But when James B. gives a hundred sous to a Government officer, and receives nothing for them unless it be annoyances, he might as well give them to a thief.  It is nonsense to say that the Government officer will spend these hundred sous to the great profit of national labour; the thief would do the same; and so would James B., if he had not been stopped on the road by the extra-legal parasite, nor by the lawful sponger.

Let us accustom ourselves, then, to avoid judging of things by what is seen only, but to judge of them by that which is not seen.

Last year I was on the Committee of Finance, for under the constituency the members of the Opposition were not systematically excluded from all the Commissions:  in that the constituency acted wisely.  We have heard M. Thiers say—­“I have passed my life in opposing the legitimist party and the priest party.  Since the common danger has brought us together, now that I associate with them and know them, and now that we speak face to face, I have found out that they are not the monsters I used to imagine them.”

Yes, distrust is exaggerated, hatred is fostered among parties who never mix; and if the majority would allow the minority to be present at the Commissions, it would perhaps be discovered that the ideas of the different sides are not so far removed from each other; and, above all, that their intentions are not so perverse as is supposed.  However, last year I was on the Committee of Finance.  Every time that one of our colleagues spoke of fixing at a moderate figure the maintenance of the President of the Republic, that of the ministers, and of the ambassadors, it was answered:—­

“For the good of the service, it is necessary to surround certain offices with splendour and dignity, as a means of attracting men of merit to them.  A vast number of unfortunate persons apply to the President of the Republic, and it would be placing him in a very painful position to oblige him to be constantly refusing them.  A certain style in the ministerial saloons is a part of the machinery of constitutional Governments.”

Although such arguments may be controverted, they certainly deserve a serious examination.  They are based upon the public interest, whether rightly estimated or not; and as far as I am concerned, I have much more respect for them than many of our Catos have, who are actuated by a narrow spirit of parsimony or of jealousy.

But what revolts the economical part of my conscience, and makes me blush for the intellectual resources of my country, is when this absurd relic of feudalism is brought forward, which it constantly is, and it is favourably received too:—­

“Besides, the luxury of great Government officers encourages the arts, industry, and labour.  The head of the State and his ministers cannot give banquets and soirees without causing life to circulate through all the veins of the social body.  To reduce their means, would starve Parisian industry, and consequently that of the whole nation.”