So they sent the majorums to the young King, and the King sent back a polite note, just as if he were anybody else, and that is all of that story.

Most of the newspapers which followed the government to Bordeaux have returned to the capital, but that intransigeant government-baiter, the venerable Georges Clemenceau, still continues his bombardment from close range.  His paper was formerly L’Homme Libre—­The Free Man—­but on being suppressed this fall by the censor its octogenarian editor gayly changed its name to The Chained Man—­L’Homme Enchaine—­and continued fire.

The mayor of a Paris commune in ’71, prime minister from 1906-9, the editor of various papers, and senator now, Clemenceau is properly feared; and he was offered, it is said, a place in the present government, but would accept no post but the highest.  He preferred his role of political realist and critical privateer, a sort of Mr. Shaw of French politics, hitting a head wherever he sees one.

The imperfections of the French army sanitary service, the censorship, and the demoralization of the postal service since the war have been favorite targets recently.  There has been much complaint of the difficulty of getting news from men at the front.  M. Viviani, the premier, in an address at Reims, ventured to say that it was his duty to “organize, administer, and intensify the national defense.”  On this innocent phrase the eye of M. Clemenceau fell the other day, and he now flings off a characteristic three-and-a-half-column front-page salvo so adroitly combining the premier’s remark with the actual, pitiful facts that the reader almost feels that “intensifying” the suffering of parents and friends of men fighting for their country is something in which the present government takes delight.

I wish there was space to quote the editorial.  I may, at any rate, quote from one or two of the letters written to M. Clemenceau, to suggest a stay-at-home aspect of the war of which we do not hear much.  This is from the mayor of Pont-en-Royans: 

“Officially,” he writes, “on September 29 I was asked to notify the family of the soldier Regnier of his death.  In the midst of their cries and tears, the family showed me the last letter, received that very morning, and dated the 27th September, two days before.  Now, the notice of his death was dated September 7, and I said to the father: 

“’I would not give you too much hope; your son probably died the 27th, suddenly, perhaps, and the secretary charged with writing the letter I have received forgot a figure—­instead of 27 he put 7.  Meanwhile, as a doubt exists, I will do what I can to clear the matter up.’

“The Administrative Counsel replied to me:  ’There has been no error.  The notice of decease is dated September 27.  If, then, the soldier wrote the 27th, he is not dead.  We shall inform the ministry, and you, on your side, should write to the hospital where he is being treated.’