head of the French republic. It is the and, above all, he closely followed the more difficult, from the extreme reserve course of foreign policy. It was here that affected by M. Grévy during his presi- his influence was most happily felt; and dency, and from the fact that, though in it is in great part to him that we owe the reality he never ceased to take an active persistently peaceful policy of France. It part in the direction of affairs, he passed was he who mainly contributed, at the in the eyes of the nation for a person time of the Schnaebele affair, to restrain whose only idea was to economize a few MM. Goblet and Boulanger from commithundred thousand francs a year out of the ting imprudences which would inevitably civil list. Whatever may have been the have led to war. On our home policy he faults of M. Grévy-and it must be ad- has also had a moderating influence; for, mitted that he thought too much of making bold as his own views were, he saw that a profit out of the post he occupied, and the realization of the Radical programme systematically withdrew himself from his would discredit the republic, and, still representative duties; that he showed a more, that the Radical leaders were indeplorable indifference to literature and capable of governing; and he therefore the arts, and even to useful and charitable systematically omitted them from his minundertakings; and that he never really isterial combinations. Unluckily he had earned the reputation for republican aus- no plan of government; his good sense terity with which his cold demeanor and resided in his character, and not in his retired life had caused him to be credited intellect; delay and passivity were all his - he did France a service she ought never method. The only statesman congenial to forget. In the midst of conflicting par- to him was M. de Freycinet, for the very ties he succeeded in acquiring for himself reason that M. de Freycinet represented a place apart; and he did this in a manner nothing, but was simply a clever, subtle, which was at once clever and easy. His insinuating person, adroit in managing opinions were very Radical; his language men of all parties, and in veiling with fine and behavior were very moderate and re- phrases the emptiness of his ideas and served. He thus conciliated the Radicals the nullity of his actions. Virile and posby his way of thinking, and the Moderates itive characters were, on the other hand, by his way of speaking. As he never intolerable to him; and Gambetta had no courted notoriety, had nothing of the char-more implacable or more formidable enelatan about him, and betrayed no ambition of any sort, he gave no offence and stood in no one's light; and in moments of difficulty he was able to come forward as the peacemaker between discordant parties. It was thus that he became president of the National Assembly in 1871 and president of the republic in 1879 - he who, in 1848, had recommended the abolition of the presidency. In electing him to fill the place, all parties believed that they had secured a president who would be absolutely neutral, and who had no desire to govern. But this was not altogether the case. It is true that his political activity was never ostensible or direct, and that he rendered a real service by accustoming the country to an anonymous government. For nine years he made Frenchmen do without either loving or hating the head of the State, or even troubling themselves about him. But he had a very real control over his ministers. In England, since the accession of the Georges, the sovereign has hardly ever been present at a Cabinet Council. Under M. Grévy the Council of Ministers never met anywhere but at the presidency. He joined in all the discussions, took part in the selection of persons for the most important posts, my than the late president of the French republic. He had steadily opposed the policy of Gambetta in the National Assembly, when the latter was urging on the Left an alliance with M. Thiers and the Left Centre; and had stood out for a policy of no compromise which must have ended in ruining the influence of the Left; and he never forgave Gambetta the triumph he achieved, and the preponderance he attained, after the death of Thiers, over the Republican party. M. Grévy was the real though secret author of the fall of the Gambetta ministry. Yet, notwithstanding the part he then played, he would have retained, and justly retained, his political reputation, if he could have brought himself to decline re-election in 1886. It was a splendid opportunity for effecting, for the first time since the death of Louis XVIII., a normal and peaceful transfer of the supreme office of the State. But the Republican party was hopelessly divided; every one recoiled before the effort that would have been needed to support any new candidature, and the choice fell back upon M. Grévy, even though the public was already aware of the compromising influence of M. Wilson. M. Grévy and the Republicans alike suffered for their mistake. It is all very well to say that the orderly manner in which the change was effected did credit to republican institutions; it does not do credit to republican institutions that the first three presidents of the republic have all been compelled to resign; and there is no concealing that the republic itself was injured by the discredit thrown on M. Grévy. With all his strong common sense, his undoubted political integrity, and his unquestionable patriotism, he has been hissed off the stage; while his son-in-law is scarcely out of one prosecution before he finds himself in danger of another. But the expulsion of M. Grévy was only a beginning it remained to choose his successor, and this was much more difficult. If Republicans failed to agree on the choice of a candidate, the Right might step in to decide the election, and what possible credit could attach to a president of the republic who owed his election to the enemies of the republic? Moreover, after all that had happened to discredit the executive and to betray the impotence of the Chambers, and after all the anxiety we had gone through in the spring about General Boulanger, it seemed desirable to choose a president with a character of his own, one who should represent in the eyes of the country some distinct governmental principle. Many Moderate Republicans were so strongly convinced of this necessity that they would gladly have elected M. Jules Ferry, the best-known of all our statesmen for his energy of character and his opposition to the men and measures of the Extreme Left - M. Jules Ferry, who had ventured openly to say, "Le péril est à gauche." Others turned their eyes to General Saussier; but his candidature had to be dropped in face of the strenuous opposition roused by the very idea of a military president. The recollection of M. Boulanger's follies was too recent for anybody to think of proposing him. The candidature of M. Ferry roused a fury of opposition in the Radical camp. It was felt that his very name would have an irresistible influence in the country, and would turn the elections in favor of the Moderates. The Radical press broke out into a torrent of abuse. M. Ferry was the candidate of the Comte de Paris; he was the pope's candidate; he was Prince Bismarck's candidate. He was Ferry the traitor, Ferry the Prussian, Ferry the Clerical, Ferry the Orleanist. M. Dérou lède, always to the fore when there is any absurdity in hand, agreed with MM. Eudes and Vaillant, the chiefs of the revolution ary party, to take arms if M. Ferry were elected. The municipal councillors, with M. Hovelacque at their head, overjoyed at the opportunity of playing a little part in politics, prepared to summon the Paris deputies to oppose M. Ferry's nomination, and threaten insurrection if it were carried. On the 1st and 2nd of December demonstrations, rather noisy than dangerous, took place at the Palais Bourbon and the Place de la Concorde. Baseless and absurd as it was, all this was not without its effect. A week later a madman, named Aubertin, fired two shots from a revolver at M. Ferry, thinking to rid the country of an agent of Bismarck and the Comte de Paris. But it was to none of these things that the failure of M. Ferry's candidature was really due. Its success was impossible from the first. M. Ferry could not command a sufficient number of Republican votes to make him independent of the support of the Right. Now, that support would have been fatal to him if he could have had it; and, besides, the Right never dreamt of giving it. To make M. Ferry president would have been, in all probability, to lend a hand to the forma tion of a Moderate Republican majority, and to lose a number of Royalist seats. The Right preferred to go on as we are, with the Republican forces crumbling to pieces, and the impotence of the government vexing the country, paralyzing business, and leaving the door open to a monarchical reaction. Moreover, many even of the Moderate Republicans withheld their support from M. Ferry, out of timidity and the fear of an alliance with the Right, and favored a candidate of less decisive views, who should continue the traditions of presidential neutrality bequeathed by M. Grévy. The Radicals had their candidate. Their candidate was M. de Freycinet. Not that M. de Freycinet holds Radical principles himself, but a sufficient absence of character and principle seemed likely to do almost as well; and his conduct when he was last in office gave them reason to hope he would make a very manageable president. If at first they put forward the name of M. Floquet, it was only for the sake of offering at the last moment an apparent concession by abandoning him for M. de Freycinet. But the Moderates were even more opposed to M. de Freycinet than to M. Floquet, and they were just as determined against him as the Radicals against M. Ferry. From the first hour of the Congress which met at Versailles on the 3rd of December, it was plain that neither M. Ferry nor M. de Freycinet could possibly succeed. At the meeting held beforehand by the Republicans, M. Ferry had indeed obtained a relative majority over the other candidates, but this relative majority could not mean an absolute majority in the whole Congress. It could be only some neutral candidate. A small group wished for M. Brisson who, some time ago, when president of the Chamber, was generally regarded as the eventual successor of M. Grévy; but his ill success as prime minister had destroyed his chances. He is one of those dull and sombre men who never succeed in anything, however much they deserve to succeed. Finally, M. Sadi Carnot was elected. There were two reasons for his election. The first reason was his name. He is the grandson of Lazare Carnot, the organizer of the armies of the first republic, and the son of M. Hippolyte Carnot, who was a minister in 1848, a member of the opposition under the empire, and who is now a senator and a member of the Institute. There was a certain fascination in the idea of summoning to the head of the State a man who bears an historic name. But the other reason was the stronger. It was this. M. Carnot, when minister of finance, was said to have refused, even at the urgent request of M. Wilson, to remit certain dues paid to the treasury by Messrs. Dreyfus, the guano-merchants, friends and clients of M. Grévy. The curious thing is that M. Carnot never really had the opportunity of performing this act of heroic integrity, which recommended him to the choice of the Congress. The heads of his department could not agree as to whether the dues had been legally levied or not; and he contented himself with postponing the decision, which was ultimately given by his successor in favor of Messrs. Dreyfus. So that M. Carnot has been made president of the French Republic for an act of integrity he never committed, and for giving himself the trouble to be born, like the heir of any royal house. Under a republican form of government the thing is curious. However, the choice may be justified on other grounds. M. Carnot is a good engineer; he did good service at Havre during the war of 1870–71; he has since shown administrative faculty as minister of public works and of finance. He has been a member of the Cabinet under both M. Ferry and M. de Freycinet. Moderate in his opinions, he has made no enemies in any party; and his rigid honesty is not the less undisputed that it never had the opportunity of display attributed to it by the legend. He is rich, and he has a very charming wife, who, notwithstanding a slight deafness, loves society, and likes having receptions. M. Carnot will fill his place with dignity, and he will not recoil, like M. Grévy, from the duties and the burdens it imposes on him. But it remains to be seen whether he has the knowledge of European affairs, the breadth of view, and the firmness of temper which are needed to make all that should be made of it, and to guide this country through the difficulties which lie before her. He began with a mistake. The unanimity of the votes deceived him, and he took it for an indication of a real desire to lay aside party conflicts and unite in maintaining an orderly and prudent government till the next election. He did not see that the Radicals never can endure the status quo, and never unite with the Moderates except when the Moderates consent to adopt some part of their programme. Instead of simply retaining intact the Rouvier ministry, which had given proof of its solidity and administrative capacity, and explaining that, as the crisis had been presidential and not ministerial, he thought it best to await the indications offered by Parliament before modifying the Cabinet in any way, he wasted ten days in trying to solve the insoluble problem of Republican concentration, and to reconcile Moderates like M. Ribot with ultra-Radicals like M. Lacroix. It ended in his having to put up with a purely Moderate ministry under M. Tirard. It is just such another ministry as the last, only with all the members changed, except M. Flourens, who remains at the head of the Foreign Office, and M. Fallières, who leaves the Home Office to M. Sarrien, and takes the Ministry of Justice. What are we to say of the future? The Radicals are not very likely to leave the Cabinet in peace. As soon as they saw that M. Carnot was not going to play into their hands by sending for M. de Freycinet, they stopped singing his praises and began to suspect him of wishing to exercise an illegal preponderance in political affairs. One of two things must happen. Either the Cabinet will hold together by the tolerance of the Right—and then we go back to the situation created by M. Rouvier-cr it will collapse under the attacks of a coalition of the Right and the Extreme Left, and we shall find ourselves face to face with the very same difficulties But the name of M. Carnot will be that followed the fall of the Goblet minis | cals are quite ready to cry out upon it as try or the election of the new president. a coup d'état; while the Moderates are In one word, the divisions of the Repub- preparing, should dissolution become inlican party, and the strength of the Mon- evitable, to figure as the partisans of the archists in the Chamber, are making president, and take advantage of the presgovernment impossible. No ministry can tige of an executive recently installed keep its seat except on condition that it amidst universal acclamation. does nothing and that nothing happens. The raising of a serious question is fatal nothing but a screen. The real struggle to it; and as serious questions must be will be between the partisans and the opraised, no ministry can be secure. The ponents of M. Ferry; and the real quesgovernment ought either to have the pru- tion will be whether or not M. Ferry shall dence to touch nothing but financial busi- come back to power. If he comes back, ness till after the elections, or the courage there will assuredly be a movement in the to dissolve at once. But prudence it is direction of a more Conservative Republiuseless to expect; and as to a dissolution, canism; if he does not, and things go on there could hardly be a worse time for it. slipping into the hands of the Extreme If the Republicans could bring themselves Left, it will probably end in a state of to subordinate their personal interests to disorder which may bring back a monthose of the country, they might all com- archy. M. Ferry's position has been conbine to demand a dissolution, declaring siderably improved by recent events. He that their object in doing so was simply stood before the Congress as the only to eliminate the unconstitutional parties political personage whose name had a from the legislature. The one vital inter- definite significance; and the Liberal bourest of the republic is to have a Republi-geoisie passionately desired his election. can majority in the Chamber of Deputies, There would no doubt, at the first moment, as it has in the Senate. Even a Radical be some troubles to suppress in Paris; majority would be better than no majority at all. The essential thing is a ministry which shall be the true and undivided expression of the will of a majority, and which can rely on that majority for continuous support. Unfortunately, it is asking too much of the deputies to expect them to commit such a suicide for the sake of the common good. The Moderates might possibly consent to propose a dissolution; but the Radicals prefer to go The attempt on M. Ferry's life, which on making it inevitable, and then de- so miraculously failed, was a stroke of nounce it as a coup d'état, and pose as its good fortune. It gave occasion for one victims. It has been one of the calamities more proof of that admirable coolness and of the republic that the right of dissolu- pluck which he had already shown during tion, which is essential to the working of the war; and it created quite an explosion parliamentary institutions, and which is of sympathy with the victim and indignathe only means of holding in check the tion against the reprobates whose frantic caprices of the members or putting an end declamations in the press and on the platto the anarchy of a hopelessly divided form had fired the brain of the assassin. house, was applied for the first time (by The Alsatians and Lorrainers, in particthe Duc de Broglie, under the presidency ular, took occasion to express their respect of Marshal MacMahon) for the very pur- and attachment to M. Ferry, and to acquit pose of doing violence to the wishes of him of the stupid calumnies which accused the country, and of breaking up a very him of a want of patriotism. The prejustrong and coherent majority. This iniq- dices which his enemies had succeeded in uitous act has gone far to break the very stirring up against him have all but disapsprings of republican government, and it peared; and it may safely be said that his will be long before they recover their elas- popularity with the middle classes is such ticity. Ministers are afraid to use the as it never was before. They await with weapon which the Constitution puts into impatience the moment when he shall be their hands; and if they did use it, there called to govern. The two most remarkare plenty of good people who would thinkable facts of the last few months are the they were witnessing an act of violence on the part of the executive. The Radi but if a great change does not soon take place in the march of affairs we shall find ourselves, a little later on, in presence of far greater troubles. Already the agitators in Paris think it is due to them that M. Ferry was not elected. There might be circumstances in which they would be free to act more boldly, and would find the elements of resistance less prepared to meet them. sudden oblivion into which General Boulanger has fallen, and the reappearance of M. Ferry as a leading figure on the scene. Arts and letters do not greatly flourish amidst the agitations of a disturbed political life; and we have nothing eventful to note in the intellectual world. Still, these months have not been barren. First, there is the usual allowance of art exhibitions, which go on in unbroken succession all the year round. M. Puvis de Chavannes shows a collection of pictures of moderate size, together with studies and cartoons of his vast mural paintings. The exhibition has been useful in giving us a clearer insight into the character of this very original artist, who, in spite of shocking blunders, has realized so individual an ideal of beauty, and formed so noble a style, in a period when most painters despise any attempt at style, and aim only at the picturesque. The studies here exhibited show that M. de Chavannes' errors in drawing come from the effort after style. When he works direct from nature his drawing is masterly. Another thing that comes out at this exhibition is the fact that, after all, his strongest point is his coloring. It is sober coloring, in modified tints; but his harmony is wonderful, such as no one had reached before; and this it is which constitutes his distinctive quality as a decorator. At M. Petit's gallery thirty-three young painters have combined to open a Salon des Jeunes. Amongst them is Ary Renan, a son of M. Ernest Renan, whose unreal compositions and vivid tones of pure color recall the work of some of the English pre-Raphaelites. M. Dinet's landscapes are good. As to M. Friant, I have already remarked on his work at the Salon. He is, at twenty-five, a portraitist of the first rank, and there is no saying what he may not rise to. The Ecole des Beaux-Arts exhibits a collection of the pictures of Guillaumet, the truthful and delightful painter of Algeria. At Launette's library may be seen M. Lhermitte's charcoal sketches for the illustrations to a new book by M. A. Theuriet, "La Vie Rustique." A year ago, M. Launette, whose edition of M. Maurice Leloir's "Manon Lescaut " had already raised him to the first rank among artistic publishers, associated the pen of M. Theuriet with the pencil of M. Giacomelli in a volume of marvellous chromotypes, "Le Monde des Oiseaux." He has now realized a no less happy association in uniting that one of all our writers who can best speak of rural life with that one of all our painters who can best and most poetically paint it. M. Lhermitte is not to be despised on canvas, but it is in black chalk that he is unrivalled. He has extraordinary delicacy of execution, and the effects of light he produces are marvellous. "La Vie Rustique" is full of both poetry and reality, and will delight all lovers of the country, which it represents under so many varied aspects. The next best of the New Year books is the "Cahiers du Capitaine Coignet," illustrated by Le Blant, and published by Hachette. This Capitaine Coignet was a soldier who fought in all the wars of the Revolution, the Consulate, and the Empire, rose by merit to the rank of captain, and amused himself in his old age by writing his memoirs. These papers, discovered by M. Lorédan Larchey, form a really inestimable record of the moral history of France under the first empire. The unlettered soldier, who never pretended to the faintest notion of orthography, turned out, without knowing it, a capital writer, so clear were his ideas, and so straightforward his character. M. le Blant, well known for his episodes of the Vendéan wars, contributes a very vigorous and faithful rendering of the most characteristic scenes in the story. Besides the numerous vignettes in the text, there are a number of plates consisting of larger compositions of very various character and effect. Michelet's "Jeanne d'Arc," illustrated by Bida, is another charming book; though it is to be regretted that the eminent illustrator has not given more relief and individuality to the heroine herself. M. R. Peyre's "Napoleon and his Times," published by Didot, has real bistoric value. It is an impartial and wellinformed account of the life of Napoleon, and at the same time a very complete survey of the French society of the period. The illustrations reproduce in facsimile almost all the documents which serve to reveal "the body of the time, his form and pressure." The execution of the illustrations occasionally leaves something to be desired; but the volume forms, nevertheless, a very interesting Napole onic museum. The same firm is publish ing in parts the noble work of M. Lebon on the “Civilizations of India." M. Plon has made a great success with his delightful children's books, illustrated by M. Boutet de Monvel, who has such a clever way of mixing the most delicate irony with his simplicity, and whose fine decorative feeling has achieved surprising effects of color in flat tints. M. Boutet |