minister for foreign affairs, made an eloquent and well-reasoned speech in favour of the interference which he had promoted and provoked. Admitting that no government has a right to interfere in the affairs of another, except in the case where the security and immediate interests of the first government are compromised, he proceeded to show that there was a moral contagion which was the most serious and alarming of all the dangers—that the revolutionists of Spain were in correspondence with the revolutionists of France, and excited French soldiers to revolt. These circumstances, he urged, compromised the essential interests of France. This speech made a prodigious impression; for it expressed with force, felicity, and eloquence, not merely the feelings of the ultra-royalists and Carlists, but of the royalists and many men of moderate opinions. The adhesion of the Chamber to M. de Chateaubriand's views was proved by a substantial vote. A supplementary credit of 100,000,000 francs (four millions sterling) was placed at the disposal of the minister to carry on the war. It was in the course of the debate on this grant that Manuel, the orator of the opposition, rose to answer Chateaubriand. He described the government of Ferdinand as atrocious, alluded more than once to the fate of Louis XVI., and endeavoured to show that it was the protection given to the Stuart family by France which led to the destruction of those princes. The royal dynasty of France, he continued, owed its most serious danger to the same cause, the invasion of the soil of the country by foreign armies, and it was then that revolutionary France, feeling the necessity of defending herself with fresh energy—

The speaker was not allowed to finish his sentence. They hastened to interrupt him, says Lamartine, in order to have the right to execute him.

The côté droit exclaimed that Manuel had apologised for regicide, and with loud imprecations they called on the president to put him down, to expel him. Expulsion! expulsion! let us drive him from our benches, exclaimed eighty or a hundred voices. M. Ravez, the president, remarked with dignity that the speaker had been interrupted in the middle of a sentence. The vociferators, heedless of these remarks, surrounded the rostrum on which Manuel stood; and one of them, bolder than the rest, dragging Manuel from the eminence on which he stood, demanded a signal vengeance on the advocate of assassins. Manuel wrote a letter to the president, contending for his right to finish his sentence, and to allow his meaning to be judged. But M. Forbin des Issarts demanded his expulsion, and a formal motion to that effect was prepared by M. de la Labourdonnaye, the leader of the ultra-royalists, which was carried by a majority of two to one. The liberals resolved to resist this unwise act of the government. Guards were placed at the doors of the Chamber to prevent the entrance of Manuel. He entered, however, unperceived. The president then summoned him to withdraw. "I announced yesterday," said Manuel, "that I would yield only to force, and I shall keep my word." After some delay the hussiers, or officers of the Chamber, read to him a written order that he should withdraw. He maintained that the order was illegal, whereupon the hussiers returned with a piquet of National Guards in uniform. The cries of the liberal deputies induced the National Guard to waver, and amidst the applause of Lafayette, Foy, Laffitte, and others, the Sergeant Mercier hesitated to act the gendarme. But in a few minutes thirty gendarmes, under M. Foucault, made their appearance, and Manuel was removed by force. Sixty-nine deputies, among whom were Lafayette, Foy, Laffitte, &c., of the liberal party, followed him to the house of M. Gevandan, where a protest was drawn up against his expulsion, declaring that the Chamber had exceeded the limits of its mandate.

On the 15th March the Duke d'Angoulême set out to take the command of the army that was to enter Spain. At first there was a difficulty in provisioning the troops, the generalissimo commissariat being badly arranged, but M. Ouvrard, to whom the contract was given, soon placed the supplies on the most satisfactory footing. The French army mustered 91,000 men. It was divided into four corps, under Marshals Oudinot, Molitor, Moncey, and Prince Hohenlohe. The Spanish force consisted of 123,000 men, under Ballastros, Mina, and O'Donnell, Conde d'Abisbal. On the 5th April the French were ranged along the Bidassoa, and it was evident that a passage would be attempted on the following day. A considerable force of Spaniards was also drawn up on the Spanish side of the river, but the corps that attracted most attention was a body of French and Italian refugees, ranged under the tricolor flag, and commanded by Colonel Fabvier, an officer of the Empire. Fabvier had been promised a corps of 800 of these men, but only 200 made their appearance. As the French advanced post approached, the corps of Fabvier chanted the Marseillaise. The moment was critical. General Vallin, who commanded the advanced guard, ordered a gun to be discharged along the bridge. The first round was fired over the heads of the enemy in order to induce them to retire, whereupon the refugees cried vive l'artillerie. General Vallin then ordered a point blank discharge, which killed several. A third round completed the dispersion of the group. When Louis XVIII. saw General Vallin after the campaign, he said, "General, votre coup de canon a sauvé l'Europe." This may have been an exaggeration of the monarch, but it is certain that the act had a most prodigious influence on the campaign. The French army effected its passage without difficulty, drove back the garrison of St. Sebastian, and established the blockade of that place, while French in the French centre and reserve moved rapidly on the great road to Madrid. The invaders were generally well, often enthusiastically received. They observed an exact discipline, and paid for everything they required, so that no On the 28th September the Cortes declared that their means of defence were exhausted, and dissolved themselves.

On the same day the king sent a message to the Duke d'Angoulême that he was at liberty, and on the 1st October he embarked at Port St Mary's for his capital.

Judged by its immediate result, the French expedition was successful. In less than six months, with the loss of only 400 men, and at an expense of 200,000,000 francs, the French troops had delivered the king of Spain, and had prevented Spanish factions from tearing each other to pieces. On the 2d December the Duke d'Angoulême made his triumphal entry into Paris, surrounded by his staff. The municipality of Paris met the prince at the barrier, and warmly congratulated him. He replied that he was happy in accomplishing the mission confided to him, and in showing that nothing was impossible to a French army.

It was not with feelings of pleasure that Mr Canning beheld the successful progress of the French in Spain. In the triumph of the French arms he saw not merely the Bourbons strengthened, but the influence of France on the Continent greatly augmented. To use his own words, he therefore determined on calling a new world into existence to redress the balance of the old, and resolved on recognising the independence of the republics of South America. It appears, however, from a statement published in Chateaubriand's posthumous memoirs, that Canning only forestalled the designs of the French statesman, who projected placing Bourbon princes on South American thrones.

The elections that took place for the renewal of the fifth of the Chamber, in the autumn of 1823, were nearly all in favour of the royalists, who were now enabled to cope with, if not to vanquish, the union of the liberals and the centre. Places and honours were bestowed on the members of the majority to the exclusion of all other candidates. Public affairs, indeed, appeared to proceed most prosperously, and under these circumstances it was that M. de Villele contracted a loan with the house of Rothschild and Company, to the amount of L16,400,000, at 8½%. These favourable terms produced great confidence in the public mind, and enabled the government to clear off the debts and engagements connected with the Spanish war. A dissolution of the Chamber was under these circumstances resolved on, and it was effected by ordonnance on the 24th December. The result of the elections which took place in February and March were most favourable to the ultra-royalists. Even in the capital in which the liberal party had hitherto obtained all the seats, they now only succeeded in returning Foy, Perrier, and Benjamin Constant, while in the provinces, out of 434 elections, the extreme party gained only fifteen seats in the colleges of arrondissements, and two in those of departments. The effect on the public funds was surprising. In the beginning of March the public funds reached the extraordinary figure of 104½%, a price not attained for more than half a century.

On the 23d March the Chambers met. The king congratulated the country on the discipline and bravery of the French army, conducted, said Louis XVIII., by my son, with as much wisdom as valour. There were here loud cries of Vive le Roi, Vive le Duc d'Angoulême. After alluding to the inconvenience that resulted from the annual election of the fifth of the Chamber, the speech proceeded to state, that a bill would be introduced for extending the duration of the legislature to seven years, subject to the royal prerogative of dissolution. Another bill was presented for the purpose of providing the means of repaying the holders of government annuities, or converting their rights into a claim for sums more in accordance with the actual value of money, of 5 to 3 per cent. A measure for reducing the interest on loans from 5 to 3 per cent. per cent., in a country in which there are so many small renters, as in France, can never be popular. Lamartine, in the seventh volume of his History of the Restoration, contends that a conversion was retroactive and dishonest, inasmuch as the state constituted these funds as rentes perpetuelles, and in this opinion he is supported by Alison.

It was argued in favour of the septennial law, that the great want of the government was the absence of a fixed majority, and that the annual renewal of a fifth of the Chamber kept up a perpetual excitement and agitation, and augmented corruption. On the other hand it was urged, that the septennial law repealed a vital part of the charter, and tended to make the king independent of the popular voice.

The debate in the Chamber of Deputies on the law was continued for several days. The most remarkable speech on the occasion was delivered by M. Royer Collard, who urged that the annual renewal of a certain portion of the national representatives could alone suit the country, for in a time of general election the people felt themselves sovereign. The speaker clearly demonstrated, in the course of his remarks, that the power of election and representation had passed from the nation and centred in the class of functionaries. Arguments such as these fell, of course, unheeded on an assembly of functionaries; and independently of this, a newly elected Chamber in any country, or under any circumstances, would feel pleased in prolonging its existence to seven years instead of three. The septennial bill passed by 292 votes to 87.

The measure of Villele for the conversion of the 5 per cent. to a 3 per cent. stock met with many opponents. The functionaries, the shopkeepers, and the clergy in the capital were all opposed to any change which affected their incomes. The clergy, in particular, much as they approved of the general march of the government, were rancorous on this question. It is, however, quite legitimate in any state to profit by its own prosperity, and to liberate itself from an undue burden of interest, by offering back the principal at par. Another reason why the conversion was unpopular was, that it was publicly known that the amount saved was to be applied to indemnifying the emigrants. A project of this kind pleased the Count d'Artois and the ultra-royalists, but was sure to displease the great body of the nation. The bill was brought forward on the 5th April, when it was proposed to reduce the 5 into 3 per cents, taking the latter at 75. It was calculated that this would effect a reduction in the annual charge of the debt of 30,000,000 francs (L1,200,000), and would establish the credit of the government on a solid foundation. As, however, there were 250,000 persons holders of these annuities, of whom a majority held only 500 francs, the excitement and opposition were very great. Such, however, was the overpowering influence of the government, that the law passed by a majority of 238 to 145. In the Chamber of Peers the result was different. The bill was there thrown out by a majority of 34; and it was observed that M. de Chateaubriand did not speak in favour of the measure, and that several of his party voted against it. The rejection of the law gave unbounded satisfaction in Paris, and was celebrated by the most signal demonstrations of joy, and led to one important measure, the dismissal of the minister for foreign affairs.

The day after the discussion on the law in the Peers, 6th June 1824, M. de Chateaubriand received an unceremonious announcement from M. de Villele, that his services were dispensed with at the foreign office. To make this communication more uncourtorous, if not contemptuous, it was forwarded by a common messenger, and in the absence of the minister was received by his secretary, who found that his principal, unconscious of his dismissal, had already proceeded on his way to the Tuileries. It was only by hurrying after the dismissed minister that the private secretary could communicate to his principal the fact of his disgrace in time to spare him the affront of finding the council chamber closed against them. Nor was Chateaubriand the only dismissal. Victor duke de Belluno, who had been obnoxious to the Dauphin, was removed from the war department, to which M. de Tounnerre was appointed. The portfolio of foreign affairs was given to M. de Damas, a creature of the Duke d'Angoulême.

Thus was ungraciously dismissed from office the minister who had matured and given life and spirit to the invasion of Spain, who had restored to the throne the representative of the Spanish Bourbons, who had rallied to the French Bourbons the army of France, who had defended the foreign policy of the government in the Chamber with uncommon eloquence, and who, in addition to these services, was renowned throughout Europe by his genius. But M. de Chateaubriand was not a member of the congregation, did not go all lengths with the parti prêtre, and on these grounds was obnoxious to the Duchess d'Angoulême and the clerical camarilla about the court. He was, moreover, no favourite with Louis XVIII., and it must also be admitted that in his dealings with M. de Villele and M. de Montmorency he did not always exhibit straightforwardness, honesty, candour, or high political honour. Inordinate vanity and inordinate ambition were the failings of Chateaubriand; and notwithstanding the attempts of his brother poet Lamartine to make a defence for him, we fear it must be admitted that he was in the gravest national affairs always looking for the opportunity to create a sensation about himself. Such a minister may occasionally be a bold and brilliant statesman, but is not always safe or trustworthy as a colleague. Nevertheless, there was something harsh, if not brutal, in the manner of Chateaubriand's dismissal. To use his own indignant words, he was driven out of the councils of the king comme un laquais qui aurait volé la montre du roi sur sa cheminée. This was indeed a grievous error; for it deprived the ministry of M. de Villèle of the support of the Journal des Débats, the principal organ of the Parisian press, and of the sympathy of men of letters in general. Nothing memorable occurred in the remainder of the parliamentary session.

The health of the king, for some time inform, now completely gave way. Suffering from a complication of disorders, the monarch became daily more lethargic, and took little part in business or in the council. The small effort of reading or writing one of those notes which he daily forwarded to Madame du Cayla produced somnolency, and Lamartine tells us, in the minute account he gives of the monarch's illness, that the continual dripping of the royal head on the bronze table had produced an abrasion of the skin. The only pleasure or excitement the king had at this period was in excursions in the royal carriage drawn by eight horses, proceeding at the top of their speed. Louis XVIII. felt the same gratification in these exercises, says Lamartine, that a captive does in the glare of the sun. The royal patient knew he was sinking, but he bore his doom with philosophical indifference if not with stoicism. The direction of affairs was now transferred to the Count d'Artois, so soon to be Charles X. The high hand of the Count might be traced in an edict suspending the liberty of the press, and re-establishing the censure, and in an ordinance creating a new ministry, the ministry of ecclesiastical affairs, an office which was bestowed on M. Frassinons, bishop of Hermopolis and Grand Master of the University. No doubt M. Frassinons was an able, eloquent, and moderate

---

1 Lamartine, Hist. de la Restauration, tom. vii., p. 229. 2 Lamartine, Hist. de la Restauration, tom. vii., p. 234. 3 History of Europe from the Fall of Napoleon, vol. ii., p. 727. man, but he was a churchman, and although not going the lengths of the parti prêtre, yet he dared not publicly discourage their pretensions.

While suffering great agony and weakness of body, the king went through public and official receptions, and submitted to all the formal etiquette incident to his rank and station. When no longer able to get into the royal carriage, he ordered his gentlemen and equerries to occupy his place so that the Parisian public might be deceived, and, to use the language of Lamartine, re-assured. As his birthday approached, his physicians feared the fatigue of a public reception of all the great corps of dignitaries of the state, and implored him to postpone this royal ceremony. His Majesty energetically refused. "A king," said he, "should never be ill in the interests of his people." After this public reception he was carried in a comatose state to the royal apartments, and by his obstinate desire to appear in public aggravated the alarms he had intended to allay.

But on the following day his Majesty resumed his wonted habits, rose at the usual hour, was attended by all the great officers of his court, and went through the ceremonies and observances of that etiquette which he had re-established. One of the fancies of the monarch was to be transported to Versailles, in the old palace of which he caused his ancient apartment to be furnished as it had been previous to the revolution. Another of his fancies was to be wheeled round a garden which he had caused to be laid out in the English fashion—a souvenir of Hartwell.

As the end of the monarch approached he expressed no wish to receive the ceremonious consolations of the Romish Church. This circumstance gave great uneasiness to the Count d'Artois to the Duchesse d'Angoulême, and to the priest party generally throughout the kingdom. It was remembered that the monarch had in his youth associated with the wits and philosophers of the epoch—that in his middle and mature age he had never yielded to superstitious practices, and that he had ridiculed even within a few years the devout observances of his brother, who had become a mere instrument in the hands of the clergy. Unlike Louis XIV., he did not surrender his conscience to a Le Tellier; for though there was a confessor gazetted as of the household, yet this individual never appeared at court, and the king was in nowise under the dominion of an humble and obscure priest, chosen by Louis XVIII. for the piety of his life and for his exemplary character. All these circumstances disquieted the royal family and the high clerical camarilla by which they were surrounded. Cardinal Latil, M. de Frayssinous, and others, held a council on the subject of the king's abstaining from confession, and it was resolved that M. de Frayssinous should seek an interview with his sovereign, and delicately warn him of the danger of delaying the succours of the church. The king, who esteemed the bishop, liked his moderation, and heard the prelate patiently, but persisted in refusing to receive the last sacraments, fearing, he said, to alarm the public. In this difficulty of the parti prêtre, the young Viscount de la Rochefoucauld, who originally introduced Madame du Cayla into the private cabinet of the king, appeared on the scene, and proposed to the royal family and to the clerical camarilla of cardinals and bishops to convey to Louis XVIII. their united hopes and wishes. The functions of the viscount gave him a ready access to royalty, and as he was one of the congregation, and attached by conscience and connection to the priest party, he proposed to his sovereign to see once more Madame du Cayla, who had retired to Saint Ouen, and who it was believed would induce the monarch to receive the sacraments. The king, seriously regarding him, said to M. de Rochefoucauld—"Vous le voulez, eh bien, allez dire à Madame du Cayla que je la recevrai." Madame du Cayla, after some hesitation, consented to render this service to the parti prêtre and the congregation, and after opening the subject to the monarch with that delicacy and tact of which she was so capable, Louis replied, you only Madame could venture thus to address me. I hear your words, and shall do what I ought to do. Then holding out his hand, which the lady tearfully kissed, the king, with a suppressed sigh, said, "Adieu, et a revoir dans l'autre vie." No sooner had Madame du Cayla departed, than the king sent for the humble priest who filled the office of confessor. Soon after the visit of the latter, the grand almoner, the cardinals, and the bishops assembled, and the funeral pompoms and ceremonies of what is called l'agonie des Rois were gone through.

The last hour of the monarch was now approaching. The extremities of the king were cold, and symptoms of mortification began to appear. The family of the sovereign and the foreign diplomatists were introduced. "Love each other," said the expiring monarch, addressing his family, "and by your affection console yourselves for the misfortunes of our house." "The charter," said he, "is my best inheritance. Preserve it, my brother, for me, for your subjects, for yourself"—then raising his hand to bless the Duke de Bordeaux (whom his mother placed in the foreground), he added—"and for this child to whom you should transmit the throne after my daughter and my son" (he thus affectionately called the Duke and Duchess d'Angoulême). Looking at the child, he said, "May you be wiser and happier than your parents."

The king received extreme unction, thanked his attendants, and bade an eternal farewell to his former minister, M. Decazes, whom he was wont to call his child, and whose sobs reached his ear. On the 16th September 1824, the day he had fixed on as his last, all that was mortal of Louis XVIII. had passed away. At early dawn on that morning M. Portal drew the curtains of the bed to feel the royal pulse. The pulse had ceased to beat, though the hand was not yet cold. "Gentlemen," said M. Portal, turning to the attendants, "the king is dead;" and then respectfully inclining towards Charles X., he exclaimed "Vive le Roi."

The last words the deceased sovereign addressed to his brother were remarkable, "I have tasked," said he, "between parties, like Henri IV., and unlike him I die in my bed, in the Tuileries. Do as I have done and your reign will end in peace." It was indeed one of the greatest triumphs of Louis XVIII. to die in his bed, and in the place of his ancestors. He had contrived to sit for ten years on the throne of France during one of the most difficult periods of French history, and he maintained his position without any war more serious than the mere military promenade into Spain. He was no ordinary man—we may say, indeed, no ordinary man—who could succeed in such a career. The great secret of the success of Louis XVIII., was, that he was moderate and passionate, and that he altogether suited himself to the temper of the times. He was a man of clear intellect, great observation, exquisite tact and discretion, and consummate judgment. Well read in ancient and modern history, thoroughly knowing the world and its ways, he was very capable of forming a sound and sagacious opinion on public affairs. Yet with all his lights from nature, reading, and experience, he was not wedded to his own views. Open to conviction, calm and unprejudiced, he yielded to superior sense or argument, or whenever circumstances rendered it imperative to do so. Though learned in an eminent degree, he recognised the superior sense and sagacity of M. de Villele, a man without any pretension to letters, and trusted and confided to his moderation and masculine sense. "His natural talent," says Lamartine, "cultivated, reflective, and quick, full of recollections, rich in anecdotes, nourished by philosophy, enriched by quotations, never deformed by pedantry,

---

1 Hist. de la Restauration, tom. vii., p. 308. 2 Ibid., tom. vii., p. 317. 3 Ibid., tom. vii., p. 320. History rendered him equal in conversation to the most renowned literary characters of his age. M. de Chateaubriand had not more elegance, M. de Talleyrand more wit, Madame de Staël more brilliancy. Never inferior, always equal, often superior to those with whom he conversed on every subject; yet with more tact and address than they, he changed his tone and subject of conversation with those he addressed, and yet was never exhausted by any one. History, contemporary events, things, men, theatres, books, poetry, the arts, the incidents of the day, formed the varied text of his conversations. Since the suppers of Potsdam, where the genius of Voltaire met the capacity of Frederick the Great, never had the cabinet of a prince been the sanctuary of more philosophy, literature, talent, and taste.

Louis XVIII. was humane and benevolent, as well as moderate and wise. The few examples of severity which his reign affords were forced on him either by the violence of party spirit, or the reactionary vehemence of a rank ultra-royalist majority, which became too powerful in his latter days. But for years antecedent to his death he had kept the ultramontane, ultra-royalist, and Jesuitical parties within proper bounds. He also restrained and moderated the monarchical and aristocratic party to which he himself belonged. His conduct in exile was exemplary. Never did man suffer with more dignity, constancy, and patience, or await with more calm certainty his restoration.

The eyes of Louis XVIII. were scarcely closed in death ere the brother of the king (now reigning Charles X.), and the party which used Madame du Cayla for what they called the edification of the kingdom and the honour of religion, sought to efface all traces of her influence. Letters, papers, and everything relating to the intercourse of the late monarch with Madame du Cayla, had disappeared from the cabinet of the king before her friends could take any step in the business. Charles X., however, paid Madame du Cayla during his life an annuity of 25,000 francs. She at once retired from the court, to what M. de Lamartine calls a "splendid obscurity."

Charles X. The Count d'Artois, who succeeded his brother under the title of Charles X., made no change in the ministry. M. de Villèle had long been acting on the Count d'Artois' views as the minister of his elder brother, and he possessed the entire confidence of Charles X. Everything seemed to smile on the new sovereign. The Spanish peninsula and Italy were tranquil—there was a majority in the Chamber of Deputies in harmony with the Peers, and there was great internal prosperity, every branch of domestic industry being flourishing. The external influence of France was also great, and her power respected abroad.

The personal appearance and demeanour and many of the qualities of the new monarch were greatly in his favour. His figure was tall and majestic, his manners frank and open, his air eminently courtly and chivalric; excelling in all bodily exercises, he rode with skill and boldness, and either in passing a review or in following the chase, to which he was passionately addicted, won all hearts by the charm and fascination of his manner. He walked as erect, and was as graceful in his demeanour, on the day of his accession as in his early youth. Fond of popularity, he was warm-hearted, benevolent, and solicitous for the happiness of his people. There was nothing he more desired than to make a favourable impression on the nation which he governed. His first care was to restore the ancient ranks and titles to his family. The Duke d'Angoulême, turned of fifty, was created Dauphin, and his duchess Dauphiness. Charles X. also conferred the title of royal highness on the Duke d'Orléans, accompanying it with the ancient appanages of the house, consisting of crown forests which had not been sold at the Revolution, and which rendered the duke one of the wealthiest of French proprietors. The Duke de Chartes, the eldest son of the Duke d'Orléans, was promoted to the command of a regiment. The new king also received with a chivalrous cordiality the marshals and generals of the empire. Grouchy was favourably noticed, and to Exelmans the king said, "I remember not the past, but I am sure, general, I can count upon you for the future." Speeches such as these were of the happiest augury.

The king made his entry into Paris on the 27th September. There were not wanting those who suggested precautions; to which the monarch replied,—"People who don't know me cannot hate me, and I am confident those who know me do not hate me." The archbishop of Paris, who awaited the king at the head of his clergy, addressed a maladroit speech to his majesty, to which the monarch listened with apparent disrelish. The king was perfectly well received by the people, and bore himself inimitably on this occasion. To the Duke d'Angoulême his father had confided the supreme direction of the army. The king proposed to his ministers to abolish the censorship of the journals, an odious and unpopular measure impatiently submitted to during the last months of the previous reign. The editors of newspapers responded to this measure of the king in transports of gratitude. But notwithstanding this temporary effervescence, it was soon perceived that there was a back-stairs influence exercised by a sacerdotal camarilla. Lamartine states, that in a confidential communication with himself Charles X. disavowed being governed by priests and Jesuits, whose God he adored without loving the sect; but the poet historian admits that the king might have deceived himself without deceiving others, and we every day see in every rank of life men denying the existence of an influence to which they unconsciously and almost unawares are slavishly subject. Among this secret council, whose power the monarch concealed from himself, were Cardinals Latil, Laffare, Clermont Tonnerre, Lambruschini the pope's legate, and M. de Quelen, archbishop of Paris, a man of piety and worth, but profoundly devoted to the interests of mother church. Latil, according to Lacretelle, was born a courtier, and ever had been a zealous partisan of the Jesuits. The ultra-royalist chiefs joined their councils with these churchmen. Among these were the Duke de Rivièrè, M. de Polignac, and M. de Vauclerc, who, once an imperial prefect, had now become one of the shining lights of Carlism. The soul of the camarilla, however, was the restless, ambitious, intriguing, and ever active Vitrolles, who played so important a part in 1814. The king had not been long seated on the throne ere the disciples of Loyola began to rear their heads haughtily. Everywhere throughout France they set about establishing new colleges and seminaries. Montrouge, their chief college, became the centre around which the most favoured and distinguished young men about court revolved. Appointments in the public offices were made through the influence of the disciples of Ignatius Loyola. Neither M. de Villèle nor M. Corbière, it is true, belonged to the congregation, but these ministers were overborne by chefs-de-dévision, who opposed their veto to the appointment of candidates suspected of lukewarm zeal. The proof of this is afforded by the case of an old man of seventy-two, and author of mathematical treatises which are classical throughout Europe. M. Legendre, of the Academy of Sciences, enjoyed a pension of 3000 francs, and there being a vacant place in the academy, was asked by M. Lourdouix, a chef-de-dévision, to vote for M. Binet, a congregationalist candidate. On his refusing to do so, his pension was withdrawn by royal ordinance. A fortnight after this the power and intolerance of the clergy was proved by their refusing to receive within the precincts of the parish church the mortal re-

---

1 Hist. de la Restauration, tom. vii., p. 329. 2 Lacretelle, Hist. de la Restauration, tom. iv., p. 132, 133. mains of an actor named Philippe, who had suddenly died in an apoplectic fit. A deputation waited on M. de Damas, first gentleman of the chamber to Charles X. M. de Damas appealed to M. Corbière, the minister, who replied that he could not force the ministers of any religion to receive within the church the body of an actor. It was said that the king personally interfered, as his brother Louis XVIII. had done in the case of Mlle. Raucourt, but apparently without success, for an armed force prevented the people from carrying the coffin to the parish church. Mass, vespers, complines, matins, fastings, pilgrimages, were now the order of the day. It was even necessary, says Lacroetelle, to be armed with a confession ticket; that is, a card importing that you had confessed and been shriven in the most approved fashion within canonical time. It was counted a noble work to baptize a Jew or to convert a young Protestant, male or female. In the army, as well as in civil life, confession was made a test. The minister of war, M. Clermont Tonnerre, the nephew of the archbishop of Toulouse, the most turbulent and arrogant of prelates, caused all the regiments to be regularly catechised. Thus more outward observances were made to pass for religion, the profoundest and deepest sentiment of the human soul. Processions and expositions of the saint sacrament and of relics multiplied; and "at one of these," says Lacroetelle, "I remember to have seen Don Miguel, after the crime attempted against his father and the actual assassination of Count Loulé." Yet notwithstanding this hothouse forcing of a sentiment which ought to take its rise spontaneously in the heart of man—notwithstanding the pastorals of bishops and the preachings of Jesuits, Congregationalists, and Redemptorists, more copies of Voltaire, Rousseau, and the atheistical work called Le Système de la Nature, were sold than in any antecedent period. It was at this period that Lamennais, then a furious ultramontane, and who died not long since out of the pale of the Romish church, fulminated his anathemas against Frayssinous, bishop of Hermopolis, whom he accused of semi-Gallicanism. On the other hand, the Count de Montlosier, a conscientious man, of intrepid courage, abandoned the culture of his estate, and came up to the capital to point out, in a series of pamphlets, to the king the evils which Jesuitism would inflict on the country. M. de Montlosier opened the way for other writers, such as the Abbé de Pradt, former archbishop of Mechlin, Paul Louis Courrier, and the ablest critic of the Journal des Débats, Hoffmann.

The ultramontane and absolutist tendencies of the monarch were resisted in the Chamber of Peers by Lainé de Talleyrand, Decazes, Pasquier, Molé, Siméon, Portal, Roy, Mollien, and Mounier. Among the mass of the people different opinions predominated as to these observances. A few regarded them with reverence, many with indifference, but the majority with scoffing sneers. The priest party was, however, strong in the Chamber of Deputies. So great a change had been operated by the electoral law of 1821, that 130 members were devoted to the parti prêtre in the lower house, though that party could not boast of more than 30 adherents in the Chamber of Peers. But that which rendered the party all-powerful was, that it had placed viceroys over all the ministers. Thus M. de Rennéville was a sacerdotal spy over M. de Villele, M. Tronchet over the minister of the interior. The king probably was not aware of these manoeuvres. The progress of the Jesuits is always sly and insidious, and it is very likely they had installed their instruments before the monarch was aware of the fact. The answers of Charles X. to the public bodies who presented congratulatory addresses were such as became him, frank and conciliatory. As the nation was prosperous and flourishing, there was a general feeling of satisfaction and security. This was first dispelled by a proceeding of the minister of war, M. de Clermont Tonnerre, who issued an ordonnance placing on half-pay 50 lieutenant-generals and 100 major-generals, whose names had many times figured in the bulletins of the grande armée. Among the number were Grouchy, Vandamme, Gazan, Drouot, Ornano, Excelmans, Harispe, and many others. This measure was the result of a secret conclave of the camarilla, the object doubtless being, as Lacroetelle suggests, to more easily place the army under the discipline of the congregation.

Charles X. was not at first aware of the effect of the measure. No sooner, however, were his eyes opened than he granted exemptions and dispensations, and these became at length so numerous that the ordonnance remained a dead letter. General Foy called it a cannon-shot charge at Waterloo, and fired ten years after the battle.

The Chambers were opened by the king in person on the 22nd December. It was intimated in the speech that a measure of indemnity to the emigrants was in preparation. The public finances being in a prosperous condition, this sum, though amounting to a milliard, might be provided for without injuring public credit. The cessation of war contributions, and a peace of ten years, had so restored the finances that there was an excess of income over expenditure of 8,898,118 francs, or L360,000 for the year 1824. The sinking fund, too, remaining intact, the public debt was undergoing a diminution. It appeared also that the late king had left no debts. The accounts of his household were regular and orderly, and there was annually a very considerable excess of income over expenditure.

The first law, brought forward on January 3, was the law on the civil list, which was fixed at 25,000,000 francs (L1,000,000) for the king during his life, besides 7,000,000 francs (L280,000) for his family, and 6,000,000 francs (L240,000) for (an odd conjunction) the funeral of the late king and the coronation of his successor. It was a provision of this measure that the whole territorial possessions and estates of the Orleans family should again revert to them. These properties had been merged in the domains of the state in 1791, but Charles X. now proposed to sanction a restitution by a solemn act of the legislature. The bill passed the Chamber of Deputies by a large majority, and was almost unanimously voted by the Peers.

The next measure brought forward was the creation of a fund to provide an indemnity for the emigrants. It was proposed to create a stock of a milliard (L40,000,000) in the 3 per cents., to be devoted to the families who had lost their property during the revolutionary era. The annual charge, it was calculated, would be about 30,000,000 francs, or L1,200,000, a-year. To reconcile tax-payers to the weight of such a burden, M. de Villele abandoned the idea of reducing the interest of the national debt.

The law of indemnity for the emigrants or sufferers by the Revolution was brought forward by M. Martignac, a gentleman of great ability, of amiable manners, of irreproachable character, of the most persuasive eloquence, of great moderation of views, and of winning gentleness of expression. He stated the case of the emigrants lucidly and strongly; and now that thirty years have passed since the discussion, and that party spirit is not so exacerbated, it may be said he stated the case unanswerably. Every candid man must agree with Lacroetelle, a writer of decidedly liberal if not democratic tendencies, in thinking that the measure was fully as advantageous to the acquireurs of national domaines as to the emigrants themselves. It was said at the time to be an attempt to restore the aristocracy, and to be an outrage to the Revolution. But calm reflective A bill for legalizing female religious communities also passed. This bill extended the privilege of holding property to societies of religious women, provided they were established for religious purposes, under certain regulations approved by the bishop of the diocese. In the debate on the subject the minister for ecclesiastical affairs stated that 140,000 sick persons among the poor were yearly attended by sisters of charity, and that 120,000 children in the humblest classes received gratuitous education from their labours, and 100,000 in the higher classes an education suited to their position. In a Roman Catholic country, in which there is no well-defined system of poor laws, sisters of charity may no doubt fulfil many exemplary and noble duties; but the danger of these monastic institutions is, that they become too powerful, and that they are guided and governed by a mysterious and occult influence, either Jesuitical, Dominican, or Liguorist. Fortunately, by the provisions of the French law females initiated into these sisterhoods can only leave to the communities to which they belong portions of their fortune. The bill passed the chambers by a majority of 236, thus proving the increased tendency of the chamber towards everything savouring of priestly and sacerdotal dominion.

The high price of the public funds induced M. de Villèle again to recur in a modified way to his favourite project of the reduction of the interest of the public debt. A less comprehensive plan than his former one, which had been lost in the preceding year, was now brought forward by him. It was proposed to the holders of 5 per cent. to convert these securities into a 4½ per cent., with a guarantee that they should not be paid off before 1835. The project was carried by a majority of 118 in the Chamber, and by a majority of 42 in the Chamber of Peers.

Preparations had been making for a considerable time, and on a most extensive and expensive scale, for the coronation of the king. The event took place at Rheims on the Charles X. 29th May. It was conducted with extraordinary pomp, and at a cost of four millions of francs. On the journey to that city, an accident occurred to the royal carriage which was nearly attended with fatal effects. The king was only saved by the dexterity and presence of mind of his coachman, but General Curiel and some officers of his household were severely injured. In lieu of the old coronation oath to destroy heretics and wield absolute power, the successor of Clovis took an oath to maintain the constitution, the charter, and the Roman Catholic religion. The oath was the subject of much negotiation between the ultras and the government. Though the prime minister Villèle did all that in him lay to harmonize the whole ceremony of the coronation with the constitution and with modern usages, yet the clergy were unyielding, and insisted that the Saint Ampoule, or holy oil, which, according to the legend, had been brought down by a dove to St Remy to anoint Clovis, should again be had recourse to.

It was no legend that the commissary of the Convention had broken the phial and cast out the so-called sacred oil. Yet, as is usual on such occasions, another phial was discovered and produced, containing the miraculous liquor. With this unguent the king was anointed in seven different places of his body, through holes slit in his coronation robes. What with the prayers, the ceremonies, the girding on the sword of Charlemagne, and assuming his crown, the ceremony occupied six hours. The monarch was wiry and slight in figure, and hale in body, but even his strength and agility were exhausted by these tedious ceremonies, while the dauphin and Talleyrand were fairly overcome. It was the duty of Talleyrand to put on the velvet boots of the king, and of the Dauphin to put on his father’s spurs. Vaulabelle gives a ludicrous description of these doings, of

---

1 Annuaire Historique, vol. iii. 2 Laretelle, vol. iv., p. 185. the dressings and undressings of the monarch, and of his receiving the sword from a minister of the church. A certain number of carrier pigeons and other birds were placed in the cathedral to bear the glad tidings, but they were so overcome with clouds of frankincense and the stifling atmosphere of unsavoury priests and sacristans, that many of them died, and the remaining birds were unable to wing their flight with the glad tidings; a sinister augury to those who believe in such omens.

Every state in Europe sent representatives to be present at this ceremony. The Duke of Northumberland represented England, and is said by Lacretelle to have expended two or three millions of francs. Mahometanism was represented in the person of an envoy of the Bey of Tunis, and the Jewish community in the person of the banker Rothschild. Three marshals who had fought against the Bourbons were made chevaliers of the Cordon Bleu, Soult, Mortier, and Jourdan. The Duke de Chartres was also invested with the insignia of the order, and a general pardon was granted to all political offenders. But notwithstanding this generosity on the part of the king, it was plain that the parti prêtre was in the ascendant. Three cardinals, all ultramontane, and one furiously so, Latil, Lafare, and Clermont Tonnerre, were made ministers of state; and the last mentioned, the most intemperate of the body, had openly revolted against a decision of the minister Corbière.

It was not therefore surprising, seeing this predominance of sacerdotal influence, that the Procureur-Général took proceedings against the Drapeau Blanc, the Courrier Francais, and the Constitutionnel, which had denounced the measures of the Jesuits. The requisitoire of the government functionary called for a suspension of the journals for three months each. Dupin, who had at this time arisen to great eminence at the bar, defended the incriminated journals with ability and great dialectical skill. The court declared itself incompetent, and dismissed the complaint without costs.

On the 28th November in this year, the great opposition orator, General Foy, died of an aneurism of the heart pronounced incurable by Corvisart. In the previous session of 1824 he had delivered two of his most successful speeches, and was occupied almost to his last moment in writing a history of the war in Spain. Since the death of Mirabeau, says Lacretelle, few men have been more regretted; he was less eloquent than that wonderful orator, but he was a Mirabeau without vices. Having died almost without fortune, a subscription was opened for his family, and it is to the honour of France that a million of francs, L40,000 of our money, was raised. Foy was never a flatterer of the emperor, which will account for the little notice taken of him by Napoleon. A little while after the death of Foy, the ex-keeper of the seals, De Serre, died at Naples whither he had been delegated by the royalists, who always seemed ill at ease in being sustained by orators and men of genius. De Serre was as much distinguished in the camp of the royalists as Foy in the camp of the liberals. Early in life he had emigrated and served in the army of Condé, but returning to France in 1802 he became a member of the bar of Metz, at which he rose to be advocate-general.

In this year the recognition of the independence of St Domingo was acknowledged by a formal convention. M. de Villele also joined Mr Canning in sending representatives to Spain to procure the acquiescence of the parent state in favour of the recognition of the independence of the colonies.

A law was introduced this session to procure for the eldest son a larger share of the paternal property. This was a cherished project with the court and camarilla. The favourite of Charles X., Polignac, had recommended it, writing from the London embassy a year or two previously; but M. de Villele, with his usual sagacity, then replied, that the habits and tendencies of the people were against the measure, and that such success was impossible. But the first minister was now overruled, and the new project was introduced by M. Peyronnet, who gloried in the task of sustaining and advocating unpopular measures. By the existing law a father was obliged to leave his property equally among his children, with the exception of a fourth, which he might dispose of at his pleasure. The project now introduced ordained that when the father had not made a will the one-fourth should be added to the portion of the eldest son. The law assigning the additional fourth of the property to the eldest son was to be applicable to all who paid 300 francs of direct taxes. While the question was in course of debate the hopelessness of carrying such a project appeared palpable to M. de Villele, and he promised that the operation of the measure should be limited to families paying 1000 francs direct taxes, which it was admitted would affect but 8000 families in the whole kingdom. This proposition put in the shape of an amendment was negatived, and when the principal article of the law was put to the vote it was rejected by 120 votes against 94, and nothing but an article permitting entails for one generation passed. The joy throughout the country at this victory, as it was considered, was immense, and the capital was very generally illuminated. Nothing daunted by this defeat, the clergy and the court braved public obloquy and contempt by getting up splendid religious processions, and a jubilee or religious revival. This ceremony was attended by all the royal family, with the exception of the Duke d'Orléans, &c. It was strange, and very far from edifying, to see Talleyrand and Soult walking in the cortege of a religious procession, with wax candles in their hands, clothed as penitents. The war minister, M. de Damas, compelled whole regiments and divisions to join in this jubilee. Nothing could make the army more hate and despise the Bourbons than such an order proceeding from the war office.

We have already mentioned that M. de Montlosier had published a Mémoire à Consulter against the Jesuits. Not satisfied with this, he prepared a denunciation of the Jesuits and their establishments to the courts of justice. It was the wish of M. de Peyronnet that the royal court should take no notice of the denunciation, and the procureur proposed a judgment that there was nothing to deliberate upon. But the court did deliberate, there being only two out of fifty-five judges who were for passing over the accusations. The court passed judgment to the effect that several laws prohibited the re-establishment of the Jesuits, their principles being destructive of the independence of any government, and incompatible with the existence of a constitutional chamber, and the public law of the country. But notwithstanding this condemnation of the Jesuits by the first body of lawyers in the kingdom, the ultramontane bishops thundered against the liberal opposition. Among the most intolerant of episcopal missives was that of the Abbé Tharin, Bishop of Strasbourg, and the writer of this document was the person selected by Charles X. as preceptor to the Duke de Bordeaux.

Mr Canning spent the autumn of 1826 in Paris, and was Mr Canning well received by Charles X., who did him the extraordinary honour of inviting him to the royal table. A rather amicable understanding with M. de Villele was one of the results of Mr Canning's journey. This was apparent in December 1826, when the state of Portugal called for an armed interference by England. Villele then withdrew his ambassador from Spain on that country slighting his advice in reference to Portugal, a measure which could not fail to be agreeable to England.

---

1 Annuaire Historique, tom. viii. 2 Lacretelle, Hist. de la Restauration, tom. iv., p. 252. The revenue of France in 1826 was 985,000,000 francs (L39,400,000), and the expenditure 981,972,609 francs. The exports for the year 1826 were considerably less than those of 1825, owing to the monetary crisis in England. The army amounted to 232,000 men, the navy to 45 ships of the line, and 37 frigates. The public debt was 3,873,500,000 francs (L135,000,000), including the emigrant indemnity and the colonists of St Domingo: 37,000,000 of francs were voted for the expenses of the occupation of Spain.

The Duke de Riviere was appointed to the place of governor of the Duke de Bordeaux—a place vacant by the demise of the amiable Duke de Montmorency, who expired in church on Good Friday while assisting at the long ceremonies of the Roman Catholic ritual. This nomination increased the disgust of all thinking people, and placed beyond doubt the ascendancy of the congregationists over the mind of the king. Public opinion pointed to M. de Chateaubriand as the fittest person for this office, but Charles X had no perception of the propriety of appointing fit men to vacant places.

The Debats, in which Chateaubriand then habitually wrote, used the word fatality, in reference to the march of events, and certainly no course could be more mortally destructive to the popularity of the king. "The names of the men," says Lamartine, "with pregnant brevity, indicated the line, the line indicated the intention, the intention disclosed ruin, overthrow, subversion."

Every succeeding day now rendered the monarch more and more unpopular. The attacks of the press galled both the court and the camarilla. The king rashly announced at the beginning of the session of 1827, that, to use the words of Lamartine, "he would stifle the voice that troubled him." This menace indicated extreme courses, for the stillness required by governments is but the prelude to the tyranny of the people. A not distant struggle between the crown and the nation now appeared imminent. The inevitableness of the encounter redoubled the boldness of the court, the irritation of the popular leaders, the license of the journals, and the underground agitation of the masses. In the bill brought forward by the government against the press it was proposed that all writings of twenty pages and under should be deposited with the censors five days before publication; if published before the expiration of that period the entire edition was liable to be confiscated, and a fine of 3000 francs (L120) to be imposed on the publisher. The proprietors of journals were the parties against whom actions for breaches of the law were to be directed, and no company for conducting a journal was to be legal if it consisted of more than five persons. Fines varying from 2000 to 20,000 francs might be imposed. The whole public press was vehemently opposed to this project. It was denounced as not merely directed against the press but against all liberty. Men of all ranks, stations, classes, and professions, joined in a diapason of discontent. The academy, with Chateaubriand at its head, placed itself in the foreground of the movement, and Villeneuve, Lacroix, and Michaud made common cause with their illustrious friend. M. Michaud, as reader to the king, was dismissed for his expression of opinion; Villeneuve lost his place as maître des requêtes, and Lacroix as examiner of dramatic works. Yet the interference of these men as academicians and as citizens was most legitimate, for this law of "love and justice," as it was ridiculously called by that most perverse being De Peyronnet, the keeper of the seals, threatened not merely the press but authors, publishers, and printers. Precautions as stringent were to be observed in the publication of books as in the publication of newspapers. No book was to be published for five or ten days after a copy had been left at the offices of the government. Pastoral letters of bishops were, however, to be excepted. In the debate on the law the opposition orators had the vantage ground. Royer Colard, so eager was the desire to speak, came at six in the morning to inscribe his name, when he found that three other members had preceded him. Never did Royer Colard make an abler speech than on this occasion.

"No former law," he began by observing, "had ever aimed at more than destroying the licentiousness of the press; the present law was remarkable as aiming at the destruction of the liberty of the press and printing itself. The idea of the proposers of the law was, that it had been a great imprudence on the day of creation, to allow man to come forth intelligent and free in the midst of the universe. The wisdom of ministers was employed in correcting this error of Providence, in restricting his imprudent liberality, and in bringing back humanity, sagely mutilated, to the happy innocence and ignorance of brutes. In defending a measure conceived on such principles as these, ministers are obliged to admit that they extinguish the good with the bad. As the press, they say, produces more bad than good, let us destroy it altogether. Apply the same principle to government, to jurisprudence, and you must put the whole country into prison, regard the population as so many suspected persons, and in fact renew that régime which existed under the Terror."

Benjamin Constant also summed, with pungent force, all the harassing, trivial, and tyrannical provisions of this execrable measure. Casimir Périer too produced a profound impression when he demanded of ministers whether they intended to apply the law to the literature of the country. He asked, were Voltaire, Rousseau, Pascal's Provincial Letters, and the Tartuffe of Molière to be proscribed.

Villele's speech failed in answering the weighty and argumentative objections urged against the measure. The bill underwent many mutilations in committee, and ultimately passed in so altered a form that De Peyronnet could scarcely recognize his own legislative bantling. Indeed, so important were the amendments in the Peers that De Peyronnet withdrew his law, whereupon there was a general illumination in all the great towns. Albeit by the new and much mitigated law further restrictions were placed on the press, yet such was the mingled flexibility and force, such the suppleness and strength, of public writers in France at this epoch, that they contrived to arouse and excite the country without enmeshing themselves within the legal nets spread out to catch them. A riot which occurred at the funeral of the Duke de la Rochefoucauld, a nobleman of great philanthropy, served still further to render the government unpopular. M. de Corbière had deprived this excellent man of seventeen gratuitous places, because he had disapproved of the centralization of the authority to control and visit prisons. The engineers and mechanics, for whom the duke had founded a college at Châlons, asked to be allowed to carry the body of their benefactor to the grave, and the family yielded to a request which they considered an honour. But on proceeding from the church to the cemetery the funeral was stopped by an agent of the police. The sons of the duke declared they wished the procession to proceed. The police agent communicated an order to the captain of a company of troops who attended the funeral to support the public force, when a struggle took place, in the midst of which the coffin was thrown on the paving stones and burst asunder. The Chamber of Peers ordered an inquiry into the facts by its grand referendary.

On the 29th April the king passed a review of from 20,000 to 30,000 armed citizens of the National Guard in the Champ de Mars. The king arrived on horseback. There were shouts of Vive la Roi along the first legion, but the seventh legion cried Vive la Charte to the exclusion of Vive le Roi. The king was annoyed, exclaiming, "I came to receive homage, and not a lesson." The whole legion now shouted Vive le Roi, but the feelings of discontent, repressed in the presence of the king, broke out on the appearance of the Duchesses d'Angoulême and De Berri. These ladies were greeted with cries of "Down with the Jesuits." As the National Guard were returning home they stopped before the mansions of De Villèle and De Peyronnet, crying, "Down with the ministers! away with Peyronnet!" The king was personally satisfied with the review, and directed Oudinot to draw up his thanks to the National Guard; but the princesses and De Villèle, and the Jesuits, were under other impressions.

The insult and castigation which he had received, says Châteaubriand, rendered Villèle irascible and Corbière malevolent. The ministers demanded the suppression of the National Guard, and were backed by the princesses. Charles X. hesitated, whereupon Villèle threatened to resign. The decree disallowing the National Guard was drawn up and signed.

An ordonnance appeared disbanding the National Guard. The imprudence of this measure was great. The disbanded became discontented men with arms in their hands on whom a stigma had been cast. To disband the whole National Guard for the fault of one legion, was an act of not merely imprudence but of gross injustice.

There was no country in which the people had been more alive to the Greek cause than France. But Villèle was lukewarm on the subject; Mr Canning had invited the French premier to come forward in conjunction with England, and to extend protection to the struggling Greeks of the Morea. But Villèle was embarrassed at home, and he made foreign questions subsidiary to domestic. Mr Canning therefore sent the Duke of Wellington to Russia to offer co-operation in the emancipation of Greece. The other powers of Europe were invited to join in the convention, and as there would be not only danger but disgrace in holding back, Villèle became at length a party to arrangements which resulted in the treaty signed at London on the 6th July 1827 between England, France, and Russia.

By the preamble of this treaty it was declared that the motives which led the contracting parties to interfere, was "the necessity of putting an end to the contest which, by delivering up the Greek provinces and the isles of the Archipelago to the disorders of anarchy, produces daily fresh impediments to the commerce of the European states." The object of the treaty was declared to be "the reconciliation of the Greeks and Turks." For this purpose, so soon as it was ratified, the mediation of the three powers was to be offered to the sultan, in a joint note signed by all their ministers at Constantinople, but an armistice was to be absolutely insisted on by both parties as a preliminary to the opening of any negotiation. The terms proposed to the sultan were, that he should still retain a nominal sovereignty over Greece, but receive from them a fixed annual tribute, to be collected by the Greek authorities, in the nomination of whom the sultan was to have a voice. All the Mussulman property in Greece was to be abandoned upon receiving an indemnity, and the fortresses were to be given up to the Greek troops. If the Porte did not, within a month, declare his acceptance of these terms, he was to be informed that the state of things which had reigned six years in Greece, and to which the sultan seemed unable, by his own resources, to put an end, made it imperative upon them, for their own security, "to come to an approximation with the Greeks, which was to consist in establishing commercial relations with Greece, and receiving from them consular agents," in other words, acknowledging their independence.

The sultan declared his determination to reduce his rebellious subjects to submission. It was now evident that the treaty of July could not remain a dead letter. A British squadron of four ships under Codrington, a French and Russian of equal force under de Rigny and Heyden, proceeded to the Aegean Sea. On the 20th October was fought the battle of Navarino, a battle which in no wise contributed to render the ministry of Villèle more stable or popular.

During the course of the session a treaty for the suppression of the slave trade was urged on the French cabinet by the English government. The project of law introduced on this subject declared the engaging in the slave trade punishable with confiscation of the cargo and banishment to the chiefs of the expedition. It was apparent to Villèle before the end of the session, that his position was becoming precarious, and that a dissolution of the Chamber might become indispensable. To add to his difficulties, the revenue had been unprosperous, the months of February and March exhibiting a deficit of 6,755,000 francs, and the majorities were day by day lessening.

As a preparatory measure to the dissolution, it was determined to establish the censorship by royal ordinance. The announcement of this measure in the Moniteur was the signal for the establishment of a society to defend the liberty of the press, of which Châteaubriand was made the president. The author of the Genie du Christianisme was only too happy to accept this prominent honour. He declared in the Chamber of Peers that ministers could not avert their own fall, and that the only doubt was, whether they would not in falling drag down the monarchy with them.

A censorship was now established, 76 new peers were created to overcome the hostile majority, and the Chamber of Deputies was dissolved on the 17th November.

Paris took the lead in voting against ministers. Of 8000 electors 7000 voted for opposition candidates. Dupont de l'Eure, Laffitte, Périer, Constant de Schonen, Ternaux, and Royer Collard were returned for the capital. It was just antecedent to the elections that the society Aide toi et le ciel t'aidera was established. It was composed of ardent and advanced liberals, and there can be no doubt that it had immense influence on the elections. Illuminations took place in all the great towns, as well as in the capital, to celebrate the electoral triumph over the ministry. In Paris the populace endeavoured to force the occupants of all houses to illuminate, and proceeded to break the windows of such as did not comply. This led to rioting and arrests, and ultimately the military were called out, and barricades erected. These scenes led to the first appearance of barricades, which three years later were to be so formidable an engine against authority. There was also an ominous symptom observable in these riots. It was, that at the barricades the troops of the line first hesitated to act against the people. It was now evident that the position of M. de Villèle was most precarious, and that a change in the cabinet had become indispensable. M. de Villèle had too much shrewdness and sagacity not to perceive his perilous position. He announced to the king the necessity of forming a new ministry, and named Châteaubriand, De la Feronnays, De Fitz-james, and De Labourdonnaye as members of a new cabinet. But the monarch had a personal prejudice against Châteaubriand, because of his progress in liberalism, and he was, moreover, obnoxious to the congregation. At length M. de Martignac was fixed on as president of the council, and Villèle, now confident that the ministry would not fall into the hands of M. de Polignac, resigned. Villèle had no doubt of his faults, but on the whole he was a prudent and sagacious minister, who carried some good measures, and prevented many evil ones. He softened the prejudices of the king, mitigated his bigotry, held his own party within bounds, and retarded at least for three or four years the fall of his master. M. de Martignac had for colleagues M. Portalis as keeper of the seals, M. de Caux as minister of war, M. de la Feronays as minister for foreign affairs, M. de Vatimesnil as minister of the interior, M. Hyde de Neuville of the marine, and M. Feutrier as minister of justice. The king chose M. de Martignac as a sort of concession which he was obliged to make to the liberal party. Had the monarch followed his own inclinations, his selection would have been M. de Polignac. Than M. Martignac, however, no choice could be made more likely to conciliate men of all parties. Persuasive, polished, gentle, accomplished, moderate, firm, yet not retrograde in his views and opinions, he possessed most of the qualities that constitute a popular and parliamentary favourite. No man was so likely as he to fashion the ancient fabric of the monarchy to the needs of the time, or to adapt to modern usages its wants and requirements. But Martignac wanted the hearty co-operation and concurrence of the sovereign. He was only endured as a hard necessity till the man after the monarch's own heart could be openly called in. Martignac did a politic thing in offering a seat in the cabinet to Chateaubriand as minister of public instruction, but his friends and fellow-labourers of the Debats induced the author of the Martyrs to reject the proposal, insisting that he should only accept the ministry of foreign affairs. When the Chambers met, it was evident from the attitude of parties that a coalition had been formed against the government. The speech of the king was conciliating, but the address in answer to it evinced the hostility of the majority to the late ministry. "The remonstrances of France," said this document, "have put an end to the deplorable system which had rendered illusory all the promises of your Majesty." The question that these strong expressions should be maintained was carried by a majority of 33, and Chateaubriand's party voted in the majority. The answer of the king, though he was deeply wounded, was dignified.

The influence of the crown, it had been complained, was increasing, and a law was introduced to exclude from the suffrage all persons employed under government. The law passed in the Deputies by a majority of 151, but in the Chamber of Peers several amendments were proposed by Villele's adherents, and sustained by the 76 peers of his creation. The law, however, ultimately passed by a majority of 83.

A vote of credit for 80,000,000 francs (£3,200,000) was asked for and granted to the ministers by a large majority, to carry into effect the treaty of the 6th July on the affairs of Greece. A measure which gave great satisfaction was the appointment of a commission to examine into the existence and influence of the Jesuits. When the ministers first broached the subject in council to the king, his majesty said, "This is a serious matter, I must consult my council." The council was unanimous on the subject, and the Duke d'Angoulême, the Bishop of Beauvais, Feutrier, and the king's own confessor, advised his Majesty to append his signature to a series of ordinances, the first of which prohibited any ecclesiastic belonging to a congregation forbidden by the laws to engage in teaching. This signature caused the king many a pang. "Do you not think we are doing wrong?" said his Majesty to the Bishop of Beauvais. "No, Sire," responded the bishop, "your Majesty is saving religion from ruin." The bishops of France and the clerical party protested against this ordonnance, and 100,000 copies of their protest was circulated among the faithful. The Archbishop of Toulouse, the firebrand Clermont de Tonnerre, refused to obey the ordinance, and the Bishop of Chartres proclaimed the ruin of the dynasty. The pope, however, approved of the ordonnance in a communication to Cardinal Latil, the king's confessor, as a measure of state, and the Jesuits retired to Switzerland. Meanwhile, M. Chateaubriand, who had refused the ministry of public instruction, accepted the embassy to Rome, "a kind of opulent and necessary exile," to use the words of Lamartine. His friends stipulated that the king should pay the debts with which the poet and orator was burdened.

No measure of M. Martignac was received with greater favour than the abolition of the Cabinet Noir, a band of 20 persons charged with the secret examination of letters at the post-office. The new law introduced by the minister for the regulation of the press also gave satisfaction. It was proposed to allow any one to set up a journal, but it was a provision of the law that security should be given by lodging a sum of money producing a certain yearly interest. Offences of the press were to be mulcted with heavy fines, which might amount to the whole of the security, and the trial and judgment of offences would be given to a royal court without a jury. Prosecutions for tendency were abolished.

M. de Martignac made many changes in the French diplomatic service, and also in various branches of the administrative service, but as to almost each of these changes he had a struggle with the king, who was guided by a secret and confidential committee, directed by M. Franchet, a director of the police under Villele. While the minister was under this species of royal ban, he addressed to his sovereign a confidential memoir on the state of affairs, on the necessity of conciliating the Chamber, and seeking by more constitutional measures a reconciliation with the men of the left centre, rendered indispensable to the crown by the obstinacy of the right. The minister was aware that the king was counselled to the rash act of a dissolution, and he endeavoured to dissuade the sovereign from so fatal a course. M. Martignac counselled the king to replace M. de la Feronays, who wished to retire, by M. Pasquier, while M. Hyde de Neuville suggested M. de Chateaubriand. The king always thinking of M. de Polignac, declined to accede to either request. His Majesty, determining to judge for himself of the state of parties, set out for Alsace, and M. de Martignac accompanied him. The journey was a complete ovation. The liberals, desirous to attract the king towards their party, received him well. Benjamin Constant, Casimir Périer, and several of the great manufacturers, showed themselves during the royal progress, and Périer was decorated by the royal hand. But all this while Charles X. kept up a secret correspondence with M. de Polignac; and M. de Portalis, who filled by interim the office of minister for foreign affairs, was requested to summon the prince from London. Polignac quickly arrived; but the ministers fearing that it was intended to introduce him into the cabinet, declared to the king that if such a measure were in contemplation they would resign in a body. The king feeling that he had proceeded too far, postponed without abandoning his favourite project. But M. de Polignac, under the rose, made tentative efforts at a cabinet, and offered himself to MM. Pasquier and Lainé. Pasquier listened and refused, and Lainé, whose name was a host, exhibited the most philosophical indifference for office. M. Martignac had now pretty well wrung from the monarch all the concessions he would make to liberalism—a quasi freedom of the press, a quasi purity of election, and the expulsion of the Jesuits. How then was he without new popular measures to satisfy the chamber or the country? The session of 1829 still saw him at the head of the government. The Chambers opened on the 11th January, and the king, in a speech penned by M. de Mar-Royal, explicitly denied all retrograde measures. After speeches on drawing a glowing picture of the prosperity of the country, opening his Majesty said, "France knows, as you do, on what basis its prosperity rests, and those who seek it elsewhere than in the sincere union of the royal authority and the liberties

---

1 Lamartine, Hist. de la Restauration, tom. viii., p. 114. 2 Ibid., tom. viii., p. 112. History, consecrated by the charter, will find themselves speedily disavowed by it." In the discussion on the address in 1829, Peers M. de Polignac made a remarkable speech. "Our institutions," said he in a solemn tone, "appear to reconcile all that can be required on the one side by the power and dignity of the throne; on the other by the just independence of the nation. It is in obedience to my conscience and my conviction that I have taken the engagement to maintain them. What right has any one to say I will recede. My accusers bent the knee before idols, when, more independent than they, I braved them in chains, danger, and death." This speech, from a man known to be the favourite and the adopted of the king, produced astonishment and emotion in the country. On M. Martignac, to use the words of Lamartine, it fell like a thunderbolt. The accomplished and amiable premier was clear-sighted enough to see that the king was preparing a successor for him, modelled after his Majesty's own heart. Nor was he slow to discern that the loss of authority in the Chambers would speedily follow his loss of credit and confidence with the king. This the very first votes of the Chamber sufficiently indicated. For the office of president M. Royer Collard had the majority, Casimir Périer obtained 155 votes, and M. de Labourdonnaye, the ministerial candidate, only 90.

Here it was evident that it would be impossible for the government to withstand any coalition that might be formed against it. The centre belonged more to M. de Villèle than to M. de Martignac, and the left was not to be relied on.

The government brought forward a law which tended to increase the popular influence in the municipal councils, and which was expected to unite the voices of both royalists and liberals. But the measure pleased neither party, and a coalition was formed against it, which proved fatal, not only to the law, but to the administration. One part of the law had relation to municipal government, the other to councils of arrondissement; and that part by which it was intended to establish more popular assemblies, in lieu of the old cantons of arrondissement, was defeated by a coalition of the left, and the left centre by a majority of 21. When MM. Martignac and Portalis announced to the king the hostile vote, his Majesty said,—"You see whither you have been dragged by your system of concessions. You see whither they would drag me. Return and announce to the Chamber that I withdraw my laws."

The ministry were taken aback with this declaration, which denoted a long-cherished resolve, and the Chamber was equally amazed and grieved. Parties agreed to vote the budget almost without discussion. It was too evident that a crisis was approaching. M. Martignac, however, still remained in his place, though it was evident to all that his downfall must be immediate. The expenses of the army at this period excited a good deal of discussion, and one evening when M. de Caux, the minister of war, entered the king's cabinet, his Majesty said to him, "Am I sure of the army?" "Sire," said the minister, "you must first tell me in what cause." "Unconditionally," rejoined the king. "The army," said the minister, "will not fail the king in defence of the throne and charter, but if there be an idea of re-establishing the ancient system"—Here the king interrupted him, saying, imperiously, "The charter—the charter—who is for violating it? Though it is an imperfect work I shall respect it; but what has the army to do with the charter?" "Sire," said M. de Caux, "out of 20,000 officers, there are not a thousand who possess 600 francs a-year." This reply, though short, was pregnant, for it proved that the officers were of the bourgeois class, and sympathized with the class from which they had sprung. The full import and meaning of the words were lost on the king, who gave himself entirely up to ultras, the camarilla, and favourites. Secret conclaves were nightly held in the Tuileries, to which the most vehement royalists, such as Labourdonnaye, were admitted in plain dress through the valet de chambre's apartments. At these conferences M. Montbel, afterwards minister of public instruction in Polignac's cabinet, assisted, and Polignac himself was recalled from London to inspire the camarilla with his most calamitous counsel, by a letter in the king's own hand. All these proceedings and intrigues were concealed from M. Martignac, nor was it till the 6th August, that the king suddenly called M. Portalis to St Cloud, to inform him that the ministry was dismissed. The whole of the Martignac cabinet soon after repaired to St Cloud, and placed their portfolios in the hands of his Majesty. The king requested M. Roy, the finance minister, to remain; a request which that statesman declined to comply with. The new ministry consisted of M. de Polignac, minister of foreign affairs, in reality the Polignac premier; of M. de Labourdonnaye, minister of the interior; ministry; M. de Bourmont, of war; M. de Montbel, minister of public instruction; M. de Courvoiser, of justice; M. de Chabrot, of finance; and M. d'Haussez, of marine, an office which Admiral de Rigny had declined to accept. The very names, and more especially the names of Polignac, Bourmont, and Labourdonnaye, was an insolent defiance to the country. As such, both people and press considered it. The day after the appointments were gazetted, the liberal press teemed with vehement and burning invective. It is Coblenz and Waterloo, said the Débats,—we have the emigration in Polignac,—desertion to the enemy in De Bourmont,—the fury of proscription in M. de Labourdonnaye. Such are the leading principles in the three leading persons. Nothing but misfortune and danger will drive this government from power. Unhappy France! unhappy King! M. Guizot and M. Thiers, both since become so famous—the one in the Temps, the other in the National—fulminated against what they properly called the insanity the king. Writers still more popular, felicitated their readers that the veil which thinly disguised the conspiracy of six years was at length rent asunder. Lafayette and the directing committee at this moment gave the word of order to the secret societies, and MM. de Broglie and Guizot prepared the society of Aide toi et le ciel t'aidera either for attack or for resistance. A general correspondence was established to organize a system of resistance to taxes, and subscriptions were opened to defray the necessary expenses. To increase the ferment, Lafayette made a journey to the south. At Grenoble, he reception was escorted by a cavalcade; at Vizille he was presented of La Fayette with a silver crown, at Lyons his reception was still more enthusiastic. To counteract these popular demonstrations, it was proposed the king should go into Normandy, but the project was abandoned as dangerous. M. de Labourdonnaye had been scarcely two months in office ere a species of rivalry broke out between him and Polignac, both aspiring to the presidency of the council. Labourdonnaye finding that Polignac was not likely to give way, and that he was himself under the ban of the pope's nuncio and the priest party, resigned his office. He was raised to the peerage, and, happily for himself and his family, became extinct as a public man. Labourdonnaye was succeeded by a young magistrate, M. Guernon Ranville, who had distinguished himself as procureur-general at Limoges, Grenoble, and Lyons. "To accept office under the circumstances," says Lamartine, "was an act of devotedness; to refuse might appear an act of cowardice." Guernon Ranville accepted.

The Chambers met on the 2d March 1830. The deputies arrived in immense numbers, for every one saw that a struggle was imminent. Indeed, the certainty of a conflict was daily proclaimed by the four liberal journals, the Constitutionnel, the Débats, the Courrier Français, and the Temps; the circulation of the first named of which nearly doubled that of the Gazette de France, the most popular of the ultra-royalist journals. The king, in the last speech which he was to deliver, remarked, that France maintained ami- cable relations with all foreign powers, save Algiers, which had offered an insult to the French flag. He next touched on the prosperous state of the finances, whose condition would enable him to alleviate the public burdens. "The first wish of my heart," he said, "is to see France happy and respected. The charter has placed the public liberties under the safeguard of the rights of the crown; these rights are sacred, and my duty is to transmit them uninjured to my successors."

The strength of the opposition appeared on the first division for the election of a president. The candidates of the ministry, MM. de Berbes and Défalot had only 131 and 125 votes, while Royer Collard had 225, Casimir Périer 190, and General Sebastiani 177. The king selected M. Collard for president.

The address in reply to the king's speech was drawn up by the practised pen of M. Etienne, the principal editor of the Constitutionnel, and long a writer in the Minerve. It was artfully worded. There was a seeming respect for the person of the sovereign, but with all this apparent deference, every other sentence contained a sharp-pointed reproof. Since, said this able state paper, our loyalty, our devotion, compel us to say that concurrence between the political views of your government and the wishes of your people does not exist, an unjust distrust of the feelings and reasons of the French is at present the fundamental thought of your administration. Your people are afflicted at it because it is unjust towards themselves; they are disquieted at it because it is menacing to their liberties. These words brought the real question out prominently, that is, whether the Chamber was to have a negative on the appointment of ministers. That the Chamber should reject a minister named by the king appeared to Charles X. little less than treason to his prerogative. The debate was long and able, and on this occasion two men made their parliamentary debut, who have since risen to the highest summits of parliamentary eloquence—we mean MM. Berryer and Guizot. M. Berryer spoke against the address, and M. Guizot in favour of it. The original address was carried by a majority of 40—the numbers being 221 to 181—and the amendment intended to modify it was consequently lost. The majority was produced by the defection of the left centre, headed by M. Agier. The cabinet immediately dismissed all who had taken part in the hostile vote, and among others M. Calmon, director-general of domains. The vacant place was offered to and declined by Berryer. When it became known that the government was determined to put itself in antagonism with the Chamber, several high functionaries resigned their employments.

Among others, M. Chateaubriand placed his situation as ambassador at Rome at the disposal of ministers. M. Marcellus refused to accept the situation of under-secretary of state to M. de Polignac, and M. de Lamartine, as he himself tells us, declined the confidential post of la direction des affaires des étrangères, fearing that something was meditated against the charter. The author of the Meditations and the Girardinus, in alluding to the circumstance, depicts Polignac, we have no doubt truly, as an amiable yet vehement enthusiast, whose idea was not to establish absolute power, but a kind of episcopal aristocracy, formed to be the conservator of that religion which Polignac believed himself born to restore. If any one thing could more than another prove how unfit this man was to govern France, it was his hallucination on this point.

The king received the address of the Chamber, which was read in a tremulous voice by M. Royer Collard, who was saddened by an apprehension of the coming crisis. His Majesty stated that his heart was grieved that he was not to look to the Chamber for a concurrence, that his resolution was immovable, and that his ministers would make known his intentions. On the day following the minister of the interior handed to the president a royal ordinance which prorogued the Chamber till the 1st September. It should be stated that the ministers proposed to the king to yield to the Chamber. "No," said Charles X., "that would be a degradation of the crown, and an abdication of my functions and prerogative. M. Guernon Rauville intimated that it might be possible to come to an accommodation, and to get a majority. "A majority," replied Charles X.; "I should be sorry to have one, and would not know what to do with it."

It must be said that never did a monarch choose a more unfitting or less opportune time to proclaim these high notions of prerogative. Freedom of discussion and of the press, and increased means of education and intercommunication, had opened the eyes of men, and made them alive to and jealous of their rights. The press, too, at this epoch was worthy of a great and civilized people, such as the French were in 1830. There was the Débats with Chateaubriand, Salvandy, the Berlins, and De Saucy; the National with Mignet, Thiers, and Carrell; the Temps with Guizot, Dupin, Passy, and others; and the Globe, numbering among its writers De Remusat, Montalivet, Duvergier, D'Hauranne, &c. &c. Such was the time chosen to commence a general crusade against newspapers, beginning with the Débats, whose principal editor and proprietor, M. Bertin de Vaux, had combated and suffered for royalty, had accompanied Louis XVIII. to Ghent, where he founded the official journal called the Moniteur de Gand.

M. Bertin defended himself and was acquitted. The National, the Globe, the Nouveau Journal de Paris, the Journal du Commerce, were convicted, and severe sentences passed on the managers. On the 15th May the finance minister made a report, to which reference will be made in another part of this article (see Statistics). From Progress of this document it was apparent that the country had greatly prospered under the government of the Restoration. In the period between 1814 and 1822 the imports and exports of France had increased 50, and the tonnage of shipping 25 per cent. The annual value of agricultural produce had also enormously risen. But though there was much material prosperity there was also much just discontent. No amount of physical well-being could, in 1830, have reconciled the high-spirited and intellectual French nation to be governed by a camarilla of priests and courtiers, or by such a silly reactionist as M. de Polignac.

Some such thought seems to have come across the mind of Polignac himself; for he burned for a pretext to draw attention from his domestic mismanagement by some brilliant exploit. The rupture with Algiers afforded the pretext. A sum of 2,000,000 francs was due by the Dey to French merchants, and when reminded of this debt by the French consul his highness gave the consul a slight blow with his fan in the presence of the other European functionaries. An expedition on a large scale was determined on. The Expedition forces consisted of 37,500 men, with 180 pieces of iron artillery; the naval of 11 sail of the line, 23 frigates, 70 Algiers, smaller vessels, 377 transports, and 230 boats for landing the troops. The command of this expedition was solicited by Marmont Duke of Ragusa, but M. de Polignac gave it to the minister at war, Bourmont. The embarkation was completed on the 11th May, and the Duke d'Angoulême, who superintended the armament and sailing in person, declared on his return to Paris that all was triumphant, the army being animated with the best spirit.

The disembarkation was effected on June 14th at Sidi-Battle Ferruch, within five leagues of Algiers, and on the 19th the of Sidi-Mussulmans advanced towards the invaders' lines. The Feruch.

---

1 Lamartine, Hist. de la Restauration, tom. viii., p. 159. French had placed stakes in the ground to break the violence of the enemy, but such was the vigour and fury of the Bedouins that they broke through stakes and lines. The conflict was doubtful, when Bourmont brought forward his reserve and charged the assailants in flank, while the French infantry reforming in the rear advanced against the Turks engaged with their assailants in flank. This was decisive. The enemy were driven back in confusion, and the French succeeded in entering the Osmanli camp, making themselves masters of cannon, ammunition, and baggage. The loss of the Turks was above 3000, while that of the French did not exceed 500.

For four or five days after the victory of Sidi-Feruch, Bourmont continued to strengthen his position, disembarking his heavy artillery. On the 24th, however, 20,000 Musulmans advanced with loud shouts to attack the French. But the French divisions of Loverdo and Berthezene moved out of the trenches to attack them, and with a terrible fire of grape threw the enemy into disorder, pursuing them two leagues with great loss. In this affair Amedée Bourmont, the son of the commander, fell gloriously. The advance of the French to Algiers was still impeded by the light troops of the Arabs, but on the 30th June ground was opened before the town. The attack against the emperor's fort was opened on the 4th July. The French ships kept up an incessant fire on the sea defences, while the land batteries, armed with 100 guns, directed their fire on the emperor's fort. The superior fire of the besiegers soon made itself felt; the walls fell with a terrific explosion, and the French grenadiers rushing to the assault were soon in possession.

The Dey attempted to obtain concessions, preserving his independence, but Bourmont would not listen to mediation, and on the 5th July the gates were surrendered. In the treasury were found gold and silver to the amount of 48,500,000 francs, and 1542 pieces of artillery. The value of the entire booty was 55,684,000 francs. The total loss of the victors was 2300 men, of whom 600 were killed.

Five days after the expedition, whose success we have chronicled, sailed from Toulon, and immediately after the arrival of the Duke d'Angoulême, who brought tidings of the favourable disposition of the army, a dissolution of the Chamber was resolved upon.

The determination to dissolve produced the resignation of two ministers, Courvoisier and Chabrol. Courvoisier was succeeded as keeper of the seals by Chantelauze, and Chabrol as minister of finance by M. de Montbel. The violent Peyronnet succeeded Montbel as minister of the interior.

The new elections were all in favour of the opposition; 202 members who had voted with M. Agier in favour of the address were returned. The opposition, it was calculated, numbered 270 votes, while the ministry had but 145, some of which were uncertain. It was thus evident that a majority was out of the question. A memorial was addressed to the king by the cabinet on the state of affairs, and his Majesty, after anxious deliberation, consulted M. Royer Collard, who answered, "that possibly the Chamber might not reject the budget, but that the discussions on the finances would shake the monarchy to its very foundation." The king now expressed an opinion that a coup d'état had become inevitable. "My resolution," said he to his ministers, "is to maintain the charter; I will not depart from that charter on any point, nor will I permit others to do so."

It was on the 29th June that the question of a coup d'état was discussed in the cabinet, and on the 7th July it was finally agreed under the seal of the most solemn secrecy that the blow should be struck. M. de Chantelauze, the orator of the cabinet, and the man who possessed the confidence of the Duke d'Angoulême, proposed to suspend the constitution—to govern in an arbitrary manner, or to declare void the elections of those deputies with various other measures, one of which was the placing of Paris, Lyons, Bordeaux, and Rouen in a state of siege. At length it was agreed to invoke the fourteenth article of the charter which conferred plenary powers on the king in extreme cases, and to suspend the liberty of the press, to dissolve the Chamber, and to establish a new electoral system. The project met with the warm approbation of the king. A report on the ordonnances intended to be issued was presented by M. Chantelauze to the sovereign on the 24th July. There were some truths in this document, for there can be no doubt that journalism had become an immense power in the state, that it had somewhat abused its influence, and that public opinion was in a degree overcharged and over-excited. But this is no justification for the king or for his ministers. There were laws to which the press was amenable, and which might have curbed and amerced its writers. But the cabinet appealed not to these laws but to ordonnances beyond the law—not to the legislature or courts of law, but to the will of the king. The first of these ordonnances suspended the liberty of the press, and prohibited the publication of journals not authorized by the government. The second dissolved the new Chamber on the pretence that the electors had been deceived as to the real intentions of the government. The third reduced the number of deputies to 258. The electoral franchise was reduced to the possession of property paying the requisite amount of direct taxes, by the exclusion of the suffrage founded on patents. The prefects were re-invested with the authority which they had antecedent to 1828, that is to say, they were to have absolute power in the preparation of the electoral lists.

The fatal ordonnances were signed on the 25th July. Signing of Polignac on that day presented them to the king. His Majesty hesitated for some time, and at length exclaimed, passing his hands over his brow, "The more I think, the more I am convinced that it is impossible to act otherwise." M. de Vitrolles, who had been so mixed up with Charles X. as Count d'Artois, went to St Cloud on the morning of the day the ordonnances were signed, to warn the ministers that the aspect of Paris was dangerous, and that what might have been attempted seven or eight months previously could not be then attempted. But M. Guernon Ranville, to whom these fears were expressed, on consulting with M. Peyronnet, the home minister, and Mangin, the prefect of police, was informed that Paris was tranquil, and would not stir.

The first person to whom the ordonnances were communicated was M. Sauvo of the Moniteur, an old and experienced publicist. When he received them from MM. Chantelauze and Montbel, he could not believe the evidence of his senses, and ejaculated, "God save France and the king!" Though the ministers had thus drawn the sword and thrown away the scabbard, there was a total want of preparation. Polignac, in the absence of Bourmont, was war minister as well as prime minister, and he assured his colleagues he had sufficient force to crush any rebellion. Yet there were but 12,000 men of the regular army in Paris, and of these not more than 5000 could be thoroughly depended on.

This force had but twelve pieces of cannon, with six rounds of grape shot to each gun. The ordonnances were affixed to the walls of Paris on the 26th. They excited at first rather surprise than indignation. The fact is, the leaders were not yet prepared. The chief journalists, indeed, had consulted M. Dupin, who said, "that though his legal opinion was at their service he could not join in a political consultation." They remarked, "they came to him as a deputy." "I am no longer a deputy," was his reply. Half-a-dozen deputies had met at Casimir Périer's, but almost all were more anxious to escape than to meet the difficulty. Of the half dozen was Alex. de la Borde, who proceeded to the office of the National. There he found the chief journalists of Paris in the act of drawing up a declaration of re- This protest was written by Thiers, and signed by forty-five journalists, among whom were Thiers himself, Carrel Coste of the Temps, and Baude. It is impossible to deny that these men hazarded their lives in resistance to what they deemed the illegal acts of the government. The ultra-royalist journals, and some of the royalist and liberal, had obeyed the ordinances in taking out the licenses required. But the National and the Temps appeared without licenses, and this defiance of the government was followed by an order to seize the journals, and to close their printing offices. The editors and proprietors opposed a resolute resistance, locksmiths and blacksmiths refused to act in obedience to the police.

The public mind was excited to frenzy when the tribunal of commerce directed a printer, who refused to print the Courrier Francaise, to do so within twenty-four hours on pain of imprisonment. The king was not awakened from his delusion on the 27th. On the morning of that day his Majesty proceeded to a hunting party at Rambouillet. It was not till the morning of the 27th that Marshal Marmont (who had not been informed till the last moment of the onerous duties that were about to devolve on him) was invested with the command of the garrison of Paris.

Before his orders could reach the troops everything had assumed a serious aspect, and it was evident that a conflict was inevitable. Yet, though the people were arming and menacing, no additional troops were brought into Paris, though 18,000 of the Royal Guard were quartered in the vicinity. No arrangement was made by M. de Polignac, in charge of the war office, to provision the troops, or to furnish them with ammunition. It is a fact, that during the heat and fierce struggle of the three days the army remained without supplies, and was indebted for food to the citizens of Paris. On the morning of the 28th the people had in masses descended into the streets crying, "Vive la chartre! Vive les ministres!" There were also general cries of "Vive la ligne! Vivent les peres et les enfants du peuple!"

The line soon showed their sympathy by allowing the people to pass through their ranks. The inhabitants of the Faubourgs St Antoine and St Marceau now appeared in great numbers armed with all sorts of weapons. The streets were unpaved, trees were felled, omnibuses and carriages overturned, and barricades erected. The arsenal, the powder manufactory, the depot of artillery were broken into, and the contents distributed. Forty thousand muskets of the National Guard were put into hands capable of using them, and many of their uniforms were rendered serviceable. The people surrounded the Hôtel de Ville, and it soon fell into their hands. A huge tricolor flag was instantly displayed from the roof, and excited enthusiasm. The gates of Notre Dame were soon after broken open, and another tricolor flag was hoisted from its summit, while its enormous bell, the bourdon, sounded the tocsin.

The tricolor flag was at this time displayed from a score of churches—barricades were erected in all the principal quarters—and the best part of Paris might be said to be in the hands of the insurgents. It was at this period that Marmont concentrated the few troops at his disposal around the Tuileries. But the eight guns at his command had only four rounds of grape shot.

It is true, that at 11 o'clock 500 men had arrived from Vincennes, and three squadrons of grenadiers à cheval from Versailles, which made the force defending the centre of Paris 3000 infantry and 600 horse of the guard. But the infantry had only twenty rounds of ball cartridge each, without provisions or water, under a scorching sun and African temperature.

Notwithstanding these discouraging circumstances, Marmont resolved on offensive operations. He ordered two columns to march, the one along the Boulevards, the other along the quays, whilst a third was to occupy the great central market, called Des Innocens, from which the Rue St Denis emerges on one side to the Boulevards, and leads on the other to the Hôtel de Ville. These columns were each of them far too weak for the service demanded of them. That which advanced along the quays consisted of but one battalion of the guard, the others had each two battalions. Each brought with it two guns. Marmont employed no troops but the regiments of the guard on that service, for he already doubted, and would not put to trial the fidelity of the line. The column which was to proceed along the quays to the Hôtel de Ville was to be supported by the 15th Light Infantry, which held the Palais de Justice and the Pont Neuf. It advanced without difficulty to the Pont Neuf. Then the commander, General Talon, instead of taking the 15th Light Infantry with him, ordered them to line the opposite quays, and to fire on the crowd which barred the approaches to the Hôtel de Ville. The 15th took up the position ordered, but refused to fire upon the people, unless they were first attacked. Talon, with the guards, advanced with one division along the quays of the cité, the other on the opposite side of the river. Both met determined resistance. Every window of the Hôtel de Ville, and of the houses opposite, was filled with marksmen, and a body of students did not fear to stand before the military. But the two guns with their discharges of grape swept away popular resistance wherever encountered, and the battalion took possession of the Hôtel de Ville, and pulled down the tricolor. General Talon found it still difficult to maintain possession of the square, and to keep the insurgents at bay on the other side of the bridge, as well as up the narrow streets all around. Hearing probably of the conduct of the 15th regiment, the commander-in-chief sent a Swiss battalion to reinforce it. The column met with no obstacle along their road except a barricade, attempted near the Porte St Martin, which was entirely destroyed. No permanent obstacle presented itself till the Place de la Bastille was reached. The soldiers could not make their way from hence to join their comrades at the Hôtel de Ville, so strong were the barricades, so formidable the fire and discharge of missiles from the windows of the Rue St Antoine. The most painful and dangerous service was to clear the Marche des Innocens and the Rue St Denis intrusted to the remaining column. That portion of it which attempted the street was crushed with paving-stones, thrown upon them from the tops of the upper windows. The narrowness of the street and its windings left no play to cannon, and the enemies were above. The attack of a street of which the barriers are all occupied by insurgents, requires a large force prepared for destruction. The Royal Guards were neither in numbers nor in preparation fit for such a struggle. They were, as we have before stated, without provisions, and no preparation whatever for the supply of such an assemblage of troops had been made. The folly of intrusting the war department to M. de Polignac in the absence of Bourmont was even greater than the intrusting to him the political administration of the country.

While these sanguinary, and, for the royal cause, unsuccessful combats were taking place in the streets, a provisional government was established by the successful insurgents. Generals Lafayette, Gerard, and the Duke de Choiseul, were named as members of it, and a proclamation, signed in their names, was, without their authority, placarded on the walls of Paris.

Ultimately thirty deputies, with a view to constitute a government, met at M. Audry de Puyraveau's. M. Mauguin, the advocate, was the first to address his brothers of the Chambers, and to tell them that to lead such a movement they must comprehend it. He urged that they should choose at once between the people and the royal guards, by naming a provisional government. But the constitutionalists of the left centre thought this proposition premature, and proposed a deputation to Marmont to stop the effusion of blood. The deputation was received by the Marshal, who represented the circumstance to his sovereign in a respectful letter, but this communication made no impression on Charles X. The deputation sought to have an interview with Polignac, but that self-willed minister answered, that an interview could lead to no good result.

The afternoon of the 28th found the insurgents triumphant, and the king's party disheartened with their losses. Efforts were made by the Baron de Vitrolles and General Alexandre Girardin, late in the day, to convince the king of the perilousness of his position, but in vain. When a despatch arrived from Marmont, announcing his real position, the king sent orders to the Marshal to concentrate his troops and act in masses. In the evening the Marshal informed M. de Polignac that the troops of the line had passed over to the people and that the Guard alone was to be relied on, on which the minister replied, "Well, if the troops have gone over to the insurgents, we must fire on the troops." On the morning of the 29th, 1500 infantry and 600 cavalry of the Guard arrived at Paris, but what were these against probably 100,000 armed citizens. Against such an host as this Marmont had not much more than 5000 men and eight guns. Besides, at six in the morning of this day, it was proposed by the deputies assembled at the mansion of M. Laffitte, to declare the king and his ministers public enemies. General Sebastiani alone protested against this resolution, whilst M. Guizot remained silent. After Lafayette arrived at Laffitte's, a deputation from the republicans came to offer him, conjointly with General Gerard, the military command of Paris. Lafayette accepted the offer with eagerness, while Gerard avoided committing himself either by refusal or acceptance. On this day the Louvre was carried by the insurgents, the whole of the left bank of the Seine being in their hands. Dense masses of the people, led by pupils of the Polytechnic School, came into contact with the artillery of the Guard in the Rue St Honoré, opposite the Louvre, and a parley had taken place between them. The officer in command, whose pieces were charged with grape, sent to ask Marmont if he should fire. The Marshal forbade him to do so, and the guns immediately fell into the hands of the insurgents. The regiment of the Seine opened its ranks to the crowd to let them into the Tuileries. Marmont, informed of this, ordered M. de Salis, who commanded two battalions of the Swiss Guard, to send one of them to occupy the Place Vendome, to cut off the great entrance by the Rue de la Paix, from the Boulevards crowded with insurgents. De Salis, desirous to relieve the battalions which had combated since dawn in the colonnade of the Louvre, with the insurgents in the church of St Germain l'Auxerrois gave orders for them to retire. While the movement was taking place, the fire ceased for a few moments, and the insurgents thinking that the troops retreated, rushed across the Place St Germain l'Auxerrois, and stormed the Louvre. The windows were broken through, the gates forced open, and the inner court of the Louvre carried. Numbers of the insurgents forced their way into the gallery of the museum, from the windows of which they kept a fire on the Swiss in the Place du Carrousel. Assailed both in front and in flank, a panic seized the troops, and they fled in disorder into the garden of the Tuileries. Marmont, by his calm courage, restored order and withdrew his troops into the Champs Elysees. He covered with his own body the last soldier of his army, and was the latest to leave the garden. The taking of the Louvre was a decisive measure, even if the defection of the 5th and 53rd regiments of the line had not rendered the contest almost hopeless. The treasury, the post-office, and the telegraphic departments were soon in the hands of the insurgents, and the Invalids and barracks of the Rue de Babylonne were the only points of importance occupied by the royal troops. They were both evacuated—the latter, after a severe conflict, in which numbers of the Swiss perished. A hundred Swiss placed in a house at the corner of the Rue St Honore, had been forgotten in the retreat. They defended themselves desperately, and perished to the last man. With the exception of the sacking of the archbishop's palace, and the emptying of the cellars of the Tuileries, by men exhausted with thirst and fatigue,—there was no plunder.

Marmont hastened to communicate to the king at St Cloud the disasters of the day. After enumerating the events that had occurred, and the panic of the Swiss, he said in conclusion, "A ball directed at me killed the horse of my aide-de-camp at my side. I regret it did not pass through my head, for death were far preferable to the sad spectacle I have witnessed." The king raised his eyes to heaven, and without addressing a single reproach to the marshal, directed him to communicate with the Duke d'Angoulême, whom he appointed generalissimo. The monarch unfolded the disastrous news communicated by Marmont to his ministers. The majority of the cabinet were for yielding; to a force they had no means of resisting; but though on the evening of the 28th, when victory was undecided, M. Guermon de Ranville advised an arrangement or accommodation, yet now he was not for yielding without a combat. The views of this minister were sustained by the dauphin; but the king turning to the majority said, "Do what you think best." On this the ministers deliberated, and the king signed an ordinance revoking his former ordinances, dismissing his ministers, and appointing M. de Mortemart president of the council, Casimir Périer minister of the interior, and Gerard minister of war. M. de Mortemart accepted the mission with reluctance, but entirely failed of success. Ordonnances of a liberal character were prepared by the new minister, and sent to the Hôtel de Ville, but it was replied, it is too late.

The popular party at the Hôtel de Ville published a proclamation, signed by Count Lobau, Audry de Puynaveau, M. Mauguin, and M. de Schonen, stating, that Charles X. had ceased to reign in France.

On the 29th and 30th of July, M. de Mortemart made a last effort to open negotiations at the Hôtel de Ville through M. Collin de Sussy, and at the Luxembourg, but his propositions were received with contumely and contempt. So soon as the Duke d'Angoulême was invested with the chief command of the army, he directed Marmont, who received the order at the Barrière de l'Etoile to retire with all his troops to St Cloud, where he proposed to rally the royal guard, and to march afterwards himself with troops from St Omer and Nancy, to the amount of 38,000. It was at St Cloud that the dauphin apostrophized the marshal in vehement terms; and in attempting to seize his sword, accusing him of treason—because he had entered into a capitulation for the royal troops, by which hostilities were suspended—he wounded his own hand. A scene like this, in such a supreme and fatal moment, was not calculated to reassure the troubled and anxious spirits who surrounded the monarch. Meanwhile the excited and turbulent spirits of the metropolis were pouring out to St Cloud, and the dauphin, who was in command of the royal guard, finding the soldiers of the line not prompt to obey his orders in firing on the insurgents, who had passed the bridge, communicated to his father the disheartening intelligence. It was now resolved to retreat on Rambouillet, where the Court arrived at 12 o'clock at night with the royal guard, 12,000 strong. On his arrival at Rambouillet, the king was prepared to abdicate; and on the morning of the 2d August, he addressed a letter to the Duke d'Orléans in his quality of lieutenant-general of the kingdom (an office conferred on him by the let.

---

1 Lamartine, tom. viii., p. 252. authorities of the Hôtel de Ville, and confirmed by the monarch), requiring him to proclaim Henri V. The duke consulted with M. Dupin as to the answer he should return to this communication. That eminent lawyer advised a categorical answer, which he drew up, separating the cause of the house of Orleans from that of the elder branch. "The matter is too grave," said the duke, "to decide on without consulting the duchess;" and passing into another chamber, he substituted a complying, considerate, affectionate, and obedient letter, in lieu of the harsh missive of Dupin. But instead of acting up to this letter, or to the request of the abdicating sovereign, the duke sent forward a deputation of three commissioners, with an army of 12,000 men, commanded by General Pajol, to impress upon Charles X. the necessity of his departure for England.

The council which was sitting at the Hôtel de Ville had, on Friday the 30th, been much in contact with the people, and there were men among them of republican tendencies. But Casimir Périer, Sebastiani, and a considerable number of influential deputies, were almost to the last moment in favour of an arrangement with Charles X. As a sort of compromise and juste milieu between Carlism on the one hand, and republicanism on the other, the name of the Duke d'Orléans was put forward, and the influential banker Laffitte was prominent in urging the claims of his Royal Highness. The National, one of the principal writers in which was M. Thiers (then patronized by Laffitte), espoused the cause of the duke, and put forth a placard stating, that the republic would expose France to fearful quarrels, and produce a breach with Europe. The Duke d'Orléans, the document stated, was devoted to the revolution, never bore arms against France, was a combatant at Jemappes, had borne the tricolor flag, and would hold his crown from the people. While these efforts were making in favour of the duke in Paris, that personage was at his country house at Neuilly. On Tuesday the 27th, Laffitte had sent a friend to him, when it appeared the duke was undecided. He feared St Cloud—he feared the insurrection—and to escape both, he retired to another country house at Raincy. But during his absence, Thiers had seen the duchess and Madame Adelaide the duke's sister, and after a good deal of reserve and coyness at first, Madame Adelaide stated that she was herself a Parisian—that she would make common cause with the Parisians—that her family were always in opposition—that they might make anything of her brother but an emigrant—and that if the adhesion of the family was necessary to the revolution, it should be given. Madame Adelaide stated her readiness to set out for Paris, only requiring either M. Laffitte or General Sebastiani for an escort. "Madame," said M. Thiers, "you this day secure the crown to your family." The Duke d'Orléans was immediately informed of what had occurred by M. Anatole de Montesquiou, one of the gentlemen of his household, who proceeded to Raincy to implore the prince to forestall the republic by accepting the crown. The duke still hesitated, ordered his carriage—then stopped it half way in the avenue, returning to Raincy—then again turned his horses' heads towards Paris, where he arrived incognito in the dark, and proceeding up stairs to an attic in the Palais Royal, flung himself on the bed of one of his servants.

The arrival of the Duke d'Orléans in Paris induced Charles X. to write him a letter, in which he offered the prince the position of lieutenant-general of the kingdom, with a view to preserve the crown for the Duke de Bordeaux. But the duke declined this offer, alleging to his friends that he would be a constant object of suspicion; that the Duke de Bordeaux could not have a bowel complaint without his being accused of having poisoned him. Meanwhile a meeting of deputies took place at the Hotel Bourbon, at which Laffitte was chosen president. While the deputies were assembled M. de Sussy entered with the last ordinances of Charles X., recalling the obnoxious measures which had produced the insurrection, and dismissing the Polignac cabinet. These were not read, but the deputies present prayed the Duke d'Orléans to come to Paris (he had already arrived incognito) to exercise the functions of lieutenant-general. In the Chamber of Peers at the Luxembourg Châteaubriand made a protest in favour of the ancient monarchy. "If the question," said he "comes to be the salvation of legitimacy, give me a pen and two months, and I will restore the throne." But these words fell unheeded, and in fact the commission of the Chamber of Deputies agreed to on the motion of M. Hyde de Neuville, proposed, on consultation with a commission of the Peers, to give the authority of lieutenant-general of the kingdom to the Duke d'Orléans.

The deputies waited on the duke at the Palais Royal, praying him to accept the lieutenancy-general, pointing out to him the dangers of delay. The duke asked for a few minutes longer delay, and retired to his cabinet with General Sebastiani, whom he despatched to consult M. de Talleyrand. The ex-bishop and ex-minister advised the duke to accept. He no longer hesitated, and his acquiescence was announced in a proclamation in the Moniteur. Having accepted the lieutenancy-general, the duke perfectly comprehended that the nomination required the sanction of the general at power installed at the Hôtel de Ville. To the Hôtel de Ville he proceeded on Saturday the 31st July, where he was received by Lafayette, and the declaration of the Chambers was read to him. When this ceremony was finished, he said—"As a Frenchman, I deplore the evils inflicted on the country; as a prince, I am desirous of contributing to the happiness of the nation." When the prince had uttered these words, an adventurer, clothed in the uniform of a general officer, and calling himself General Dubourg, addressed the lieutenant-general, and said—"You have entered, prince, into serious engagements. I trust you will not forget them; but it is well to forewarn you, that should you do so, we are the men to compel you to keep your word." This abrupt apostrophe produced a momentary embarrassment. But the duke recovering his sang froid, said—"You do not know me, sir, to address such language to me. Know, then, that I am an honest man, whom it is not necessary to remind of his engagements." Lafayette, placing a tricolored flag in the Duke d'Orléans' hands, led him to the window. He waved the flag, and embraced Lafayette in the presence of the people, amidst general applause.

The politic conduct of the Duke d'Orléans at the Hôtel de Ville silenced all active opposition. It was on this occasion that Lafayette said to the prince—"What is now necessary to the French is a popular throne, surrounded with republican institutions." "That is just my opinion," said the prince. In his letter to the electors of Meaux, Lafayette stated that this mutual engagement, which he speedily published, rallied round the monarch men not disposed to monarchy, and men who wished any one but a Bourbon.

In the meantime Charles X., having abandoned the idea of rallying the troops and retreating upon Tours, dismissed his ministers, and directed them, through M. Capelle, to seek their safety in flight. At Rambouillet, at the request of Marmont, Charles X. received the commissioners sent to see him out of the kingdom, and resigned himself to what he called the will of heaven, reserving the rights of the Duke de Bordeaux. At Maintenon the ex-monarch dismissed his army, telling the Guard and the other

---

1 Louis Blanc, Dix Ans de Régne, tom. i., p. 374. 2 Chronique de Juillet de 1830, de M. L. Roget. 3 Vanlabele, tom. vii., p. 490. 4 Lettre de Lafayette aux Électeurs de Meaux. regiments to make their submission to the lieutenant-general.

He continued with his family his journey to Cherbourg, resigned to what he considered the will of God. Arrived at Cherbourg on the 14th of August, he had an affectionate farewell to his body-guard, and, with the Duke and Duchess d'Angoulême and the Duchess de Berri and her two children, embarked on board the Great Britain for Spithead.

The journey of the king from Rambouillet to Cherbourg lasted twelve days, an immense time if the distance only be considered.

The period consumed in the journey proves the considerate patience of the commissaries, who were anxious to consult the wishes and age of a monarch who had not even yet abandoned all hope of a rising in his favour. On the route the commissaries always led the way, not only to prepare suitable accommodations, but to calm the fervour of the people. The monarch did not pass through a single city, town, or village in which the national colours were not prominent, and he was sometimes fated to hear the sound of the Marseillaise, or the new song which Casimir Delavigne had consecrated to the Parisian victory. Sometimes Charles X. was received with a glacial silence; sometimes by a crowd more curious than sympathizing. The king was resigned and dignified in his deportment. He daily heard mass, which was celebrated at five or six o'clock in the morning.

Free from the trammels of kingship, Charles appeared, as he really was, a frank, amiable, dignified gentleman, devout and religious, according to his acception of devotion and religion. It was evident he neither understood his age nor his country, and that he grossly miscalculated his power and the temper and feeling of the people over whom he was placed. He thought, to use his own phrase to his minister Polignac, that his cause was that of God, of the throne, and the people. In these views and opinions he was most sincere, most misjudging, and most mistaken.

During the first week of August the Chambers were occupied with the preparation of the constitution. On the 9th a deputation from both Chambers waited on the Duke d'Orleans, and made him an offer of the throne, which he accepted. The acceptance of the constitution by the new sovereign took place in the Chamber of Deputies. "I accept without restriction or reserve," said the new king, "the clauses and engagements which the declaration of the Chamber of Deputies contains, and the title of king of the French which it confers upon me, and I am ready to swear to observe them." His Majesty then took the oath, which was in these terms:—"In the presence of God, I swear to observe faithfully the constitutional charter, with the modifications contained in the declaration; to govern only by the laws, and according to the laws; to render fair and equal justice to every one according to his right, and to act in everything in no other view but that of the interest, the happiness, and the glory of the French people."

The king took the title of Louis Philippe. The leading articles of the charter of Louis XVIII. were agreed to, with the exception of the 14th clause, on which the authority for the coup d'état was founded. The age of electors was fixed at twenty-five, and deputies at thirty-one. The nominations to the peerage by Charles X. were declared void, but the question of the hereditary character of the peerage was reserved for future discussion. The legal limit of the Chamber was fixed at five years, and the annual removal and renewal of a fifth abolished. In the money qualification of voters no change was made. The electoral franchise remained with those who paid 300 francs, or L.12, of direct taxes. It was also declared that offences committed by the press should be tried by juries; that deputies who accepted office should be subjected to re-election, and that the expenses of the army should be voted annually; that laws would be presented on public education and the liberty of instruction, and on municipal and departmental institutions.

Eleven peers, MM. de Montmorency, Dambray, Latour, Maubourg, La Tour, Dupin, D'Ambray, De Croi, De Châteaubriand, De Perignon, De Damas Caux, Auguste de Talleyrand, and St Romans, resigned their seats. Some royalists, as M. de Noailles, Mortemart, Martignac, took the oaths unqualifiedly.

The first ministry of Louis Philippe consisted of M. Du-Pont de l'Eure as keeper of the seals, Gerard of war, Molé of foreign affairs, Sebastiani of marine, De Broglie of public instruction and president of the council, Louis of finance, Guizot of the interior, Laffitte, Périer, Dupin, Ainé, and Bignon were named ministers without portfolios. Lyons, Bordeaux, Rouen, Marseilles, immediately acknowledged the government of Louis Philippe, and before fourteen days had elapsed all France was under his sway.

One of the first measures of Louis Philippe was to despatch General Baudrand to England. The Duke of Wellington at once informed the envoy of the king of the French that England would acknowledge Louis Philippe. The general was admitted to an audience, and was graciously received by William the Fourth.

To the emperor of Russia Louis Philippe despatched General Athalin. The despatches of Pozzo di Borgo had prepared the emperor for the accession of the king of the French as the least of evils. Under these circumstances the envoy was well received; but in his answer to the diplomatic communication of the new monarch it was plain that Nicholas only acknowledged the king on the condition of his respecting the rights and obligations of treaties, and the territorial arrangement of Europe, as determined by the congress of Vienna.

General Belliard, sent to Vienna, was well received by M. de Metternich, who stated that the emperor Francis could not sanction the breach of faith on the part of Charles X., and the minister added that Austria could feel little sympathy for that elder branch, which had thrice compromised the peace of Europe. The recognition of the king of the French by the king of Prussia was still more prompt and satisfactory. Count Lobau was well received, and all that was stipulated for was the faithful observance of the treaties of 1815. It was evident the statesmen of the cabinets of Vienna and Berlin were fully cognisant of secret negotiations which had been going on between the courts of the Tuileries and St Petersburg touching the frontier of the Rhine, which Châteaubriand was desirous of obtaining for France. The bait held out to Russia as the price of its acquiescence was Constantinople. The new king was thus speedily recognised by the principal powers of Europe. The first difficulties he had to encounter were internal, not external. Dissensions soon exhibited themselves, arising from a democratic and a moderate party. The democratic party was greatly fomented by deputations from the national guards of the principal towns in France, whilst the moderate party was sustained by the foreign commerce and manufacturing and commercial interests. Lafayette, who had been appointed commander-in-chief of the National Guards of France, sided with the democratic party, and by his attitude awakened a good deal of uneasiness. The king, with a view to diminish the influence of the general, and to draw attention to himself, had ordered a review of the 60,000 National Guards of Paris, to whom he presented their colours; but notwithstanding some adroit flattery of the general and the troops, it could not be said that the monarch had rendered himself the more prominent figure. A number of workmen were thrown out of bread by the revolution, and the general distress aggravated the difficulties of the new government. The men assembled in great numbers, and it became necessary to have recourse to the popular authority of Lafayette to induce them to disperse.

Some of the first legislative measures of the new govern- ment were praiseworthy. The law of the 12th January 1816, with its numerous exceptions to the general amnesty, was repealed, and also the law of 1825, prescribing the punishment of death for the crime of sacrilege or theft in churches. In the division for the choice of president of the Chamber, on the resignation of Casimir Périer, M. Laffitte obtained 245 votes out of 256. The project of the government with regard to the electoral law was carried by an immense majority, only twelve members voting against it, the numbers being 234 out of 246.

The most pressing question for the government, however, was that of finance, for revolutions invariably increase the expenses and diminish the resources of governments. The expedition to Algiers had been attended with an immense expenditure. Ministers asked and obtained a supplementary credit of 67,490,000 francs, amounting to L2,560,000 of our money. The receipts of the year were estimated at 979,787,000 francs, and the expenditure at 1,050,116,000, being an excess of near three millions of our money of expenditure over income. About this period an incident occurred which added considerably to the growing unpopularity of the king. On the morning of the 27th Death of the Duke de August the Duke de Bourbon was found dead in his bedroom, strangled by a silk handkerchief. The Baroness de Feuchères was the only person above the rank of a domestic in the mansion of the duke. There were appearances indicating that the duke had not committed suicide, but Madame de Feuchères strongly maintained that he had. The suspicious complexion of the affair was increased when it was announced that the whole personal property of the deceased, amounting to 4,000,000 of francs, was left to Madame de Feuchères, and his large landed estates to the Duke d'Aumale. The reception of Madame de Feuchères, who was the mistress of the Duke de Bourbon, at the Tuileries soon after, gave credit to the most distressing rumours, and did much to lower the monarch in public opinion. The movement and republican parties, too, greatly fostered these sentiments, which were artfully made use of on the 21st September, when a great procession took place in the Place de Grève to commemorate the execution of Bories and the three sergeants of La Rochelle. This assemblage passed off quietly, but a few days later the Society of Les Amis des Peuple was dissolved by force, and the president brought before the tribunals of police.

Attempts at revolution in Spain, a successful revolution in Belgium, disturbances at Aix-la-Chapelle and Cologne, insurrections in Dresden, Leipsic, and Brunswick, in some of which the finger of France might be traced, all tended to abate the cordial feelings with which the three northern powers at first regarded the accession of Louis Philippe.

The first cabinet of Louis Philippe, formed by a coalition of three parties, was soon torn by dissensions, and its dissolution was brought about during the trial of M. de Polignac and the other ministers of Charles X., who had been arrested and brought to Vincennes. The immediate cause of the fall of the cabinet was a difference of opinion on the propriety of dismissing M. Odillon Barrot, prefect of the Seine, in consequence of an address he had issued condemning the address of the Chamber of Deputies, which had appeared in the Moniteur as "an inopportune step calculated to interrupt the ordinary course of justice." This gave rise to an altercation between the king and the keeper of the seals, M. Dupont de l'Eure, who tendered his resignation if Barrot was dismissed. The king, fearing a rupture with the republican party, consented to retain him, and the consequence was that six members of the cabinet tendered their resignations.

M. Laffitte was made president of the council, and minister of France, Marshal Maison of foreign affairs, M. Montalivet of the interior, M. Merillhou of public instruction, while Dupont de l'Eure, Sebastiani, and Marshal Gérard retained their respective offices of justice, marine, and war.

This took place on the 29th October, but in scarcely more than a fortnight afterwards an ordonnance appeared, appointing Sebastiani minister for foreign affairs, D'Argout of marine, and Soult of war. Laffitte, as president of the council, concisely explained to the Chamber that the cabinet was unanimously of opinion that liberty should be accompanied by order, and that the inflexible execution of the laws was indispensable.

The progress of the trial of the ex-ministers produced Trial of great excitement. The process was long, not to say tedious, and the ex-ministers were defended with talent and ministers' courage. M. Martignac, who had been himself a president of the council, who was the school-fellow of Polignac, and who had been succeeded, if not supplanted, by him in office, defended his early friend. "The long brotherhood," he said, "which continued undisturbed through so many events, was interrupted for a moment by political dissension. The place in which we are met today has sometimes resounded with our debates, not unmixed with bitterness; but of all recollections that of ancient friendship is alone retained in the Castle of Vincennes."

M. Sauzet, afterwards president of the Chamber of Deputies, and who appeared for M. Chantelauze, was particularly bold in his language. "The revolution," said he, "is a revolution which is due only to hazard, and which has succeeded only by a fortunate accident." It would not have taken place the day before, and assuredly would not have been successful the day after. The condemnation of the ex-ministers was certain from the commencement of the trial, nor could it have been otherwise, totally irrespective of popular irritation and excitement. The populace and movement party, and a majority of the National Guard of Paris were anxious that the extreme penalty of death should be inflicted, but it is to the honour and credit of the Peers that they did not pronounce the penalty of death, a sentence which would have been extremely painful to the king, and embarrassing to his ministers. M. de Polignac was sentenced by a majority of 128 to transportation for life, M. de Peyronnet to perpetual imprisonment, and M. de Chanteauzé and Guernon de Ranville to the same punishment. During the trial the National Guard, and more especially the artillery, had expressed a most rancorous and turbulent spirit. At the same time Lafayette had also made demands on the government concerning the suffrage and the reconstruction of the pechage, which it was impossible to comply with. This led to decision and vigorous action on the part of the government. On the 24th December, ministers deprived M. de Lafayette of the actual command of the National Guard, appointing him at the same time honorary commander. This step was followed by the resignation of Dupont de l'Eure as minister of justice. The position of the ministry had been somewhat strengthened by favourable news received from Algiers. Bourmont, who it will be remembered had conquered that dependency for Charles X., and since commanded there, on receiving the announcement of the dethronement of the monarch, published an address announcing the fact to the army. He resigned his command to Clausel, who had been appointed his successor. An expedition under Clausel set out in the middle of November, and after defeating several bodies of Arabs, reduced the towns of Melideah and Medeah with a considerable territory. These conquests, and the great additions the government was obliged to make to the army, enhanced the public expenditure, and the deficit, of which we have before spoken, increased. Between July 1830 and January 1831, the five per cents had fallen sixteen, and the three's twenty-two per cent. The clothing, arming, and equipping of 600,000 National Guards now made a large addition to the expenditure. A great increase of the regular army was also neces- sary in consequence of the hostile attitude of foreign powers: 148,000 new conscripts were called out, which raised the infantry to 243,000 men, and the cavalry to 45,000, making a total of 288,000 men. The position of affairs in Europe generally, and more especially in Belgium, warranted this increase to the French army. The European powers all felt the greatest interest in the question of the disposal of the vacant Belgian crown, and none more than France. The estates of Flanders made a formal tender of the crown to the Duke de Nemours. The throne of Louis Philippe was not yet sufficiently established to permit him to accept an offer which would embroil him with his allies. The monarch had the prudence to decline the offer of the States.

The fermentation which existed throughout the greater part of Europe in 1831 did not fail to exhibit itself in Paris. Commerce was at a stand, and industry without employment. Vast numbers of unemployed men, with threatening aspect, appeared in the public streets, whom it was impossible to succour or to employ. It was at this epoch that the budget disclosed the disastrous financial position of France. The floating debt which it was necessary to provide for amounted to 1,434,655,000 francs (£8,500,000 of our money, being an increase of nearly 500,000,000 francs, or £20,000,000 on the budget of the restoration. After allowing for all the resources of the country there remained a deficit of 211,655,000 francs (£8,450,000) to be provided for by loan, or carried forward as a floating debt. The estimate for the army had increased three millions of our money on the estimate of 1829.

The 14th of February being the anniversary of the death of the Duke de Berri, some of the partisans of the elder branch prepared to celebrate a funeral service in memory of the prince. The ceremony was originally intended to take place in the Church of St Roque, in the Rue St Honoré, but the minister of the interior applied to the Archbishop of Paris, and it was prohibited by him as likely to lead to disturbances. But the celebrators proceeded to the Church of St Germain de l'Auxerrois. Here a miniature of the Duke de Bordeaux passed from hand to hand, but though the young man who had exhibited it was arrested, this did not satisfy the crowd, who proceeded to sack the church and the house of the parish priest. The cross at the west end of the church, which had fleurs-de-lis on it, was torn down. The archbishop's palace at Notre Dame was also sacked on the following day. So speedy was the work of destruction, that not only was the palace sacked before noon, but not a stone of it was left standing. Attacks were also made on obnoxious individuals. M. Dupin owed his life to the courage of one man, who defended the doorway while he escaped by a back window. When explanations were asked as to these events in the Chamber of Deputies, the minister of the interior, the prefect of the Seine, and the prefect of police, exchanged mutual recriminations. The feebleness and want of union in the ministry was still further demonstrated by its conduct in regard to foreign affairs. Laffitte and Soulé had said in the Chamber that France would not permit the principle of non-intervention to be violated, and M. Dupin had pronounced a panegyric on this declaration, yet M. Appony shortly afterwards announced to the French cabinet an Austrian intervention in the Duchy of Modena. Laffitte declared in council that only one reply was possible if Austria persisted, which was war. The whole cabinet concurred with him, and Sebastiani, the minister for foreign affairs, engaged to write a state paper in this sense. To the ultimatum of France, forbidding the entrance of Austrian troops into the Roman States, Austria replied with insulting defiance. The despatch from Marshal Maison announcing this was received by Sebastiani on the 4th March, but was not known to the president of the council till the 8th, when he first read it in the National. The surprise of Laffitte was great. He asked explanations, but Sebastiani could only stammer forth excuses. Laffitte addressed himself to the king, who requested the president of the council to have an explanation with his colleagues, which took place on the 9th March. But all was already prepared for a change in the cabinet, for Casimir Périer now felt that his hour was come. Laffitte, coldly received by his colleagues, retired Fall of from the presidency of the council. This concealed despatch Laffitte was the occasion but not the cause of his retreat. Laffitte fell because he could be no longer useful to the dynasty.

By a royal ordinance of the 13th March, Casimir Périer was appointed president of the council and minister of the interior in lieu of Laffitte; M. Barthe minister of justice in lieu of M. Merillhou, Baron Louis minister of finance, De Rigny of marine, and D'Argout of public instruction.

The ascendancy which Périer immediately assumed over his colleagues was altogether due to his character. He was a man of exceeding firmness, a resolved and tenacious will, and had the art of acquiring and maintaining an influence over his colleagues. There were in the cabinet with him official persons connected with the government, in subordinate positions, who had much more intelligence and experience, but there was no man among them of such energy and determination of will. He entered office as a minister "of resistance," with the declared intention of putting down anarchy, and to a great extent succeeded in his object. On the 18th March he announced his programme. He maintained that insurrection was no principle of the revolution of July, and that it was of order and energy that society had need. With this view, he announced laws to repress violence and sedition. As to external questions, he stated that France wished for peace; but that it would make war if the safety or honour of the nation were in peril. As to the nations of Europe who wished to emancipate themselves, he said their destinies were in their own hands, and that liberty ought always to be a self-created privilege of home growth. This was giving the Belgians, Poles, Italians, and Spaniards, pretty plainly to understand that they had nothing to expect from France, for the minister declared that the blood of France is due to France alone. The principle of the revolution of July is that of resistance to the aggressions of power, respect to sworn faith, regard to established right. The revolution of July has founded a government, but has not established anarchy. This declaration, though it gave satisfaction to foreign governments for a period, augmented domestic difficulties.

After a great deal of discussion and many amendments, Change in a change was effected in the electoral law. The electoral qualification was made to consist in a payment of 200 fr. (L8) of direct taxes, and for candidates of 750 fr. (L30), raising the electors from 90,000 to 180,000.

A law was brought forward for the banishment of the ex-king, Charles X., his descendants, and their relations, for ever from the French territory. They were to leave the kingdom, and sell their effects within six months, under pain of confiscation. The law was carried somewhat amended, a year being allowed instead of six months for the sale of effects. In the discussions that took place on foreign affairs, and more especially on Poland, Lafayette questioned the foreign minister, Sebastiani, as to whether the French government had not categorically declared that it would never consent to the Austrian troops putting down the Italian insurgents. "Between not consenting and making war," said Sebastiani, with embarrassment, "there is a great difference." "And I," said Lafayette, "ever that after an official declaration such special pleading as this is unworthy the dignity and honour of the French people."

The king in the latter end of May made a journey into Normandy and Champagne. He was on the whole tolerably well received, but at Soissons was reminded by a The Chamber of Deputies, which had been prorogued on the 20th April, was dissolved on the 3rd May. The session was opened on the 23rd July. The speech from the throne was distinguished by an elevation and firmness bearing the impress of the president of the council. It was remarked that while the king read the speeches, Périer read a manuscript which was a transcript of it.

The opposition candidate for the presidency of the chamber was Laffitte, the ministerial Girod de l'Ain. Périer declared that the nomination of Laffitte would be the signal for the resignation of the minister; but notwithstanding, Girod de l'Ain only obtained a narrow majority of four votes. Casimir Périer, with his colleagues Sebastiani, Louis, and Montalivet, resigned. But on its being announced on the 4th August that the King of Holland had recommenced hostilities against Belgium, the circumstances appeared so grave that ministers determined to resume their portfolios. The discussion on the address commenced on the 9th August. The most remarkable incident of the debates was the amendment proposed by M. Bignon on the subject of Poland. In this document there was this expression—"the Chamber entertains the certainty, so dear to it, that Polish nationality will not perish." Ministers contended that the introduction of the word certainty would be a declaration of war, and declared themselves ready to resign if it were adopted. After a stormy debate, M. Bignon consented to substitute the word assurance for certainty. By this species of compromise the ministry avoided a defeat. Some time afterwards a rumour spread in Paris that the Russians had entered Warsaw. This produced a popular riot. On the 17th September groups paraded before the ministry of foreign affairs. A carriage in which were Casimir Périer and Sebastiani left the Hôtel. Loud cries were immediately uttered, whereupon the ministers got out of the carriage. Casimir Périer at once addressed the rioters. "Do you want the ministers?" he asked. "Here are two of us. Pretended friends of liberty, you threaten men charged with the execution of the laws." Cries of "Poland! Poland!" were now heard. "Insensate men," said Périer, "you compromise each day the cause of liberty; but do not think that government will yield to you." The energy of the man, and his intrepid attitude, produced so powerful an impression on the agitators that they were perfectly paralysed. It would be difficult to conceive the interest which the discussion on Poland excited in the Chamber. When General Lamarque exclaimed "Let us save Poland!" the whole assembly rose like one man. It was on one of those stormy debates, when Périer shook and quivered with emotion, that General Sebastiani, addressing General Lamarque, said, "C'est faux, vous en avez menti." These words led to a hostile meeting, which happily terminated without injury to either party. It must be admitted that the phrases used by Sebastiani in reference to Poland were most infelicitous. In announcing the fall of Warsaw, he said, "L'ordre regne dans Varsovie;" and this was uttered in reference to a city whose fall excited nearly as much grief as the fall of Paris or the battle of Waterloo. But in the midst of this tumult of the public mind the ministry of Périer not only stood its ground but acquired strength. In the Chamber there was a liberal majority, whose hostility to the monarch and government was evinced at one and the same time. The civil list, amounting to 18,000,000 francs (£720,000), excited a violent opposition, which was greatly increased by the pungent letters written under the name of Timon, by M. de Cormenin.

A law for the banishment of the elder branch of the Bourbons was brought forward by Colonel Briquieville. He proposed to apply the ninety-first article of the criminal code, with the accompanying penalty of death; but the commission, by its reporter, M. Amilhon, substituted banishment. The law relative to the Bonaparte family was modified in the same sense, and the penalty of death suppressed. The change produced in the Chamber in reference to the application of the article of the penal code to the elder branch of the Bourbons was due to a striking speech made by M. de Martignac, the last ever delivered by that eloquent statesman.

The foreign policy of Casimir Périer, though not pro-Foreign, was firm and energetic. Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, elected King of the Belgians, and married to a daughter of the King of the French, had solicited the intervention of the King of the French. On the very day on which the request was made, Marshal Gerard set out to take command of the French army, and in five days afterwards entered Belgium at the head of 50,000 men. The Duke of Saxe-Weimar threatened Brussels at the head of 6000 troops at the very time that the Dukes of Orléans and Nemours entered that city at the head of two regiments and two batteries, whereupon the retreat of the Dutch troops commenced. The moral effect of this demonstration was of great advantage to the government of July and to the ministry of Périer. By the expedition to Ancona, too, Périer assured France a footing in Italy, and obtained a guarantee for the evacuation of Romagna by the Austrians. But, notwithstanding, a series of plots and street riots kept the government in a continual state of alarm. There was the plot of the Rue des Prouvairets and the revolt of Lyons, occasioned chiefly by distress. Vicire en travaillant, ou mourir en combattant was the device of the insurgents. The Bonaparte party, too, had ramifications which extended from the east to Paris, had partisans in the army, possessed a journal called La Révolution, and was aided by supplies from the ex-queen Hortense. In this party were to be found Italians and Poles, and an agent and emissary of Louis Napoleon, now Emperor of the French, named Mirandoli. The Society of the Friends of the People had also, by the dissemination of republican publications, kept up the general excitement. Between the months of April and July there were constant disturbances in the streets of Paris, besides violent collisions with the legitimists at Toulouse, Montpellier, Nîmes, Marseilles, and Avignon. The principal of the Parisian disturbances arose on the occasion of the acquittal of Godfrey Cavagnac, a captain in the artillery of the national guard, President of the Society of the Rights of the People, and brother of the general who in 1848 was President of the Republic. Bands of Chouans and Vendéens traversed the western departments, committing all sorts of excesses on the liberals. The vigour of the French government was, however, exhibited at Lisbon. Some French subjects had cause of complaint against the Portuguese government, and it was determined to demand reparation. Admiral Roussin, who had arrived in the Tagus, Expedit sent a flag of truce ashore demanding the dismissal of the captain of the Portuguese frigate which had captured a French packet-boat, a compensation in money for Frenchmen who had suffered during the blockade of Terceira, and the dismissal of the magistrates who had violated the privileges of French subjects. These terms not being complied with, the French squadron entered the Tagus, passed the fort of Belem with scarcely any damage, and continuing their victorious course, anchored abreast of the royal palace. The Portuguese were forced to submit. The conditions as to individuals were complied with, and conditions of a general nature referred to the conference of London. But the Portuguese fleet was taken to Brest. Notwithstanding these acts of vigour, the government was unpopular at home. The opposition press declaimed against it, always with great vehemence and often with great ability, more especially on the subject of Italy and Poland. The apologists of the administration contended that the government had done all it could do for the Poles in offering its own mediation and soliciting that of the other powers.

The great question of the session was the abolition of the hereditary peerage. During the progress of the revolution of 1830 the prejudice against the peerage had greatly increased. The number of deputies pledged to its abolition had been increased by the lowering of the suffrage and by the number of members of republican tendencies returned to the Chamber. The question was discussed on the 27th August, when the government proposed that the hereditary peerage should be abolished. The premier Périer was friendly to an hereditary peerage, but so strong was the public feeling that he was forced to yield to its pressure. Odillon Barrot, Bignon, Lafayette, and M. de Remusat were the principal speakers in support of the measure; they certainly carried with them five-sixths of the assembly. The views of the small minority were put forward with great ability by MM. Guizot, Thiers, Royer Collard, and Berryer. On the 18th October the Chamber divided, and the result was a majority of 346 against the hereditary chamber, the numbers being 386 to 40. A month elapsed before the question was brought before the upper Chamber. It was ascertained that as the Chamber was constituted there would be a majority against the bill. The question was as to a popular insurrection or a new creation of peers, and the government wisely chose the latter alternative. On the 20th November 1831 a royal ordonnance appeared creating thirty-six persons peers for life. Even after the creation of this number of peers the question was only carried by a majority of 33. Thirteen peers among the oldest families in France now resigned their seats in the upper Chamber.

In the month of October 1831 the king left his residence at the Palais Royal to reside in the Tuileries, where repairs and improvements had been effected. This change of residence was not without a motive. The riots so constantly taking place in Paris were daily assuming the character of revolt, and it was advisable that the royal family should not be hourly exposed to the vociferations of the mob, who could approach to the very windows of the Palais Royal. In consequence of a change in the distribution and management of the Tuileries gardens, a trench had been dug round the chateau, so as to render popular access more difficult. It was impossible for the crowd in the Tuileries to approach the royal windows.

Towards the close of this year the manners of the king became more distant and courtly. In the receptions at the Tuileries visitors came in full dress, and it was soon understood that this costume was obligatory except for deputies. The Journal des Débats, at the close of 1831, began to talk of the court as a thing that had a real and actual existence, and it was not difficult to see that much progress had been made in a courtly sense from the programme of the Hôtel de Ville—the throne surrounded with republican institutions.

In the latter months of 1831, the intrigues of the legitimist party both in Paris and in the provinces became more active and persevering. The directing committee was composed of twelve persons, among whom were the Count de Florac, the Baron de Rivière, and the Baron de Maistre. The Duke de Belluno was mixed up in these plots, and was said to receive his instructions direct from the Duchess de Berri. Casimir Périer attached but little importance to the manoeuvres of the legitimists. The first months of 1832 opened inauspiciously. Early in February the cholera had appeared in England, and in March the presence of the malady was revealed by four fatal cases in Paris. On the 31st March there were 300 cholera patients at the hospital, among whom there were 86 deaths; on the 5th April there were 300 deaths, and four days later the mortality amounted to 814. On the 18th the highest figure of mortality had been attained, after which it gradually diminished. One of the most deplorable circumstances connected with this scourge was the exhibitions of popular fury and ignorance to which it gave rise. In some quarters of the capital and provinces the effects of the disease were attributed to poison, and popular frenzy was directed against the medical practitioners.

On the 2nd of April the Duke d'Orléans, in company with Casimir Périer, visited the cholera patients of the Hôtel Dieu; and on the 6th the minister was attacked by this alarming malady. His constitution, already shattered by the cares of office and the great excitement of debate, had not sufficient stamina to resist the progress of the disease. He died on the 16th of May, leaving in the ministry a blank which it was impossible adequately to fill up. By his courage he resisted the progress of anarchy, and re-established social order on a more solid basis. To his credit also it must be said, that he was the only man who, since 1830, had exhibited the vigour and courage necessary to resist the personal interference of Louis Philippe. He had a system, and a strong will to carry that system into effect. In his ministerial career there was neither vacillation nor irresolution. His desire was to govern by the Chambers, and by the Chambers only, and to disregard all opinion which was not the expression of these assemblies. He felt that in the then position of affairs order was of the foremost necessity. His first wish was accordingly for order, and his second for well-defined liberty, as the handmaid of order.

During the illness of Casimir Périer, M. de Montalivet interim was interim minister at the home office. After the death of that minister he continued to hold the portfolio, and was himself succeeded in the ministry of public instruction by M. Girod de l'Ain. The place of president of the council remained vacant, and indeed the ministry was thought so weak and insignificant after the demise of Périer that it was considered as a species of ministerial interregnum. This was the first attempt of Louis Philippe to govern by men without political character or talent; for though Marshal Soult, the war minister, was a person of administrative ability in his own particular walk, and, as M. Thiers designated him, an époque illustre, yet he was totally without political capacity. Events soon revealed the incompetency of the men at the helm of affairs. In the capital the anniversary of the death of Napoleon was the occasion of a hostile demonstration. On the 5th May large assemblages took place at the Place Vendôme, where the rioters had designedly congregated. Blood was shed on this occasion before the public force had cleared the Place Vendôme of the republicans. Preparations for a legitimate or Carlist insurrection were simultaneously proceeding in the south and west of France. An active correspondence was going on between Toulon and Nîmes, and the Duchess de Berri and her partisans. The Duchess at that time was residing in the states of the Duke of Modena, where an expedition was preparing.

On the 30th April an armed band at Marseilles obtained possession of the keys of the church of St Lawrence, on which the white flag was hoisted amidst cries of "Vive Henri V.!" "Vive la Religion!" "Vive le Drapeau Blanc!" In the month of May the Duchess de Berri, accompanied by Marshal Bourmont and twelve distinguished personages of the old court, appeared off Marseilles on board the Carlo Alberto steamer, with a view to effect a landing; but finding the tricolored flag flying from the tower of St Lawrence, the steamer again put out to sea. Many pages might be History, dedicated to the proceedings of this most restless royal personage, whose whole object appeared to be to excite civil war. Suffice it however to say, that after attempts to interest the Emperor Nicholas in her favour, and proposals of the strangest nature to Don Miguel, through the ex-general Deutz, the duchess, who had traversed the interior of France, appeared on the 15th May in La Vendée, where M. de Bourmont soon after joined her. As soon as the friends of the duchess in the capital heard of her arrival in La Vendée, they prepared to second her efforts in Paris, where a Carlist insurrection seemed imminent; but early in June, forty of the leaders (among whom were several gardes du corps) were arrested. This prevented the intended outbreak, and several of the Carlists now made common cause with the republicans.

At this period the famous compte rendu, a manifesto which accused ministers of having broken all their promises, of having sown division among the national guards, and many other political crimes and misdemeanours, was prepared, and received the signature of 150 deputies.

Till this time the republicans, though disaffected, had refrained from overt acts of insurrection; but on the occasion of the funeral of General Lamarque, who had died of the cholera a few days after his old adversary Casimir Périer, they broke out into insurrection. The funeral procession started from the Rue Faubourg St Honore about ten o'clock in the morning. Notwithstanding the measures of precaution taken, and the numerous detachments of troops posted about, alarming symptoms were apparent. On the Place de la Bastille funeral orations were delivered. General La Fayette had just concluded his address, recommending the people to be tranquil, when a red flag was unfurled, and some of the populace cut the harness of the hearse, amidst loud cries of "To the Pantheon!" The dragoons posted around were fired on, stones were flung at, and daggers raised against them. At length they discharged their carbines. The national guards who followed the procession quitted it in disorder: the insurgents raised a cry of "To arms!" in different quarters, breaking the lamps, and raising barricades. The disturbances continued on the 6th, night having interrupted the military operations, but the national guard united with the troops of the line. The king who had arrived over night from St Cloud visited the different posts. On the 6th, however, the insurgents (who, in less than two hours on the preceding day, occupied the half of Paris) were still masters of certain quarters, of which the church of St Mery was the centre. The troops having secured the Hôtel de Ville and the Palais de Justice against the attack of the insurgents, surrounded them. Being too weak to leave their barricades, they remained behind their intrenchments. At this juncture the king, issuing from the Tuileries at the head of a brilliant staff, gave fresh confidence to the soldiers, who carried the barricades, and possessed themselves of the church of St Mery. Of the troops, 55 were killed and 240 wounded. The national guard had 18 men killed and 104 wounded, and the insurgents 93 killed and 291 wounded.

A royal ordonnance placed Paris in a state of siege. A council of war was also appointed to try the prisoners arrested. But the Cour de Cassation declared these proceedings illegal, and remitted the affair to the Cour d'Assises, where a few sentences of death were pronounced, commuted however, afterwards, by the royal clemency. It should also be stated, that some of the most eminent men of the bars of Paris, Rouen, and Rennes, pronounced opinions against the Etat de Siège. Some arrests of deputies took place, among whom were Cabet, Garnier Pages, and Laboissière. Armand Carrel, editor of the National, was also arrested. On the 6th, after the king had traversed Paris, MM. Laffitte, Odillon Barrot, and Arago waited on Louis Philippe to press on his Majesty a change of system, and to prevent the further effusion of blood. But Louis Philippe defended the course taken by the government against their objections.

Among the insurgents were eleven scholars of the Polytechnic School. A royal ordonnance disbanded the Polytechnic and the school of Alfort. This ordonnance excited much severe comment. But public indignation knew no bounds when an ordonnance of the police required all medical men to make a declaration as to the names of the wounded on whom they had attended. M. Gisquet, the prefect of police, threw the responsibility of this ordonnance on M. d'Argout.

The partisans of the Duchess de Berri were so turbulent in the west, that four departments—viz., Maine and Loire, parts of Loire Inferieure, Deux Sevres, and La Vendée—were placed in a state of siege, which continued till June 1833. Nevertheless, the duchess still continued this Chouan war, though few leaders of any mark engaged in it, and although MM. Chateaubriand, Fitz-James, and Hyde de Neuville recommended her to withdraw from the contest and quit France. Towards the end of May M. Berryer was arrested at Nantes; and on the 14th June Hyde de Neuville, Fitz-James, and Chateaubriand were arrested at Paris. M. Berryer was accused of tampering with the allegiance of Frenchmen by seeking to enlist superior officers in the Carlist cause, but he was acquitted of this charge by the Cour d'Assises at Blois in October. In the autumn of Deutz, this year an adventurer of the name of Deutz, a convert from Judaism, and much in favour with the Pope and the Jesuits, was confidentially employed by the Duchess de Berri. He communicated his instructions to M. Montalivet, minister of the interior, and declared his willingness to aid the government in betraying his employer. The minister, of course, approved of his proposal, and proposed a second interview a few days afterwards. This was in the beginning of October; but a few days afterwards there was a change of ministry, Marshal Soult becoming president of the council, and M. Thiers succeeding M. Montalivet as home minister. M. Thiers continued the negotiations commenced by his predecessor, and suggested to Deutz that he should remain at Paris. But Deutz explained to the minister that he could render the government more essential service when near the duchess, his still confiding employer, at Nantes. For Nantes the man set out under the name of Gonzagues, and obtained an interview with the princess on the 28th. On the 6th of November he informed the authorities that the duchess was then in the house of the Misses Duguayt. The house was surrounded all day on the 6th, and a minute but ineffectual search was made during the whole of the day and night. The authorities were about to give up the pursuit in despair, when at ten o'clock in the morning of the 7th, Madame la Duchesse was discovered at the back of the chimney, greatly suffering, as her cries indicated, from the insupportable heat. Her companions were M. Guibourg, an advocate of Nantes, M. de Mesnard, and Mademoiselle de Kersabiec. The prisoners were taken into custody, and the duchess was thence immediately placed on board a government vessel, and transferred to the citadel of Blaye. Thus ended, after many strange adventures, the political career of the Duchess de Berri.

The ministry of transition which had succeeded that of Casimir Périer succumbed to the difficulties by which it was surrounded, and to cope with which it was manifestly unequal. Marshal Soult was now appointed president of the council and minister of war, M. de Broglie was named minister for foreign affairs, M. Guizot of public instruction, M. Thiers of the interior, and M. Humann of finance. On the 9th November an ordonnance appeared, declaring that a project of law would be presented to the chambers, relative to the Duchess de Berri. The ministry, feeling the neces-

f decisive measures, resolved on an expedition against the citadel of Antwerp. The Chamber was convoked for the 19th November; and it was on this occasion as the king was proceeding on horseback over the Pont Royal that a pistol was fired at him. The pistol, according to positive testimony, was fired by one Bergeron, who was brought to trial at the assizes in March 1833, but acquitted by the jury.

The city of Antwerp, it will be remembered, was in fact Belgian, but the citadel remained in the power of the Dutch. An expedition was therefore resolved on to liberate the town, and to carry into execution the twenty-four articles of the treaty of London, France engaging not to unnecessarily prolong the occupation of Belgian territory. Seventy thousand French crossed the frontier, whilst a reserve of 40,000 was stationed along the Moselle. On the 30th of November all the preparations under General Haxo and Neigre being completed (the breaches being opened on the 29th), Marshal Gerard summoned General Chassé, the governor of Antwerp, to surrender. This request not being complied with, the marshal regularly sat down before the place. On the 3d December the second parallel was already established, notwithstanding frequent sorties of the garrison; and on the 23d, a breach having been effected, Chassé, after a vigorous and noble defence, offered to give up the citadel, and to retire into Holland with the garrison. Gerard would not accede to this proposition till the forts of Lillo and Lievenshoek were surrendered; but as these were not under the command of General Chassé, it was necessary to open communications with the King of Holland. Meanwhile, however, the French took possession of the citadel, and it was now hoped by the friends and partisans of the government that the defeat of the revolutionary party in June, the pacification of La Vendée by the arrest of the Duchess de Berri, and the taking of Antwerp, would strengthen the position of ministers, and give solidity to the government.

The first months of the session of 1833 certainly announced greater calm. The labours of the session commenced by a proposition for the abolition of the anniversary of the 21st January. The Chamber of Deputies saw only in the expiatory day an outrage to the nation, whilst the Chamber of Peers recognised a homage to the principle of the inviolability of kings. After a struggle between both chambers, it was agreed that "the law of the 19th January 1816, relative to that melancholy and ever-deplorable day of the 21st January 1793, should be abrogated."

M. Thiers, who had changed the ministry of the interior for the ministry of public works, presented a law for finishing the public buildings already commenced. A credit of 100,000,000 francs was allocated for this purpose, to the expenditure of which sum we owe the completion of the Madeleine, of the Arc de l'Etoile, the palace of the Quai d'Orsay, military routes in La Vendée, and other routes in various parts of the kingdom. A law on primary instruction, presented by M. Guizot, in offering instruction to those unable to pay for it, acquitted a duty of the state to the labouring classes. The imprisonment of the Duchess de Berri relieved the state of the embarrassment of a Vendean war, but it was still necessary to dispose of her case in some way or other. But an unexpected incident arose which gave a new complexion to the affair. On the night of Madame of the 16th or 17th January the Duchess de Berri was seized with violent vomitings, and, in consequence of a telegraphic despatch, the doctors Orfila and Aubry received orders to set out immediately for Blaye. After a great deal of delicate and proper circumlocution, the pregnancy of the duchess was formally stated to the authorities, and on the 28th February she herself announced to General Bugeaud a secret marriage. The declaration was officially published in the Moniteur of the 26th. It was a terrible blow to the legitimist party, many of whom stoutly maintained (and, among others, a writer in the Quotidienne) that the declaration was counterfeit. On the 8th June the duchess quitted Blaye, and embarked on board Fagathe, a government vessel, which conducted her to Palermo.

In the Chamber the budget of the minister of war was sharply criticised. M. Camille Périer stigmatized certain contracts, which amounted to the large sum of 14,000,000 francs, as profligately extravagant. Marshal Soult, like a clever tactician, availed himself of the fortifications of Paris to mask the extravagance of his contracts.

The trial of the Tribune newspaper, conducted at this period by Armand Marrast and Godfrey Cavaignac (the brother of the general who subsequently became president of the republic in 1848), for a libel on the Chamber, which it called Chambre prostituée, gave rise to many curious revelations. Marrast (who was subsequently one of the provisional government of 1848, and president of the Chamber), maintained that 122 functionary deputies annually received in salaries more than two millions of francs for employments the duties of which they did not discharge. Statements of this kind, founded for the most part on fact, produced a bad impression on the public mind relative to public men. The editors of the Tribune called on the minister of finance to pay into the treasury the sum of 3,503,607 francs due by the civil list, alleging that Louis Philippe had on the 6th of August 1830 made a gift of his private fortune to his children with a view to save it from incorporation with the property of the state, whereby the "droit d'enregistrement" was largely defrauded. It was alleged that while the king thus defrauded the state, the man who had made him was ruined, and certainly a placard posted on the walls of Paris announced that the house of the famous banker was to be disposed of. The knowledge of this produced general regret. The liberal party and republicans exclaimed, "The man who has organized a legal resistance to the ordinances, who has disposed of a crown, is ruined."

Paris from the year 1827 was the focus and centre of secret societies, and there can be no doubt that they exercised immense influence from the year 1830 to this time. The club of the Amis du Peuple was now however shut. The society of the Droits de l'Homme succeeded to the Amis du Peuple, and counted in Paris alone 3000 Sectionnaires, with numerous affiliations in the departments. It possessed its government, its administration, its army of martyrs, of clerks, of combatants. It used every means to raise and collect subscriptions in favour of political offenders or journals condemned for liberal opinions. It was an occult and anarchical power within the state. The principal members of the central committee were Voyer d'Argenson, Audry de Puyraveau deputies; Cavaignac, Kersausie, Lebon, Vignette. The principles of the club were extravagant and extreme to a degree. Nothing discredited it more with sensible steady men, or men who had anything to lose, than its desire to rehabilitate the character of Robespierre. The club also suffered under the imputation, justly or unjustly urged, of desiring an agrarian law, and an equal division of property. The most reasonable members belonging to the association always repudiated these dangerous and dishonest principles, but there were hot-headed zealots who proclaimed them. On the 10th April 1833 a jury condemned the society of "Les Droits de l'Homme," and the assize court directed the dissolution of a society whose illegality had been pronounced. About this period even men of the advanced opinions of Lafayette and Carrel did not go far or fast enough for the more ardent spirits. The republic of the National was not the republic of the Droits de l'Homme. The society of the Rights of Man was for immediate action, whereas Lafayette and Carrel thought the moment inopportune. In truth, an insurrection was pre- pared for the anniversary of the 28th July 1833. As it was the moment when there was a great deal of discussion about the detached forts destined, it was said, to muzzle Paris, it was agreed that there should be cries of *A bas les bastilles* during the review of the national guard. The places at which the insurrectionists should assemble were not indicated till the last moment. A proclamation, however, had previously circulated among the soldiers of the garrison to rally them to the insurrection. Arrests were made on the 27th or 28th July of six persons, among whom were four *élèves* of the Polytechnic School. An immense quantity of balls and cartridges were seized, and the insurrection was in consequence adjourned. The review passed off quietly, and the king received from the national guard the usual reception; but so grave was the event considered that the government announced in the *National* that the detached forts would not be proceeded with. The arrests during the months of July and August amounted to 150, among which number were six pupils of the Polytechnic: 27 of the prisoners were tried at the assizes in the month of December, among whom the most remarkable were Ras-pail, Kersausil, &c. They were acquitted by the jury, but the advocates who defended them, Dupont, Michel de Bourges, and Pinart, were suspended from the exercise of their profession, the first for a year, the two others for six months. At the end of the year 1833 the society of the Droits de l'Homme counted 162 sections of 20 members; it had therefore in round numbers 3000 men at its disposal.

The spirit animating the body may be judged from some of the names of the sections—Babeuf, Les Gueux, Marat, Couthon, Robespierre, &c.

The government felt that the newsmen or public criers of journals were a fertile cause of agitation. In February 1834 a new law on criers was brought forward, which provided that no one should exercise the profession of public crier without the permission of the municipal authority.

Political refugees were also a standing cause of perturbation during the years 1833 and 1834. It was calculated that the soil of France at this period afforded a refuge to 6000 Polish, and 4000 German, Italian, and Spanish refugees, at an expense of three or four millions per annum to the state. A majority of these persons showed themselves little thankful for the hospitality afforded them. They mixed themselves up with factions, and took part in all the troubles of that stormy time.

It is not necessary that we should enter into any details as to the foreign relations of France during the year 1833. In as far, however, as these relations had a bearing or influence on domestic affairs or parties, it is necessary we should shortly advert to them. With England during these years France maintained friendly and intimate relations, and the treaty of the *Droit de Visite* was arranged—an instrument of which the movement party did not hesitate to take advantage for party purposes. It was in the year 1833 that the oriental difficulty first arose, or rather that Russia first laid her hand heavily on Constantinople. The battle of Koniah had placed Syria in the power of Ibrahim, who thence threatened the sultan. Mahomet now turned his eyes towards Sebastopol, and implored the help of Russia. The czar hastened to offer the sultan six ships of war and seven frigates, and despatched General Mourvaieff with a view to prepare a Russian intervention. France had no ambassador at the Porte during these occurrences, General Guilleminot having been abruptly recalled in 1831 in consequence of his having attempted to sustain the influence of his country against Russia. As soon as the facts were known Admiral Roussin was named ambassador; and on his arrival he required that the Russian ships should be countermanded. But Russia took effectual measures not to receive the counter orders in time. On the 20th February, three days after the arrival of Roussin, a Russian squadron of ten ships of war entered the Bosphorus. Admiral Roussin, to procure the withdrawal of the Russians, engaged to induce Mahomet to content himself with the three pashalics of Sidon, Tripoli, and Jerusalem. But as the admiral had only the ship of war in which he arrived, and as the consul of France at Alexandria encouraged the pasha in his plans of conquest, Mahomet, emboldened by the real weakness of France at Constantinople, and by the difference of opinion between the consul and the ambassador, resisted the higher functionary. Another arrangement was concluded at Kutayah, which assured to the pasha, besides Syria, the pashalic of Adana, thus giving him an entrance into Asia Minor. Ibrahim then prepared to evacuate Asia Minor; and the Russians, having no longer a pretext for intervention, evacuated Constantinople, having obtained from the sultan the treaty of Unkia Skelless. The successes of Don Pedro in Portugal, the destruction of the fleet of Don Miguel by Admiral Napier, the triumph of Maria Christina of Spain over Calomarde, by which the throne of Spain was secured to Isabella, were all circumstances tending to the consolidation of the new dynasty in France, and to the more intimate alliance of the two great Western Powers. The Cabinet of the Tuileries at once acknowledged Isabella in opposition to the Salic law imported into Spain with the kingdom dynasty of the Bourbons. But Don Carlos was the inveterate enemy of the house of Orleans, and this was decisive to determine the policy of the Tuileries.

At the commencement of 1834 the partisans of the new dynasty hoped that the partial re-establishment of order, and the defeat of parties hostile to the government, would reassure the middle classes, and give a new impetus to commerce and industry. But it was soon apparent that it was merely a truce, not a peace, which prevailed. At the opening of the session the speech from the throne had alluded to the culpable manoeuvres of the factions, and called on the army, the national guard, and the citizens to put an end to the dangerous illusions of men who, in pretending to defend, really assailed liberty. In the discussion on the address there was unwonted moderation on the part of the opposition. M. Bignon delivered a moderate speech on the question of Poland, in which he invoked the sanction of the treaties of 1814—a speech in the letter and spirit of which M. de Broglie fully concurred. But the opposition out of doors was not so moderate. It redoubled in acrimony and violence, and the government resolved to come to close quarters with the democratic press. On the 25th January ministers asked permission of the Chambers to commence proceedings against M. Cabot, deputy, for articles published in the *Populaire*. On the following day M. de Ludre denounced the despotic conduct of Marshal Soult, in consequence of an order of the day addressed to the artillery officers of Strasbourg. General Bugaud interrupting, exclaimed, "Military men must, above all things, obey;" whereupon M. Dulong rejoined, "Must they obey even to becoming jailors?" alluding to the equivocal position held by the general at Blaye. From these observations a duel arose in which the unfortunate Dulong, a son of Dupont de l'Eure, lost his life. This circumstance induced Dupont de l'Eure to resign his position as deputy.

The Cabinet and the Chamber appeared to be now determined on more aggressive measures. A law on associations was introduced on the 25th February. The debate took place on 11th March, and lasted for twelve days. The attitude of the Chamber was angry and impassioned throughout. The orator of the government during the debate was M. Perisil, Procureur-Général. The opposition, it must be confessed, was as vehement and as impassioned as the ministerial benches; and in a few days after these angry debates the insurrection of Lyons and the Paris insurrection of April took place. The troubles of Lyons of November 1831 had no political character; but those of 1834, at Lyons... History, it must be confessed, had been prepared by clubs and by journalism. An immense garrison had been sent to Lyons and the neighbouring towns, the national guard had been disarmed, and the interior of the city had been fortified. In the beginning of 1834 there was the greatest distress among the silk weavers, and the result was that the association of the mutuellistes, a society which never discussed either religious or political questions, but was established solely to defend the rights of the working classes, made common cause with the republicans, and by their influence produced a strike among the manufacturing population.

On the 14th February 20,000 workmen of Lyons and the neighbourhood ceased to labour in the manufactories, and before the end of March a majority of these men came to an understanding with the republicans. An active correspondence was established between Lyons, Paris, St Etienne, Marseilles, and other large towns, and a thorough community of action appeared to exist among the malcontents, whose movements were simultaneous with those of General Ramorino upon Savoy. But the authorities were prepared to strike a blow at Lyons, where they had 20,000 men under arms. On the 9th April every military precaution had been taken, and the troops were posted on all the important points. While M. Jules Favre was pleading a political cause, a shot was heard, and a man mortally wounded was carried into court. He was said to be an insurgent whom a gendarme had shot while in the act of raising a barricade; but on examination it was found that the dying or dead man wore under his clothes the sash of a police agent. The promulgation of this fact exasperated the workmen to madness. Barricades were erected, and proclamations were issued, declaring that the king was deposed, and that Lucien Bonaparte was named First Consul. The tocsin called the workmen to arms, and the people everywhere obstinately engaged the troops. The struggle lasted six days. The rising of the faubourgs de Vaise, la Guillotière, de St Claire, and St Just, cut off communication with Paris, with the west, and with the south. Reverchon and La Grange were the chief leaders on the part of the people: 131 of the military were killed, of whom one was a colonel, and 12 officers and 192 men were wounded. On the side of the insurgents 170 were killed and 400 republicans were made prisoners. Insurrectionary movements broke out simultaneously at St Etienne, Grenoble, Vienne, Perpignan, Poitiers, Chalons sur Saône, Arbois, Marseilles. At Luneville the sous-officiers of three regiments of cuirassiers essayed to direct their regiments to Nancy with a view to a march on Paris. The news of the Lyons insurrection gave the signal to the revolutionary party in Paris. On Sunday the 13th April, Kersausie, a man of determined courage, reviewed the republican forces on the Boulevards, during the course of which operation he was carried off by the police. His arrest precipitated the insurrectionary movement. There was an immediate call to arms, and men ran to the barricades. But over this insurrection, called les Journées d'Avril, the government was also successful. The doctrine of "connexité," by which (under the article 171 of the code de procedure) it was sought to make the revolts of Lyons, St Etienne, Grenoble, Paris, &c., one and the same revolt, ousted, so to speak, the Cours Royales in different parts of the kingdom of their jurisdiction, and the consequence was, that the Chamber of Peers became alarmed by the affair. The prisoners amounted to 1500. Of these 800 or 900 were set at large. It should be stated that before the hearing the opposition sought not merely to demonstrate the impossibility of trying such a multitude of prisoners, but also the illegality of arraigning them before the Chamber of Peers. The process, which lasted for several months before the Chamber of Peers, would fill a volume. We only advert to it here for the purpose of directing the legal reader to the printed reports of a memorable trial in which some strange legal doctrines were propounded. The monster process of April, whether constitutional or otherwise according to French law—whether legally conducted or not—struck a decisive blow at the republican party; and it must be added that some of the extreme members of the party itself, by their violent and absurd conduct before the court, discredited the cause to which they were attached.

The success of the government over the factions gave it apparent force, but the cabinet was torn by intestine divisions. The rejection of a project of law relative to a treaty of 25 millions demanded by America had caused the retirement of the Duke de Broglie. Lafayette, who was ill at the time, sent to the Chamber explanations in favour of the project, but it was nevertheless rejected, and immediately afterwards M. de Broglie placed his resignation in the hands of the king. His retirement produced a partial change in the ministry. MM. Barthe and D'Argout were replaced by MM. Persil and Duchâtel, who were appointed ministers of justice and commerce. M. Thiers became minister of the interior, and M. de Rigny passed from the ministry of marine to the ministry of foreign affairs, the ministry of marine being filled by Admiral Jacob. On the 20th May in this year General Lafayette died. At any death of another epoch his decease would have produced more impression, but the recent defeat of the republican party had discouraged and dispirited them. The triple alliance originally concluded between Spain, England, and Don Pedro, now became the quadruple alliance, M. de Talleyrand having given in his adhesion on the part of France.

On the 1st of July of this year Don Carlos secretly withdrew from London, arrived at Paris on the 4th, on the 6th secretly at Bordeaux, on the 8th at Bayonne, and on the 10th had crossed the Spanish frontier without having been discovered by the police of France. So soon as the pretender appeared on the soil of Spain, Martinez de la Rosa asked for the assistance of England and France. England furnished arms and munitions, and France the foreign legion. The French army of observation quartered on the Pyrenees also received reinforcements.

As to domestic affairs, the violence of the factions and the extravagance of the republican party had induced many who were otherwise unfriendly to the government to side with it. When the Chambers were dissolved, and the elections took place in June 1834, the greater number of the deputies professing republican opinions were rejected. Several legitimists were returned, who ranged themselves under the banner of Berryer. But notwithstanding these favourable circumstances, there were internal dissensions in the cabinet. A struggle had commenced between M. Guizot and Marshal Soult, whose budget had been vigorously attacked in the Chambers. Soult was understood to have resigned on the 18th July, and immediately afterwards Marshal Gerard took the portfolio of war, with the presidency of the council. In the Chamber the tiers parti excited a good deal of attention from the apparently independent position which they assumed—a position hostile to the doctrinaires. The tiers parti was composed of deputies who had sustained government by their votes and speeches in a time of crisis, but who, now that the crisis was over, desired a more element and liberal policy. Discreet and sensible men saw that the great danger was a want of moderation in the possessors of power, and that men flushed with victory were likely to abuse it. The principal members of the tiers parti were Dupin, Beringer, Etienne, Passy, Teste de Calmon, and Felix Real. Though these gentlemen had talent, industry, much acquired information, and a great knowledge of affairs, yet they wanted energy and political courage. The tiers parti showed itself at first favourable to Marshal Gerard, who entered the ministry with an idea of amnesty; but it ap- peared that General Jaquemont, as commander of the national guard, repudiated all idea of an amnesty, whereupon Marshal Gerard resigned on the 29th October, after a short official life of three months. The other ministers also resigned with the exception of M. Persil, who addressed himself to M. Dupin. Dupin, for himself, refused office, but named the Duke de Bassano as president of the council and minister of the interior, M. Charles Dupin as minister of marine, General Bernard as minister of war, M. Passy for the finances, M. Teste for public works, M. Sauzet for public instruction, and M. Bresson for foreign affairs. But this ministry lasted only three days, when the old ministers resumed office.

The doctrinaire cabinet was reconstructed on the 18th November, under the presidency of Marshal Mortier, who was named minister of war. But never was there less of presidency in fact than that of Marshal Mortier; and at the end of three months, namely on the 26th February 1835, the old soldier resigned, and on the 30th April following surrendered the seals of war to Marshal Maison. Admiral Duperré had already been called to preside over the navy, and as MM. Thiers and Guizot now understood each other, and had numerous followers in the Chambers, their union formed a counterpoise to the royal will. From this moment the king sought to divide and sow dissension between these two able men, for the object of the monarch was to find ministers who governed more from the dictation of the royal cabinet than from the assent of the Chambers. These manoeuvres of royalty rather hastened the growth of a parliamentary party, demanding a true and bona fide representative government, and proclaiming the sound constitutional maxim, "Le Roi règne et ne gouverne pas." On the other hand, an old Napoleonic counsellor of state, M. Roederer, published a pamphlet exalting the royal prerogative, against which several of the deputies of the tiers parti, and among others Piscatory, Joubert, and Duverger d'Hauranne, declaimed.

The vacancy created in the presidency of the council by the resignation of Marshal Mortier brought on a ministerial crisis, which the king was not desirous to put an end to. It was necessary, however, that certain pecuniary demands of Russia should be brought before the Chamber by the minister of foreign affairs, Admiral de Rigny, who was quite unequal to the task. M. Thiers, who had studied the question, undertook the part of M. de Rigny. Guizot and Thiers now wisely agreed to postpone their respective pretensions and to accept the presidency of the Duke de Broglie, who became president of the council and minister for foreign affairs on the 12th March 1835.

During the whole month of July sinister rumours of plots pervaded Paris. A plot was hatched against the life of the king at Neuilly, by which he was to be shot on his way from the Tuileries to the country. Information was given to the police of another plot which was to explode from a subterranean fosse on the Boulevards. But the plot which did really explode was that of Fieschi. On the 28th July the king, accompanied by his sons, by several of his ministers, and a numerous staff, had passed the Porte St Martin and traversed one-half of the Boulevard du Temple, when from a window there was a terrible detonation from an infernal machine, accompanied with a shower of case shot, a portion of which mortally wounded Marshal Mortier. The house was immediately surrounded by the police and an armed force. Fieschi, the perpetrator of the deed, was seized on the roof of a neighbouring house, disfigured by his wounds. Boireau a worker in bronze, Morey a harness-maker, and one Pepin, were also arrested as implicated. On the 5th of August the funeral obsequies of the victims, to the number of fourteen, one of whom was an innocent young girl, and another a marshal of France, took place at the Invalides.

The trial of this plot of Fieschi's was delegated to the Chamber of Peers. The proceedings were opened on the 30th January 1836. On the 15th February a judgment of the Court of Peers condemned Fieschi to the penalty of a parricide, Morey and Pepin to the penalty of death, and Execution Boireau to twenty years' imprisonment. The execution of Fieschi took place on the 19th. To the credit of France, it must be stated, that the attempt of Fieschi excited a universal sentiment of indignation, and voices were raised from almost every quarter demanding vigorous legislative measures for the repression of crime. Ministers did not fail to take advantage of the universal consternation to ask for exceptional laws. The result was what are called the laws of September. On the 4th August three projects of law were laid before the Chamber of Deputies by M. Persil. One of these, the project of law relative to the press, increased the security for journals, the corporal punishment, and the fine. This measure defined as a crime any offence to the person of the king, and declared such attempt punishable with imprisonment and a fine of from 10,000 to 50,000 francs. The bill expressly forbade the introduction of the name of the king into the discussion of governmental acts; and forbade the assumption of the title of republican. It was also forbidden to raise subscriptions in favour of journals condemned by the tribunals, and it was proposed to establish a censorship for drawings, engravings, and theatrical pieces. A second project for the regulation of fines reduced from eight to seven the majority necessary for condemnation, and established secret voting by a written ticket instead of orally. A third project relative to assize courts gave to the president the right to remove prisoners who disturbed the court, and to come to a decision on documentary evidence in the absence of the accused. The commission on the law on the press proposed that the security or cautionnement should be 200,000 francs, or L.8000 of our money. The Chamber fixed it at 100,000 francs. Royer Collard, on this occasion, broke the silence which he had maintained since 1831, to find fault with that provision of the law which withdrew from the jury offences of the press. He was seconded by M. de Remusat. The provisions of the law in reference to theatrical representations received a general assent, for the dramatic literature had sunk to the lowest ebb, and was distinguished not merely by triviality but by indecency.

The galleys, the jails, the gambling-houses, and tripots, furnished to the stage its favourite episodes. The laws of September at once brought to a close about thirty demagogic legitimist journals, and raised a bitter animosity against those doctrinaire ministers who, within a few years, had lived, moved, and had their being in that press which they now treated with such Draconian severity. For a moment these laws produced a calm, but they rendered the ministry profoundly unpopular, indeed odious; so that M. de Broglie intimated to the king, that at no distant date his Majesty would be forced to have recourse to other servants. There was an independence, a frankness, and a sense of self-respect in M. de Broglie which his Majesty did not like, and he was the less agreeable to the king from his determination to govern only by and through the Chambers. Louis Philippe and his courtiers and personal flatterers also felt that the union of three such men as M. de Broglie and MM. Guizot and Thiers threatened the personal system of the monarch, a system on which he so much prided himself. Every cunning and courtly art was therefore had recourse to to divide and sow mistrust and jealousy among men whose momentary union rendered them formidable to royalist ascendancy. These intrigues undermined the cabinet of the 11th October, and there needed but a decent pretext to dissolve it. This was furnished by the finance minister, M. Humann, who, in presenting the budget to the Chambers, declared that the moment was favourable to reduce the interest on the public debt, and to effect the conversion of the five per cents. ministry. M. de Broglie, president of the council, expressed his surprise to find so grave a question mooted without having been once discussed in the cabinet; and on being questioned four days afterwards on the subject, he declared that the ministry had no idea of converting the fives. M. Gouin thereupon gave notice of a formal motion for the reduction, which he brought forward accordingly. The proposition was supported by M. Passy, and opposed by M. Thiers, who was for delay. Humann, Berryer, Sauzet, and Dufaure supported the original motion, and the motion for adjournment was lost by a majority of two. M. de Broglie hereupon resigned, and was followed by all his colleagues. It was observed that several of the courtiers and personal friends of Louis Philippe voted against the ministry, and it is certain the king felt pleased at finding the union of three men of ability suddenly rent asunder. Almost simultaneously with the breaking-up of the Duke de Broglie's cabinet a coolness took place between MM. Guizot and Thiers.

Just antecedent to the fall of M. de Broglie's cabinet the self-love of M. Thiers was somewhat piqued by M. Piscatory, a follower of M. Guizot, telling him that it would be impossible for him to form a cabinet without the cooperation of the Doctrinaires. This rather stimulated than discouraged the rising politician; and nothing daunted, M. Thiers aspired to the task, and was named by royal ordinance president of the council and minister for foreign affairs on the 22d February. The first difficulty that met the new minister was the question of the conversion of the five per cents., which M. Thiers evaded by promising to bring forward a proposition for conversion in the ensuing year. A customs law, which had been for some time prepared by M. Thiers, was presented by M. Passy. It slightly modified the principle of absolute prohibition. On the 25th June 1836 another attempt was made to assassinate the king. A shot was fired at his Majesty as he was leaving Alixand on the Tuileries, and two balls lodged in the royal carriage without wounding any one. The author of this new crime was one Alixand, a young man who had served some time as a sous-officier, and was now in distress. The affair was brought before the Court of Peers on the 8th July, and the evidence adduced proved that Alixand had no accomplices. On being asked by the president Pasquier how long he had nourished his criminal project, he answered, "From the time the king has placed Paris in a state of siege, and wished not to reign but to govern—since the time that his Majesty has caused citizens to be massacred in the streets of Lyons and the Cloitre St Mery." On the 9th July Alixand was condemned to die the death of a paricide, and he was executed on the 11th. The cabinet of M. Thiers, or of the 22d February as it is generally called in France, was not perfectly homogeneous; M. de Montalivet was minister of the interior, M. Sauzet of justice, M. Passy of public works, Marshal Maison of war, Admiral Duperré of marine, M. d'Argout of finance, and M. Pelet de la Lozère of public instruction. M. Thiers, after an intimate union with the politicians composing the ministry of the 11th October 1832, presided over by Marshal Soult, had separated himself from them, and found a kind of support in the left centre with the tiers parti. Three of M. Thiers colleagues belonged to this party—MM. Passy, Sauzet, and Pelet de la Lozère. M. Passy, a man of sincere and honest convictions, had decided opinions on certain questions; for instance, he was against colonizing Algiers, and favourable to the conversion of the five per cents., to which M. Thiers was opposed. The expression of the king's secret views and wishes in this cabinet was found in M. Montalivet, the minister of the interior, and this was also the dissolving element. The chief difficulties arose from foreign affairs. There was the question of Cracow, occupied by Austrians, Prussians, and Russians, in flagrant violation of treaty. The intended occupation was communicated to M. de Broglie, in the last days of February, when on the point of resigning, and he could merely formally acknowledge the receipt of the communication; and when M. Thiers entered office on the 22d February, he found the king determined to remain passive. The progress of the Carlist insurrection in Spain also made a French intervention desirable in that country, but the king was still disposed to such an intervention than in 1834. Viscount Palmerston invited an Anglo-French occupation of Passages Fuenterabia, and the valley of the Bastan; but instead of this a species of international interference called a co-operation was determined on, and it was proposed to establish a foreign legion, commanded by a Frenchman. While this legion was in course of being recruited from the corps of General Harispe, the events of La Granja took place, by which Estatuto Real was abolished, and the constitution of 1812 proclaimed. The king now withdrew the unwilling acquiescence he had given to co-operation. M. Thiers counted on the support of M. Montalivet in the cabinet, but finding that minister (who then of M. Thiers was known to be possessed of the king's entire confidence) opposed to him, resigned office on the 25th August. He was succeeded by M. Molé, who, in conjunction with M. Guizot, formed the cabinet of the 6th September.

The king's political man of all work, M. Montalivet, having overturned the ministry of the 22d February, on the cabinet, or question of a Spanish intervention, a question on which M. Molé had always maintained a different opinion from M. Thiers; it appeared a thing quite in course that the chief of the new cabinet should allow the monarch's favourite to retain the ministry of the interior. But as M. Guizot aspired to have an influence equivalent to that of the president of the council, he required the ministry of the interior for himself, or for one of his friends if he remained minister of public instruction. After a fortnight's parleying, M. Molé yielded, and the portfolio of the interior was given to M. Gasparin, who, under M. Montalivet, had filled the functions of under-secretary of state. M. Duchatel took the finances, M. Persil justice, General Bernard war, Admiral Rosamel the marine, and M. Martin du Nord commerce. M. Molé assumed office with the intention of proposing an amnesty, but the affair of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (now Emperor of the French) at Strasbourg, and the attempt on the life of the king by Meunier, not only forced him to abandon his project, but to propose to the Chamber laws of a repressive character. On the Strasbourg affair, in which the principal mover was the present Emperor of the French, it will not be necessary to dwell long. Louis Napoleon had won over to his cause at Bâle Colonel Vaudey, who commanded the 4th regiment of artillery. On the 25th October he quitted Arnemberg, and arrived on the 28th at Strasbourg, where the commandant Parquin awaited him. On the 30th, at five in the morning, the movement began. Colonel Vaudey presented Louis Napoleon to his regiment, which received him with acclamations. They proceeded in marching order to the residence of General Voiret, who, on refusing to join the movement, was made prisoner. The plot, however, altogether failed at the Feukmatt barracks, where Louis Napoleon, Colonel Vaudey, Commandant Parquin, and some others, were arrested. The Cabinet decided that the author should not be tried. Indeed it appeared difficult to bring him before the Chamber of Peers, which contained among its members a great number of old servants of the empire. On the 9th November he was removed from Strasbourg to Paris, where he was only allowed to remain two hours. He left France on the 21st November, and was removed to the United States on board a ship of war.

About the same period, namely, on the 6th November, Charles X. died at Goritz, in Illyria, at the age of seventy-nine years. The discrowned monarch bore his misfortunes History, with resignation, and died under the impression that he had fulfilled a great duty. He was a perfectly honest and sincere man, narrow-minded, and entertaining high prerogative notions more fitted for the 15th than the 19th century.

A remarkable change took place in the Parisian press this year. Journals were published at less than one-half the price previously demanded. This revolution was brought about by M. Emile Girardin, the proprietor of the Presse. Whatever may be the political effect of cheap journalism, it must be allowed that it has been rather detrimental to solid literature. Armand Carrel attacked the cheap journalism of Girardin. The result was a duel, in which the eminent republican publicist received a mortal wound. Carrel was a man of somewhat capricious temper, but of high honour and lofty spirit. He had a rare talent as a journalist, and was master of a style distinguished by perspicuity and force. He was a person of excellent sense, and saw clearly enough the absurd extremes and exaggerations of opinion to which the democratic party was tending.

The previous ministry had left a serious difficulty to their successors in the Swiss question. The French ambassador, M. de Montebello, had strenuously demanded the expulsion from Switzerland of certain Italian refugees. Out of this question and other misunderstandings arose a rupture of diplomatic relations between Switzerland and France. Switzerland, thus placed between the difficulty of a retraction and a commercial blockade, replied pusillanimously to the French note. The French government expressed itself satisfied, but deep resentment rankled in the heart of the Swiss.

A royal ordonnance of the 6th October opened the gates of Ham to the ministers of Charles X. De Peyronnet and De Chantelauze were authorized to reside on parole, the one at Monferrand and the other in the department of the Loire. On the 23rd November the sentence of M. de Polognac was commuted for twenty years of banishment. M. de Guermon Ranville was allowed to reside on parole in the department of Calvados. Acts such as these paved the way to an amnesty. A fourth attempt to assassinate the king was made on the 27th December, by a man named Mounier, a wretched being without intelligence, and belonging to the very lowest class of the population. He was condemned to transportation, but pardoned at the end of April 1837.

A previous design on the life of the king had been discovered before this regicide could put his plan into execution. The author of the attempt, a working mechanic named Champion, on being arrested, strangled himself in prison. An insurrection had been attempted at Vendôme by the sub-officer Bruyant. Two attempts to assassinate the king, the affair of Strasbourg, the disaster of Marshal Clausel at Constantine, the commercial crisis, and the Spanish question, were not favourable circumstances for the ministry. Yet the mere establishment of tranquillity had produced a prosperous condition of trade and manufactures. The excess of income over expenditure in 1835 had been 25,000,000. In 1836 it amounted to 43,000,000, and 60,000,000 francs were ordered for public works. In the discussion on the address the principal topic touched on was the affairs of Spain. M. Thiers took his stand on the question of the quadruple alliance, and proceeded to show that in defending Spain France sustained the cause of constitutional government. The government, after having expatriated the Prince Louis Napoleon without bringing him to trial, indicted his accomplices at the assizes. But Colonel Vaudrey, Commandant Panquin, M. de Bruc, Laisty, De Querelles, De Gricourt, and Madame Gordon, a singer, were all acquitted, the jury considering that they could not condemn the agents and instruments when the principal was not punished. For a considerable time no very good understanding existed between MM. Molé and Guizot. The latter could ill brook the superior position which the presidency of the council gave to M. Molé; and when the president intimated to M. Gasparin, who was incompetent to afford explanations in the Chamber, the necessity of his retiring, M. Guizot at once put forward his claims to the ministry of the interior. This produced an open rupture with M. Molé and the dissolution of the ministry. The ministerial crisis lasted a considerable time, and various essays were fruitlessly tried at the construction of a new Cabinet. Marshal Soult required the withdrawal of the law of appanage which had provoked public animadversion. M. Guizot, who had been requested to form a Cabinet, addressed himself to the Duke de Broglie, who consented to accept; if M. Thiers were invited to form a portion of the Cabinet, but he refused. Propositions were then made to M. Montalivet, who, after four-and-twenty hours' reflection, declared he could not accept the presidency of M. Guizot. Ultimately M. Molé succeeded in forming a Cabinet, in which M. de Montalivet resumed the portfolio of the interior, M. Barthe the ministry of justice, and General Bernard the ministry of war. The finances were intrusted to M. Lacave-Laplagne, public instruction to M. de Salvandy, public works to M. Martin (du Nord), and naval affairs to Admiral Rosamel. This was in effect almost the last ministry to the exclusion of the doctrinaire party—MM. Guizot, Duchâtel, and Gasparin, being left out of the new combination.

The new ministry, of frail and feeble constitution, felt that some measure was necessary to conciliate towards it the suffrages of a divided Chamber, and M. Molé came forward to announce the marriage of the Prince Royal with the Princess Helena of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, an accomplished personage of an ancient house. The marriage was not effected without difficulty. Russia had raised many obstacles, and even in the family there were not wanting those who were ill-disposed to the match. The King of Prussia, however, had exerted his influence to bring about a happy and successful solution. An additional income was asked for the Prince, and as an inducement to the granting of it, it was announced that the appanage for the Duke de Nemours would be postponed. Conciliation was now the order of the day with the ministry, and on the 8th May the ordonnance granting the amnesty appeared. This was the prelude to a series of bills which were called les lois de famille. The marriage settlement of the Prince Royal was raised to two millions, to which was added a million francs for the expenses of the marriage, and 300,000 for the dowry of the Princess. Rambouillet had been asked as an appanage for the Duke de Nemours. But this request, which had elicited a caustic pamphlet from the pen of M. Cormenin, was withdrawn. A million was required for the Queen of the Belgians. When this proposition was under discussion, M. Cormenin remarked that the private domain was 74 millions, and he asked whether, out of such an income, a dowry of a million could not be paid to the Queen of the Belgians. The Duke de Broglie had been named ambassador extraordinary to conduct the Princess Helena to France. She entered the French territory on the 24th May, and on the 29th arrived at Fontainebleau; on the 30th May the high contracting parties were married, and the princess entered Paris on the 4th June. On the 10th the museum of Versailles was opened, and turned into a species of Pantheon, with a view to represent the heroes and celebrated men of the nation.

On the 17th May, in this year, Talleyrand died at the age of eighty-four. Either from compunction or complaisance to the existing authorities, he wished before death to be reconciled to the church. To this end it was necessary that he should sign a retraction of his errors. The day before his death his grand-niece, who had considerable influence over him, insisted on having the retraction signed at that particular moment. Talleyrand replied, "I have never yet been in a hurry, and yet I have always arrived in time." The paper was not signed till five o'clock on the following morning. At eight o'clock the king came in person to visit him, Talleyrand, faithful to etiquette, and always acting a part, wished to receive his royal visitor standing, and had strength enough to say, "Sire, this is the greatest honour which my house has ever received." An hour afterwards the great actor was no more. He was a man of exquisite tact and great talent, but without a moral sense; justice and injustice, good and evil, were distinctions unknown to him. He worshipped success only. The Chamber successively voted during the remainder of the session a law of departmental organization, upon the constitution of the staff of the army, &c. The principle of the conversion of the rentes was also voted by the Deputies, but the bill was thrown out by the Peers. The question of railways occupied a good deal of the attention of the legislature, and it was much debated whether the lines should be undertaken by the state or by companies. Ultimately it was decided in favour of the latter.

A plot against the government was the subject of solemn inquiry before the Peers in the month of May. The principal conspirator was one Louis Hubert, and he had for accomplice a Swiss mechanic named Steuble. Amongst his accomplices figured Mademoiselle Grouvelle, who was also mixed up in the conspiracy of Alibaud, Pepin, Morey, &c. Hubert was condemned to transportation; Steuble and Mademoiselle Grouvelle to five years' imprisonment. Mademoiselle Grouvelle lost her reason during her captivity, and Steuble committed suicide by cutting his throat. About the period when this affair of Hubert was before the Peers, Marshal Soult was sent over as ambassador extraordinary for the coronation of Her Majesty, and the old warrior was enthusiastically received by the English people. It was in this month that Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, now Emperor of the French, returned from America to Arenenberg. The French government summoned Switzerland to expel him, when the grand council of Thurgovia declared he was a citizen of the canton. This resistance led to the formation of a corps of 20,000 men on the Swiss frontier. In order to put an end to this state of things, Louis Bonaparte left Arenenberg for London on the 20th September. On the 24th August the Duchess d'Orleans gratified the hopes of her family and the nation by giving birth to a young prince, who received the name of the Comte de Paris. The French troops evacuated Ancona on the 15th October. To this measure M. Molé unwillingly consented, as the occupation of Ancona by the French was not merely a guarantee against the Austrians, but in some sort a satisfaction to the inhabitants of Romagna.

Negotiations were renewed for imposing on Holland and Belgium the execution of the treaty of the 24 articles. The king of Holland found resistance so onerous that he resigned himself to his fate, and Belgium, after some modification in the financial conditions, also submitted.

The session of 1839 opened on the 17th December 1838. The speech from the throne announced the resumption of the conference of London on the affairs of Belgium and Holland, the evacuation of Ancona, and the despatch of fresh naval forces to obtain from the Mexican government the justice and protection which French commerce required. The speech dwelt on the prosperous state of the finances and the progressive increase of the public revenue. A majority of the commission nominated to draw up the address in answer to the speech, was hostile to the government. This document expressed a regret that Ancona was evacuated without the guarantees which a proper foresight would have provided. Allusions were made to the condition of Spain and of Poland—to the differences with Switzerland—and above all to the direct and undue influence of the crown on public affairs. While the discussion on the address continued, news arrived of the taking of St Juan de Ulloa by Admiral Baudin, an exploit in which the Prince de Joinville participated. The address was carried by a majority of thirteen, 221 having voted for it and 208 against it. So small a majority must have ended in a dissolution of the ministry had not the king sustained the Cabinet and resorted to a dissolution. The parties formerly most hostile to each other united against M. Molé, and with them MM. Guizot and Odillon Barrot co-operated with zeal and energy. Nor was the ministry idle. Every expedient was resorted to in order to obtain a majority, but without success, and M. Molé and all his colleagues resigned on the 8th of March 1839. The Molé Cabinet had lasted nearly two years, and deserved praise for an amnesty which was calculated to put an end to the state of war which divided the people into two hostile camps. The defect of the Cabinet was its weakness in parliamentary talent. With the exception of the chief of the Cabinet, an experienced, grave, and capable man, respected for his moderation and high character, there was not in the ministry a single parliamentary notability, or an efficient debater. The coalition was now in possession of the field, and it was necessary to satisfy the three sections whose momentary alliance had gained the victory. There was the left represented by Odillon Barrot—the left centre represented by Thiers—and the doctrinaires represented by Guizot. M. Guizot aspired to the Home Office, and was offered Public Instruction. His answer was that he could not accept a secondary position without lowering his party. M. Thiers was sent for by the king, and presented a list which contained the names of Marshal Soult, Dupin, Humann, Passy, Dufaure, Villemain, and Dumon. M. Thiers submitted that ministers should not be interfered with by the king in the distribution of employments; and secondly, that some protective measures should be taken in reference to Spain. The first difficulty of the king was as to persons. He objected to three of those named by M. Thiers, who in his turn sought to remove the repugnance of the king, but without success. M. Thiers had given up all hope of succeeding in this task when Marshal Soult summoned him to the Tuileries along with the colleagues named by him. These, however, at the first meeting could not settle preliminaries, when the king said, "Gentlemen, try to agree among yourselves," and dismissed them. A new combination, into which MM. Thiers, De Broglie, and Guizot were to enter, was next attempted. But M. Thiers was for making M. Barrot president of the Chamber, a proposition not held to be admissible by his colleagues. There was a long interregnum, during which public opinion pronounced itself against the court. The king, it was said, wished to sow dissension among parliamentary leaders, for the purpose of exalting the prerogative, and there is reason to believe that there was ground for this suspicion. A provisional ministry to expedite affairs was appointed on the 1st April, and various combinations with the view of forming a ministry were attempted, but they all failed; and it was not till an insurrection broke out in Paris that the crisis was put an end to.

The 12th of May fell on Sunday, and a great part of the population of Paris, as well as the royal family, were at the races at the Champ de Mars. Blanqui, Barbès, Martin-Bernard, and other members of the secret societies, judged the occasion favourable for an insurrection. The shop of the gunsmith Lepage was pillaged, cartridges were distributed to the insurrectionists, who seized on the Palace of Justice, occupied the Hôtel de Ville and the post of St Jean. The insurgents also wished to march on the Prefecture of Police, but measures were taken there to resist them. Some barricades were erected, and for several hours a running fire was kept up with the troops, who soon gained the advantage over these two or three hundred insurgents. This attempt at revolt excited astonishment in the population of Paris, but it had the good effect of putting an end History. to the hesitations of public men. On the evening of the day of the execute a ministry was composed in which Marshal Soult occupied the position of president of the council and minister for foreign affairs.

The trial of the insurgents of the 12th May commenced on the 29th June before the Chamber of Peers. On the 12th July sentence was pronounced which condemned Barbès to the penalty of death, but this sentence was commuted. Martin Bernard was condemned to transportation, Mialon to the galleys for life, Blancqui was tried by the Peers in January 1840, who condemned him, but he likewise obtained a commutation of the sentence.

It was during the ministry of the 12th May that the eastern question became so menacing for Europe. After the arrangement of Kutayah, which had left the Pasha of Egypt in possession of Syria, each party regarded the other with mutual distrust. The sultan was desirous of regaining Syria, while all the efforts of the pasha were directed to obtain hereditary possession of Syria and Egypt. Politicians in Europe were for maintaining the existing arrangements in the East, whilst at Constantinople and Alexandria everything breathed war. The sultan pushed his preparations with ardour, and notwithstanding his pacific preparations, the Captain Pasha Achmet fortified the Dardanelles. A levy of 60,000 soldiers was ordered, and a movement was made on the frontier of Syria. On the 21st April 1839 the Turkish advanced guard passed the Euphrates, and was within twenty-four hours' march of Aleppo, so that at the period of the appointment of the French ministry hostilities were imminent between the Turkish and Egyptian troops. Marshal Soult despatched two of his aides-de-camp MM. Foltz and Caillier, to the scene of action—one was to proceed to the camp of Hafiz by way of Constantinople, the other to the camp of Ibrahim in passing by Alexandria. It was generally admitted by English and French statesmen that there was a European question to be solved at Constantinople, and that Russia could not be permitted to obtain the control of the Bosphorus, thus possessing the keys of the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Viscount Palmerston made overtures to the French Cabinet on the subject, and suggested that a joint representation should be made by England and France to the Austrian Cabinet, soliciting that power to co-operate for the preservation of the Ottoman Empire, and he further suggested that a similar proposition should be simultaneously made at the court of Berlin. A despatch of Lord Palmerston of the 17th June proposed that the English and French fleets should unite in the Mediterranean with orders to force the Dardanelles in case the Russian troops should appear on the Turkish soil.

The answer of Marshal Soult was that he regarded the junction of the French and English fleets before Constantinople as most desirable, but that he doubted if so grave a question as the declaration of war against Russia and Turkey—the inevitable consequence of a forcible entry into the Dardanelles—could be left to the discretion of the respective admirals. A counter project was suggested by the French Cabinet; namely, a proposal to ask permission for the united fleets to enter the Sea of Marmora in case of a Russian invasion. England, in a complaining spirit, accepted this timid proposition, unworthy of bold and able statesmen. While the French cabinet was thus vacillating and undecided, impeding the vigorous resolves of Lord Palmerston, the army of Ibrahim was advancing to attack the Turkish army, which occupied a formidable position to the south of the village of Nezib. On the 24th June was fought the battle of Nezib, in which the Turks were wholly defeated. Some days after the battle the victorious Ibrahim was proceeding beyond the Taurus, when the aide-de-camp of Marshal Soult appeared to stop his march, having obtained from Mehemet Ali an order that even though victorious the Egyptian general should not advance. The sultan never learned his defeat. He was in the agonies of death at the period of the battle, but lived to the 1st July, when he expired, after having endeavoured to reform an empire which he left partially dismembered, a prey to open enemies and pretended friends. The French Cabinet did not act a straightforward part in the Eastern question. In seeking a European co-operation on the Turkish question against Russia, it flattered itself with the ultimate hope of finding a lever in London against a Russian occupation of Constantinople, and a lever at St Petersburg against an English occupation of Alexandria. The refined cunning of Louis Philippe defeated his object, and laid his Cabinet open to the imputation of double dealing. The conduct of the King and the Cabinet of the 12th May were among the promoting causes of the fatal events that led to the ruin of the French monarchy a few years afterwards. French official men, in consequence of the direct interference of the king, held two languages, and the consequence was misunderstandings and mistrust. The mistrust was justifiable on the part of England, for after French functionaries had explained themselves in the sense of the Cabinet, there was a secret diplomacy that unconstitutionally spoke the wishes and desires of the king. These discreditble manoeuvres of Louis Philippe led to a coldness between the representatives of England and France, of which Russia was not slow to profit. A Russian envoy, M. Brunnow, arrived in London in September 1839, and an understanding was soon arrived at between these two courts, which led to the momentary isolation of France.

During the tortuous progress of the Eastern negotiations, Louis Philippe never lost sight of the settlement of the Duke de Nemours. He insisted on the ministry asking an annual income for the prince of 500,000 francs, and an additional 500,000 francs for the expenses of his marriage with the Princess Victoria of Saxe-Cobourg. This sordid conduct excited general disgust, and led to another caustic pamphlet from the pen of M. Cormenin, entitled Questions scandaleuses d'un Jacobin au sujet d'une dotation. On the 20th February the discussion on this question of the "dotation" commenced. The ministers, wishing to avoid a debate, only one speech was delivered, when a division was taken, and the project was rejected by 226 votes. This majority brought about a dissolution of the ministry, and led to the formation of a new Cabinet.

M. Molé was sent for by the king, and named M. Thiers Ministry of the person most likely to succeed in forming a ministry. 1st March M. Thiers summoned the principal members of the left centre and of the doctrinaires, who had opposed the Molé ministry (M. Guizot was at this period ambassador in London), and after having fruitlessly solicited the co-operation of the Duke de Broglie, presented to the king the list of his Cabinet. M. Thiers held the foreign office, with the presidency of the council. It is a curious fact that this ministry obtained from the opposition a vote for the secret funds. Many laws of public utility were passed during the session, such as the law on sugars, on the salt mines, on the renewal of the privilege of the Bank of France, on the transatlantic packet boats, on the conversion of the rentes, &c. In this session, and while the Chamber was discussing the sugar question, M. de Remusat announced to the Chamber that the king had commanded the Prince de Joinville to proceed to St Helena to bring back to France the remains of the Emperor Napoleon. For this translation the permission of the British government had been solicited, which generously answered that it desired that the promptitude with which the request was complied with should be considered as a proof of the wish of her Majesty that the last trace of the national animosities which during the life of the emperor armed both nations against each other should be effaced. The Belle Poule frigate accordingly proceeded to St Helena, and brought back the remains of Napoleon to France. A splendid military funeral was decreed for these remains, and a mausoleum dedicated to them at the Invalides from the public purse. For a moment the king and the government derived a passing popularity from this dramatic exhibition, in which it was declared that liberty did not fear a comparison with glory; but as neither the king nor the ministers were sincere in these demonstrations, but merely wished to create political capital out of all that was mortal of Napoleon, the whole spectacle was soon regarded in its proper light.

The Bonapartists proclaimed that the king and M. Thiers were merely acting a comedy, and that the only sincere worshippers of the emperor were the members of his family, who were exiled or proscribed, and the glorious debris of that army which he had led so often to victory. The king, in the exercise of a sinister wisdom, doubtless considered that the measure was a master-stroke of policy, but in the homage which he affected to pay to the remains of a great conqueror, he only served the purposes of those who wished the restoration of an imperial rule.

But the most important fact connected with the ministry was the rupture of the English alliance. There was considerable soreness and excitement throughout France so soon as the provisions of the treaty of the 16th July were known, it being considered that this treaty indicated a bad disposition towards France at a period when M. Thiers had settled the Sicilian sulphur question to the satisfaction of England. The effect of the treaty was to enable England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia to settle the Eastern question without the co-operation of France. As soon as the provisions of this treaty became generally known, M. Thiers obtained from the crown permission to raise the army to 500,000 men, and to increase the fleet by ten vessels. A diplomatic note was written by M. Thiers, in which France refused to acknowledge the treaty, though she was not prepared to oppose its execution within certain limits. The English government sent a fleet to the coast of Syria without delay. The victories of Beyrouth and St Jean d'Acre were the results. To these measures France replied by fortifying Paris. Though the law of the fortifications was discussed and voted under the subsequent ministry of M. Guizot, yet the conception and design was of M. Thiers, who induced the left to give an approbation to the enceinte continue which they had refused to the detached forts. The king was exceedingly anxious that the law should pass, and he employed all his influence, and also the influence of the queen, to that end. A European war now seemed inevitable, and M. Thiers did not seem to shrink from the responsibility; but the king, who at first approved of energetic measures, and who appeared penetrated with the warlike sentiments of his Cabinet, suddenly changed his views. Upon this change of opinion M. Thiers offered his resignation, and only consented on reiterated requests to hold power for a short time. A few days afterwards he issued the diplomatic note of the 8th October, which almost amounted to a proclamation of war. Circumstances becoming more and more critical, the minister proposed the immediate convocation of the Chambers, with a view by their co-operation to strengthen the hands of government. But the king having signified his marked dissent from warlike views, the entire Cabinet resigned; not, however, before the words electoral reform had been heard at more than one public banquet in Paris, and in many of the principal cities of France, such as Bordeaux, Toulouse, Metz, Lyons, and Nantes.

It was while the minds of men were engaged by the Eastern question, that on 6th August 1840 M. Louis Napoleon Bonaparte disembarked with about sixty followers at Boulogne. After making a vain appeal to the population, Louis himself and the major part of his followers were within three hours in the hands of the authorities. For this attempt, the present emperor of the French was tried before the Chamber of Peers on the 6th October, and condemned to perpetual imprisonment in the fortress of Ham.

On the 6th October 1840, about six o'clock in the evening, another attempt was made on the life of the king as he was proceeding to St Cloud, by one Darmes, a frotteur. The carbine of Darmes burst in his hand, wounding him grievously, without injuring his Majesty. Darmes was condemned to death by a sentence of the Court of Peers of the 29th May 1841, and was executed on the 31st May.

M. Guizot, who had shown himself, as French ambassador in London, the obsequious servant of the sovereign rather than the organ of the Cabinet, became the chief of the new ministry. Marshal Soult, indeed, was president of the council with the ministry of war, but the moving spirit of the Cabinet was M. Guizot. It first became its duty to reassure the commercial and trading community, alarmed on the subject of a general war deemed all but imminent, and at the same time to have regard to the honour of France, wounded by the treaty of the 16th July 1840.

In the first of these attempts M. Guizot completely succeeded, and in the month of February 1841 he showed himself disposed again to enter into concert with the European powers. The result was the treaty of the 13th July 1841, which substituted a European protection of Turkey for a protection exclusively Russian. Relieved from an external difficulty, the Cabinet encountered a domestic difficulty. Serious troubles had arisen at Toulouse touching the recensement (or valuation), which ultimately broke out into open revolt. The accession of Sir Robert Peel to power in 1841 at the head of the Conservative party, smoothed the difficulties of M. Guizot. The Whigs, the authors of the treaty of the 15th July 1840, were by the attitude of France compelled to incur additional expenses both for the army and navy estimates, and this increased expenditure, joined to the expedition to Syria, produced a deficit. The elections consequent upon the dissolution gave a clear gain of 25 seats in the House of Commons to the Conservatives, affording to Sir Robert Peel a majority of between 50 and 60 votes. Although Sir Robert was believed to be animated by more friendly feelings to the older governments of Europe than his predecessors, yet he had sufficient tact and sagacity not to exhibit towards France the sentiments entertained by his predecessor. The Cabinet of France wished to take advantage of these more friendly dispositions to propose the question of a disarmament, which, in lessening the amount of the public burdens, would enable the country to undertake the execution of the great lines of railroads so necessary to the inter-communication and prosperity of the people. The object of the king and his ministers was to turn the attention of the people to their material interests, and thus to wean them from the discussion of principles and politics. The time had not yet come to accomplish these desirable objects. M. Guizot resolved, however, to regain some portion of the public opinion he had lost by using a bolder language in the royal speech. It was with this view he introduced into the royal speech, in the opening of the session in December 1841, the words, "Algeria is henceforth and for ever French." Till this period the king, remembering the assurances given in 1830, had declined to pronounce that Algeria was irrevocably French, and these hesitations gave colour to the accusations of a too obsequious condescendence towards England. The election of president of the Chamber was one of the first difficulties which the ministry encountered. The Presse, formidable to its enemies, and, in the hands of M. Emile Girardin, still more formidable to its friends, put forward the pretensions of M. de Lamartine against those of M. Sauzet. The ministry, for a time timorous, hesitated what part to take, but at last length determined to stand by M. Sauzet, who was re-elected. One of the most important discussions of the session was relative to the droit de visite, or right of search. In 1831 and 1833, General Sebastiani and the Duke de Broglie had signed a convention on this subject, into which important modifications were introduced, on the motion of M. Lefebvre, a Conservative deputy. The principal measure of the session, however, was the law on railroads, which passed on the 11th June 1842. The projects on railroads started in 1838 had all failed. Only two lines were now in course of construction, that of Paris to Rouen, and Paris to Orleans. In the month of February, in this session, M. Teste, minister of public works, presented a project of law comprising five grand lines radiating from Paris to the frontiers of Belgium by Lille and Valenciennes, from the channel towards England to the frontiers of Germany by Strasbourg, to the Mediterranean by way of Marseilles, and Cete to the Atlantic by Nantes and Bordeaux. The minister proposed that these great lines should be executed by the state, allowing the localities interested and private industry to cooperate to a certain extent. The commission appointed by the Chamber to report recommended important modifications. M. Dufaure the reporter (subsequently home minister during the Republic) proposed adding three new lines to those of the government: 1st, from Tours to the frontiers of Spain by Poitiers, Angoulême, Bordeaux, and Bayonne; 2ndly, to the centre by Bourges, Nevers, and Clermont; 3rdly, from the Mediterranean to the Rhine by Lyons, Dijon, and Mulhausen. The government accepted this latter line, as well as that from Paris to Strasbourg by Nancy. It also consented to modify the original line from Paris to the Atlantic. The ministry asked credits for four principal routes. The commission granted credits for six, and augmented the credit required by 24,000,000 francs. It was plain the commission sought to interest each locality in the formation of the line, whilst the ministry was more occupied with the strategical question, more especially for the east and the north. The commercial, banking, manufacturing and brokering interests were all anxious that the lines should be thrown open to companies. M. Thiers vigorously supported an amendment of M. de Mornay which proposed a single line from north to south.

The Chambers were dissolved on the 13th June, the elections took place on the 9th July, and the Deputies were again convoked for the 3d August. In the interval, a sad accident caused profound regret throughout France. On the 13th July the Duke d'Orléans was to have set out for St Omer, where he was to have inspected several regiments intended for the corps of the army of the Marne, of which he was to have the command-in-chief. The duke had proceeded to Neuilly to take leave of his family, when, in jumping out of his calèche (the horses having taken fright and run away), he fell on his head and fractured his skull. He expired a few hours after the accident, without having regained his consciousness. His loss was mourned by the country generally, and more especially by the army, in which service he was deservedly popular. The prince was educated among, and mixed with his countrymen, and understood the wants and wishes of France. In consequence of this melancholy death, the Chambers were convoked somewhat earlier to provide for a regency. They met on the 27th July. The project of law presented by the government provided that the regency should devolve on the nearest male relation of the king, altogether excluding females. The reporter was M. Dupin, and he fixed the majority of the king at eighteen, the guardianship till that time to belong to the queen or princess his mother, remaining unmarried, and in her default, to the queen or princess her paternal grandmother, likewise unmarried. After the vote on this law, which made the Duke de Nemours regent, the session was adjourned till the following January.

In the opening of the session of 1843 the king in his speech accepted the protectorate of Otaheite. Queen Pomaré, however, declared that she had been the victim of deception and violence, and struck the French flag. Whereupon Admiral Dupetit-Thouars declared the queen deposed. This proceeding of the admiral produced a strong protest and some disturbance at Tahiti, in which blood was shed. A consular agent of the British government named Pritchard was expelled from the island, and his property injured. This act of the admiral, complained of by the British government, was disavowed by the French Cabinet; and, after a long negotiation, it was agreed that France should pay to the consul Pritchard an indemnity of 25,000 francs. This indemnity the Chamber voted, but the discussion of the question gave rise to debates of extreme violence, in which not merely party but national animosity was displayed. Nothing more tended to augment the unpopularity of M. Guizot in France, or served more to loosen the bands of the entente cordiale in England, than the discussions and comments to which the Pritchard indemnity gave rise. Meanwhile the French were extending their conquest and colonization of Algiers. The province of Tittery was in their possession, and by the successive occupation of Cherchell, Medéah, and Milianah, a line of defence was completed. But, on the other hand, while Caïffa was destroyed, and Beyrout bombarded by Admiral Stopford and Commodore Napier, the French fleet was sent off to the Bay of Salamine. If the ministry of M. Guizot, as was alleged, exhibited an undue complaisance towards foreign powers, the rein of authority was held somewhat tighter at home. The annual banquet to the Poles, which had been held for ten years, was prohibited if either the chairman intended to preside, or the persons designed to propose toasts, should be Frenchmen.

Dreadful inundations devastated the valleys of the Rhone, the Saône, and the Gard, during the months of November and December. The city of Lyons was converted into a vast lake, on whose bosom floated fragments of houses, boats, and furniture. No fewer than 160 houses were carried away. At Macon the ruin was not less astounding. The ravages of the floods extended for 60 leagues, and more than 100 villages had disappeared. In the higher town 6000 peasants, who had lost their all, encamped in the streets and squares. The departments of l'Aix, l'Isère, Le Gard, La Drôme, and La Vaucluse, all severely suffered. Subscriptions were everywhere opened for the sufferers, and a credit of 1,600,000 francs was voted by the Chambers. From the period that M. Guizot accepted the portfolio of foreign affairs his object was to prove that Europe, by the treaty of the 15th July, in no respect menaced France, or sought to attack her revolution. These being his views, he called on the Conservatives in the Chamber to aid him in a policy calculated to restore a more perfect harmony between France and the other great powers. Such a call would have been natural and proper in the mouth of a statesman who had not been the ambassador in London at the time of the treaty of July; but this language was considered strange in the mouth of a functionary who, in reference to this treaty, must either have been an accomplice or a dupe. The majority of public men, and indeed the intelligent public of France, had more faith in M. Guizot's talents than in his character, but in reference to the treaty of July he appears to have been ill informed of the proceedings of the other great powers.

The project of the fortifications of Paris (pursued with immense activity) now began to excite the attention and the apprehensions of the bourgeoisie and the working classes. As a complement to the fortifications, it was determined to place the ports and the frontier towns in a respectable state of defence, and 500,000 francs were asked from the Chambers for that object. This increase of the estimates considerably augmented the budget; but it was one of the results of an armed peace—a system which produced In the discussion on the law on supplementary credits, M. Humann, the finance minister, maintained that the greater part of the deficit arose from former budgets. He maintained that in 1833 there was a deficit of 255,000,000 francs, which had ever since increased. M. Thiers in reply only admitted a deficit of 175,000,000 as fairly chargeable to the account of the ministry of which he was the head. It was, however, made clear from all these personal discussions that the deficits increased year by year with frightful rapidity. The deficit of 1840 was 170,000,000 francs, and of 1841, 242,000,000. As the budget of 1842, notwithstanding the reductions of the commission, reached the figure of 1,275,435,340 francs, whilst the budget of receipts was fixed at 1,160,516,942 francs, there was a deficiency of about 115,000,000. Extraordinary public works figured in the estimate for 53,000,000, making a grand total of a milliard, for which it was necessary to provide. 256,000,000 francs were to be added to the floating debt for deficits anterior to 1833. It was the uneasiness inspired by this deplorable financial state that induced M. Humann to have recourse to a new valuation of buildings, doors, windows, and what are called valeurs locatives. The cry against the finance minister on this account became so loud and general, that he deemed it necessary to offer his resignation. But the king refused to accept a resignation which would have been interpreted as a signal of weakness in the Cabinet.

The unpopularity of ministers was still further increased by persecutions against the press. Early in the year MM. Lammensais and Thoré had been condemned, and a prosecution was commenced against the National for its remarks on these trials, and on the Chamber of Peers. About this period one of the most eminent of the democratic leaders, M. Garnier Pages, died, and M. Ledru Rollin was selected by the second college of Mons, in the department of La Sarthe—the only college in France in which republican opinion had a decided majority—to stand for the vacant seat. A rival candidate presented himself in the person of M. Garnier Pages the younger, but it was felt that he was not sufficiently known as a public man, and M. Ledru Rollin was elected on the 24th July, every elector, with the exception of four, having polled for him. The speech of M. Rollin, in returning thanks, was too remarkable not to be noticed. It was impassioned and defiant. The avowals of republicanism were so open and undisguised, that the prefect and functionaries of the department could not conceal their dismay. The speech, in a word, excited such an immense sensation in the west, that the royal court of Angers directed the procureur-général to indict M. Ledru Rollin for having delivered the speech, and M. Hauréau, chief editor of the Courrier de la Sarthe, for having published it. The question was referred by the procureur-général to the cabinet council, and a prosecution was decided on. Deputies, however, of all shades of the opposition took up the question as one affecting the rights of speech of a representative, and among these MM. Arago, Berryer, Marie, Odillon Barrot were chosen to defend M. Ledru Rollin. M. Marrast, chief editor of the National, and afterwards, under the republic, president of the Chamber, defended M. Hauréau. The question, on the demand of the procureur-général, was not tried before a jury of La Sarthe, but before a jury of Maine-et-Loire. But even this jury took fright at the doctrines of the attorney-general, and acquitted the utterer, but found guilty the publisher, of the incriminated speech. M. Hauréau was in consequence condemned to three months' imprisonment and 2000 francs fine, whilst M. Ledru Rollin was fined 4000 francs, and sentenced to be imprisoned for four months for the part he took in the publication. Ledru Rollin appealed to the court of cassation, before which the sentence of the court below was, for a defect of form, annulled. The worst prosecution that had yet been instituted, however, was that against Dupoty, the editor of the Journal du Peuple. One Prosecution Quenisset had been arrested for firing on the Duke de Nemours. The ball did not take effect, but wounded the horse of General Schneider, who was on his royal highness' left. A person of the name of Lannois had been arrested as one of the accomplices of Quenisset, and Lannois invoked the protection and assistance of M. Dupoty, the editor of the Journal du Peuple, writing thus to him,—“I beg of you, citizen, to defend us as much as in your power, as the National does.” On this sentence, in a seized letter, the procureur-général and the ministry raised a capital charge of complicity against Dupoty, a man of gentle and inoffensive manners, a man of refined and almost effeminate tastes, who would be about the last person to enter into a conspiracy. Dupoty had never in his life seen any one of the persons with whom he was alleged to have conspired; but Quenisset having declared that it was the perusal of the journal which incited him to the commission of the act, the monstrous doctrine of complicity was invented to bring Dupoty within the meshes of the law. Forced interpretations, specious presumptions, audacious sophisms, were all had recourse to by M. Hébert; but some of the peers, among others M. Cousin, were just and manly enough to cry aloud against the iniquity of condemning a man because a conspirator and a would-be assassin was in the habit of reading his journal. “Show me any overt act of Dupoty,” said M. Cousin; “give me any proof of his being engaged in this affair, and I will deal severely with him; but I cannot condemn him for his opinions, however detestable.” It was impossible to produce any proof of direct complicity against Dupoty, and M. Hébert was on the point of failing, when M. de Broglie and the Bolognese, but naturalized Frenchman, Rossi (then a professor of law and political economy, and subsequently French ambassador at Rome, in which city he was assassinated in 1848), came to the aid of the vanquished functionary, and invented the doctrine of moral complicity. “Dupoty,” said the Italian Rossi, with insidious and Machiavellian ingenuity, “was not aware of, or privy to the plot, but his wishes, his tendencies, his writings, his previous history and antecedents, all demonstrated that he approved of it.” But approving, argued MM. de Broglie and Rossi, he afforded a moral complicity to the execution of the design, and was guilty in fact, without knowing that the crime had been committed. Such was the monstrous doctrine, stripped of all oratorical disguises, maintained by Signor Rossi and M. de Broglie, from which latter politician the Chamber and the country expected better things. A doctrine more infamous than this, was never avowed in the atmosphere of Morocco. M. Cousin indignantly spurned the frightful theory, and concluded by exclaiming,—“I am then guilty of moral complicity also, since I defend Dupoty against you.” The judgment of the Peers declared a complicity without entering into the question whether it was moral or physical, and Dupoty was condemned as the accomplice of persons whom he had never seen or had intercourse with. M. Hébert, the attorney-general, pled for his life; the Peers sacrificed his liberty, awarding him five years' imprisonment. This sentence produced, as well might be expected, an immense sensation in the capital, and a general cry of indignation issued from the press. The Debats, as though ashamed of so discreditable a triumph, was silent; but the Presse, a vigorous supporter of the ministry in general, energetically condemned this act of the Peers. The editors of sixteen Parisian journals signed a collective protest, and were joined by the delegates of the provincial press. The greater number of the journals whose editors

---

1 Histoire de Huit Ans, par Regnault. Paris, 1851. had appended their names to this document resolved to give no account of the future debates of the Chamber of Peers.

Various prosecutions had been commenced by the government against the provincial press, but the country unequivocally showed its opinion by acquitting the *Emancipator* of Toulouse, the *Impartial du Nord*, the *Progres de Calais*, the *Courrier de la Moselle*, and other journals.

The triumph of Espartero, not merely over the queen-mother Christina, but over the generals who sided with, and conspired in her favour, was a check given to the French influence in Spain. The Cabinet of the Tuileries extended its sympathies, if not its direct aid, to Maria Christina, and encouraged Diego Leon, Concha, O'Donnell, and Ubisondo. The election of Espartero, therefore, as sole regent, could not be regarded by the French government otherwise than as another proof of its lessened influence.

A partial change in the Cabinet was occasioned by the sudden demise of M. Humann, who was found dead in his study, surrounded by papers and documents, the evening before the discussion of a motion of a project of law on railroads. The vacant portfolio was conferred on M. Lacave Laplagne.

In the course of the month of May, and during the fêtes of Versailles, a frightful accident occurred on the Versailles railroad, by which more than 50 persons were killed. Among the victims was one of the most distinguished officers of France—Admiral Dumont d'Urville.

One of the reproaches uttered against the ministry of the 1st March by M. Guizot was, that M. Thiers had thrown France out of the European combination of great powers. The main effort of M. Guizot and of the king now was to re-enter into that concert and combination at almost any price. France, wearied of her isolation, asked neither separation nor disavowal, but merely a treaty in which her name might stand as a testimony of reconciliation by the side of the four great powers. The convention of the 13th July, signed at London, afforded to the minister a compensation which he was willing to acknowledge to a Conservative English ministry by signing a treaty on the *droit de visite* on the 20th December 1841. But this complaisance of Guizot appeared to the merchants of France an unworthy concession, of which the opposition in the Chamber, and more especially the member for Nantes, M. Billaut, at present minister of the interior, was not slow to take advantage. M. Guizot drew a distinction between the right of search conceded by this treaty and the old *droit de visite*, which had been protested against by France, and endeavoured to show that the present measure was signed in the interests of the slave, and with a view to put an end to negro-slavery; but so unpopular was the minister, and so little were his assertions regarded by the majority of his countrymen, that these assertions met with little credence; and an amendment of M. Jacques Lefebvre was carried expressing the hope that in the desire to repress a criminal traffic the government would have regard to the interests of French trade, and the honour of the French flag.

This language was considered by an immense majority, not too strong to address to a cabinet which rendered itself the docile instrument of the king in obdurately resisting the very smallest measure of electoral reform, no matter how trivial.

The administrative and commercial measures of the government caused great discontent among the representatives of some of the most important interests in the state. The king lending a too willing ear to a number of wealthy monopolists, proprietors of forges and sugar manufactories, used all his influence to retard every project of commercial freedom. The consequence was that the nation at large suffered, while a few great proprietors and manufacturers only profited. One of the most important trades of France, the wine trade, was grievously injured from this narrow system. Belgium, Great Britain, and other countries, were willing at this period to enter into commercial treaties with France; and State of King Leopold made a journey to Paris to smooth the way to certain fiscal arrangements; but such was the influence of the monopolists over the mind of the king and his ministers that the project of a customs union with Belgium, and of a really liberal commercial treaty with England, became hopeless. M. Dufaure and Passy, who were the advocates of a greater freedom of trade, and also for a more liberal and tolerant policy in internal affairs, withdrew their support from the ministry. M. de Lamartine also took occasion on the discussion of the regency law to dissociate himself from Conservatives whose policy, he remarked, was pregnant with revolutions.

This narrow and illiberal system, cradled in monopoly, and caressed by king and ministers, fostered all sorts of corruption—corporate, parliamentary, and official. A celebrated trial in which a certain M. Hourdequin of the *Grand Voirie*, or Sewers Commission, of Paris was the accused, revealed a state of frightful official corruption. Hourdequin was condemned, but more guilty and more influential official criminals escaped. In the session of 1843 it appeared, from certain revelations made in reference to contracts for railways, that corruption had penetrated to higher sources than the Sewers Commission. The disclosures made in reference to M. Teste, and his decision on the contracts for the Orleans and Tours railway, are exceedingly discreditable. The history of this affair, to which we can merely allude, is given at length in a late work, to which the reader is referred. The proximate, if not indeed the promoting cause of the revolution of 1848, was the official corruption engendered for ten or twelve years previously. Under the guise of leading Frenchmen to think of their material interests, the king and his ministers had succeeded in suppressing a chivalrous national feeling, and substituting in its place a sordid and money-getting spirit. Universal capatity became the order of the day. The desire to get rich speedily, no matter by what means, possessed all classes; and there were not wanting ministers and politicians who were guilty of more flagrant peculation, and of greater dishonesty, than M. Hourdequin of the Sewers office.

In the midst of the national demoralization the sovereign exhibited an intense desire to look after the interests of his and his family. On the 20th April he married his daughter, the family, Princess Clementine, to the Prince Augustus of Saxe-Cobourg, and in May the Prince de Joinville espoused the sister of the emperor of Brazil. This was at the time a politic match; for it was hoped that the influence of France in Brazil would daily augment, and that an advantageous commercial treaty with Brazil and South America would be the consequence. Nor was Louis Philippe without some compensation of glory as well as interest. His son, the Duke d'Aumale, had the good fortune by a brilliant charge of cavalry to carry off the family tents, flocks, and baggage, of Abd-el-Kader. But this misfortune did not break the spirit of the intrepid Arab chief. His mother and his wife escaped capture by a miracle, and he himself had scarcely more than time to mount his horse, and with some chosen followers to seek safety in flight. For some time nothing was heard of the emir, but after a little he reappeared on the south-west of Tlemcen, ready to effect a junction with Sidi Embareek, the most active of his lieutenants, and, after himself, the most inveterate enemy of France. Colonel Tempoure dispersed the troops of Sidi, and deprived the emir of his best resource. Sidi was killed while fighting with desperation; and the death of

---

1 *Histoire de Huit Ans*, par Regnault. 1851. this renowned chief produced a great impression on the Arabs. Abd-el-Kader was forced to retire within the frontiers of Morocco, and all the tribes of the little desert made their submission. Perfect security now reigned within the French colony from Algiers to Boghar, and from Constantine to Tlemcen. For this service General Bugeaud, the commander of the French troops in Africa, received the baton of a marshal.

The most remarkable incident in this year was the visit of Queen Victoria to Eu. This was a less important event than the visit made to Paris in 1855, for it was the visit of one constitutional sovereign to another en petit comité. But even though the journey was regarded in this light by the premier, yet care was taken that the new minister for foreign affairs (the Earl of Aberdeen) should accompany her Majesty.

The minister for foreign affairs of Louis Philippe also accompanied his sovereign on this occasion; and it is known from confidential letters found in the Tuileries after the revolution of 1848, and since published, that not merely the question of the Spanish marriages was talked over, but also the projected visit of the Duke de Bordeaux to London, and his reception by the court.

At the close of the year 1845 the Duke de Bordeaux paid a visit to England, and for a short period rented a house in Belgrave Square. The visit of this young prince to the British shores singularly alarmed Louis Philippe. The king of the French dreaded above all things that the descendant of the elder branch should be received at court, and with a view to prevent this he wrote to the king of the Belgians on the 4th November to interfere against such a step. This circumstance might well be doubted had we not evidence of the fact in the king's own hand. After the revolution of 1848 several private papers and letters of the king of the French were published, and among the rest certain letters of his Majesty to his "Tres cher frère et excellent ami," the king of the Belgians. The Duke de Bordeaux, says Louis Philippe, "va en Angleterre pas comme visiteur abandonné and interesting, mais comme pretender, cela est certain. Dès lors il faut qu'il ne soit pas reçu par la Reine." Further on, in the same communication, his Majesty says, "Pour resumer je dois donc franchement dire que le Duc de Bordeaux ne doit pas être reçu par la Reine. Qu'on mette le plus de formes dans cette décision que l'on voudra, cela on le pourra, pourvu qu'on ne cède pas sur le fait."

The interference of King Leopold was crowned with complete success, and on Sunday the 12th November the king of the French wrote to "his very dear brother and excellent friend" from St Cloud, thanking him for his efforts to keep Queen Victoria in the favourable dispositions she had manifested at Eu, relative to the reception of the Duke de Bordeaux—"Elle y a," says Louis Philippe, speaking of Queen Victoria, "most nobly persisted, et Lord Aberdeen nous ayant donné l'assurance qu'il en donnerait le conseil officiel à la Reine nous n'avons plus d'inquiétude sur ce point."

Her Majesty did not receive the Duke de Bordeaux, a circumstance that excited considerable surprise in England, and still greater surprise on the Continent, where it was remarked that the ex-regent Espartero had been shortly before received by her Majesty. If the reception of the duke were considered as an act of pure and simple courtesy merely, it cannot be conceived that there could be any difficulty about it. But as it would be looked on and interpreted as a political act, and as the visit of a pretender (the king de facto being Louis Philippe), her Majesty was advised by her ministers not to receive the descendant of the elder Bourbons.

The Duke de Bordeaux was not without some compensa-

---

1 The letters were published in the Revue Rétrospective by M. Taschereau, in 1848. 2 Lettre de Louis Philippe au roi des Belges. on the address was proceeding, the news of Admiral Dupetit Thouars' taking possession of Otaheite arrived in Paris. The announcement of this fact embarrassed ministers. The question of the protectorate had given rise to much trouble, and how would the actual possession be regarded by the monarch? Ministers were not long in suspense as to the royal opinion. This, said Louis Philippe, will breed another quarrel with England, and we have enough on hands already with the right of search. In a non-official conversation with Lord Aberdeen and Sir Robert Peel, M. de St Aulaire learned that the English ministry looked on the proceeding of Admiral Dupetit Thouars in an angry and hostile spirit. The peace of the world, said the king, is the national interest, and the proceeding must be disavowed. The minister of foreign affairs declared to the Chamber that the conduct of the admiral had been over hasty, and that the taking possession of the island was an act of violence, neither required by the necessity of the case, nor authorized by the instructions of the commander. M. Billaut, the present minister of the interior in France, attacked the policy of the Cabinet on this question with great vigour and logical acumen, and was followed in the same sense by M. Dufaure (the minister of the interior under the republic), whose calm, logical, and moderate language produced a great impression. The fidelity of the centres of the Chamber seemed shaken when M. Ducos proposed a resolution to the following effect:—"The Chamber, without approving the conduct of the Cabinet, passes to the order of the day." The censure, though indirect, was formal. M. Guizot asked for an adjournment, stating he had fresh facts to produce; but on the following day he produced neither facts nor documents, but threatened resignation if the indirect censure was carried. The proposition of M. Ducos was lost by a majority of 46. But this majority did not absolve the minister in the eyes of the country, for the voice of the 187 who voted with M. Ducos found an echo in every town and city in France.

Harassed in the Chamber, M. Guizot was not without disquietude regarding the French possessions in Africa. Retiring on the frontiers of Morocco with the remnant of his regular troops, Abd-el-Kader, ever fertile in expedients, sought and found little difficulty in raising the undisciplined hordes of the desert against a Christian foe. The emir surrounded the emperor Muley-Abder Rhaman with his emissaries, and sought to excite him against the French. There had been differences between France and Morocco as to the frontier; and in the state of irritation in which the emperor was, Abd-el-Kader found little difficulty in inclining him to believe that France was confederate with Spain against him. The construction of a fort at Lalla Maghrina, on the left bank of the Tafna, by the French, convinced the court of Fez that the emir was right. The governor of Mogador called on the faithful to combat the infidels; and soon after Berber and black troops, to the number of 10,000 men, were seen in the environs of Ouchda. Among these irregular forces was Abd-el-Kader, with 500 regulars and a number of wandering tribes. General Lamoricière, who commanded the camp of Lalla Maghrina, was forced to concentrate his troops to avoid a surprise. General Bedeau arrived from Tlemcen to co-operate with Lamoricière. On the 30th May Lamoricière gained a signal advantage over Sidi el Mamoun-Ben Cherif, who was at the head of 500 horsemen, and pursued him to the banks of the Mouilah. A constant harassing guerilla warfare was kept up. Marshal Bugeaud, feeling that this state of things must be put an end to, had arrived from Tlemcen to await the approach of the son of the emperor at the head of 30,000 men, and to determine on the spot whether he should negotiate or recommence hostilities. General Bedeau was directed to seek an interview with the Caid of Oudcha, El Guennaoui, to settle the question of the frontiers. The interview was unsatisfactory, and, on the part of some of the irregular troops, menacing to the negotiation; but neither Bedeau nor Lamoricière would take upon themselves to pronounce that the conduct of the irregulars was a cause of war. But when the facts were reported to Marshal Bugeaud, the commander-in-chief, who was weary of ministerial weaknesses and vacillations, he resolved to strike a blow, and advanced at once against the enemy, chastising him, and occupying the Oudcha. On the 12th August the marshal marched against the son of the emperor, who had arrived on the banks of the Isly, occupying with his troops a space of two leagues between Djeri-el-Akhdar and Condjol. Each day the enemy expected new contingents, and he now summoned the marshal to evacuate Lalla Maghrina, proclaiming the holy war. To remain longer on the defensive was impossible. Crossing the river, the marshal fought the battle of the Isly, in which the French speedily gained an important victory. The army of the emperor of Morocco left 800 dead, and from 1500 to 2000 wounded, on the field of battle. The French had 4 officers killed, 10 wounded, besides 25 soldiers killed and 86 wounded;—10,000 French had in this battle vanquished 30,000 Africans. Nor were these the only triumphs. The Prince de Joinville had received orders to cruise on the coast of Morocco with a view to destroy the maritime towns and stations, and thus to second the operations of the army. On the 23rd June the prince sailed from Toulon with eight ships of war. On the 6th of August, at day-break, he was before Tangier. At half-past eight the bombardment commenced, and at ten the fortifications were destroyed. The French had only 3 men killed and 17 wounded, whilst the emperor of Morocco had 150 killed and 300 wounded.

The prince subsequently attacked Mogador, destroyed the fortifications and magazines, captured three flags and ten brass cannon, and left a garrison of 500 men in possession of the island.

The account of these successes was received in France with immense rejoicing, but the credit of them was given, not to the Cabinet, but to the officers commanding, whose patriotic conduct was contrasted with the pusillanimous attitude of the king and his government. The news of these achievements arrived in Europe whilst the account of the arrest of the English consul Pritchard by Captain d'Aubigny (an event which gave rise to long and angry discussions in the French Chambers, and to still longer and as angry discussions in the French press) was still fresh in ministerial as well as in the public memory. The Count de Jarnac, attached to the French embassy in London, in writing to M. Guizot concerning the French attack on Tangier, intimated that Lord Aberdeen was preparing a despatch in which he would intimate to Lord Cowley the resolve of the English government to send back Mr Pritchard on board an English ship of war at any hazard to Tahiti.

A treaty was signed between France and the emperor of Morocco, the principal bases of which were, the withdrawal of the emperor's troops from the neighbourhood of Oudcha, the expulsion of Abd-el-Kader from the territory of Morocco, and a definitive regulation of the frontiers of Algeria and Morocco as both existed under the dominion of the Turks. This treaty, without any guarantee on the part of Morocco, was signed on the 10th September. 20,000,000 francs had been expended by France in the war, yet before the ratifications were exchanged she withdrew her fleet, raised the blockade, and evacuated the island of Mogador. The fact was, that the proceedings of the fleet and army of France had excited the mistrust of the English Cabinet, and the king of the French, who was most desirous of affording to Europe a striking testimony of the harmony existing between the two nations, resolved that the entente cordiale should be most speedily re-established.

A private personal reason also was not without its influence on the French monarch. Ever since the visit of Queen History. Victoria to Eu, Louis Philippe had clung to the hope of returning the visit at Windsor, and no moment appeared more favourable for putting the project in execution than one in which France had shown a readiness to meet the wishes of the English government in respect to Morocco.

The king of the French disembarked at Portsmouth on the 8th October, where he was received by the Duke of Wellington accompanied by a numerous suite. Exclusive of the desire of his Majesty to exhibit this good understanding between England and France, there was a secret motive connected with the journey. The marriage of the queen of Spain at this moment occupied the attention of the principal cabinets; and although Louis Philippe was well aware that the rival powers, and above all England, would not quietly see a son of the king of the French a candidate for the hand of Isabella, yet his Majesty felt that Spain was so near a neighbour to France, and had so many common interests, that it was incumbent on him to interfere actively in the question. He was not without the hope, too, that the infanta of Spain, a year younger than Queen Isabella, might become the bride of his son the Duke de Montpensier. The ambition of a father and a monarch were equally interested in this arrangement, but dexterity and management were necessary to the success of these hidden and as yet scarcely avowed hopes. The subject had been hinted at, if not fully opened at Eu, and it was now resumed at Windsor. The wily monarch dexterously insinuated that in reference to the principal marriage he had exhibited the utmost disinterestedness, for that the hand of the queen—and in this he spoke truly—had been actually offered to a member of his house by Maria Christina some years before. The certainty of this brilliant alliance he had renounced, he said, to prove his friendly sentiments towards England, but he would not conceal the satisfaction it would afford him to obtain the hand of the infanta for the Duke de Montpensier. Her Majesty, with that tact and good sense which never desert her, raised no objections to propositions which ought never to have been broached in private, but politely hinted that Windsor was not the spot nor that the occasion for discussing serious diplomatic affairs. Lord Aberdeen, who had at Eu been often sounded by the king of the French, forgot not his characteristic prudence on the occasion; and while he protested his desire to act in harmony with France, added that England wished to pronounce no exclusion of any candidate for the queen's hand, and did not acknowledge the right of France to limit the choice of the Spanish government. "The marriage of the queen of Spain," said the English statesman, "is a question that concerns Spain alone, and in which no other power has a right to interfere, unless an attempt is made to marry the queen to a French prince—an alliance which, in augmenting the power of France, would compromise the tranquillity of other states."

Louis Philippe at Eu renounced any pretensions on the part of his son to the hand of the queen, but was for limiting the choice to Bourbon princes. Lord Aberdeen intimated no obstacle to the selection of those princes, but did not recognise the right of veto of any other prince assumed by France.

At Windsor the king of the French resumed the subject with the British minister for foreign affairs, and openly expressed his desire that the Duke de Montpensier should marry the infanta some time after the marriage of the queen her sister. Lord Aberdeen, pressed on this point by paternal as well as kingly pertinacity, saw no objection to this proposal after the queen of Spain had issue. To this arrangement the king of the French assented in October 1845, whilst Sir Robert Peel was first lord of the treasury, and Lord Aberdeen minister of foreign affairs; yet on the 10th October 1846, when Lord John Russell was first lord of the treasury, and Viscount Palmerston minister for foreign affairs, the two marriages, namely, the marriage of the Queen Isabella of Spain and of her sister the infant, took place on the same day and at the same altar, notwithstanding the previous engagement of the king in 1845, and the promise of his minister M. Guizot subsequently made on the 1st September 1846 to Lord Normandy, the English ambassador at Paris. This uncandid proceeding of Louis Philippe and his minister again separated the two courts, and what was still worse, the people of England and France, and permitted the northern courts to accomplish the last Aberration of Poland by incorporating the free city of Cracow with the empire of Austria.

The minister of foreign affairs, Lord Palmerston, loudly complained of the disingenuous and quibbling conduct of a high personage and his minister in the affair of the Spanish marriages, and the sympathy of public opinion gave immense force to the strong state papers and just comments of the English minister. The conduct of the king was not only in violation of an ancient treaty, the treaty of Utrecht, but what was still less creditable, was in flagrant violation of his own royal word. From this moment the character of Louis Philippe sunk in general estimation, not merely in England but on the Continent generally. The northern courts neither liked the person nor admired the system of the citizen king; but from the epoch of the Spanish marriages they assumed towards him an attitude more reserved and distrustful. Even M. de Metternich, who had previously shown some disposition to a better understanding with France, now adopted a more haughty and distant language. In a word, the Spanish marriages more fully isolated the monarch of France from European co-operation than any previous act of his reign. The whole proceeding was worse than diplomatically criminal, for there was a disingenuity and a quibbling which attached to the personal character of two of the most remarkable men of the French nation—the one the very first in rank, the other the very foremost in learning, eloquence, and general intellectual capacity.

The parliamentary conduct of M. Guizot on the question of the right of search on the Marchesas Island, and on the indemnity to Pritchard, had rendered his name odious in France. His conduct on the Spanish marriages rendered him unpopular in England. Louis Philippe himself, too, seemed weary of a servant who constantly postponed the question of the dotation of the Duke de Nemours, and who, in so doing, seemed more chary of his portfolio than of the interests of the crown and of the family of Orleans, an interest which was all in all to Louis Philippe. Intrigues were set on foot to get rid of the unpopular minister, but the incontestable talent of M. Guizot as a debater saved a statesman who was not popular either with the monarch, with the people, or with foreign courts.

In proportion as the French government departed from the honest and manly course abroad, and from a popular and prudent liberal course at home, in the same degree was it obliged by a kind of fatal necessity to seek allies in a camp naturally hostile. The majority of the nation repudiated the system of the king and his ministers, and they now turned to the clergy for support. Till the period when M. Guizot became minister the government had sustained the university against the clergy. But in February 1844 M. Villeneuve presented to the Chamber of Peers a project of law by which the smaller ecclesiastical seminaries were erected into schools at once private and public, remaining all the while exempt from the conditions to which every other class of schools was subjected. This privilege, which even the government of Charles X. had refused to grant to the clergy, was energetically attacked by M. Cousin. But the clerical and ultramontane party were encouraged by the queen of the French, who interfered in the quarrels between the bishops and the university, lending her powerful aid to the order of Melchisedec. There was now an additional but a selfish reason for the government clinging to the priests. Minis- ters were in need of clerical support in the electoral struggles. When ultramontane priests cannot dictate in Roman Catholic countries, they look upon themselves as in a state of slavery. The parti prêtre in France had accordingly daily required fresh concessions, and worried and harassed M. Villemain to such an extent that his health gave way. Not content with assailing him in the Chamber and in their press, they exercised a secret and mysterious influence against him, and in the beginning of 1845 he was replaced in his high office as minister of public instruction by M. de Salvandy, a person of a more pliant, priestly, and servile nature.

Antecedently to M. Salvandy's inauguration in office, the Jesuits, though formally excluded from the French territory, appeared in the towns and villages without noise or ostentation. Now they openly acknowledged themselves the owners of large and spacious houses. They counted twenty-seven extensive and wealthy establishments in France, from which they carried on an immense correspondence with the Père Roothaan, the head of their order at Rome, who had under his immediate influence and direction every Jesuit establishment in Europe. The friends of liberty and political independence in France were alarmed at this state of things, and resolved to commence the offensive against a system which had roused the anger of the nation in the time of Charles X.

It was M. Thiers who opened the discussion in the Deputies on the 2d May; and after tracing the history of the order—their expulsion by decisions of the parliament—their condemnation by the court of Rome—their clandestine return under the empire—their quasi re-establishment in 1814—their discredit and decay from 1826 to 1828, and their audacious and encroaching spirit since 1830, the speaker called on the government to put the laws in execution, and not to shut their eyes to a real danger. "If," said M. Thiers, "ministers encounter a difficulty in applying the laws, they will find in this Chamber a zealous and unanimous adhesion. We will strengthen the hands of the government by every means in our power, and afford them the means of vanquishing difficulties, for I and my friends believe that our first duty is to give force and effect to the laws of the country." The answer of the minister of public worship, M. Martin du Nord, to this speech was evasive, shuffling, and jesuitical. He admitted there were laws against illegal religious associations, not one of which had fallen into desuetude, laws which had been always applied. But M. Martin contended that the danger was not so pressing now as to call for the interference of the executive, and that the government ought to be allowed a certain liberty as to the choice of time and means. This answer neither satisfied the liberals nor the ultramontane Roman Catholics. To the one it appeared a subterfuge, to the others an act of weakness. M. de Carné, the organ of the ultramontanes, maintained that the accusations against the Jesuits masked a project to attack the church itself. M. Dupin, in an able speech, maintained that the laws which existed ought to be put in force. "The Jesuit," said he, "is not an individual, he is a complex being—he exists as a member of a congregation. Other Frenchmen take an oath of obedience to the king and the laws of the kingdom, but the Jesuit is not a Frenchman in this sense. He takes an oath of absolute obedience to a stranger who is a foreigner. To him he sacrifices his individuality: he is in his hands as a mere corpse. The society of Jesuits," said he in conclusion, "possesses a character essentially political, and is imbued with a dominant and turbulent spirit which causes it to be feared by sovereigns, and even by popes themselves."

M. Berryer attacked the laws which affected congregations, and maintained they were contrary to principles of liberty. This is the argument of the legitimists when they are the weaker party. The word liberty is then ever in their mouths. The discussion terminated by an order of the day, proposed by M. Thiers, to the effect that the Chamber, in the conviction that the government would cause the laws to be executed, pass to the order of the day. This proposition was carried by an immense majority, a majority proving the force of public opinion; for the Jesuits were so powerful in the country that it needed no common exercise of courage to vote against them. The vote was a check and an embarrassment for the government, which feared to act without having the support of Rome, that is to say, of that superior spiritual power which is the essence of Catholicism.

A member of the Royal Council of Public Instruction, a Signor Rossi, a Bolognese by birth, and therefore a subject of the Pope, though a naturalized Frenchman, was despatched on the part of the French government to Italy to beg that the establishments of the Jesuits, their chapels and noviciates, might be closed, and that they might no longer live in common but be dispersed. He was further instructed to ask that such of the fraternity of Jesuits as continued to reside in France should enter into the category of the ordinary clergy, and submit themselves to the authority of bishops and parish priests. The answer of the Romish court consisted of subterfuges and evasions. The extraordinary congregation of ecclesiastical affairs unanimously decided that the Holy See could not and ought not to take any part in measures which concerned the constitutional rights of French citizens. Thus foiled in his first attempt, M. Rossi addressed himself directly to the Pope, and pointed out to him the dangers of a struggle in which the whole body of the clergy might be involved. Gregory XVI. yielded to these arguments, and entered into negotiations with Father Roothaan, for even the Pope was obliged to temporize with this formidable order. Roothaan counselled a seeming submission to the disciples of his order. The Jesuits ostentatiously shut up some of their principal houses in France and changed their names, as they have often done before, to Pacanaristes and Pères de la foi. But under a change of name and designation they maintained a real influence which they exercised sometimes openly but more frequently occultly. They still, in conjunction with the ultramontane Roman Catholic party, headed by M. Montalembert, continued their war against the university, and were neither disarmed by the complaisance of M. de Salvandy, nor by the seeming composure but real timidity of M. Guizot.

Several propositions of electoral and parliamentary reform were brought forward this session with no better success than in the preceding years. M. Ledru Rollin proposed the abolition of the census of eligibility, and a daily stipend by way of indemnity to each member of the Chamber. These propositions were rejected. A slight modification was, however, introduced into the mode of voting. On the motion of M. Duvergier d'Hauranne, an open balloting of divisions was agreed to, but secret voting might always be resorted to on the demand of 20 members. The session was closed on the 21st July, after a series of parliamentary vicissitudes which threatened the existence of the ministry. The Chamber had been far too servile. It was now condemned to a premature dissolution, and was in a short time, as will be seen, dissolved by ordonnance.

The constitutional left formed, in anticipation, an electoral committee, inviting the different sections to unite against the common enemy. When the dissolution took place, manifestoes were written and addresses delivered to the electors; and among the rest, M. Guizot delivered, on the 10th August, a speech to the electors of Saint Pierre-sur-Dives, in which he vaunted his own policy, and replied to the charges of corruption which were on every side urged against his ministry. It must be admitted that the Cabinet by its conduct had given too much cause for these complaints. The arrondissements which returned ministerial members were loaded with favours. Their schools were better endowed, their churches repaired; their roads kept in perfect order. The public money was distributed, not according to the wants of localities, but according to the votes of the deputies. The corruption was collective, and in the gross, but it was not on that account the less dangerous. Nor were there wanting hundreds of instances of individual favours bestowed from political causes totally irrespective of merit. Thus influential electors obtained bursaries at colleges for their children, government employments for their relatives, post-offices, bureaux de tabac, &c. No locality in France had been more satiated or less satisfied with these favours than the place which M. Guizot himself represented. Addressing the electors, in order to parry these accusations, he exclaimed, "Do you vote less freely, less honestly, because I have helped you to repair your churches and schools, or because I have opened a career to your children? Do you feel yourselves corrupted because of these things?"

There was one portion of M. Guizot's speech, which specified a public question, in which he had made a little progress. On the 24th May 1845, a treaty had been signed by the Duke de Broglie on the part of France, and Dr Lushington on the part of England, by which the reciprocal right of search was done away with, each nation exercising this right over the ships carrying its flag. This treaty was to have a duration of ten years, and if at the end of the tenth year the treaties of 1831 and 1833 had not been put in force they were to be considered as abrogated.

In the interval between the dissolution and the new session M. de Salvandy had exhibited a pernicious activity in regard to the university. On the 8th January 1846, M. Cousin, in the Chamber of Peers, exposed the system of ministers in regard to the university, and showed that day by day the clergy were possessing themselves of a monopoly of teaching, and by their writings and preachings were exercising all the influence of hierarchy and priesthood to discredit and destroy the university of France.

Letters were at this period published in the National, stating that Poland had again risen, and was in arms for her independence. On the basis of these letters some spirited articles were written by M. Armand Marrast, and such was the effect produced in the excited state of public feeling, that a sum of 200,000 francs was raised for the benefit of the insurgent Poles in the space of a few days.

M. de Remusat again brought forward, before the dissolution, his proposition against public functionaries sitting in the Chamber. He was supported by M. Thiers in a speech of great boldness and vigour. M. Duchâtel feebly replied; but the government, notwithstanding, obtained a majority of 48, the numbers being 184 in favour of the proposition, and 232 against it.

On the 16th April 1846, another attempt was made on the life of the king by one Lecomte, who had been employed as a kind of gamekeeper in the Royal Forests. He fired two shots at Louis Philippe, as the monarch, accompanied by the queen and several princes and princesses of the royal family, was taking an airing in the forest of Fontainebleau. Lecomte had been discharged from his employment for a breach of duty, and his act was dictated by a wild species of revenge. Such, however, was the blindness and bitterness of party spirit—such the over-anxious zeal of flatterers, that there were not wanting government scribes to charge the attempt on the writers and speakers of the opposition. The trial of Lecomte disproved these rash assertions. He paid the penalty of his guilt by suffering as a parricide. Whilst the indictment against him was in the course of preparation, an unexpected event caused some alarm to the partisans of the Orléans dynasty. On the 25th May Louis Bonaparte escaped from the castle of Ham, in which fortress he had been for six years a prisoner, and in a few hours was at Valenciennes, on the road to Brussels, whence he proceeded to London.

About the period of the escape of M. Louis Bonaparte, the Duke de Bordeaux espoused the Archduchess Maria Theresa of Modena, eldest sister of the reigning duke. This was the only prince in Europe who had refused to acknowledge the royalty of Louis Philippe.

More serious matters than the escape of one pretender, or the marriage of another, occupied the French ministry. A few days after the closing of the session an ordonnance for the dissolution of the Chambers appeared. The elections were fixed for the 1st August, and the Chambers were convoked for the 19th of the same month. The left centre and the Constitutional left having coalesced, operated together against the ministry. The radicals, without using the word republic in their addresses, demanded republican institutions. The legitimist party directed all their efforts to the question of la liberté de l'enseignement, which in their mouths simply meant the surrender of public instruction to the ultramontane Jesuits. This party was led by MM. de Montalembert, de Vatismeil, and de Riancey. The object of these politicians was to ruin the university, and to stifle all freedom of thought and of opinion, by giving full sway to the ultramontane clergy.

No one was keener in the electoral struggle than M. Thiers. The political rival who had supplanted him had hitherto resisted all parliamentary attacks, either eluding or meeting difficulties, and sometimes even making a merit of his faults. The opposition of M. Thiers was whetted by personal impatience, for the ministry of M. Guizot had now lasted for six years—a ministerial existence altogether more prolonged than had been granted to any ministry since July 1830. Attached to representative government, M. Thiers saw that the system ran the risk of perishing in the hands of a man who never opposed an energetic resistance to the will of the king—a king who did not dissemble his disdain for a constitutional system—a king who, during his sixteen years' reign, did everything in his power to nullify and corrupt representative institutions. M. Thiers therefore composed an address to the electors of Aix, in which he not merely criticised the acts of the government, but warned it of the perils which must await it at no distant future. This document was communicated to MM. Duvergier d'Hauranne, de Réumsat, and Léon de Malleville, but these gentlemen found it too hostile even to royalty. The letter is given in extenso in a recent history; but we doubt whether it would have exercised much influence on the electors. It is, however, to be regretted, that M. Thiers, yielding to timorous and unwise counsels, suppressed the document in July 1846. In serious and solemn crises of a nation's fate a public man ought to give his country and its rulers the benefit of his candid and honest advice and opinion. A few days after M. Thiers' address was written, another attempt was made on the life of the king. On the 29th July, whilst from the balcony of the Tuileries his Majesty was saluting the crowd assembled for the July fête, two shots were fired at him by a person named Henri, who remained hidden behind one of the statues in the garden. The man was a lunatic, and his madness was caused by a reverse of fortune. He had fired without taking aim, and from a pocket pistol which would not carry half the distance. The ministry, however, converted the attempt into political capital, and gained many votes among the timid.

The result of the elections surpassed the most sanguine expectations of the ministry. The Conservatives were returned in a compact majority, and the position of M. Guizot seemed for the moment unassailable. Yet there were monitions sufficiently audible. Among candidates, as well as among electors, the word reform was everywhere confidently and hopefully pronounced. Even the Conservatives in their programme promised moral and material improvements. It may be taken as a sign of the times, that M. Emile de Girardin, the editor of the *Presse*, made his promise of support of M. Guizot conditional, and stipulated that either political or material reform should be promised by the minister. Some Conservatives also, as MM. Desmousseaux de Givré, Sallandrouze, and others, formed a conservative opposition, with a view to stop the progress of what they feared to be a counter-revolution. M. Guizot endeavoured to render them passive by a discourse which he delivered at Lisieux. When the newly elected Chamber met at the close of August, the government candidate for the presidency, M. Sanzet, had a large majority. He obtained 120 votes, whilst M. Odillon Barrot, the candidate of the opposition, obtained only 98 votes. M. Guizot finding he possessed a considerable majority, thought no more of the promises made at Lisieux, and because he could manage the Chamber, believed himself in a position to master France. Blindly and obstinately he resisted all reform or promise of improvement, asserting that the country was perfectly content with his system. The session lasted only a few days; but soon after the deputies separated, it was evident that the nation was threatened not merely with a pecuniary crisis but with a famine. The harvest of 1845 had been but a scanty one, and the evil was considerably aggravated by the disease in the potato. The harvest of 1846, now in course of gathering in, was much inferior to the harvest of the preceding year.

The commercial community made an appeal to the minister, with a view to the opening of the French ports, but the minister of commerce, the slave of routine, was perplexed and confounded by an unexpected crisis, and adopted a course of action too tardily. Instead of looking abroad for corn, M. Cunin Gridaine looked to the prefects for statistics to prove that the harvests of 1843 and 1844 had made up for the deficiencies of 1845 and 1846. The complaisant functionaries and bureaucrats of France proved, in the very teeth of a famishing people, to the satisfaction of the minister, that supplies were abundant. But ministers soon found their illusions and official fictions dispelled. A royal ordinance opened the ports, but opened them too late. When corn might freely enter Marseilles and Arles, frightful inundations cut up the roads, stopping the internal traffic. Communications between the Black Sea, the Sea of Azoff, and France were also interrupted by the frost. The war department, which annually consumes 500,000 quintals of wheat, however, decided on obtaining its stock of provision for 1846 and 1847 from abroad, and the navy adopted a similar course, ordering 100,000 quintals. In the different towns and cities of France, where the sufferings of the poor were severest, the municipal authorities took measures to diminish the price of bread to the indigent working classes. In Paris the municipal council maintained the price of bread at 80 centimes the two kilogrammes. The enormous sums paid in consequence of this arrangement obliged the city to contract a loan of 25,000,000 francs. To add to the general misery, there was a deficiency of bullion in France, caused by improvident and ruinous speculations in all kinds of joint-stock companies. The monarch and the minister wished to unduly develop and stimulate material prosperity, with a view to suppress all political yearnings, and the result was, that all the viler and more sordid passions of the community were excited into a perfect frenzy of immoderate and reckless speculation. Gold and silver specie rapidly disappeared, and the Bank of France was shaken to its centre. On the 31st December 1846 its unguaranteed *billet* amounted to 258,000,000 francs, and the accounts current of the treasury and private individuals attained an amount of 110,000,000. There was a total of liabilities amounting to 368,000,000, represented only by 71,000,000 of specie. In order to establish an equilibrium between Paris and other cities, it was necessary to give money a higher value, by raising the rate of discount. From the commencement of January 1847 the Bank of France raised its rate of discount from 4 to 5 per cent. Even this measure would have been insufficient had not the Emperor of Russia, on the 17th March 1847, purchased *inscriptions de rente* of the Bank of France for 50,000,000 of specie, at 115 f. 75 c. This operation caused a great sensation, and "sent up," to use the phrase of the stock exchange, the public funds. Some there were who saw in the operation a political move. But there was nothing political, though there was a good deal of policy in the transaction. The Emperor of Russia merely wished to embark in a speculation which was doubly profitable to him. By obtaining 50,000,000 of specie, France was enabled to extend her operations in the purchase of Russian corn, and Russia having vast magazines of corn to sell, found a fresh vent for it to the extent of 50,000,000. So that the Emperor of Russia, vender of corn and purchaser of *inscriptions de rente*, realized a double profit on these operations, preserving his specie and selling his corn.

Great was the emotion in France at the absorption of the free city of Cracow. All parties condemned this act of audacious spoliation, which presented a new complication to M. Guizot. The French minister for foreign affairs instructed M. Jarnac of the French embassy in London to invite the co-operation of Viscount Palmerston to a joint note to the northern powers; but the English minister of foreign affairs laconically replied, that he had already prepared one, which he would communicate to the English minister in Paris. No English minister at that period could have felt safe in jointly acting with M. Guizot. The affair of the Spanish marriages had produced a worse feeling than distrust. The language of Viscount Palmerston on the question of Cracow was strong and indignant; but as Great Britain was justly isolated from France, there was less effect produced by her strong language. The note of Viscount Palmerston was forwarded on the 23rd November, that of M. Guizot on the 3rd December. To the French people, amazed and indignant, the state paper of M. Guizot appeared a feeble and paltry protest. The dissension existing between England and France, in consequence of the Spanish marriages, produced more extended evils. In the affairs of Switzerland M. Guizot was completely influenced by the policy of M. de Metternich. France, in concert with Austria, combated everything like a liberal spirit in Switzerland, favoured the Jesuits, and protected the old feudal aristocracy. The Protestant cantons in Switzerland wanted reform and unity, the Catholic wanted Jesuitism and federalism. Lord Palmerston gave his support to the first cause, but M. Guizot, though a Huguenot, sided with M. de Metternich and the disciples of Loyola, and threw all his influence into the Sonderbund.

The session of 1847 presented difficulties both at home and abroad. Different doctrines and different chiefs appeared for the first time in the arena. Various professors of St Simonianism, Fourierism, Icarianism, contended for public favour, and there was a party of Conservatives who preached what they called *la politique des intérêts*, and called for *les réformes matrimoniales*. The most bustling and active among these was M. Emile Girardin, editor of the *Presse*, who was supported in the Chamber by MM. Desmousseaux de Givré, de Castellane, and other deputies. M. Party disapproved the conduct of the government in reference to Cracow, and even M. Dupin expressed himself as not satisfied with it. M. Thiers reserved his speech for the discussion on the Spanish marriages. That question was opened on the 4th February, and M. Thiers, in a long and able speech, proved that the marriage of the Duke de Montpensier to the infanta produced not one advantage to France, whilst it was the cause of many disasters. The alliance with England—so absolutely indispensable to protect the menaced nationalities, and liberty itself—was broken. This alliance, desirable whether Tories or Whigs were in power, was most especially desirable when the liberal spirit of the Whigs was so directly opposed to the absolutist northern powers. "To break with the Whigs at such a juncture in the state of Europe, in the state of the world," said M. Thiers, "is to proclaim a reactionary spirit."

M. Guizot replied to M. Thiers with consummate oratorical ability. Everybody admitted he possessed the talent of expressing himself in the ablest and happiest manner; but it was generally observed that the man who spoke with such apparent candour and simple straightforwardness was generally involved in awkward dilemmas. As to the Spanish marriages M. Guizot attempted to turn the tables on Lord Normanby, but in this effort he failed to obtain the adhesion of any but mere political parasites. The English government and the English people, as well as dispassionate Frenchmen, gave Lord Normanby credit for frankness and fair dealing. The very best disposed among the partisans of the French minister felt that he was getting his majority into difficult and untenable positions, not merely dragging his political followers and adherents through the mire, but compromising the peace of the world. The discontent of the Conservative section of the Chamber was general. It was, however, muttered in the theatres and whispered in society rather than loudly expressed. So great, however, was the number of functionaries in the Chamber, and the secret means possessed to influence votes, that when a division on the address took place it was carried by 248 votes against 84.

We have said that M. Guizot, in his speech on the debate, had attempted to cast imputations on the English ambassador, Viscount Normanby. So soon as a report of the speech of the French premier reached England, the principal secretary of state for foreign affairs addressed a letter to the English ambassador informing him that his government placed the utmost reliance on the fidelity and exactness of all his reports, and that nothing said in the Chamber of Deputies would have the least effect in disturbing the conviction entertained by her Majesty's government of the entire and perfect truth of Lord Normanby's detail of the conversations held with M. Guizot. The entire British Cabinet felt the stain attempted to be cast on the English ambassador as a wound, to use the words of Burke. Lord John Russell intimated to M. de St Aulaire, the ambassador of France, in the presence of two of his Cabinet colleagues, that the entire Cabinet made common cause with Lord Normanby, and that unless reparation were made to him the indignant feeling of the English ministry would be manifested in a more direct manner. Ultimately, through the good offices of M. Appony, the Austrian ambassador, M. Guizot entered into explanations with Viscount Normanby, and disavowed any intention of impeaching his veracity or personal honour.

While the French premier was rendering himself unpopular, if not odious, abroad and at home, the people of France were acutely suffering from the dearthness and scarcity of provisions. The dread of famine augmented daily in the departments of the west and centre of France. Various depots and warehouses containing corn were sacked. Serious riots took place at Tours, and boats laden with corn were pillaged. At Laval the insurgent populace fixed the price of corn. Venders were obliged to sell at this rate in the open market, despite the authorities. Rennes, Mans, Mayence, and Nevers were up in arms. Almost on every side bodies of workmen perambulated the country, demanding bread and labour. Hundreds of men-

dicants spread terror in isolated localities. In many parishes of the department of the Indre numerous bands invaded the houses of proprietors, forcing them to sign an agreement to sell corn at three francs instead of seven francs the double décilitre. Such proprietors as refused to yield to this absurd and wicked demand were the victims of their refusal. One landowner was assassinated at Buzançais, another at Belatre. At Châteauroux the workmen of the railroad invaded the market with their tools in hand, and had to be dispersed by an armed force. It was necessary to obtain from the Chambers an extraordinary credit to increase the effective force of the army in the interior of the country. This increase added 16,000 men to the line, and consequently augmented the public charge by a sum of 16,000,000 of francs, which would have been much better applied to the relief of the distressed.

It was necessary for the courts of law to terrify by the severity example of severe punishments. Three rioters were condemned to death, four to perpetual hard labour, and eighteen to various terms of labour, by the assize court of l'Indre. The executions took place in the presence of a silent and sullen multitude, who commiserated the victims and blamed the government. A profound hatred to the landed proprietors of Buzançais grew out of these events, and more than one Socialist excess can be traced to this origin.

In the midst of these internal and external difficulties, the Dissension ministry was neither homogeneous nor united. The death in of M. Martin du Nord, which took place on the 11th March, introduced into the Cabinet M. Hebert as his successor, a man whose only recommendation for office appeared to be his antipathy to the press, and his hatred of every liberal idea. The war department, since the recent retirement of Marshal Soult, had been filled by an incapable and almost unknown general, Moline de Saint Yon, and the navy was presided over by Admiral Mackau, a person of notorious parliamentary incapacity, who had signalized himself as an administrator. Both these ministers resigned on the 8th May—the minister of war voluntarily, the minister of marine to avoid the charge and unpopularity of measures for which he was not personally responsible. M. Guizot wished to get rid of the minister of finance who had not shown a sufficiently accommodating suppleness, but notwithstanding many broad hints M. Lacave Laplagne refused to resign. The fact was, that the finances of the country were in an alarming position, and to have resigned at such a moment would have been an admission that the mismanagement lay with the individual minister. M. Lacave Laplagne urged Dismissal that for the financial position the entire Cabinet was accountable, as it was the Cabinet as a body which had increased the expenditure of the army and public works. He therefore refused to resign, and was dismissed by his colleagues.

No one seemed willing to accept the three vacant places. Even such third-rate mediocrities as MM. Bresson, Muret de Bord, and Bignon refused portfolios.

In this dilemma, when a seat in the Cabinet was a thing to be shunned, the telegraph informed General Trézel, commandant at Nantes, that he was called to the ministry of war, M. Javry, prefect of Lyons, that he was named to the ministry of public works, in the place of M. Dumon called to superintend the finances. At the same time a steamer was despatched in all haste to Naples to announce to M. de Montebello that he was minister of marine.

These nominations were scarcely considered as serious, Prospects and it was now evident that time had not strengthened, but of the had, on the contrary, weakened the Guizot ministry. The ministers opposition, on the contrary, notwithstanding repeated checks, and opposi- had lost no portion of its boldness and vigour. To speak tion. truly, the vices of the electoral system—its narrow basis—its unjust exclusions—the facilities it offered to corruption History, and intrigue—were capital topics to engage the attention of the public. Reform was the chosen question on which the opposition meant to dwell. Though vanquished in the secret division, the opposition always had the advantage in argument. The Conservatives, who wished for progressive reforms, intimated to the minister that they could no longer continue docile and obedient instruments, and announced that they were dissatisfied with the fatal and unyielding words, *rien, rien, rien*, which M. Guizot had pronounced in debate. But the proud and obstinate doctrinaire would not retract, and gave no sign of a willingness to correct proved abuses.

The government soon received a lesson. A vacancy had occurred in the vice-presidency of the Chamber, for which the Cabinet had put forward M. Duprat. The opposition started M. Leon de Malleville, a partisan of electoral reform, who was chosen, some even of the discontented Conservatives voting for him. M. Guizot was startled at this result, and was dismayed when some young conservatives voted in the bureaux for taking into consideration the proposition of M. Duvergier d'Hauranne for electoral reform.

In the discussion on this question, M. Odillon Barrot drew a fearful picture of the progress of corruption, of the number of functionaries, of the avidity of solicitors for place always increasing in immense progression. In answering the orator of the opposition M. Guizot stated, that he could see no necessity for the motion—that no reform was needed. Fatal and obstinate blindness of a minister, who, with all his ability and powers of exposition—with all his rich and varied erudition—it was clear, comprehended nothing of the state of feeling and of opinion in France. The obstinacy of the minister was sustained by a majority of 98 voices, in a Chamber filled with functionaries, and elected out of a narrow fraction of the population.

In the discussion on M. de Remusat's proposition relative to Deputies' functionaries being again brought forward, M. de Castellane, willing to afford M. Guizot a *locus ponentiae*, asked the minister what measures of amelioration he would bring forward, and when. To this personal appeal M. Guizot responded by a negative gesture, whereupon M. de Castellane rejoined, "Well, then, since all reform is in principle repudiated, we think it necessary to vote for the proposition of M. de Remusat." The obstinate pride, the unwise reserve of the minister, lost him the support of 49 votes. His majority on the motion of M. d'Hauranne was 98. On this occasion it was only 49.

M. Glais Bizoin had brought forward a question, many times introduced by M. de St Priest, for a reduction in the rate of postage. But as every change, however beneficial and good, was resisted by the government, M. Dumon, the finance minister, opposed the motion. His arguments, if such they could be called, were triumphantly refuted by M. Dufaure (subsequently minister of the interior under the Republic); and such was the effect of this able statesman's convincing speech, that the Cabinet had only a narrow majority of 25.

It was now evident that the Chamber would resist all improvement and all reform. The discussion on the postage law had proved the justice, the utility, the necessity, and the facility with which such a change could be promptly effected. The Cabinet had neither pretext nor reason for their blind and stupid resistance. The more intelligent among the Conservatives lamented this blind infatuation; the more intelligent among the dynastic opposition became alarmed at it; whilst the radical reformers were comforted in the hope that this resistance to what the wiser Conservatives called material reforms, would lead to electoral reform, which would bring all other reforms in its train.

It was now evident that there was dissension in the Conservative camp among the followers of ministers—a dissension soon to be increased by the revelation of scandalous facts of corruption, which implicated persons in a high position, one of whom was a Cabinet minister. The other had already been minister of war in two separate Cabinets. For several years the existence of corruption and malversation in the public offices and establishments of France had been loudly proclaimed by the opposition deputies. But to all charges of this kind M. Guizot gave an indignant denial. But now civil and correctional processes, and even criminal proceedings, revealed the hideous plague spots in official life. For several years the press had pointed out the disorders, dilapidations, pilferings, and peculations in the department of the marine. These accusations had been repeated in the Chamber of Deputies, and the Cour des Comptes also had expressed itself in language which could only be misunderstood on the supposition of wilful blindness or complicity with the criminals. The Chamber of Deputies had come to a resolution that a strict system of account should be established in all the ports, arsenals, and dockyards. This decision of the Chamber was about to be put in execution when, at the close of 1845, an immense fire broke out in open day in the Mourillon, the second arsenal of Toulon. The hour at which this fire took place, the impenetrability in which all the circumstances were involved, the futility of any attempts to discover the authors of the crime, the period of its occurrence, covering as it did with a veil of darkness manifold malversations, all led to the belief that it was a concerted scheme of some criminals in office. The loss to the nation was three millions, but the official peculators were for the moment saved from exposure. Inquiries, however, were instituted in other quarters, and the most scandalous mal-Rochefort versations were discovered at the dockyard of Rochefort, dockyard. Pilferings and abuses took place in the supplies of bread, corn, wine, salted provisions, firing, candles, &c. Though first qualities of provisions were ordered, inferior were introduced. Millers brought in corn and flour of inferior quality, with which beans and dried vegetables were mixed to the extent of 38 per cent. The proceeds resulting from these frauds and dilapidations were divided between the employés and the contractors and victuallers. It appeared that in respect to wood, 4000 l. worth had been abstracted in one day's pillage. As to the salt provisions, the pillage was even on a greater scale. The notoriety of abuses of this kind at length forced the central authorities, who had been so long supine, to interfere. The guilty parties were indicted before the Cour d'Assises at Poitiers, and from the report of what took place the public was made acquainted with the organized system of plunder that had been carried on by the public servants. M. Samson, comptroller of the navy, who was examined on the trial, stated plunder that he had vainly struggled against the evil, and that all public representations he addressed to the minister and maritime prefect were without effect. At Toulon, Brest, and Rochefort, examples were not wanting of clerks with a salary of 2000 l. or 3000 l., amassing in twenty years fortunes of from 200,000 l. to 300,000 l. When all these facts became known, the impression produced was profound. Ministers could no longer remain inactive, and it was determined to prosecute the Directeur des substances at Rochefort. But the employé anticipated a too tardy public suicide by committing suicide.

Shortly before these deplorable discoveries, a person of authority, the name of Bénier, who had been directeur des vivres at Paris, died, and there was discovered a deficit of corn to the value of 400,000 francs. Independently of this, the successor of Bénier stated that the corn in store was of so bad a quality that the soldiers could not use it. Notwithstanding all official regulations, it appeared that the authorities had dispensed with Bénier's furnishing a security. Affair of An unfortunate chef de bureau, named Tessier, who had been several years previously reported that the accounts of Bénier were in disorder, was treated as a calumniator for History. no other reason than that Bénier had powerful friends among the ministers. Tessier was from that moment placed under official ban, and soon after died of a broken heart.

This, however, was not the worst. Certain official men wished to retrieve the memory of Bénier, but the crime and the attempt to cloak it over were denounced in the session of 1846 by M. Lanjuinais. The Chamber, indignant at the attempt, ordered an inquiry; and the impression produced by the disclosures weakened the authority of the government, and furnished frequent arguments to the partisans of reform.

The affair of Drouillard, which was heard before the Assize Court of Maine and Loire in February 1847, was scarcely needed to increase public indignation. Drouillard, a kind of discount agent and usurer at Paris, had stood for Quimperlé. The electors of Quimperlé, for the most part petty farmers, were open to the seductions of a capitalist, and he bribed them on all hands. The whole population of the parish priest among the number, had all partaken of M. Drouillard's money. It was proved by the books of his principal agent that 145,000 francs had been expended. Drouillard was found guilty and condemned to a fine of 7300 francs, and to the interdiction of civil and all public functions during the space of ten years. In this instance, it is true, the government was not mixed up in the affair; but the facts serve to show the fundamental vices of a system which, in giving the franchise to a small number of electors, only facilitated bribery—opening constituencies to the corrupting influences of a capitalist who would buy the votes of others, with a view to sell his own at a considerable profit on his original outlay.

People were wondering at the marvellousness of these incidents, when Paris was startled by another denunciation of administrative corruption. Day by day M. de Girardin proclaimed in his journal, the Presse, that the privilege of a third lyrical theatre was granted only on the payment of a sum of 100,000 francs paid to the credit of the newspaper called the Époque. "It was M. Duchâtel," said Girardin (M. Duchâtel was then minister of the interior), "who had himself dictated the terms of this shameful bargain." To this accusation the minister made no reply. In a debate in the Chamber he was twitted with the circumstance; and after Girardin had alleged the facts and furnished the proofs, M. Duchâtel contented himself with equivocal denials.

This was not the only scandal. The Époque being in want of money, M. Granier de Cassagnac, the editor, had promised, according to the statement of M. Girardin, the postmasters, for the sum of 1,200,000 francs, to procure the passing of a project of law favourable to their interests. M. Duchâtel merely replied that the fact was not probable. The circumstance was repeated in all the journals, and not one of them was prosecuted. M. de Girardin further stated that the promise of a peirage had been sold. When cited for this scandal before the Peers, Emile de Girardin entered into very full explanations, and was acquitted, and the accusation fell with augmented force on the ministers.

The most scandalous affair of all, however, was the affair of General Despans Cubières, minister of war in 1839, and again in the Cabinet presided over by M. Thiers in March 1840. In the course of a suit between M. Parmentier, director of the mines of Gouhenans, it was disclosed that the general, who had been himself twice minister of war, received certain sums to bribe the minister of public works (Teste) with a view to induce him corruptly to favour the company in which Cubières and Parmentier were shareholders. Parmentier having a quarrel with the general, which ended in a suit, certain letters were made public which exposed the affair in all its nudity. "The government," said Cubières, in one of his communications, "is in sordid and corrupt hands, and M—— insists on having 50 shares before the 'concession' is made." The agitation and amazement that prevailed in the public mind when these details were made public was very great, but it was not greater than the consternation that prevailed in the ministerial circles. M. Guizot was surrounded by deputies who implored him to dissociate himself from this scandalous affair by exposing the guilty parties, if guilty parties there were. The minister came to this resolution in a Cabinet council, but before his intentions were generally known it was announced that several members of the majority would ask explanations in the Chamber. M. Muret de Bord was the first to question the government, and M. Dumon, in reply to him, declared that the grant to the Parmentier Company had been regularly made, but in order to put an end to the alarm and anxiety of the public mind, the government would cause an inquiry into the existence of corrupt practices. In three days afterwards the minister of justice appeared in the Chamber of Peers to read an ordinance, which directed the Court of Peers to proceed to the trial of Lieutenant-General Despans Cubières, charged with corruption.

The men on whom the Peers were now to pronounce sentence were not subaltern clerks or chefs de bureau, but one of them was very recently a member of the government, and actually a president of a higher court. This man was charged with having made a base traffic of his official signature for his individual gain. The other was a lieutenant-general who had been so distinguished a soldier that he was twice entrusted with the portfolio of minister of war. The commission appointed to inquire into the affair directed summonses to be served on MM. Parmentier and Pellapra, co-shareholders with General Despans Cubières in the mines of Gouhenans, and also against M. Teste, recently minister of public works, and now president of the Court of Cassation. The parties, with the exception of Pellapra, appeared on the 8th July, and on the day previously, Teste, in a letter to the king, resigned into the hands of his Majesty the dignity of Peer of France, and resigns the functions of president of the Court of Cassation. The language of this letter, full of nobleness and dignity, produced for a time a momentary impression in favour of the accused, but on the second day of the trial it was apparent that Parmentier and Teste had acted in collusion, and public opinion then underwent a revulsion. On the second day, too, M. Armand Marrast (president of the Chamber of Deputies under the Republic) communicated fresh letters written in 1846 by Pellapra and Cubières, clearly proving a continuing series of negotiations between Teste, then minister of public works, and the mining company of Gouhenans, represented by Pellapra as its principal agent. The examination of General Cubières disclosed an anxiety on the part of the old soldier to commit no human being, but when he was so urgently and powerfully pressed as to the meaning of expressions in his letters, "shameless extortion," "sordid and corrupt hands," the name of Teste escaped his lips. Vainly did the general afterwards try to assume a reserve. In pronouncing the name of Teste he had given the key note.

When Teste was in turn examined, he exhibited the coolest self-possession and assurance. An experienced and skilful advocate, he was not intimidated by forms, or entangled by adroit questions artfully framed. Astute and cunning to a degree, he had studied his line of defence as though he were appearing for a client whose all was at stake, and assumed the tone of injured and indignant innocence. But a bundle of accounts and letters by M. Teste having been found in the possession of Madame Pellapra, the fraudulent transactions were discovered, it was proved that 100,000 francs had been paid to Teste, and a similar sum received by M. Charles Teate, son of the minister, and a deputy. Teste now seeing that he was a lost man, and that all the subtleties of a flexible and unscrupulous talent were unavailing, abandoned all further attempts at defence. When the court rose and he was brought back to prison, he received the visit of his son, and asked his counsel, MM. Paillot and Dehaut, to partake of his prison dinner. His demeanour, generally grave, was more than ordinarily serious on this occasion. About 9 o'clock his son and his friends left him, and five minutes after their departure he seized a pistol and attempted to put an end to his existence; but the attempt, though directed against the heart, was unsuccessful.

On the following day, the 13th July, this great criminal addressed a letter to the president of the Chamber of Peers, stating, that he would allow judgment to go by default, and that he would accept without resistance any sentence that might be passed in his absence. There was therefore an end to the affair as regarded Teste. He was condemned to the penalty of civil degradation, to 94,000 francs pecuniary fine, and to three years' imprisonment. General Cuvières was condemned to degradation, and 10,000 francs penalty. It is not necessary that we should record the sentences passed on the less notorious criminals. As this remarkable affair confirmed in a striking manner the charges of the opposition; as behind all the acts of the government, to use the expressive language of General Despans Cuvières, were seen des mains avides ou corrompues; the men in office fell into odium and contempt.

Scandals did not end with the prorogation of the Peers, which took place on the 23rd July. On the 9th of August, the council of war of the first military division condemned for five years to the galleys, and to degradation, the functionary Lagrange, convicted of having misappropriated corn intended for the hospital of the Gros Caillou.

Within a month of the prorogation of the Peers, they were again convoked to try one of their members accused of the horrible crime of murdering his own wife.

The history of the affair must be briefly told. The union of M. and Madame de Praslin was an ill-assorted one. There were incompatibilities of temper and frequent quarrels about the management of their children, eight in number, who had been within a year of the catastrophe confided to a Mademoiselle Delazy, a governess who acquired an ascendancy, not only over the children, but over their father the duke. This circumstance appears to have irritated and wounded, as it naturally might, Madame de Praslin, who was of a sensitive and jealous nature. Increased bitterness and discord were the consequences. M. de Praslin became more violent—Madame de Praslin more miserable and isolated. Towards half-past 4 o'clock on the morning of the 18th August, a great noise was heard in the Hôtel Praslin. The bells in the bedroom of the duchess, communicating with the apartments of several servants, were rung with great violence. The servants rushed up as soon as possible in confused haste, but on reaching the doors which opened upon the bedchamber of the duchess, they found them all closed. The noise of falling furniture, piercing cries, succeeded by suppressed groans, convinced them that behind those doors a murder was perpetrating, but they were unable to force an entrance, notwithstanding the desperate efforts made to break the doors open. Attempts were next made by the servants to reach the duchess's chamber by the garden, and in this they succeeded. Entering the room, extended on the floor they found the lifeless body of Madame de Praslin, with no other covering than her blood-stained chemise. Her forehead, face, neck, arms, and hands, were covered with more than thirty large and deep wounds. Hearing the cries of the servants, the duke appeared at the door of the great saloon, and asked the cause of the noise and tumult. When the lifeless corpse of his wife was pointed out to him, he exclaimed, "Ah! pauvre femme, qui l'a assassinée?" In a few moments after, the commissaries of police being summoned arrived, and subsequently the doctors Simon, Carnet, and Raymond, the juge d'instruction, the procureur-général, and the prefect of police. These experienced persons proceeded to minutely examine the apartment, and soon discovered a track of blood along the passage leading from the apartment of the duchess to that of the duke. Questioned on this strange circumstance, the duke answered, that when awake by the cries of his dying wife, he ran towards her, assisted her as well as he could, and returned to his own room covered with blood. This strange answer awakened suspicion. Search was instantly made in the duke's room, and there was discovered linen stained and saturated with blood, and various sharp instruments red with human gore. This almost confirmed suspicion against the duke into the certainty of his crime; and on an examination of M. de Praslin's person, it was found that his body was excoriated, and the skin abraded in eight places, as though he had been engaged in some desperate encounter. Of these marks and wounds M. de Praslin could give no satisfactory account. Feigning sudden indisposition, he asked leave to retire for a moment to his apartment, in which was a medicine chest, and in an instant after he swallowed a slow poison, of the effects of which he died on the 24th August.

The French law does not permit the arrest of a duke. But M. de Praslin was kept under watch in his mansion, and as soon as a royal ordonnance could be prepared, was conveyed to the Chamber of Peers, and interrogated by the chancellor. On being pressed to acknowledge his crime, he merely replied he had not strength to reply to what would require long explanations. The chancellor intimated that a simple yes or no would suffice, to which the duke rejoined, "A force is required to utter yes or no—an immense fortitude which I have not." There was nothing political assuredly in this foul, horrible, and most unnatural murder. But as this great criminal was a member of the Chamber of Peers, and belonged to the very highest order of nobility, the people who had witnessed within a few months such revolting proofs of corruption and crime, considered this as a new proof of the immorality of the great and high born. The crime of Teste and his accomplices had struck with stupor the middle classes, and had disgusted them with a government fallen into corrupt hands. The crime of M. de Praslin touched more directly the bosoms of the multitude, and was used as an argument against the system of society as it then existed in France.

Both crimes had the effect of shaking and unsettling the convictions of men as to the stability of the political and social edifice, and were among the proximate if not among the promoting causes of that revolution which within a few months was to sweep away the younger family of the Bourbons, and even monarchy itself.

Everything induced reflecting men now to think that reform was necessary to save the monarchy and to prevent a new revolution. M. Odillon Barrot convoked at his house a meeting of all shades of the opposition, and it was agreed that vigorous efforts should be made to sound the cry of reform throughout the country. The central committee, established in 1845 to manage the elections of the capital, still existed, and this body offered its co-operation to MM. Thiers, Odillon Barrot, Abbattucci, Duvergier d'Hauranne, Gustave de Beaumont, Garnier Pages, Carnot, &c. A petition for reform was drawn up by M. Pagnerre, and it was determined in the principal towns and localities to obtain an adhesion to this petition. The government was not much alarmed at these projects. The members of the Cabinet declared that this new-born zeal for petitioning would soon expire. The king made no secret to a chosen few of the disrelish and repugnance which the very name of reform excited in his mind, and the royal aides-de-camp took care to make known his Majesty's opinion in every corner of the Chamber. After having spread and sown petitions for reform broadcast throughout France, the central committee prepared a series of banquets to be held throughout the country. The first of these was at the Château Rouge, and consisted of 1200 electors of Paris and a great number of deputies. Among the speakers were MM. Odilon Barrot, Duvergier d'Hauranne, Marie Recurt, and Senard, afterwards functionaries under the republican government. The banquet at Paris was followed by one at Macon, at which M. de Lamartine, in a spirit of prophecy, predicted, that if the government of July did not reform its ways it would surely fall—fall not in blood, like the government of 1789, but in the very snares which it had itself laid. The banquet at Colmar was presided over by M. de Rosée, first president of the royal court. At the Strasbourg dinner 700 guests from all parts of Alsace assembled under the presidency of M. Leichtenberger, batoumier of the faculty of advocates. There was scarcely a man in this assembly who was not a republican, the eastern frontier of France being somewhat in advance of the rest of the country. Soissons, Forges, St Quentin, each had its banquet. At the banquet of St Quentin M. Barrot severely criticised the speech of M. Guizot at Li- sieux, and declared that if such doctrines were allowed to prevail, France would become demoralized by its government, and, losing the instinct of its great destinies, would daily sink in the scale of nations. This was another motion to the men in power—a monition which they disregarded.

Algeria had hitherto been for the government a great embarrassment. The most experienced administrators, the most renowned and skilful generals, had there encountered the greatest difficulties, and after long efforts and immense sacrifices, peace was not assured. Marshal Bugeaud having resigned the functions of governor-general, it was necessary to replace him. The successor named was the Duke d'Aumale, a young man of five-and-twenty, whose sole recommendation consisted in his being the king's son.

People asked themselves again and again whether the revolution of July had been made to secure such a nomination—a nomination savouring of the very worst traditions of the old monarchy. It is well known that after having reluctantly signed this nomination, Marshal Soult placed his portfolio in the hands of the king. It was easy enough to find an illustrious soldier to succeed the marshal, but the king preferred braving the opposition by giving the presidency of the council to M. Guizot. This nomination added fresh fuel to the agitation. New banquets were organized in every town and village in France. At Perigueux M. Taillefer, member for Sarlat, warned the middle class that it was becoming indoctrinated with the exclusiveness of the ancient noblesse, and that it would fall like the ancient noblesse if it denied the imperious necessity of political progress. At Meaux 750 persons sat down to the political banquet, and among others M. Drouyn de Lhuys, so recently minister for foreign affairs. This gentleman, in allusion to M. Guizot, protested against the cynicism of apostates. Similar banquets were held at Coulongiers, and in other towns and departments. In fact, reform was in every mouth. M. Ledru Rollin was invited to the banquet at Lille, and there was a momentary concert between him and M. Barrot; but as Ledru Rollin seemed disposed to go beyond the limits of the constitution, M. Barrot, who desired reform and not revolution, explained his views and protested. In consequence of this discordance in the views of some of the leading men, there were now banquets of various shades of opinion. In some the socialist and revolutionary spirit prevailed—in some the reforming spirit. But at all these banquets, vituperation was directed against corruption and against corrupters—in other words, against the men in power and the system which they followed. At every fresh banquet a louder and a louder denunciation was directed against the complicity of M. Guizot with M. de Metternich.

While the banquets were still going on, the government received a fresh warning. The council-general of the Seine, on the 12th November 1847, expressed its desire that the government and the chambers would modify and reform the electoral law of the 19th April 1831.

The government was, if possible, more unpopular for its foreign than for its domestic policy. In Switzerland it went hand in hand with Austria, and sustained the Jesuits of Lucerne and Fribourg and the Sonderbund. When the Sonderbund was destroyed on the 29th November the majority of Frenchmen rejoiced, for despotism and superstition received a stunning blow; but the sympathies of M. Guizot were not with the partisans of enlightenment, progress, and liberty. He looked on Switzerland, governed by liberals and freed from Jesuits, to use his own words, as "a state organized for aggression." He recognised an equal right in the vanquished Sonderbund, as in the diet, to send a representative to the conference of the five great powers on the affairs of Switzerland.

The policy of M. Guizot in Italy had been equally unpopular with the nation. He feebly approved, indeed, of the first reforms of the weak, vacillating, and insincere Pius IX. But on the question of the occupation of Ferrara, too, the conduct of M. Guizot was pusillanimous compared with that of Casimir Périer in 1832. In one line he approved of the protest of the Pope, but in the next he blamed the inexperience of a government influenced by public opinion, and seeking to satisfy it by the publication of its official acts. The conduct of M. Guizot's diplomatic agent at Rome, M. Rossi, a subject of the Pope (a man born and educated at Bologna—now a naturalized Frenchman), was altogether wanting in energy and in proper conception of his duties as the representative of France. While M. Rossi was playing a game of equivocation, management, and low cunning, the foreign minister of England showed that he understood the crisis, and despatched a Cabinet colleague, Lord Minto, to Italy. Lord Minto was everywhere received with testimonies of respect, whilst the name of Rossi was loathed by his countrymen.

Among the French diplomatic corps there were men who M. Bresson openly murmured against the miserable part which they had suède were called upon to act. M. Bresson, formerly French ambassador in Spain, now ambassador at Naples, had counselled a different course, but his advice and remonstrances were unheeded. In passing through Florence he expressed himself freely on public affairs, did not spare M. Guizot or even the king himself, remarking that it was a piece of negligible vanity and a false move for France to co-operate with or approve of the Austrian policy in Italy. The king, who was informed of this fact, harshly reproached M. Bresson with his indiscreet words. M. Bresson, who had made such sacrifices of character to support the personal policy of the king in the Spanish marriages, was stung to the quick by these reproaches from such a quarter, and put an end to his existence by suicide.

It is now known, from documents which have seen the light since the revolution of 1848, and which were published in the Revue Retrospective, that some members of the king's own family warmly disapproved of his foreign and domestic policy. In a communication from the Prince de Joinville Letter of to the Duke de Nemours, dated Spezzia, the 7th November, the Prince de Joinville says, "the death of Bresson appears to me a fatality; he was not ill; he executed his plan with the determination of a resolute man. He was incensed against our father. The fact is, the king is inflexible; he listens to no counsel; his will must have its way over all obstacles. There are in fact no ministers; their responsibility is as nothing. Everything proceeds from the king. He is now of an age when he will listen to no observations whatever," Our position is not good. After seventeen years of peace, the state of our finances is not brilliant. Abroad we might have sought for some of these satisfactions of self-love so dear to our country, and with which we might have turned attention from more serious evils. We have not dared to turn against Austria, fearing that England would immediately reconstruct against us a new holy alliance. We come before the Chamber detestably as to home affairs, and as to foreign our position is not better. All this is the work of the king alone; the result of the old age of a king who wishes to govern, but who wants the energy to take a manly resolution. I had looked for compensations in Italy, but there we shall be forced to make common cause with the retrograde party, which in France will produce a disastrous effect. Alas! these unhappy Spanish marriages. We have not yet exhausted the fount of bitterness they contain. Placed between the alternative of making the amende honorable to Palmerston on the subject of Spain, or of making common cause with Austria to play the gendarme in Switzerland, and struggle in Italy against our principles and our natural allies; ours is a hard fate. All this is traceable to the king alone, who has tampered with our constitutional institutions. I look upon all this as very serious."

These were the terms in which the son of Louis Philippe appreciated public affairs, and the confidant to whom he poured forth his intimate secret thoughts was his brother, the future regent. Such were the effects of substituting a personal for a parliamentary government, and of falsifying and corrupting representative institutions.

At Dieppe there was a vacant seat, and the ministerial candidate was beaten. A more significant circumstance occurred at Rochefort. M. Dumas, one of the king's aides-de-camp, who had represented the electors in 1846, asked for a renewal of their suffrages on his promotion as maréchal-de-camp, but they chose in his place M. Baroche, an advocate of the Parisian bar, distinguished for his talents as well as for his liberal opinions. At Toulouse and Florac also opposition candidates were successful against ministerialists. In Paris the government received a still more significant lesson. Twelve opposition candidates were elected for the offices of mayor and adjoint for the second arrondissement. This circumstance caused a fall of forty centsimes in the bourse. The minister of the interior (Duchâtel) imputed all these ministerial misfortunes to the conduct of M. Guizot, whose subserviency to the will of the king had placed him in opposition to the wishes of the people, and rendered him most unpopular both in the metropolis and in the provinces. The friends of M. Guizot, on the other hand, were not slow in imputing all the evil to the account of M. Duchâtel.

The Chambers were summoned for the 28th December. The king opened the session in person, and read in a faltering voice the speech from the throne. It was a rapid and unmeaning production, and said little on any subject. There was not a word of encouragement of the then reforming and since retrograde Duke of Tuscany; there was no expression of opinion or of hope regarding Italy, or of complaint as to the flagrant violation of treaty in the absorption of Cracow. There was a paragraph, indeed, announcing that France had, in conjunction with the other powers, offered mediation between the parties in the civil war in Switzerland.

The salient passage in the speech, however, was in reference to the banquets. In this passage the king condemned them, and pronounced himself virtually against reform. "In the midst of the agitation fomented by hostile and blind passions, one conviction," said his Majesty, "sustains and animates me: it is, that in the constitutional monarchy, in the union of the great powers of the state, we possess the most assured means of surmounting all obstacles, and of satisfying the moral and material interests of our dear country."

On the first day of the new year, the king experienced a domestic calamity in the loss of his sister Madame Adelaide, who died rather suddenly. The king lost in his sister not alone the companion of his youthful trials and struggles, but a friend whom he consulted on state affairs. Madame Adelaide was a woman of strong and masculine mind and of sound judgment. She had a decided taste for politics, and generally gave her brother good advice. The king was four years older than his sister, and her death came upon him as a warning. He now more than ever felt the effects of age in waning strength and want of energy.

The submission and capture of Abd-el-Kader was also announced on New Year's Day. For some time the emir had been on the frontiers of Morocco, and had formed the capture of ambitious project of conquering that empire. The son of Abd-el-Kader, the last emperor, who complained of being cheated of his birthright by Muley-Abd-el-Rhaman, joined the standard of the emir, who for a time had some success; but the emperor of Morocco and his two sons took the field at the head of considerable forces, and ultimately Abd-el-Kader retired upon the river Malouï, some leagues from the French frontier. Crossing the river without obstacle, he proceeded towards the French possessions in the hope of regaining the desert. But General Lamoricière was informed of his project, and barred his passage on every side. On the 23rd December Abd-el-Kader made his submission to the Duke d'Aumale, in the presence of Generals Lamoricière and Cavaignac. Having placed his sandals outside the door of the apartment, the emir was introduced before the prince, and addressing him said, "I had wished to do what I do today before now, but I awaited the hour marked by God. The general has made me a promise in which I have put faith. I fear not that that promise will be violated by the son of a great king like the king of the French." The emir offered to the duke a steed in token of his submission. The promise which General Lamoricière had given, and which was confirmed by the Duke d'Aumale, was to the effect that the emir should be transported to Alexandria or St Jean d'Arc. The promise possibly was a rash one, but it afforded no excuse for its non-fulfilment by the government. The emir was transferred to the interior of France, where he was confined in the Château d'Amboise.

The commission charged with the task of drawing up an answer to the address was composed of a majority favourable to the ministry. M. Guizot was consoling himself with the hope that the debate would be less stormy than was expected, when another remarkable suit in the courts of law was the cause of another scandal.

This was the case of M. Petit, ex-directeur des postes, who had asked in 1844 for the receivership of Corbeil. The private secretary of M. Guizot, M. Génie, intimated to him that the actual occupier of the place would be advanced, but that a previous condition was attached to the obtaining the receivership. The government required to have an employment of conseiller maître in their hands, and M. Petit could only obtain this by giving a life annuity of 6000 francs to the retiring conseiller maître, with a reversion to the conseiller's wife in case of his death. It thus appeared that employments in the Cour des Comptes were the objects of an ignoble traffic, and that the government sold receiverships to reward with the proceeds of the sale services which would not bear the light of day. This announcement produced a great effect, and served to astound M. Guizot. He sent M. Achille Fould (now one of the ministers of the Emperor of the French) to the counsel of M. Petit, with a view to have the affair hushed up; but to this course M. Petit would not consent. People inquired whether the president of the council could be ignorant of matters that happened in his own Cabinet, and in which his private secretary was a party. It was while these things were going on that M. de Salandy suspended the course of M. Michelet, and that the French Academy submitted to the requirements of the ministry by placing M. Vatout, the king's librarian (and, it was said, his Majesty's natural brother) in the chair of Fenelon.

The discussion on the address opened in the Chamber of Peers on the 10th January. M. Guizot was attacked by M. de Boissy concerning the affair of Petit. The minister did not defend these practices, avoided as much as possible to enter into the question of principle, and pleaded extenuating circumstances with great address. But the adroit rhetorician was followed by MM. Molé, Passy, and D'Argout, who had all been ministers, and who severally stated that they had never authorized such a shameful traffic as this.

M. de Montalembert in his speech reproached M. Guizot with having timidly served "the good cause of the Jesuits in Switzerland." The address presented by M. de Barante in answer to the king's speech was a feeble echo of the royal words. The Chamber modified it in one important particular by felicitating the Sovereign Pontiff, the King of Sardinia, and the Grand Duke of Tuscany on the reforming spirit they had exhibited.

In the Deputies M. Dupin, in allusion to the Petit affair, laid on the table of the House a project of law on the sale of offices. M. Barrot, the leader of the advanced opposition, went over the history of the Petit affair, commenting in indignant terms on that scandalous traffic. "France," he said, "had not till now seen a minister authorizing such shameful transactions, the bartering one place against the resignation of another of which he had need." The denunciation was precise; the crime manifest. M. Guizot did not reply to the charge, but in a melancholy voice implored the majority to put an end to a debate raised out of trifles by an aggressive opposition. "Do you, president of the council and political minister of the Cabinet, call sordid and shameless negotiations and traffickings for place trifles," rejoined the opposition orator? The majority, however, resolved M. Guizot.

M. Thiers confined himself to exposing the state of the budget, showing that for a series of years the expenditure had exceeded the receipts. The floating debt amounted to the enormous figure of 750,000,000 francs, and a rumour of war, the menace of a revolution, a scarcity of corn, or even a less calamity, might throw everything into confusion.

M. Duchâtel replied that the Bourse and the commercial classes had confidence in the government. "So far from this," rejoined M. Thiers, "all kinds of property is depreciated. Railway shares which had reached 900 francs are now at 500 francs." M. Garnier Pages added that the state had borrowed 200 millions from the savings-bank, which was immediately exigible, and that thus the amount of the floating debt was 950 millions.

M. de Tocqueville touched on the moral side of the question with the hand of a master. "Public morals are depraved," said De Tocqueville, "and private morals are deteriorating to the low level of the public. The sense of morality is daily becoming feebler. It is true the working classes are not troubled by political passions as they were formerly, but their politics have become social. They no longer seek to upset such a minister, to overthrow such and such a government, but they wish to uproot and overturn society itself. When such opinions become prevalent, and sink into the minds of the people, they produce sooner or later—one knows not the moment—one knows not how—the most formidable revolutions."

M. Billaut, now minister of the interior, and one of the most formidable opponents of M. Guizot, also followed on this fertile theme in a masterly way.

On the question of foreign affairs, M. de Lamartine spoke at length and eloquently. He sought to demonstrate from the diplomatic correspondence that in all the affairs conducted by M. Guizot at Rome, Florence, Turin, and Naples, from the accession of Pius IX. to the rising in Sicily, the Cabinet of the Tuileries had served the interests of Austria, and betrayed those of Italy and France. The Spanish marriages, in the opinion of the future member of the provisional government, had been the cardinal cause of these errors and omissions, if not grievous crimes.

M. Guizot in his reply exhibited boldness, and, as usual, incontestable talent. He vehemently declaimed against revolutions and revolutionists, and was pungently answered by M. Mauguin. "Why all these big words against revolutions and revolutionists?" said the deputy for the Cote d'Or. "Are not our government, our chambers, our ministers—the very crown itself—are not all these revolutionary?"

The speech of M. Thiers on foreign affairs, though energetical in expression, was in substance moderate enough. He accused the government of indifference in regard to Italy, but he did not require that a new Ancona expedition should be undertaken, or that the standard of French protection should be opposed to the standard of Austrian oppression. M. Thiers had already been a minister, and did not despair of again becoming one. M. Guizot had, therefore, no difficulty in agreeing with him in opinion. M. Guizot blamed, as M. Thiers had done, the Italian princes, who did not spare the blood of their people; he declared, as M. Thiers, the presence of the Austrians at Parma and Modena to be irregular. Odillon Barrot wound up the debate, and declared, midst the deafening cheers of the left, that if Austria dared to renew the outrage on Ferrara, it would be a necessity, an obligation, and a duty of honour for France to oppose her by force of arms. M. Guizot was careful not to gainsay these memorable words. This was another check for the ministry, for after two days' debate and the most haughty language, the government allowed it to be believed that they were about to do what they had been accused of not doing.

On the affairs of Switzerland M. Thiers declared the policies of M. Guizot absurd, and took occasion to say, though not a radical he would always be of the party of the revolution, and that even though the government passed into the hands of radicals, still he would always be of the party of the revolution.

M. Thiers pronounced these words with great energy, his arm extended and his head directed towards that portion of the Chamber dedicated to the press. The words appeared to be especially addressed to M. Armand Marrast, editor of the National, who, with his brother editors and journalists, joined their applauses to those of the Assembly. In thus offering his co-operation to the ardent friends of the revolution, M. Thiers indicated the real gravity of the situation of affairs. No sooner had he made this approach to the radical party, than M. Guizot took, under the guise of moderation, an opposite course, declaiming against radicals, the enemies of the Jesuits, the revolutionary and demagogical spirit, &c.

It was now the 4th February, and there was no prospect of the debate closing. Day by day the most vehement speeches of the deputies against the ministry were read aloud in cafés and public places and rapturously applauded. A few days previously M. de Tocqueville (subsequently one of the Cabinet ministers under the republic of 1848) said he scented the wind of revolution, and he said truly. The discussion on the paragraph "les passions ennemies et les entrainements aveugles" called up M. Duvergier d'Hauranne, who declared that the opposition did not come there to plead before the majority against the minister, but to plead before the country against both the minister and the

---

1 Regnault, tom. iii., 336. Some members of the majority seeing the difficulties and dangers surrounding not merely the ministry but the crown itself; were for bringing forward an amendment which, without overthrowing the ministry would gently lead it into the path of reform. The amendment was denounced by M. Guizot. It was hoped that his colleague M. Duchâtel would be more conciliatory. But M. Duchâtel only envenomed the debate by fresh provocations, declaring that the banquets would be forbidden, and that the government would not yield to such manifestations. M. Barrot answered M. Duchâtel. His language was full of nobleness and elevation. He cited the text of the law in support of the perfect legality of the banquets, and something more powerful than mere precedents—principles long consecrated. It amazed him, he said, to find ministers putting into the mouth of the sovereign outrages and insults addressed to a great number of deputies behind whom were 60,000 citizens. This was a crime against the constitution, and must lead to a coup d'état and to resistance. "I have devoted my life," said the leader of the constitutional opposition, "to defend the principles of 1830, and I throw on the ministry the fearful responsibility of events."

This speech produced an immense impression, and some members of the majority, such as MM. d'Arblay, Desmousseaux de Givré, and Sallandrouze, were for a compromise, and for suggesting to the government wise and moderate reforms.

But MM. Guizot and Duchâtel would hear of no middle course. M. de Remusat conjured the ministry not to put in peril the person of the king, the institutions of the country, the last guarantees of public peace. But the ministry was obstinate, and the amendment of M. Givré was lost by a majority of 43, and the amendment of M. Sallandrouze by a majority of 33.

On the day on which the discussion on the address terminated, the opposition deputies met at the Café Durand, in the Place de la Madeleine. Armand Marrast proposed that the deputies of the opposition should send in their resignation in a body. This would cause the election of 102 deputies, each of whom would discuss in the presence of the same number of constituencies throughout the kingdom the misdeeds of the ministry. The liberal papers proposed to give these speeches to the exclusion of the parliamentary debates. This project of M. Marrast was supported by MM. Marie and Chambolle; but Garnier Pages and Martin de Strasbourg were of a different opinion, and Duverger d'Hauranne, de Lamarine, and de Remusat spoke against the project of resignation at the meeting presided over by M. Barrot. The majority was therefore for holding the banquet and accepting the challenge of M. Duchâtel. A commission was named to organize the banquet, who fixed upon the locality in which it was to be held. All commercial affairs were meanwhile suspended in Paris. The great majority of the inhabitants of Paris undoubtedly wished to avoid extremities, but no one advised the opposition to prevent the effusion of blood by a sudden retreat. The Conservatives themselves, alarmed and cast down, admitted that the government had provoked the contest by imprudent provocations, and that it ought to yield—that it would disarm the self-love of the opposition by the least concession.

On the 14th February the Débats announced that the ministry would pursue a conciliatory course, and that before the end of the session there would be reforms. The king, however, disapproved of this article, and would not hear of the least concession. The very name of the word reform rendered his Majesty furious. "All the world is for reform," said the king, "but I will never yield to this weakness. Reform is the coming in of the opposition—and the entry into power of the opposition is war and the beginning of the end. As soon as the opposition assumes the reins of government I will retire." But this was mere make-believe. The king had not the least idea of retiring. General Jacqueminot answered for the National Guard, and the army was animated with an excellent spirit. Such were the ideas and feelings of the king, and no one dared to contradict him. The minister, it was thought, dictated the article in the Débats. But being disavowed by the king and the courtiers, M. Duchâtel dared not justify it, and M. Guizot hastened to disavow it. Each day, each hour, now seemed to render a conflict more imminent. The place chosen for the banquet was the Rue Chemin de Versailles, Champs Élysées. Tents were prepared on the 20th and 21st, when M. de Morny and M. Vitet sought an interview with M. Barrot, to say that if the opposition could not draw back, so neither could the government yield; but that there was a via media to avoid a collision by placing the question in dispute before the Juges Correctionelles. M. de Morny (the same who took so prominent a part in the coup d'état of December 1852) promised, in the name of the government, that the opposition might freely go to the banquet, that it would meet with no impediment; but that, on the other hand, the government would perform its part in summoning the guests to disperse, and would draw up a proces verbal of the unlawful act, with a view to render M. Boissel, the president of the day, M. Barrot, and the most prominent of his friends, accountable before the Correctional Judges. All this was done with the sanction of M. Duchâtel, and the opposition agreed to the terms. But at the last moment, the court party would not hear of these conditions. The king was indignant, and complained that he was surrounded by men without courage, that he was no longer served but betrayed.

Everything seemed to announce that there would be an immense concourse of people. This, as well as the convocation of the National Guard by the committee of the banquet, and the certainty that it would answer to the call, caused no small alarm to the government.

The reports of the police informed the home minister that a considerable number of National Guards of Paris, Montmartre, Belleville, Sceaux, St Denis, and Berey, would accept the invitation of the central committee, and it was intimated from the same source that the number of citizens who would take part in these manifestations would amount to more than 100,000. This account filled the government with terror. The ministry thought that if the opposition succeeded in managing such a number of people, it would become far too powerful, and would be in effect a government overshadowing the real government. This was the language of the king, of the princes, of the aides-de-camp, and of the ardent Conservatives. M. Duchâtel was accused by these people, and by the whole camarilla of the court, of having by his weakness compromised authority. Under these circumstances he charged his envoys MM. Vitet and de Morny to withdraw the promise they had given to M. Barrot. M. Barrot, on again seeing these gentlemen, informed them, that if the minister by this conduct speculated on aggravating the shame of retreat or the seriousness of resistance, he calculated without his host. The conduct of the opposition, even of the most advanced portion of it, was throughout moderate and dignified. All shades of opposition were willing to insert a paragraph or note in the journals, stating that in convoking the National Guard for a great manifestation, the opponents of government did not mean to usurp any of its powers or functions. M. Armand Marrast, who was present, concurred in these views. The opposition, therefore, had by this proceeding assumed a more moderate and submissive attitude, yet when MM. Vitet and de Morny returned to M. Duchâtel they found his views changed. The only individual in the Cabinet who appeared to desire a peaceable solution had in the interim been gained over by his colleagues. M. Guizot, sustained by the court, was more unbending and peremptory than ever, and M. Jacqueminot, the commander of the National Guard, was boastful and combative. M. Barrot and his friends were deeply grieved when they learned that their explanations were unavailing. The government rejecting the conditions which their commissaries had proposed the night before, a collision appeared inevitable if the opposition persisted in its design—a collision, too, not at the door of the banqueting hall on the question of the right of meeting in a private house, but a collision on the Place de la Madeleine, and upon a very different question, the right of assembling in a public thoroughfare. The circumstances and conditions were not, in this state of affairs, so favourable to the opposition; and it was now the day before the banquet, the 21st February. About half-past four in the evening, M. Barrot proceeded to the Chamber and asked of the minister a public explanation. M. Duchâtel replied, that at the commencement he only wished a judicial solution of the question, that the deputies of the opposition might still proceed in their individual capacities to the banquet, but that no crowd or gathering of people would be allowed in the public street. M. Barrot replied, that intentions were imputed to the authors of the banquet which they never entertained; that the government wished to construe a lawful and pacific manifestation into an act of insurrection, and that the putting Paris into a state of siege upon so frivolous a pretext would excite the very tumult the government professed a desire to quell. The impression left on the mind by the perusal of these explanations is, that the government was at once provocative and perfidious, and that the banqueters, bold at the beginning, now began to exhibit somewhat of weakness and fear.

As soon as the Chamber adjourned, the opposition met to determine its course of action. Their deliberations were short but stormy. They resolved neither to go to the banquet individually nor at the head of a vast procession and cortege as had been proposed. They preferred being absent and subject to all manner of reproaches rather than incur the responsibility of a sanguinary struggle. It should be observed that in their characters of deputies, the opposition, in thus momentarily foregoing a right, pledged themselves to use every constitutional effort to cause that right to prevail, at no distant day, over what they termed a corrupt, violent, and anti-national ministry.

On the day fixed for the banquet two proclamations were affixed on the walls of Paris, one by General Jacqueminot, addressed to the National Guards of the Seine, the other signed by the prefect of police Dessertet, written, it is said, by M. de Morny, in which the government, founding itself on the provisions of a law of 1790, forbade the banquets, declaring, in addition, that it was prepared to disperse by force all assemblages and processions encountered on the public thoroughfares.

The opposition also in its journals published a manifesto, stating that in abstaining from the banquet they were governed by feelings of moderation and humanity, but that there remained for them yet to accomplish a great act of firmness and justice. This great act, thus distinctly alluded to, was a demand for an impeachment of the ministry. The proposal was immediately drawn up and signed, and was in the following words:—"We propose to impeach the ministry as guilty—1. Of having betrayed abroad the honour and interests of France. 2. Of having falsified the principles of the constitution, violated the guarantees of liberty, and attacked the rights of citizens. 3. Of having, by systematic corruption, attempted to substitute for the free expression of public opinion the sordid calculations of private interest, thus perverting representative government. 4. Of having trafficked in public functions and privileges. 5. Of having ruined the finances of the state, and thus compromised the national grandeur and strength. 6. Of having violently despoiled citizens of an inherent right, guaranteed by the charter, by the laws, and by precedents. 7. Of having, by a counter-revolutionary policy, placed in jeopardy the fruits of two revolutions, and thrown the country into perturbation."

The energy which the opposition now exhibited in this act of firmness was meant to atone for the too great moderation exhibited in the affair of the banquets. There were not wanting resolute men, such as MM. de Lamartine, Arago, de Malleville, Marie, and L'Herbette, who still counselled the opposition to take an heroic decision, and commit themselves with the executive; but the leaders are not to be blamed for not following this advice.

On the 22d February, an immense multitude arriving from all the faubourgs, proceeded to the Madeleine, the Champs Elysées, and the Place de la Concorde. There were workmen and artisans who came to offer to the reforming deputies their active co-operation. The greater number of them were ignorant of the determination taken the night before to abstain from the banquet. Some, however, who knew the intention of the opposition, still hoped that it might in some way be modified; some again were animated with those vehement emotions, the precursors of political storms. Every means was employed to calm these over-excited citizens. Even the Reforme, the most advanced of the Parisian journals, called on the people to remain calm and impassible, and to consider all turbulent and vehement men as police spies. The officers of the National Guard and the delegates of the schools assembled at the house of M. Perrée, manager of the Siècle. Another meeting was held at the office of the Reforme, where were collected the leading men of the secret societies. Even at this meeting, notwithstanding the efforts of some violent talkers, gained over by the police, it was decided to remain passive. So that on the part of the opposition, every effort was made by all men having influence to keep the people quiet. Nevertheless, notwithstanding all these efforts, the people were agitated, and looked as though they would appeal to arms. The troops were kept in readiness to act. The government, living in narrow cliques, and knowing nothing of the feelings of the people, was, from first to last, free from all alarm, more especially since it had learned the resolution come to at the meeting at Barrot's, Perrée's, and at the office of the Reforme. The king was in great good humour, felt the most perfect confidence, and laughed with the 'courtiers at the idea of M. Barrot and the reformers being at all formidable. But, meanwhile, vast gatherings had taken place in places where there were no troops. An immense phalanx of students and workmen had already, in tolerable order, traversed half Paris, singing the Marseillaise, and crying "Vive la Reforme! à bas les ministres." This crowd had reached the Chamber of Deputies, had forced the doors open, and withdrew across the Place de la Concorde to the residence of M. Barrot. When the troops appeared in the quarters in which the crowd was most compact, the soldiers were received with hisses, and saluted with a shower of stones. The excitement increased every moment, especially in the neighbourhood of the Chamber of Deputies, and the Rue Royale, Rue de Rivoli, and Rue Saint Honoré. A couple of hours later these streets were occupied with cavalry. The populace, driven into the middle of Paris, and into the back streets, constructed several barricades, and shot responded to shot between the army and the insurrectionists. This, however, was but the beginning of the fray. It could hardly as yet be considered very grave or serious. There had been some victims undoubtedly, but they were not many. Yet the attentive observer could discern from the different circumstances of the struggle, and from the manner in which it had been conducted, that it would have serious results. It was the people, the real veritable downright people, the very sinew, muscle, brawn, and bone of Paris, which everywhere began the encounter. All other classes held themselves aloof, and counselled submission, but the people would not submit. Wherever the uniform of the abhorred municipal guards was perceived, it was observed the struggle at once furiously commenced. As the municipals spread themselves far and wide, the encounter became general, vehement, ruthless, sanguinary, almost savage. The second day, Feb. 23, was more fruitful of incidents and results than the 22d. The people showed themselves everywhere with aspects more grave and sombre, daring and determined. New barricades were raised in all the narrow streets in which the working people lived—streets wholly inaccessible to cavalry, and in which a much more murderous struggle commenced than had been witnessed the day before. General Jacqueminot had boasted the day previously that he was sure of the National Guard, and counting on that force with certainty, had not summoned it. It was, however, at length irregularly convoked by the orders of mayors, chefs de bataillon, and captains; and when it assembled, some scores of National Guards cried "Vive la Réforme!" In an instant the cry became general and universal in the ranks, and was shouted almost electrically from every throat. "Vive la Réforme!" was now the rallying word sped from mouth to mouth. Behind the barricades the people shouted "Vive la Réforme!" and before the barricades, in presence of the army, the National Guard, marching in compact order, shouted the same cry. The army appeared stricken and palsied with a sudden stupor. The officers hesitated—the troops faltered—and it was already plain they would not attack the National Guard as a band of insurgents. Could they attack the men behind, who wished what the National Guard wished, and uttered precisely the same cry, "Vive la Réforme! à bas les ministres?" The army and the National Guard remained inactive and passive; the municipal guard, however, never hesitated or faltered for a moment. Detested by the people, even more than the Swiss in the time of Charles X., and well aware of the abhorrence in which it was held, the municipal guard for a while spared no citizen. But very soon the National Guard got between them and the people, and forced them to give in. As the insurrection extended, it became more and more successful. Everywhere the words "Vive la Réforme! à bas les ministres!" were understood, pronounced, and accepted with electrical enthusiasm. These undoubted facts at length reached the king's ears. Till this moment Louis Philippe had no idea of the state of public opinion. When told that the Garde Nationale was for reform, and the bourgeoise against the government, he received the intimation of an undoubted fact with a smile of easy incredulity.

To the peers, deputies, generals, and officials, who flocked to the Tuileries, the king put but one question. Could it be true—could it be possible—that the National Guard had made common cause with Thiers, Barrot, the National, and the agitators for reform? The mournful, hopeless looks of peers, deputies, generals, and officials, betrayed the real truth to the wondering yet still unconvinced monarch. In this exigency M. Guizot arrived to tender his resignation. Whether this resignation was then formally accepted, it is impossible to know; but the news that it had been accepted was immediately spread abroad, and was received as a satisfaction to the popular wishes, and as a token of reconciliation between king and people. The resignation of M. Guizot and Reform were now the words. The barricades were vacated—the troops and the people shook hands and fraternized. The people were victorious and content.

The Boulevards instantly began to swarm with people—some armed—some unarmed, but all repeating the joyous news that blood had ceased to flow, and that peace was happily restored. On hearing these words everywhere repeated, old men, women, children, and the most peaceably disposed bourgeoise sallied forth to hail the evening which put an end to cruel civil war. Illuminations in token of rejoicing were called for, and every one was preparing to obey the call and to illuminate brilliantly. But the evening was again to hear cries of civil war, and to witness internecine strife. An immense crowd was passing along the Boulevards, increased by thousands from the streets on either side, when, all of a sudden, a shot fired by an unknown hand was heard in the precincts of the ministry of Foreign Affairs, where a detachment of infantry was stationed. Believing itself attacked, this detachment fired on the crowd, and every ball told with fatal effect on that compact, close-pressed, unresisting multitude. Fifty mangled, bleeding, wounded, groaning, and dying victims were picked up at once. The dying were carried to the neighbouring houses; the dead were placed upon a tumbril, and this rude funereal car was dragged by the people into the streets in which the insurrection so lately raging had subsided.

The hearts of that immense crowd swelled with emotions of anger and the desire of vengeance. Words fail in painting the effect produced on the multitude by the sight of this heap of corpses exposed by torch-light, from whose open wounds there trickled on the pavement blood still warm. Feelings of horror and indignation mixed in the minds of the multitude with the desire of vengeance; yet no one could tell why this causeless carnage took place. It is supposed that a false alarm was given to the troops, that they were seized with a sudden terror, or that an order hastily given was misunderstood, or that the troops conceived the random shot fired was directed against them. The populace, however, stopped not to inquire into the cause, fortuitous or otherwise, of this deplorable catastrophe. In their fury and vengeance, they only cried, "abominable treachery, inhuman barbarity, thus to draw us out of the barricades and then to massacre us and shout us down." The cortege of corpses passed down the Boulevards to the office of the National. There an immense crowd, composed of working men, of artisans, shopkeepers, and superior officers of the National Guard, had already assembled. MM. de Maleville and Arago also had hastened to the spot to hear details from the editor. "Alas!" said M. Marrast, "after what has already passed, there is but one cry—the cry for vengeance. The people look upon the troop who fired as the assassins of an unarmed population, and the government can be no longer saved." New barricades were now raised at the extremity of every street, and the army, aware of what occurred—not to retreat—a prey to emotions of astonishment, terror, and grief, allowed the construction of barricades which commanded every position.

At daybreak on the 23d Paris was a vast battle-field, Paris on Behind the intrenchments and barricades hastily raised by the 23d February, the people, were seen glistening weapons of every size and of every form. Vengeance, vengeance for the massacres, for the murders committed under the windows of M. Guizot, was the only cry. The men behind these barricades, says M. Regnault, did not for a moment doubt that what occurred had been done by the order of the unpopular minister. While the people were under this impression, the news spread like wildfire that Marshal Bugeaud was appointed commandant-general of all the military forces of Paris, and that the powers of MM. Jacqueminot and Tiburce Sébastiani were united in his hands. The news was soon announced by placards, which were immediately torn down. General chief. Bugrand, said each man to his neighbour, is the pitiless man of the Rue Transnonain. Such a selection could have but one meaning. The king in placing plenary powers in M. Bugrand's hands announced that he was ready to go all the lengths of a determined and desperate resistance. But a couple of hours after having adopted this energetic resolution, the king allowed himself to be persuaded that it was better to tender the olive branch, better to offer peace than war. His Majesty sent for M. Thiers, who hastened to respond to this proof of confidence. M. Molé had been sent for an hour previously, but had not appeared. M. Thiers was at first coldly received by Louis Philippe, but his Majesty subsequently charged him with the formation of a Cabinet, asking his opinion as to the strategic plans of Marshal Bugrand. M. Thiers approved of the plans of the general, but could not, he said, form a ministry without M. Barrot.

"Circumstances," said M. Thiers, "imperiously require this nomination." At first the king could not believe he understood M. Thiers aright. When he heard the name of M. Barrot pronounced, he exhibited a contemptuous impatience. "To say that the people require reform," said his Majesty, "is to repeat a mere casual coffee-house remark. Turbulent demagogues may talk of reform, but the people do not, indeed they are too sensible to require it." M. Thiers respectfully declining to enter any Cabinet of which M. Barrot did not form a part, the king at length comprehended that he must accept of M. Barrot.

M. Barrot was accordingly summoned, and on his appearance showed himself much more difficult to treat with than M. Thiers. The king was willing to take M. Barrot, but M. Barrot could not wage war against an army of reformers and command the massacre of men who cried "Vive la Réforme," and with whom he had recently associated at banquets and elsewhere. He could not join Marshal Bugrand in attacking citizens with whom he had made common cause. The king was then forced to yield to the imperious necessity of his position.

A proclamation was immediately issued, signed by Odilon Barrot and Thiers, stating that an order had been given to the army to cease firing on the people; that Barrot and Thiers were charged by the king with the formation of a ministry; that the Chamber would be dissolved; that General Lamoricière was commander-in-chief of the National Guard of Paris; and that Odilon Barrot, Thiers, Lamoricière, and Duvergier d'Hauranne were ministers. The proclamation concluded with these words—Liberté! Ordre! Union! Réforme! The previous evening such a proclamation as this would have calmed the most angry spirit; now it was too late, and M. Barrot deceived himself in thinking it would produce any result. In fact, the people did not believe in the sincerity of the king; and his sudden conversion appeared to them a blind or a snare.

M. Barrot appeared himself on the Boulevards to explain his proclamation to the crowd; but the people answered that the king had a more elastic conscience than the minister, and that, having taken up arms, they would have something better than promises—in a word, the dethronement of Louis Philippe.

It was now the morning of the 24th of February, and the royal family were assembled in the Gallery of Maria, where breakfast was about to be served. MM. de Remusat and Duvergier d'Hauranne were introduced by an officer of the staff in attendance on the king. They came in all haste to announce that on the Place de la Concorde they had seen soldiers quitting their ranks and delivering up their arms. The king rose and requested MM. de Remusat and Duvergier to follow him into his private apartment. "Sire," said the queen, "Montez à cheval, and if necessary know how to die." From the balcony of the Tuileries the eyes of your wife and of your children will follow and speed you." The king left the room, presently reappeared in military uniform, descended into the courtyard, mounted a horse, and passed some regiments in review. In the court of the Tuileries there were among the troops two battalions of the National Guards, and one of these received the king with cries of "Vive la Réforme." The king instantly returned to his apartments, dispirited and dismayed. The Tuileries were soon filled with crowds of deputies of every shade of opinion, of functionaries of every rank, all bearing the same intelligence. The only question now was as to abdication. The word was at length pronounced in the hearing of the king; and while some friendly voices encouraged him not to abdicate, sinister murmurs were heard on every side. The words il faut abdiquer were repeated, and it was added that the Ecole Polytechnique were behind the barricades; that the army had fraternized with the people, had delivered up muskets and cartouches; and that the revolution was everywhere victorious.

The queen alone boldly and firmly opposed the measure conduct of abdication. Her Majesty saw none of the perils of which the advisers of the king spoke; nor did she for a moment listen to their counsels. She cared not, she said, what was said in or out of the Tuileries, but, in her estimate, revolution was ever a crime, and abdication a cowardice. "Sire," said the queen energetically, in conclusion, "a king should never lose his crown without making an effort to defend it."

Louis Philippe appeared for a moment to yield to these strongly-felt, sincere, and sinewy words, and seemed wavering in his resolve, when fresh messengers brought more fearful tidings. General Lamoricière had been wounded, and the insurrectionists, encountering no resistance, were now actually attacking the last post which protected the Tuileries. The fusillade which thundered in the Carousol reverberated in the chamber in which the king stood, and already an armed multitude were entering the palace of the ancient kings of France.

At this moment it was that the king, seizing a pen, signed his act of abdication in the following words:

"I abdicate the crown, which I held by the will of the nation, and which I accepted to restore peace and concordation among Frenchmen. Finding it impossible to accomplish this task, I leave the crown to my grandson, the Count of Philippe. Paris. May he be more fortunate than I have been."

"Louis Philippe."

A few minutes after this abdication was signed, the following placard was posted on the walls of Paris:

"Citizens of Paris,

"The king abdicates in favour of the Count of Paris, with the Duchess d'Orléans for regent.

"A general amnesty.

"A dissolution of the Chamber.

"An appeal to the country."

After having abdicated, Louis Philippe, taking the arm of the queen, fled with her. A few minutes afterwards the Duchess d'Orléans, who was no longer safe in the Tuileries, proceeded to the Place de la Concorde, and thence to the Chamber of Deputies. As her royal highness was in the act of leaving the Tuileries the people were entering the palace, and she had scarcely entered the Chamber of Deputies when the Chamber was invaded by the insurgents. Madame d'Orléans, a stranger in France, scarcely known by the people, had not a single enemy. Under ordinary circumstances this good and amiable lady would have been much more joyfully hailed as regent than the Duke de Nemours. But who would confer on her the regency in that alarming crisis? "Neither the king, who was a fugitive; nor the people, who had just reconquered their sovereignty." Some individual Frenchmen, inspired by the best motives, such as MM. Barrot, de Remusat, and Jules de Lasteyrie, were in favour of this course; but the more ardent leaders of the revolution, instead of abandoning the care of their interests to a child, and an interesting and benevolent lady who had as yet shown no special aptitude for affairs of state, determined on constituting a provisional government; and MM. Dupont de l'Eure, Arago, de Lamartine, Garnier Pages, Ledru Rollin, Marie, and Cre-mieux, who were named by acclamation in the Chamber of Deputies to form a government, repaired to the Hôtel de Ville. A few hours afterwards the republic was proclaimed.

The truth is, that none were prepared to accept the heavy burden of affairs, with all their serious consequences, but the republicans. Some of them had perhaps in the last hours of the struggle precipitated the crisis, convinced doubtless of the excellence of democratic institutions; but the greater number, dragged along by the rush of events with a kind of vague astonishment, had allowed themselves to be carried along with the stream. When all shades of the constitutional party had renounced the hope of forming a government—when every interest in the state, appalled by the danger of the situation, cried out for a government of some kind—there was no choice, there was no possibility of anything but the republic or anarchy.

The provisional government did not for a moment hesitate, and wisely resolved to administer the only government then possible—a republic.

The ex-king of the French, accompanied by the queen, escaped through the garden of the Tuileries, and arrived at the gate which opens upon the Place de la Concorde. The royal carriages were not at the obelisk to receive the party, and the square was occupied by a crowd of armed men, exasperated by the conduct of the municipal guards. The crowd, notwithstanding its excitement, commiserated the misfortunes of the man, and saw in him, not a king, but a fugitive. Every one cried, "Let him go—let him escape." This was now somewhat difficult, as the king's carriages had been seized by the people on the Place du Caroussel, and committed to the flames. Two small one-horse carriages and a cabriolet at length arrived. Into these vehicles fifteen personages, comprising the ex-king and queen, were closely packed, and the cavalcade drove off, under the protection of a regiment of cavalry, to St Cloud. There the ex-king did not long remain, as he was not in safety. General Dumas now procured two public carriages, which transported the fugitives to Trianon. The ex-king intended to journey to Eu, but he had hurried from the Tuileries, leaving a sum of 330,000 francs in bank notes in his cabinet, and was without ready money. The purse of the queen contained but a few gold pieces, and the other members of the royal family were not better provided. General Dumas proceeded to Versailles, borrowed 1200 francs of a friend, and hired two berlines. Into these carriages the king and queen, passing under the names of Monsieur and Madame Lebrun, with the Prince of Saxe-Coburg, the Princess Clementine, and the Princess Marguerite, daughter of the Duke de Nemours, the Duke de Montpensier, the Duchess de Nemours, and their suite, entered and drove towards the château de Dreux, the burial place of the House of Orleans, where the ex-queen wished to weep and pray over the tomb of her eldest son.

Having passed the night of the 24th at the Château de Dreux, on the morning of the 25th Louis Philippe learned that the republic had been proclaimed.

The king now resolved to gain the coast of England. The Duke de Montpensier, the Duchess de Nemours, and her two sons, proceeded in the direction of Granville. The king, the queen, and M. de Rumigny proceeded on the road to Evreux, and stopped towards nightfall at the gates of a small château, the property of an agent of the king. The agent with all his family were absent, but a farmer opened the gates to his unknown guests. Soon after the master of the château arrived, and by his aid the king escaped to Harfleur, suffering much both physically and mentally. The weather was cold and wretched; a north-west wind blew with uncommon violence, and the ex-king was obliged to travel 24 leagues without changing horses or taking any repose. At eight o'clock on the 26th February Louis Philippe arrived at Harfleur; and after many hair-breadth escapes and fruitless efforts to set sail from Trouville, the English vice-consul at Havre at length succeeded in placing at the disposal of his ex-Majesty the Express packet boat. On the 2d March, in the evening, the king and queen embarked at Harfleur for Havre on board the ordinary packet boat among a crowd of ordinary passengers. The king, wrapped in a large cloak, had a passport in the name of William Smith. The English consul received the ex-king at Havre, and conducted him on board the Express, which at once put to sea.

On the 3d March the ex-king arrived at Newhaven, and on the 4th at Claremont. It must be stated to the credit of the provisional government that it by every means Philippe in its power sought to favour the escape of the dis-crowned monarch. The only orders given by the government were that, in case he was arrested, he should be safely conducted to the frontier. On the day following the revolution, when the republic had been only proclaimed in three or four towns, Frenchmen had ceased to speak of the old king, of his grandson, or of the regent. At the very moment when the ex-king was assuming a false name, adopting a false passport, and thinking his life menaced, and covering himself with all manner of disguises, the provisional government was only anxious to know the quarter to which he had directed his steps, not to retain him as a prisoner, or to demand of him a severe account of his eighteen years' state stewardship, but to facilitate and protect his departure from a country that had cast him off.

Louis Philippe prided himself on having destroyed the good understanding between public men of eminence—having made them eager rivals and jealous enemies by the allurements of office; and on having founded on the destruction of parliamentary leagues his personal system. His grand merit, no doubt, was in having so long maintained the peace of the world. But peace was more than once maintained at the expense of the dignity of France in her relations with other courts. This timid policy suited the position and temporizing character of the man, and, for a time, found favour with the middle classes, on whose support the monarch mainly relied. The bourgeoise and middle classes of France have many valuable qualities—industry and a love of labour, respect for the law, and a hatred of fanaticism. They are frugal, social, and, though vain, of easy and enjoyable dispositions. But they want elevation of character, they take neither large nor broad views, but are governed by contracted ideas. Louis Philippe did not himself rise much above the level of this class, a class which he did not seek to elevate, or to inspire with better instincts than the desire to get rich, and to get rich speedily. On the foundation of this universal selfishness there arose an organized system of corruption and cupidity, which sapped and undermined public and private virtue.

The great and fatal mistake of the king was in attempting to govern as well as to reign—to be not only the king but the minister of France. At home, as well as abroad, this led to a system purely personal, and the honour of the country and its great interests were sacrificed to considerations exclusively dynastic. Louis Philippe had only one end and object in view, and that was to consolidate the dynasty of Orleans. The means by which he sought to attain this end were the most vulgar and common-place. Bourgeois Louis Philippe looked only to his own narrow interests, and these he pursued in a tricky and huckstering spirit. He was a lover of peace, not so much from any higher principle, as from the apprehension that war would put to hazard his dynasty, and thwart his projects for the aggrandisement of his house. In pursuing his selfish schemes he cared little for the national honour. The question of advantage was ever with him above the question of honour; and for a most narrow and miserable view of what he deemed his family interest he lost, and ruined himself by losing, the English alliance. His personal policy and views were carried into the affairs of state. His object was in the government of France to cause what are called material interests to preponderate over the highest considerations of national policy. With this view he encouraged all manner of speculations. He effected a great deal of good in extending canals, in the building of bridges, in the opening of new means of communication, and also in improving and beautifying Paris: but he encouraged other speculations of a more questionable character, which injured the finances and burdened the resources of the state. Corruption during the eighteen years of his reign became more and more prevalent, as the taste for luxuries and material enjoyments increased.

The personal character of the monarch had much influence on the politicians around him. It had the effect of rendering public men more servile, insincere, and dishonest. The king wished to rule and govern everybody, even his ministers, so fond was he of exercising influence; and to please the monarch, more than one minister gave in to his personal views. The desire of the king to dominate and govern all was the less extraordinary, as he was by nature laborious, systematic, and self-willed even to obstinacy. He conceived that his good fortune and his success in life were altogether owing to his own efforts, talents, and wisdom, and that nobody was so capable of conducting affairs as himself. "Where is the experience," he was wont to say, "comparable to mine? Who has witnessed more startling and strange events, or come into contact with a greater number of men?"

But though Louis Philippe was self-willed and obstinate, he was not a man of firm resolve. Restless, uncertain, and undecided, when he encountered great obstacles he sometimes timidly yielded positions for which he had long struggled, and positions which, had he had firmness and moral courage, he might have long held. No man so much encouraged and sustained M. Guizot in resistance to reform as the king himself; but at the decisive moment when it was necessary to show resolution and energy, the spirit of the king faltered, and his cause was lost. To do his minister justice, M. Guizot never faltered or failed to the end.

The leisure the ex-king enjoyed at Claremont he employed in writing his memoirs. To Frenchmen who visited him he was garrulous in the extreme, but to none did he ever admit that he was in the wrong. The world did not comprehend his frankness, his disinterestedness; and kings and people, he maintained, were equally ungrateful in his estimation. The ex-monarch did not long survive his fall. In the early part of 1849, feeling himself ill, he removed to Richmond; but growing weaker, returned to Claremont in March, where he died on the 26th of August 1849, in the seventy-sixth year of his age.

After the revolution of February a provisional government assumed the direction of affairs till the appointment of a constituent assembly. This assembly proclaimed the republic, and at first delegated power to an executive commission. The assembly was invaded on the 15th May, but order was again established. After the sanguinary events of June 1848, the constituent assembly conferred supreme power on General Cavaignac, who had acted so important and so successful a part in the restoring of order. General Cavaignac assumed the title of chief of the executive power, and kept Paris in a state of siege, and his ministers introduced measures for the abolition of the national workshops, and for supplying the ways and means required by the state. The power of the press, which had been abused, was curtailed, and the intolerable tyranny of the clubs was checked by the strong hand of this honest soldier. In the month of August it was reported by a committee that Louis Blanc, Ledru Rollin, and Caussidière were implicated in the insurrection of the preceding month. Louis Blanc and Caussidière escaped to England, and proceedings were commenced against Ledru Rollin, but afterwards suspended.

After performing signal civil and military services, General Cavaignac became a candidate for the presidency of the republic, which he had faithfully and ably served. But the Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte was elected on the 10th December 1848 by a much greater number of votes, and Cavaignac retired, without stain and without reproach, into private life. The constituent assembly, having run its career, gave place to a legislative assembly, which, harassed and distracted by a factious, intriguing, and personal spirit, at length fell a victim to the coup d'etat of the 2d December 1851. For about a year or more after the coup d'etat the name of republic was still preserved. But in the month of December 1852 the re-establishment of the Empire was submitted to a plebiscite, which adopted it by a large majority. Since the proclamation of the Empire public works have been commenced and continued on a gigantic scale, and Paris has been greatly embellished and improved.

Happily the good understanding between France and England has not been interrupted by any of the changes which have recently taken place; and it is to be hoped that the good feeling of the people of both countries, and a just sense of their mutual interests, will more closely cement and perpetuate the national alliance. France has with England determined to sustain the integrity of the Ottoman Porte against the aggression of Russia. With a view to accomplish this object war was declared by England and France against Russia in 1854. Since that period the Emperor of the French has visited England, where he was greeted with the hearty acclamations of the people, and received the cordial hospitality of the royal family at Windsor; and the Queen of Great Britain in return has visited her ally in Paris, where her Majesty was enthusiastically received by all classes on the 18th August 1855.

The empire of France as it now exists is said to be based on the sovereignty of the people and the great principles of 1789. The title of the chief of the state is Emperor of the French by the grace of God and the National Will. The crown is hereditary in the male line only, and by order of primogeniture. The Emperor exercises legislative power conjointly with the Senate, the corps législatif, and the conseil d'etat. He is alone invested with the executive power, is completely independent of the great powers in the state, and enjoys all the prerogatives which ordinarily belong to sovereignty.

1 Preamble of the Constitution of 1852. ### Chronological and Dynastic Table of the Monarchs of France from 418 to 1855 A.D.

The kings of France which followed Pharamond are divided into three races:

#### First Race.—The Merovingians.

| King | Reign | |------|-------| | Pharamond | 418–430 | | Clodomir | 430–450 | | Merovee | 451–457 | | Childeric I | 457–481 | | Clovis I | 481–511 | | Clodomir (at Orleans) | 511–524 | | Thierry I (at Metz) | 511–534 | | Thibodebert I (at Metz) | 534–548 | | Thibodebert II (at Metz) | 548–555 | | Childebert I (at Paris) | 511–558 | | Clotaire I (at Soissons 511–558) | 558–561 | | Sigebert I (in Austrasia) | 561–575 | | Childebert II (at first in Austrasia; in Austrasia and Burgundy from 593) | 575–596 | | Thibodebert II (in Austrasia) | 596–612 | | Caribert I (at Paris) | 561–567 | | Gontran (Orleans and Burgundy) | 561–593 | | Thierry II (1st in Orleans; in Burgundy; 2d in Austrasia, 612) | 595–613 | | Chilpéric I (at Soissons, 561); then at Paris | 567–584 | | Clotaire II (at first at Soissons, then alone) | 584–628 | | Caribert II (in Aquitaine) | 628–631 | | Dagobert I (in Austrasia, 622, at Soissons, 628; then alone) | 628–638 | | Sigebert II (in Austrasia) | 638–656 | | Clovis II (Neustria and Burgundy) | 638–656 | | Clotaire III (Neustria and Burgundy) | 656–670 | | Childeric II (Austrasia 656–670); alone | 670–673 | | Dagobert II (Austrasia) | 674–679 | | Thierry I (or III.) Neustria 673–679); alone | 679–691 | | Clovis III | 691–695 | | Childebert III | 695–711 | | Dagobert II. (or III.) | 711–715 | | Clotaire IV | 717–719 | | Chilpéric II | 715–720 | | Thierry II. (or IV.) | 720–737 |

#### Interregnum

| Reign | |-------| | 737–742 |

#### Second Race.—The Carolingians.

| King | Reign | |------|-------| | Pepin of Herstall (Duke of Austrasia) | 687–714 | | Thibodeald | 714–715 | | Charles-Martel | 715–741 | | Carloman (abdicates) | 741–746 | | Pepin, the Short (le Bref), with Carloman, 741; (alone, 746); king of France | 752–768 | | Carloman | 768–771 | | Charlemagne (with Carloman, 768–771); alone | 771–814 | | Louis I. (le Débonnaire) | 814–840 | | Charles III., the Bald (le Chauve) | 840–877 | | Louis II., the Stammerer (le Bègue) | 877–879 | | Louis III. and Carloman | 879–882 | | Carloman (alone) | 882–884 | | Charles III., the Fat (le Gros) | 884–888 | | Podes or Odon (1st Capetian king) | 889–898 | | Charles III., the Simple (le Simple), proclaimed king in 892, then alone after Eudes's death... | 898–923 | | Robert I. (2d Capetian king) | 922–923 | | Raoul (father of the Capetians) | 923–936 | | Louis IV. (d'Outre Mer) | 936–954 | | Lothaire | 954–986 | | Louis V., the Indolent (le Fainéant) | 986–987 |

#### Third Race.—The Capetians.

| King | Reign | |------|-------| | Hugues Capet | 987–996 | | Robert II | 996–1031 | | Henri I | 1031–1060 | | Philippe I | 1060–1108 | | Louis VI., the Fat (le Gros) | 1108–1137 | | Louis VII., the Young (le Jeune) | 1137–1180 | | Philippe II. (Auguste) | 1180–1223 | | Louis VIII., the Lion (le Lion) | 1223–1226 | | Louis IX., or Saint Louis | 1226–1270 | | 1. Elder Line or Philippine. | | Philippe III., the Hardy (le Hardi) | 1270–1285 | | 1. The Elder Branch. | | Philippe IV., the Handsome (le Bel) | 1285–1314 | | Louis X., the Headstrong (le Hutin) | 1314–1316 | | Jean (the Posthumous son of Louis X.) | 1316 | | Philippe V., the Tall, (brother of Louis X.) | 1316–1322 | | Charles IV., the Handsome (le Bel) | 1322–1328 | | 2. The Younger Branch, or de Valois (issue of Philippe III., by Charles de Valois, father of Philippe VI.). | | Philippe VI. (de Valois) | 1328–1350 | | Jean II., the Good (le Bon) | 1350–1364 | | Charles V., the Wise (le Sage) | 1364–1380 | | (a.) The Elder shoot of the Valois Branch. | | Charles VI., the Beloved (le Bien-Aimé) | 1380–1422 | | Charles VII., the Victorious | 1422–1461 | | Louis XI. (detested for his cruelties) | 1461–1483 | | Charles VIII. | 1483–1498 | | (b.) The Younger shoot of the Valois Branch, or Valois-Orléans (issue of Charles V., by Louis Duke of Orleans, his second son). | | (Prérogative, Orleans-Orléans (issue of Charles Duke of Orleans, eldest son of Louis d'Orléans.) | | Louis XII. | 1498–1515 | | (Second generation, Orleans-Angouline (issue of Jean Comte d'Angouline, second son of Louis Duke of Orleans.) | | François I. | 1515–1547 | | Henri II. | 1547–1559 | | François II. | 1559–1560 | | Charles IX. | 1560–1574 | | Henry III. | 1574–1589 | | II. Younger or Robertine Line, or House of Bourbon (issue of Robert of Clermont, ninth son of Saint Louis, and brother of Philippe III.). | | Henri IV. | 1589–1610 | | Louis XIII., the Just | 1610–1643 | | 1. The Elder Branch of the Bourbon line. | | Louis XIV., the Great | 1643–1715 | | Louis XV., the Wellbeloved | 1715–1774 | | Louis XVI. | 1774–1793 | | Louis XVII. (never reigned, but died in prison) | 1793–1795 | | Republic (proclaimed September 21) | 1792–1804 | | Convention | 1792–1794 | | Directoire | 1794–1799 | | Consulat (Bonaparte first Consul, then consul for life) | 1799–1804 | | Empire (Napoléon Bonaparte, called Napoléon I. Emperor of the French, &c.) | 1804–1814 | | Louis XVIII. | 1814–1824 | | Napoleon I. (for the second time from March 20 till June 24) | 1815 | | Charles X. | 1824–1830 | | 2. The Younger Branch of the House of Bourbon, or House of Orleans (issue of Philippe second son of Louis XIII., and brother of Louis XIV.). | | Louis-Philippe I. | 1830–1848 | | Republic | 1848–1852 | | Napoleon III. (Emperor of the French.) | On December 18, 1852, the succession in default of issue from the Emperor was settled in favour of Prince Jerome Napoleon and his heirs-male. |

---

1 Napoleon II. (I) was Napoleon-Joseph, son of Bonaparte and Maria Louisa Archduchess of Austria, born March 20, 1811; but though he never reigned nor was acknowledged, yet Napoleon III. designated him Napoleon II. for the sake of continuing the dynasty. II. STATISTICS OF THE FRENCH EMPIRE IN 1855.

As many of the statistical statements are given in French measures of value, a table is inserted at the end of the article, by a reference to which the English equivalents will be easily ascertained.

I. SITUATION AND EXTENT, FACE OF THE COUNTRY, CLIMATE AND SOIL.

This important part of continental Europe extends from the forty-third to the fifty-first degree of north latitude, and from longitude 8° 25' E., to longitude 4° 43' W. The greatest length of France, exceeding 665 miles, is from east to west—from Alsace to Brittany, which projects into the Atlantic like a wedge, and without which France would approach in form to a square. Its breadth from north to south is about 576 miles; and its superficial extent, as stated in the Statistique de la France, is 52,768,618 hectares, equal to 204,355 square miles, or 130,787,160 English acres—nearly twice the total area of the British isles.

Though in point of extent of coast and ready access from the interior to the sea, France is far inferior to Great Britain and Ireland, she is, on the other hand, more fortunate in these respects than the vast inland territories of Austria and Russia. She has the advantage over these countries likewise in strength of natural barriers, the Pyrenees forming a great bulwark on the south-west, the Alps on the south-east, and the Jura and the Vosges Mountains on the east. The Belgian is the only open part of the frontier.

The surface of France exhibits, in general, an advantageous succession of high and low ground. Less level than Poland, the north of Germany, or the greater part of European Russia, it is, on the whole, less mountainous than Spain or Italy, and may with great propriety be compared to England, with this distinction, that whilst in the latter the mountainous tracts are in the north and west, in France they are in the south and east. Passing over the lofty ridges which form the frontier line of France on the side of the Pyrenees, the Alps, the Jura, the Vosges, and confining our attention to the interior, we find throughout Flanders, Picardy, Normandy, and the countries to the north and south of the Loire, a level tract, diversified occasionally by hills, either insulated or in succession, but by none of the massy elevations entitled to the name of mountains. These we do not meet until reaching the south of Champagne and north of Burgundy, near the sources of the Meuse, the Moselle, the Saône, and the Seine. From this bleak quarter (Lat. 47° and 48°) a very long range of mountains proceeds from north to south in a direction parallel to the course, first of the Saône, and subsequently of the Rhône, until, on approaching the Mediterranean, they branch off to the south-west and join the Pyrenees. Their greatest height is in Auvergne (about Lat. 45°), where this chain, or more properly a lateral branch of it, attains, at the mountains called Cantal and Pay-de-Dôme, an elevation of fully 6355 feet, and has its highest ridge covered with snow during the greater part of the year. Another, but a much less lofty range, extends from Bordeaux to the south-east, a distance of 150 miles, until it reaches the Pyrenees. The smaller chains are numerous in the east and south-east of the kingdom—in Lorraine, the Nivernais, Dauphiné, Provence; also in part of the interior, particularly the Limousin and Guienne. They are interspersed with extensive plains, but, on the whole, the south and east of France are rugged and elevated tracts, and may be said to be to that country what Wales and Scotland are to Great Britain.

The course of the great rivers is easily connected with this view of the surface of the territory of France. The Moselle, the Meuse, the Marne, the Aube, the Seine, the Yonne, taking their rise on the northern side of the mountain chain, between Lat. 47° and 48°, flow all to the north or north-west, until reaching the sea, or quitting the territory of France. From the southern slope of the same range proceed the Saône, the Doubs, and the Ain. These, along with many smaller streams, are all received by the Rhône, which flows almost due south, with a full and rapid current, until it reaches the Mediterranean. The Loire has much the longest course of any river in France. It rises to the southward of Lat. 45°, flows in a northerly direction above 200 miles; turns, near Orléans, to the west, is joined by the Cher, Indre, and Vienne from the south, and, after receiving the Sarthe from the north, falls into the Atlantic below Nantes. The Garonne, a river of less length of course, but of a greater volume of water, descends from the French side of the Pyrenees, flows northward, and, after receiving from these mountains a number of tributary streams, of which the chief is the Ariège, turns to the westward near Montauban (Lat. 44°), and falls into the Atlantic after being augmented by the waters of the Tarn, Aveyron, Lot, and finally the Dordogne, all flowing from the western face of the mountains of Auvergne.