The political situation in France was very strained at the beginning of 1874.  Marshal MacMahon had succeeded M. Thiers as President of the Republic, and it was well known that the Marshal, as well as the Royalist majority in the French Chamber, favoured the restoration of the Bourbon Monarchy, represented by the Comte de Chambord, as head of the elder branch.  People of the type of M. Ducros, and of the President of the Nyons Tribunal, viewed the possible return of a Legitimist Bourbon Monarchy with the gravest apprehension.  Given the character of the Comte de Chambord, they felt it would be a purely reactionary regime.  Traditionally, the elder branch of the Bourbons were incapable of learning anything, and equally incapable of forgetting anything.  These two shrewd lawyers had both been vigorous opponents of the Bonapartist regime, but they pinned their faith on the Orleans branch, inexplicably enough to me, considering the treacherous record of that family.  They never could mention the name of a member of the Orleans family without adding, “Ah! les braves gens!” the very last epithet in the world I should have dreamed of applying to them.  All the negotiations with the Comte de Chambord fell through, owing to his obstinacy (to which I have referred earlier) in refusing to accept the Tricolor as the national flag.  Possibly pig-headed obstinacy; but in these days of undisguised opportunism, it is rare to find a man who deliberately refuses a throne on account of his convictions.  I do not think that the Comte de Chambord would have been a success in present-day British politics.  A crisis was averted by extending Marshal MacMahon’s tenure of the Presidency to seven years, the “Septennat,” as it was called.  Before two years the Orleanists, who had always a keen appreciation of the side on which their bread was buttered, “rallied” to the Republic.  I rather fancy that some question connected with the return of the confiscated Orleans fortunes came into play here.  The adherents of the Comte de Chambord always spoke of him as Henri V. For some reason (perhaps euphony) they were invariably known as “Henri Quinquists.”  In the same way, the French people speak of the Emperor Charles V. as “Charles Quint,” never as “Charles Cinq.”

My friends the Nyons lawyers were fond of alluding to themselves as forming part of the bonne bourgeoisie.  It is this bonne bourgeoisie who form the backbone of France.  Frugal, immensely industrious, cultured, and with a very high standard of honour, they are far removed from the frivolous, irresponsible types of French people to be seen at smart watering-places, and they are less dominated by that inordinate love of money which is an unpleasant element in the national character, and obscures the good qualities of the hard-working French peasants, making them grasping and avaricious.