, 1880-03-17
rHEaDEBArE ON THE AMNESTY :.
o5f-I CIT QUESTION.
CFrom the Tvn,es.)

The discussion in the Chamber on M.
Louis Blauc's amnesty proposal had little
intrinsic interest. The Extreme Lett Oo'
s.ruetionisrs. who are perpetualiy suspend'
ing the progress of public business by
aimless DEBATES. indulge every time 10 the
same arguments and objurgations, and el-,
most the same phrases. Their speeches
are known beforehand, and might be
written out in anticipation without tie
public losing anything. The only OBJECT
of the Ultras seems TO be to hhd q plausl-
bic pretext for utteting sonorous phrases
and for slumping the provinces to foment
agitation and pave the way Tor fresh DIS
cords and disasters. All this is 60 hack
neyed that the throng OF spectators to-day
was certainly not attracted by the pros
PEGS OF M. Louis Blanc skeschlng bis tour
Ia the south, relating how crowds every
where greeted him with mingled cheers tor
the amnesty and the Republic, aud warn
ING the Chamber once more that Inc oglta'
ton would never cease till the result was
attained. They had q higher and more
serious motive. They wished to see
whether a French Premier would at last
give q fitting answer to tue restless ag'ta'
tors who pretend to consolidate the R.epub-
lie by disturbing it, and hope to seize on
the reips of government by eating 10 the
aid of taoee who all but ruined France.
Hitherto it had been said with lmpurlty
that France was with the amnesty taction
that she passionately demanded the return
Of the Communists still bauished that the
real founders of the Republic must be re-
called aud that the country would DOT
be satisfied till al concerned in the Com
mune were restored to It's embrace. NoW'
thin was not only calumnious, but danger
Gus, for it held up ihs majority of French
men as synpatbiziug with the despiSers
OF all social order it represented France
az a hotbed of Socialism, and thus gave
her enemies q pfetaxt for declaring her q
peril necessiiating ell possible precautions.
Since the agitation commenced successive
Cabinets have made concession alter con
c~ession, weakening the feeling OF authority
10 Parliament and the feeling OF justice 10
the country, in order to prolong their W
fragile ex;stence. The question was
whether the De Freycinet Cabinet would
show the same weakness; whether with
out satisfying its assailants, it would agfee
to a.more or less partial amnesty contrary
to ito principles and convictions. Happily
the expectation of those who counted on
q moral revenge, on a vind!catlon oil law,
common sense aud true policy, was not
disappointed. M. de Freyciaet achieved
a signal triumph, the oratorical triumph,
great as it was, being surpassed ny the
moral triumph of the honest parrot and
statesman. M. Louis Blanc Was drst re-
plied to by M. Casimir Porter. who excel
lsntly defended, as Reporter to the Com
mittse, is condemnation OF the proposal.
M. Antonin-Proust, ore OF the minority on
the committee. followed. He has a good
manner a good voice, and pure style; ne
has, 10 short, the raw material OF an Orator.
though lacking warmth and appearance OF
firm conviction. Unfortunately his rare
seif-confdence was coupled with such an
absence Of serious argument. and his sonor.
Gus expressions were 90 devoid OF pith and
psssuasi ?eness. that people vainiy waited
"a see tho mere ta!ker rise to the politl-
cisa or the thinker. M. de Freycinet then
aacended the tribune, amid profound
silence. Here is al outline OF what ne
sa!d:--
"Vbe Government altogether rejected
this proposal Tor o pleuary amnesty. Iney
would not pledge themselves IS to the
future either one way or the other. W