the Resumé, in which the president propounds his views
and objects. His duty, he says, is "inflexibly to maintain
order; it is to banish all causes of agitation, in
order that the resolutions which are to decide our fate
may be conceived amidst calm and adopted without
contest. These resolutions can emanate only from a
decisive act of the national sovereignty, since they are
all based on the popular election." This serves to
introduce his proposed change in the electoral law, by
restoring universal suffrage. "You will have presented
to you," he says, "the draught of a law which
restores that principle in all its fullness; retaining at
the same time from the law of the 31st of May everything
which winnows universal suffrage from impure elements,
and which makes its application more moral and
regular. The project has consequently no features
which can possibly hurt the feelings of this Assembly;
for if I think it expedient to ask to-day for the withdrawal
of the law of the 31st of May, I do not mean to
deny the approbation which I paid at that time to the
initiative taken by the Cabinet which contested with
the chiefs of the majority, whose work this law was,
the honour of presenting it. On the contrary, I
am ready to acknowledge the salutary effects produced
by it.

"If we remember the circumstances under which
this law was presented, we shall not, I believe, refuse to
avow that it was a political act rather than an electoral
law; that it was really and truly a measure of public
benefit. Whenever the majority shall propose to me
energetic measures for the safety of the country, it may
rely on my loyal and disinterested support. But the
best of measures for the public welfare have but a
limited existence. The law of the 31st of May has, in
in its application, even gone beyond the object intended
to be attained. No one foresaw the suppression of
3,000,000 electors, two-thirds of whom are peaceful
inhabitants of the country. What has been the result?
Why, that this immense exclusion has served as a pretext
to the anarchical party, who cloak their detestable
designs beneath the appearance of a right which has
been withdrawn, and which ought to be reconquered.
Too weak in numbers to take possession of society by
their votes, they hope, under favour of the general
excitement and the decline of the powers of the state,
to kindle, in several points of France at once, troubles
which would be quelled, no doubt, but which would
throw us into fresh complications. Independently of
these dangers, the law of the 31st of May, presents as
an electoral law grave inconveniences. I have never
ceased to believe that a day would come when it would
be my duty to propose its repeal. Defective when
applied to the election of an Assembly, it is still more
so in the case of nominating a President; for though a
residence of three years in a commune may have
appeared a guarantee of discernment imposed on electors
in the knowledge of those who are to represent them, so
long a term of residence cannot be considered necessary for
the appreciation of the candidate destined to the
government of France. Another serious objection is this. The
Constitution requires for the validity of the election of
a President by the people, at least 2,000,000 suffrages,
and if this number is not collected, the right of election
passes to the Assembly. The Constituent Assembly
had therefore decided that, out of 10,000,000 voters
inscribed on the lists, one-fifth was sufficient to render
the election valid. At the present time, the number of
electors being reduced to 7,000,000, to require 2,000,000
is to invert the proportion—that is to say, it is to
demand almost one-third, instead of one-fifth, and thus
in a certain eventuality to take the election out of the
hands of the people to give it to the Assembly. It is,
therefore, positively changing the conditions of eligi-
bility for the President of the Republic. Lastly, I call
your particular attention to another reason, which
perhaps may prove decisive. The re-establishment of
universal suffrage on its principal basis furnishes an
additional chance of obtaining the revision of the
Constitution. You have not forgotten why the adversaries
of this revision refused last session to vote for it. They
urged this argument, which they knew how to render
specious—'The Constitution,' they said, 'which is the
work of an Assembly taking its rise in universal
suffrage, cannot be modified by an Assembly issuing
from a restricted suffrage.' Whether or not this be a
real motive or a pretext only, it is expedient to set it
aside, and to be able to say to those who would bind the
country down to an immutable Constitution, 'Behold
universal suffrage re-established: the majority of the
Assembly, supported by 2,000,000 petitioners, by the
greater number of the Councils of Arrondissement, and
almost unanimously by the Councils-General, demands
the revision of the fundamental compact. Have you
less confidence than we in the expression of the popular
will?' The question, therefore, may be thus stated to
all who desire a pacific solution of the difficulties of the
day.—The law of the 31st of May has its imperfections;
but even were it perfect, should it not, nevertheless, he
repealed if it is to prevent the revision of the Constitution,
the manifest wish of the country? It is objected,
I am aware, that on my part these proposals are
inspired by personal interest. My conduct for the last
three years ought to repel such an allegation. The
welfare of the country, I repeat, will always be the sole
moving spring of my conduct. I believe it my duty
to propose every means of conciliation, and to use every
effort to bring about a pacific, regular, and legal solution,
whatever may be its issue."

When M. Thorigny had finished reading the message,
he submitted a project of law for the complete
abrogation of the law of 31st of May, 1850, and for the re–
establishment of the electoral law of 15th of March,
1819, under which all citizens of age, who have resided
six months in the commune, are declared electors.
M. Thorigny "demanded urgency"—the immediate
consideration of this project of law. This proposition
was violently opposed by the great majority of the
right and centre, and at last rejected. On the 18th, the
committee on the ministerial project presented their
report, which was hostile to the measure. On the 13th
the Bill was discussed, and, after a violent debate, it
was thrown out by 355 to 348, a majority of 7 against
it. On the 17th, a projet by the questors for defining
the right of the Assembly to call out the troops necessary
for its protection, and to dispose of those troops
by naming its own general over them, came to be
discussed in the Assembly. The formal question was,
whether or not the project should be brought under
consideration. The right of the Assembly to demand
the force necessary for its defence, was originally
asserted on the 11th of May, 1818, by a decree posted
in the barracks by the provisional government, before
the constituent assembly had been organised. The
words of that decree were very general; they asserted
the prerogative of the Assembly to call out the forces
necessary for its defence, and they raised the inference
that the Assembly should also marshal the troops so
called out at its own will. When the constitution was
framed, the right thus asserted for the Assembly was
formally but not very precisely embodied; at least, the
clauses on this subject do not give the Assembly the
power to appoint its own separate general over the
troops it may appropriate for its defence. The
proposition of the questors defined the right in such a
manner as to make the power of the Assembly over the
national force original and direct, without the intervention
of the war-office, and uncontrolled by the central
executive. The discussion in the Assembly was
extremely violent, and the result was favourable to the
government in an unexpected degree; for the Assembly,
by a majority of 408 against 300, refused to take the
proposition of the questors into consideration. Another
important discussion has taken place in the Assembly,
on the Municipal Bill, to regulate the law of election
in the communes. On the 20th, the proposition that a
residence of two years should entitle citizens to the
electoral franchise, was adopted by 344 votes to 218.
Clauses have also been adopted, conferring the electoral
right on officials and clergymen invested with their
functions for life, and on persons serving in the army or
navy, who have been drawn for the conscription in the
commune, no matter what may have been the length of
their residence.

The distribution of the medals awarded by the London
Exhibition, on Sunday the 23rd, at the Louvre, gave
rise to a violent popular disturbance. Louis Napoleon