Post-Scriptum

The author announces that two significant events occurred after the manuscript went to press: the French surrender of Metz to the Prussians and a ministerial crisis in Portugal.

The author explicitly states that the juxtaposition of these two events involves no subtle criticism or wordplay, only a matter of dates.

The author asserts that he is not attempting to establish any relationship between Molke or Bismarck and the Portuguese statesmen governing the country.

The author mourns the surrender of Metz, portraying it as the result of Napoleonic corruption undermining a fortress where 150,000 soldiers sought to preserve French military honor after Sedan's defeat.

The author addresses France as a suffering mother, noting that two decades of oppression and moral corruption have weakened the nation, and now a marshal compounds the injury by surrendering the city.

The author continues addressing France as an abandoned mother, lamenting that her own children allow foreign soldiers to ravage her, and now one of them wounds her at the moment of patriotic hope.

The author expresses overwhelming emotional solidarity with France's suffering, describing how his heart shares in the affliction of a people victimized by treachery.

The author claims that France's cause against Prussia has always aligned with liberal and Portuguese interests.

The author defines Bonaparte as a temporary accident that a hurricane could sweep away, contrasting him with the systematic threat posed by King Wilhelm.

The author declares that sentiment now coincides with rational judgment regarding the Franco-Prussian conflict.

The author expresses that if Bonaparte were to return to power via Prussian military force, he would prefer Rochefort's radical presidency, chaos, and bloodshed to the restoration of despotism.

The author argues that political disorder is a temporary condition that can pass, whereas dishonor leaves a lasting stain on national character.

The author warns that if a Bonapartist restoration sets a precedent of tolerating dishonor, morality would flee Western Europe, taking the last remnants of decency and patriotism with it.

The author prays that France can maintain its integrity without destroying the foundations of society in the delirium of a nation facing death.

The author shifts focus from France to Portugal, noting that events there are unfolding less tragically but with significant political complications.

The author identifies the new government as organized under the presidency of the Marquês d'Avila e de Bolama (a former advisor to the late dictatorship) and inspired by the Bishop of Vizeu, creating ministerial incompatibilities.

The author notes that the same incompatibility between the Marquês d'Avila and the Bishop that previously forced the Marquês from office under the Marquês de Sá da Bandeira has now paradoxically brought them together into power.

The author argues that while Portugal has a government, it lacks a true ministry because the current advisors represent merely a coalition without a coherent party doctrine.

The author points to the government's need to recruit ministers from outside Parliament as clear proof that no strong party backs the administration, violating constitutional practice.

The author reasons that if a true party existed, its parliamentary deputies would never accept being passed over publicly in favor of non-elected individuals.

The author predicts the new government will survive only temporarily, dependent on opposition forbearance, describing a situation of impotent government facing uncertain opposition.

The author asks whether the current moment presents an opportunity to finally regularize Portuguese politics by organizing coherent parties.

The author proposes that scattered progressive elements (historics, regenerators, reformists) should unite into a single progressive party with a concrete program.

The author suggests that conservative elements should similarly organize themselves into a unified conservative party, potentially finding a leader in the current government.

The author advocates that both organized parties should support the government in passing necessary taxes and spending cuts rather than debating financial questions in isolation.

The author envisions that after party organization and fiscal cooperation, a major parliamentary battle should determine government control, with power going to whichever party prevails.

The author concedes that current factional leaders might resist these reforms because they benefit from divisions that amplify their limited influence.

The author urges the Portuguese people to prepare to enforce good political practice on their representatives if party leaders refuse voluntary reform.

The author asserts that proceeding with energy and coordination will enable the nation to impose conditions on representatives, achieve stable governments, and prevent the corruption of national morals through repeated governmental dissolutions.

The author warns that if Portugal permits continued political anarchy, the consequences will be the nation's own responsibility.

The author observes that the consequences of political anarchy are already being experienced.

The author poses rhetorical questions about whether national weakness will lead to economic ruin or loss of national independence itself.

The author concludes with a prayer that Portugal will follow the path of the stars toward wealth, independence, order, and liberty.