Gambetta.  If M. Thiers showed tact, wisdom, and above all courage and firmness, in probably the most difficult position in which man was ever placed, surely we may pause to admire Gambetta....  Daring in all things, under the Empire he denounced Napoleonism, and by his eloquence and courage he guided timid millions and rival factions from the day when Napoleon III. was deposed.  Under the Empire he had yearned to restore the true life of the nation; when the Empire was overturned he could not believe that that life was impaired.  He thought it would be easy for France to rise as one man and drive out the invader.  As each terrible defeat was experienced, he regarded it as only a momentary reverse.  He had such abounding faith in his cause,—­the cause of France, the cause of French Republicanism,—­that he could not believe in failure.  Of course, to have been a more clear-sighted statesman, like M. Thiers, would have been best; but there is something very noble in the blind zeal of this disappointed man.”

It moves one to pity to think of Gambetta weeping in the streets of Bordeaux, as we are told he did, when the bitter news of the surrender of Paris made all his labors useless, and dashed to the ground his cherished hopes.  Without one word to trouble the flow of events that were taking a course contrary to all his expectations, he resigned his dictatorship when it could no longer be of service to his country, and took himself out of the way of intrigues in his favor, passing over the Spanish frontier.  As soon as the Germans were out of France, M. Thiers also was prepared to resign his power.  He called a National Assembly to determine the form of government.

There were several points of primary importance to be settled at once; first:  should France be a monarchy, or a republic?

That she would again become a monarchy was generally anticipated; but the Comte de Chambord had, as we have seen, forfeited his chances for the moment.  If France were a republic, who should be her president?  Should there be a vice-president?  Should the president be elected by the Chamber, or by a vote of the people?  Should there be one Chamber, or two?

M. Thiers was opposed to having any vice-president, and was in favor of two Chambers.  He vehemently urged the continuance of the Republic, saying that a monarchy was impossible.  There was but one throne, and there were three dynasties to dispute it.  On one occasion he said:  “Gentlemen, I am an old disciple of the monarchy [he was probably alluding to the opinions which his mother and his grandmother had endeavored to instil into him].  I am what is called a Monarchist who practises Republicanism for two reasons,—­first, because he agreed to do so, secondly, because practically he can do nothing else.”

The Assembly proclaimed the continuance of the Republic, and likewise the continuance of M. Thiers as its president for seven years.

On several occasions after this, M. Thiers carried his point with the Assembly by threatening to resign; and as the Assembly was quite aware how difficult it would be to put anyone in his place, the threat always resulted in his victory.