gaged: he admitted, however, that a decided majority sympathized in the efforts of the rest. He considered, that guilty as they were, so large a number in indigence, and out of employment, had claims on the public bounty; and he recommended that they should have pecuniary aid for the present, but that it should be distributed to them at their homes, under the superintendence of the Mayor: which plan was adopted.

Pensions were occasionally granted to the widows of meritorious officers who had lost their lives in the insurrection. By way of favouring those classes of workmen who were employed in house-building, those buildings begun since Feb. 22d, were exempted from taxation for five years, and those begun since the 1st of July, were exempted for ten years.

A committee of fifteen members, with Odillon Barrot at the head, had been appointed to investigate the circumstances of the insurrection, and also the emeute of the 15th of May, and on the 3d of August they made their report. After some opposition, it was decided to publish the evidence on which the report was founded, (preces justicatifs.) This fills three large volumes, which were distributed amongst the members on the 18th, 21st, and 23d of August.

The committee state, as the principal causes and elements of the insurrection in June, that after the revolution, the rich left Paris, and the poor of all countries flocked thither. Among the last, some came from the provinces, and some from Italy and Germany.

Clubs were formed, and towards the end of March their number was about 140. In many of these the rich were attacked, and were feebly defended. Hence naturally arose social, animosities with the indigent classes. The government then adopted the unfortunate expedient of organizing the national workshops. These have never ceased to be a cause of disturbance. The workmen there fell into habits of indolence: their labours amounted to little or nothing. Instead of the order essential to productive industry, crowds of clock-makers, blacksmiths, jewellers, carpenters, and others, congregated in one spot, produced nothing but confusion. The committee say that if half the sum thus thrown away had been lent to great manufactories, every workman would have been left in his own workshop, and a ten fold value would have been produced. The richer classes too, thus inspired with confidence, would have returned, and business have resumed its ordinary

course.

One of their documents, from the prefect of police, thus enumerates the classes who took part in the insurrection :

1. A large number of working-men, whose wives and children were dependent on their labour for subsistence, and whom they saw without bread.

2. Men, ardent and honest, but ignorant and easily duped. They

were made to believe that the national assembly meant to restore, by degrees, Louis Philippe's system of government.

3. Communists, and other utopian dreamers, each one according to his own fancy.

4. The legitimists, who insisted that it was necessary to pass by the republic to reach Henry V. According to them, the republican government was but the halt of a moment, but one that was indispensable.

5. The Bonapartists, who joined their money to that of the legitimists, to effect civil commotion.

6. The partisans of the Orleans regency, who were known by their unwillingness to pay taxes.

7. And lastly, the scum of all parties, convicts and vagabonds, men instinctively inclined to insurrection, robbery, and plunder.

The committee showed that the disturbances in Paris in April and May, were closely connected with the insurrection in June; and they openly charged that Ledru Rollin was implicated in the affair of May, and Louis Blanc and Causidiere both in that and the insurrection of June. It afforded general satisfaction that Lamartine, who had been the friend or the apologist of these men, escaped all accusation; for, though most of his former admirers believed that he was not suited to the times, and was disposed to view the schemers and visionaries of the day with too much indulgence, they still had confidence in his integrity and patriotism, and a grateful recollection of his signal services in the first days of the revolution. The report stated that the money found on the persons of the insurgents was furnished by the workshops. It averred that, after the most diligent search, the committee had been able to trace it to no other source. The assembly, on the faith of this report, having ordered prosecutions against Louis Blanc and Causidiere, notwithstanding their remonstrances and protestations, they made their escape to England.

The revolutionary government soon began to experience difficulty in its finances. Nearly 200 millions of francs, when the revolution broke out, was the amount on hand, and this sum being soon exhausted, there was found to be not only a diminished revenue, as was to be expected in the interruption to every species of industry and commerce, but also an increased expenditure which seems to require explanation: but if some of the expenses of the monarchical government were now saved, other were increased. The cost of maintaining upwards of 100,000 workmen, whose employments yielded little or no return, was, of itself, a most burdensome charge on the treasury. Indeed, such was the indigence and suffering in Paris at this time, that it was said the number of persons supported by the government was not less than 200,000. The expenditure, too, of the legislature and the members of the administration, was not an inconsiderable item. Besides, where so many men are thrown into offices for which they were unprepared, as must

be the case in the first stages of revolution, some loss must be set down to the want of skill, and something, perhaps, to peculation. The bank of France proved a convenient resort in this financial distress. Garnier Pagès, the first minister of finance, obtained from it, in March, a loan of 50,000,000 francs; and subsequently, 3,000,000 more. Duclerc, who was his successor, contracted a further loan of 150,000,000, to pay for the railroads, of which the government with an unwise cupidity took possession; and to enable the bank to make these heavy loans with safety, the government authorized it to suspend specie payments. These aids, however, afforded but a temporary relief, and Duclerc, as well as his predecessor, Garnier Pagès, being professedly incompetent to devise a system of taxation suited to the wants and circumstances of the country, General Cavaignac appointed M. Goudchaux minister of finance. He took an early occasion to declare in the national assembly that the government would not take possession of the railroads and insurance companies, which had been among the financial projects of his predecessors; but he, at the same time, asserted the right of the state to take the property of joint stock companies, on paying them an indemnity. He showed that the treasury had a deficit of 210 millions of francs for the year 1848, exclusive of the 230 millions required to reimburse the bank. To meet the deficiency, he proposed, in addition to the existing taxes, an income tax, and a tax on property acquired by inheritance. "Such property," he said, "not being the fruit of labour and intelligence, it is just that he whom society permits to enjoy this property should pay for the privilege." The national assembly gave its sanction to the income tax, but by so small a majority-378 to 339-that he did not venture to avail himself of it. To supply the deficiency, application was again made to the bank, by which 150 millions more were obtained, and a public loan of 200 millions was decreed. But it was found that for this sum, the state, which a year before had been able to borrow money at four per cent., was obliged to pay what was equivalent to seven and three quarters per cent.; and financial critics undertook to show, that the difference of rate caused a loss to the nation on its several loans of 482 millions.

These are difficulties which the government must obviously encounter in its finances; and the same difficulties may serve to explain, if not to justify, some of the wild schemes that were suggested on that intricate and important subject. Garnier Pagès, when at the head of the treasury, had proposed a progressive impost on property, that is, one in which the per centage rate of the tax should increase with the amount of property, and he looked to the constant tendency of such an impost to break down large estates. His purpose, it was said, was to destroy all fortunes that exceeded 30,000 fr., (less than $6000,) of income.

The project of M. Proudhon went a step further, and what M. Garnier Pages aimed to bring about slowly and indirectly, he proposed to effectuate openly and at once. He was one of those who maintained

that all property was a robbery, and he proposed in committee, "by way of conciliation and compromise" with its unrighteous holders, that one-third of all incomes and capitals should be given to the state. This compromise, he said, would allow property to exist 300 years. He grounded his defence of these views upon the rights of labour asserted in the new constitution. He stated that the way he proposed would bring three milliards, or 3,000,000,000 francs into the treasury, one-half of which he would assign to the public creditors. This proposition being unanimously rejected in committee, M. Thiers, one of their number, thought proper to bring the subject before the assembly, and to expose the absurd extremes entertained by some of the members concerning property and the rights of labour, which he did in a speech of great ability.

After M. Thiers had concluded, M. Proudhon asked for time to reply, and that day week was fixed upon for the purpose. When the day arrived, the galleries were crowded to hear Proudhon's defence of the extremes attributed to him. In a prepared discourse which he read from the tribunal, he boldly avowed the proposition that all property had been destroyed by the revolution, since which time, if debtors submit to their contracts, it is because they choose to do so. He further insisted that the rent of land is a gratuitous privilege, which society may at any time revoke. But common sense prevailed, and M. Proudhon's scheme received the support of but two voices against 690.

An anecdote which circulated in Paris at this time, is not a bad commentary on M. Proudhon's text. Among the presses which Gen. Cavaignac, under the authority given him, thought it prudent to suspend, was one set up by M. Proudhon. While he was declaiming against this tyrannical act, one whom he addressed, said to him, "Do you own that press?" "Certainly." "Then, what do you complain of? you know that all property is robbery!"

But with all its financial embarrassments, the national assembly refused to confiscate the property of Louis Philippe. The report of M. Jules Farres proposed to sequester the private domain of the late King -pay his creditors out of its revenues, and to allow him and his family an annual sum. The moveable property of the princes to be restored to them. The ex-king's debts were estimated at 70,000,000 francs, and his property from 80 to 100 millions. This report was adopted, and it is said that Louis Philippe has consented to the arrange

ments.

On the 3d September, the national assembly having disposed of the various matters of legislation which grew out of the insurrection of June, entered on the consideration of the new constitution, which had been referred to the several bureaux for revision and amendment, which were fifteen in number. Some of the questions and votes on this subject, are very characteristic of the prevalent views and feelings of the members.

Among the original inherent rights of the citizen, asserted in the

first chapter, is the right of labour. This being thought to favour the doctrine of communism, which had produced such serious consequences, was rejected in the bureaux. Its friends in the assembly offered a modification of it, by substituting for the term "right of labour," that of "right to existence by labour;" and though this amendment was supported in an elaborate speech by M. Lamartine, according to his usual course of conciliation, it was negatived by an immense majority. The assembly then passed this amendment of the clause; "that society is bound to assist the necessitous."

The punishment of death for political offences having been abolished by the constitution, it was proposed to extend this provision to all offences whatever, but the amendment was rejected by a large majority.

On the subject of the impost and taxes, the draft of the constitution was silent on the question whether they should be proportional or progressive; that is, at the same rate on all property of the same description, or increasing in rate with the amount of the property. On an amendment proposed to this article, there was a majority of 644 to 96, in favour of the proportional taxes. An amendment was also proposed, that the legislature should consist of two houses or chambers instead of one. It was supported by M. Odillon Barrot, and opposed by MM. Lamartine and Dupin. A decisive majority voted in favour of a single assembly. They seemed not to think it necessary to have any guard against excessive legislation, or to admit that no legislation. was often better than hasty legislation. On this subject, an unwillingness to seem to copy the English constitution more than neutralized the example afforded by the general government of the United States, and by all the separate states.

An amendment, by which the holding of a public office was rendered incompatible with the character of a representative-was carried by 523 votes to 212. Exceptions, however, were to be provided when they framed their organic laws.

But the most exciting of constitutional questions was the mode of electing the president of the republic. Three different schemes were spoken of. One was, that he should be elected by the national assembly, and removable by them at pleasure. Another was, that he should be indepeadent of the assembly when thus elected. A third was, that he should be elected by the people. In the discussion that ensued, M. Lamartine supported the mode by universal suffrage, with more than his wonted ability. The first plan was moved by M. Grévy, one of the party of the Mountain, who would have dispensed with the office of president altogether, as bearing too close a resemblance to monarchy: but if they must have a president, wished him removable by the na tional assembly. His motion was rejected by 653 votes to 158. The second, supported by MM. Labland and Flocon, was also rejected. That by popular suffrage was supported by MM. de Tocqueville and Lamartine, and was carried by 637 votes to 130.

Gen. Cavaignac, and most of the administration, having voted in fa