and Castille), has meanwhile spent two long years on a sorcery trial, and made a sorry finish by, forsooth, a poor little auto-da-fé, and the acquittal of a whole host of women. A sort of conclusion, Counsellor Lancre takes it, wherein nothing is concluded.

His vigorous execution of priests among the rest, gives the counsellor grace in the eyes of M. Michelet. His book is commended for its truthful and accurate presentment of the Basque character. The Basque seems, had no very clergy it keen interest in putting down sorcery and hun But sorcerers, being sorcerers themselves. The priest danced, wore a sword, conducted his mistress to the witches' sabbath. This mistress was his sacristane or bénédicte, whose function it was to keep the church tidy. The curé, according to Lancre, said his white mass before God in the daytime, and his black mass to the devil at night, and sometimes in the same church.

Many were the widows among the Basque population of Bayonne and St. Jean de Luz, where the men, proverbial for daring and eccentricity, indeed distinguished by a sort of fabulous foolhardiness, were tempted to wild far-off seas for the purpose of whale-fishing and general adventure. Flinging themselves en masse into the colonies of Henri IV., into the wide-yawning empire of Canada, agape for immigrants that could not come fast enough or thick enough, they bequeathed their wives to God or to the devil. As for their children-why, the honest men might have felt a little more interest in the matter could they but have satisfied themselves the brats were their own. Widows and wives, then, we are told-for the most part very pretty, very hardy, and highly imaginative -used to pass the day in the cemeteries, squatting on the tombs, and gossiping about the witches' sabbath they were going to attend at night. This was all the rage with them, their one and absorbing passion.

The

"Nature has made sorceresses of them: they are the daughters of Ocean and of illusion. They swim like fishes, and wanton in the waves. Their natural master is the Prince of the air, the sovran of winds and visions, the same who inspired the Sibyl and taught her things to come. very judge who burns them is charmed with them," and makes them dance before he has the death-torch lighted. But for any further prosecution of the subject we must refer the reader to M. Michelet himself, whose impression of its interest and importance is proved by the prominence he affords it in his variegated pages, and whose ample account in particular of the Prince of the magicians, Gauffridi, forms a remarkable chapter in the curiosities of literature and psychology.

LOUIS PHILIPPE AND HIS TIMES.*

THE REVOLUTION OF JULY-LOUIS PHILIPPE, KING OF THE FRENCH.

THE French have never been able to make up their minds whether the monarchy of 1830 was a mere revolutionary accident, the caprice of a nation destined in its turn to be swept away by another caprice, or whether it was a logical result of the succession of, things and of the movement of ideas; an event, in fact, that came at its proper time in the order of social and political progress. Eighteen years of successful rule, amidst great difficulties, gave countenance to the one opinion; a catastrophe, as terrible as it was unforeseen, came to verify the predictions of the others. M. de Nouvion is one of those who argue that the monarchy of 1830 was the instantaneous and wise act of the nation. "France," he says, "raised it up on the ruins of the Restoration, to shelter itself against the abuses of the old system to which some endeavoured to bring it back, and against the evils of a republic into which others threatened to precipitate it. It was legitimate, because the national resistance to the ordonnances of July was legitimate. The conquest of 1830 was over illegality and despotism attempted in high quarters, and the triumph of order, law, and justice, defended by the middle classes."

M. de Nouvion's predilections are eminently monarchical. He even defends the memory of Charles X., who, he argues, meant well himself, but was overruled by the ultra-royalists, who had become all-powerful at court. "Charles X.," he says, "loved France; he only obtained from her in return unpopularity. Charles X. was frank, loyal, honest; he was deemed to be a hypocrite, ready even to perjure himself. Charles X. was sincerely pious; he appeared to the public as the slave of a knot of intolerant priests. Charles X. sought to make the people happy, yet he alienated all their affections, simply to gratify the rancorous regrets and passions of a coterie in the ante-chamber."

The government of Charles X. rendered itself peculiarly obnoxious by its legislative enactments. It claimed the sole right of founding convents to the crown. The question would appear to have more of a religious character than a political one. It was not so. The object was to reestablish the right of the elder sons; but to do this, the French say it was necessary to disinherit younger brothers and girls, and to disinherit girls convents must be opened. In this country we preserve the rights of the elder brother, yet we have no convents, at least among the Protestants. A still more unpopular law was that which revived the memory of the most odious fanaticism by punishing sacrilege with death, to which was superadded mutilation. Not less so was the law which consecrated a milliard to indemnify the victims of the Revolution. And, if possible,

*Histoire du Règne de Louis-Philippe Ier, Roi des Français, 1830-1848. Par Victor de Nouvion.

VOL. XLII.

I

still more unpopular was the law, ridiculously surnamed loi de justice et d'amour, which placed books and newspapers alike under the ban of a formidable and tyrannical censorship. As M. Casimir Périer expressed it, "the art of printing was suppressed in France."

All these legislative enactments were in reality directed against the bourgeoisie. The statesmen of the day conceived a royalty founded on divine right, with a nobility proprietors of the soil and a priesthood masters of the popular mind, to be the last term of social perfection, beyond which all was chaos and revolution. All their efforts were, therefore, directed to prostrating that class which the progress of enlightenment was likely to render discontented with such a state of things.

The bourgeoisie, on its side, was perfectly aware of the position in which it was placed. Without the power to avert the storm, it still saw the threatening clouds accumulating around, and waited calmly, and without shrinking, for the day when it should regain its political existNo party in the country actually threatened the king, but the distance between the king and his people kept on constantly increasing. The king himself saw this, and inwardly grieved; but he misunderstood the character and origin of the evil.

ence.

The

When Charles X. reviewed the National Guard, on the 21st of April, 1827, the bourgeoisie in arms saluted the charter with the crown. king did not disguise his vexation. "I came here," he said, "to receive homage, not lessons." This only increased the irritation of the citizens; two or three battalions uttered seditious cries against the ministry. Instead of punishing the guilty, Charles X. disbanded the whole of the National Guard. This was only coming to an open rupture with the bourgeoisie of his capital.

De Villèle followed up the blow by dissolving the Chamber of Deputies, and nominating seventy-six new peers. The result of the new elections was unfavourable, and the minister had to retire and give way to M. de Martignac. The first time the king met the new ministry, he said to them: "I parted with M. de Villèle with regret. His system was mine, and I hope you will conform yourself to it." The Chamber of Deputies was proclaiming at the same time that the system was deplorable. Such was the situation of parties.

It is difficult, in writing or reviewing the history, as it were, of our own times, to divest ourselves of the impressions conveyed to us by the individual actors therein. Who does not remember the serious and thoughtful aspect, and the quiet, gentlemanly demeanour of M. de Martignac, and not feel that his responsibilities as a statesman deserved a better issue. His ministry was hailed by the nation as the gage d'une pensée de transaction. Yet, distrusted by the Opposition and the king alike, and positively assailed by the court faction, this man of really good and wise intentions was nothing better than a buffer destined to receive and weaken the shocks of parties. What few legislative enactments emanated from him were, however, of a decidedly limited tendency, and were aimed at the insufferable arrogance of the faction and of the congregation of Jesuits. The latter were, however, too strong with the king for the virtuous patriotism of M. de Martignac. Their exasperation carried them even to excesses. The fate of the ministry was soon decided. The king, influenced by the fatal counsels of the court faction

and the Jesuits, resolved to place men at the head of affairs who would brave all resistance, and on the 6th of August M. de Martignac and his colleagues were dismissed to give way to the Polignac ministry.

Prince Jules de Polignac was, M. de Nouvion tells us, "the son of the calumniated friend of Marie Antoinette;" it has even been said that he was Charles X.'s own son. M. de Nouvion repeats the saying without venturing either to affirm or contradict it. "Charles X.," he says, hibited towards him a tenderness that was quite paternal, and which did not escape public malignancy. He returned it by a truly filial attach

ment."

" ex

The new ministry was hailed by the nation with mingled surprise, grief, and vexation. "The king will lose himself," Talleyrand is reported to have said, "and it will not be long." He only gave expression to what every one felt. Above all, the creation of a new ministry was looked upon as a threat, and everywhere, without exactly knowing to what extent they might have to go, people silently prepared themselves for important events. Associations upon the basis of the one already in existence, “Societé, aide-toi, le ciel t'aidera," sprang up in every direction. The singular spectacle presented itself of a nation openly organising itself for resistance, in the mere anticipation of the violation of the law by its government.

The ministry, in the mean time, proceeded steadily and undismayed on its mission of reaction and provocation. The watchword of its satellites in the press, at the pulpit, and in banquets was, "No more concessions," by which they really meant the beginning of repressions. The royal address at the opening of the session (2nd March, 1830) decided the relative positions of the ministry and of the majority. The charter was mentioned, but only as subordinate to the rights of the throne. The deputies, seeing the whole representative system in danger, hastened to establish in their answer their claims to inviolability. The king replied by dissolving the Chambers.

The nation and the ministry had as yet been only in the attitude of hostility. Hostilities had been declared, but no war had commenced. It was as a prolonged evening before the combat, but now the conflict had commenced in earnest. Government, on its side, neglected nothing that would strengthen it in the approaching struggle. M. de Peyronnet, the most inveterate of the Villèle ministry, was called to the cabinet, and all the prefects suspected of indifference were replaced by more zealous ultraroyalists. The clergy devoted themselves to the war of polemics with an energy worthy of a better cause. Government had also its organs in the press. The Quotidienne and the Gazette de France were the great ministerial papers of the day, and they treated the representatives of the people as janissaries of Bonaparte and renegades of the monarchy. "No more concessions" was succeeded by a new watchword, "Le roi ne cédera pas."

In coming to this resolution, Charles X. had the example of his brother's fate before him. Louis XVI. had arrived by concession after concession at the scaffold. It was one of Charles X.'s own expressions, that it was better to be an exiled than a disgraced monarch; another of his sayings was, that he would never let his crown be dragged through the mud; and another, that he did not wish to do like his brother-he

preferred getting on horseback to riding in a cart.

The idea was the

same: there was the presentiment of a catastrophe, yet when it came, all he did was to avoid the sacrifice of his life by a precipitate flight. In our own times it is supposed that either of these alternatives may be avoided by granting no concessions whatsoever. By such a system, at all events, the necessity for repressions is done away with.

The difference in the position of Louis XVI. and of Charles X. was great. If Charles X. was like Louis XVI., king in virtue of his birth, he only reigned in virtue of the charter. Louis XVI. was led to the scaffold for not having known how, or not having been able, to defend his royal prerogatives; Charles X. took the highway to dethronement by disregarding the charter he had sworn to observe, and by himself inaugurating the attack upon the rights of the nation. The first check that he met with was in the re-election of the two hundred and twentyone deputies of the Opposition almost without an exception.

The expedition to Algiers relieved the king and his ultra-royalist ministry for a while. By turning the attention of a very excitable people from home to foreign policy, and by supplanting domestic discontent with brilliant achievements of arms and the glory of foreign conquests, it cleared away troublous clouds, and left for a short time the political horizon tolerably free and clear.

The successes in Algeria had, however, in one respect, an evil tendency-they increased the confidence of the court party to a degree that led them beyond the bounds of prudence. When the elections of 1830 once more certified that public opinion remained unchanged, the court, instead of accepting the results, determined to overthrow them. The only way to effect this was to annul the laws by which the ministry had been so often defeated. In 1827, the king had so far conceded as to supplant the Villèle ministry by M. de Martignac, and peace had for a time been restored to the country. In 1830, the Polignac ministry signified their willingness to withdraw, but the king would not permit them: he resolved to curb opposition by the strong arm of despotism, and he brought about a revolution of resentment.

The Rubicon that separated legality from despotism was passed, when the ordonnances of the 25th of July were projected. One party, having M. de Chantelauze at its head, whilst admitting the royal prerogative, was from the first opposed to a coup d'état. The ministry on its part, its resolution once taken, dissimulated to the last moment. To the anxious inquiries of the representatives of the great powers-Russia, England, and Austria-it denied all intention to have recourse to a coup d'état. The letters which convoked the peers and deputies were only transmitted on the very eve of publishing the ordonnances. Every one was deceived, even to the veteran Talleyrand.

Yet on the 26th of July, 1830, Paris learnt on awaking, through the Moniteur, that the coup d'état, long foreseen, but denied to the last moment, was actually in force. The official organ contained four ordonnances the first suppressed the liberty of the press; the second proclaimed the dissolution of the Chambers; the third upset the whole electoral system; and lastly, the fourth, convoked the electoral colleges for the 6th and 13th of September, and the Chambers for the 23rd of the same month.