this point of view France is much more interested than England in the conclusion of a treaty to confirm the existing commercial relations between the two countries, or to place them on a still more satisfactory footing. In the sense of the first clause of the bases of agreement cited above, Mr. Gladstone proposed in his Supplementary Budget a reduction of the duties on all wines, of which reduction that to sixpence of the existing shilling duty on wines of below 20° Sykes was the result of this arrangement with France, and was intended to hurry on the treaty. But at this moment M. Léon Say was suddenly elected President of the Senate, and a great outcry was made against him by the Protectionist members of that body on the ground that, in signing the bases for a treaty, he and the Cabinet which instructed him had violated a promise given to the French Chambers that no treaty should be made, or, as some put it, no negotiations begun, until after the general tariff then, and now, before that body had been voted. In face of this demonstration the French Cabinet executed a retreat, and M. Challemel-Lacour, who succeeded M. Léon Say in London, allowed the matter to slumber. The proposals made by Mr. Gladstone with regard to the wine duty were consequently withdrawn, and, although a prospect has been held out of willingness to treat next year, there does not seem any immediate likelihood of the treaty being concluded.

In dealing with this important matter the Government will, however, have the advantage of being able to point to the general success of their financial administration. The year 1880 will stand out with even greater distinction than its predecessor in the annals of French finance. Although 120,000,000 fr. of taxes have been taken off, and in spite of the enormous expenses on public works entailed by the carrying out of M. de Freycinet's gigantic schemes, the indirect taxes alone have yielded an excess of 170,000,000 fr., and, after deducting all the supplementary credits voted in the course of the year, there will remain the magnificent surplus of 100,000,000 fr., as to the employment of which the Minister of Finance, M. Magnin, will take the pleasure of the Chamber in 1881.

L

II. ITALY.

The Grist Tax Debates-Prorogation of Parliament and its Re-assemblingDefeat of the Cairoli Ministry-Dissolution of the Chambers-The General Elections-The Autumn Session-Montenegrin Question-Ecclesiastical Policy of the Government--Attitude of the Clerical Party.

AT the close of 1879 the political situation in Italy was at a deadlock; ever since March 1876 the Left had been nominally in power, and their leaders had been making vain attempts to carry out the reforms demanded by their party in the teeth of a hostile majority in the Senate and a determined opposition in the Chamber. In the Chamber the Right was not, indeed, numerically to be feared, but the high character of its leading men gave a weight to its united action, which, coupled with the possibility of coalition with Dissident elements of the Left, created constant difficulty, if not danger. For more than three years this situation of affairs had paralysed legislation, and when the two Houses adjourned on December 24, 1879, the Senate was still engaged on the Bill for the Abolition of the Grist Tax, which had formed, from the first, together with the extension of the electoral franchise, the chief point of the Ministerial programme. It was also known that the Bill would ultimately be rejected, and it was understood that the Cabinet were determined, in such case, to resort to extreme measures, and to create in the Senate that majority which they otherwise despaired of obtaining. This would, however, have but the value of a purely temporary expedient, for, although it might enable Government to get the Bill for the Abolition of the Grist Tax through the Senate, it left the difficulties of the parliamentary situation in the Chamber unmodified. In the Chamber, the interests of the South, as represented by Signors Crispi and Nicotera, were forever bringing about fresh combinations, fresh pressure, and fresh concessions, which it was equally dangerous to make or to withhold. To put an end to this state of things an appeal to the country was clearly necessary, but, whilst the Right loudly proclaimed their confidence that the verdict would be on their side, the Left naturally shrank from challenging the electors with all their pledges unfulfilled, and were determined first to make it clear that if their promised reforms still remained unaccomplished they had at least exhausted all the means in their hands.

On January 12, 1880, the two Houses met, and the Senate received from Signor Saracco the report of their committee on the Bill for the Abolition of the Grist Tax. As was foreseen, it proposed the suspension of the discussion until such time as provisions were made admitting of its abolition without danger to the financial equilibrium. A discussion, lasting over many days, then began, and finally (January 24) it was agreed in a full House