There was nothing excessive or exaggerated in this language, for France in 1829 and 1830 was in a state of almost unparalleled prosperity. The funds were high-the three per cents were at 84-money was abundantthe taxes were paid with the utmost regularity-the indirect taxes for the three first months of 1830 presented an augmentation of 1,846,000 francs over those received for the first three months of 1829, notwithstanding a considerable reduction in the duties on all sorts of "boissons"-the manufactories of France were all in full

employ the workmen of Lyons, St Etienne, Weelhausen, Lisle, &c. &c., were all well occupied, and abundantly provided for-the shopkeepers and tradesmen of the towns and cities were increasing in riches every month-and the agricultural and rural districts had no reason to do otherwise than rejoice. Indeed, the agricultural societies addressed the King on more than one occasion, and acknowledged, with parent gratitude at least, the advantages they had derived from peace and from a paternal government. But better than all this is the testimony of the 221 deputies themselves. Even these men, with all their factious tendencies, and anti-monarchical dispositions, were obliged to render the following testimony to the then material happiness of the country:

ap

Sire, le peuple chérit et respecte votre autorité. Quinze ans de paix et de liberté qu'il doit à votre auguste frére et à vous, ont profondement enraciné dans son cœur sa reconnaisance qui l'attache á votre royale famille; sa raison murie par l'experience et par la liberté des discussions, lui dit que c'est surtout en matiére d'autorité que l'antiquité de la possession est le plus saint de tous les titres, et que c'est pour son bonheur autant que pour votre glorie, que les siécles ont placé votre trône dans une region inaccessible aux orages."

And yet the very men who penned these lines, in which they admitted on the one hand the immense advantages conferred on France by fifteen years of Bourbon government; and who,

on the other hand, protested their conviction, that an hereditary monarchy, with all its rights and prerogatives, was essential to the happiness and repose of France, had formed a co^LITION to destroy the power of the Crown, and to reduce it to that state of helplessness and dependence described by Royer Collard in the extract we have already given.

Pro

That which was true of 1830 is true likewise now. For several years after the Revolution of Paris, and the silent acquiescence of France in those events, the country was reduced to a bankruptcy on the one hand, and of state of misery and wo, little short of anarchy on the other. There was little or no commerce. There was only a trade in articles of necessity. For articles of luxury there was no demand. Shops were shut up by thousands, for want of business. Failures were of daily occurrence. The funds fell with rapidity. Landed property declined at the same time. Multitudes of the best families emigrated. The army became insubordinate. The press was licentious. The stage was persecuted. The priests were drowngrossly immoral. All religion was ed, or driven from their cures. Republicanism stalked abroad in the pagandism triumphed at noon-day. insulted. The juries refused to conpresence of royalty. The throne was demn. Civil war raged in many proto meet the exigencies of the state. vinces. A patriotic loan was proposed The Chambers had no longer any influence over the public mind. And anarchy and ruin stared all men in the face. At length the country became weary of misery, of concessions, and of crime-and the laws of September 1835, were passed in spite of all the threats, menaces, and curses of the democratic party. From September 1835, to September 1838, the country has been rapidly, most rapidly improving. The capital is embellishedthe cities and towns are beautifiedthe roads are ameliorated-new canals have been formed-every branch of trade, manufacture, and commerce, has been decupled in amount and improvement-the regicide has been silenced-the factious has been reduced to order-the provinces are silent and submissive-and general prosperity is so evident and great, that even the

Coalition was compelled to acknow. ledge, in the address which it prepared to be presented to Louis Philippe, that the prosperity of the nation was indisputable. The amnesty which was granted by the advice of Count Molé has succeeded-Louis Philippe can leave his palace and appear in public without risk to his life-and emeutes and insurrections are now only matters of history. This was the state of things when, in the autumn of last year, the Coalition was formed by the chiefs of the four leading opposition parties, by their journals, and by their agents, to oppose what was called the exigencies of the Crown-to restrain what was called the dominating power of Louis Philippe-but, in truth, to deprive the King of the rights and prerogatives which belong to him—which were conferred on him by the Charta he swore to defend-and which he has invariably adopted as the rule of his conduct. That Charta is too monarchical for the Coalition: and still the cry is heard of "France is able to govern herself!!"

But we have said that the Coalition is now, as was the Coalition in 1829, averse to the force, restraint, and order of a monarchy. How do we prove it? First of all, let us look at the address of the 221 in 1830; second, at the alterations made in the Charta of 1814 by the Coalition of 1830; third, at some of the leading restraints imposed on the new royalty at, and since 1830; and, fourth, at the complaints now made against Louis Philippe by the Coalition of 1839, based, as they all are, on the aversion of the Coalition to a monarchy.

First, Let us look at the address of the 221 in 1830. Who prepared it? M. Etienne, the then and present conductor of the Constitutionnel, who was also charged, in 1839, to prepare the late projected address to Louis Philippe; M. Dupin, then one of the leaders of the Coalition, and now the same; M. Keratry, of precisely the same opinions as the two first named; M. Dupont de l'Eure, one of the leaders of the Revolution of July, the first Minister of Justice appointed by the provisional government of the barricades, and a republican; Count Sebastiani, whose report on the Departmental Bill had led to the final overthrow of the Martignac cabinet; M.

Gautier, of the same category as Count Sebastiani; and Count de Sade, Count de Preissac, and the Baron Lepelletier d'Aubray. Two to one were antimonarchical-and the parts they afterwards played, at and since the Revolution of July, fully justify us in this assertion. And what was the charge made against the King or his ministers? Against the King, that he had named such a ministry as he thought necessary to resist the encroachments of democracy against the ministers, that they did not belong to the Revolution! In spite of all the ambiguity of the address of the 221, this was the sum total of its charges. But had not the King the right, under the Charta of 1834, to name his own ministers? Undoubtedly. And had the ministers resorted to acts, or proposed measures, in 1830, when the address of the 221 was voted, which the Chamber had disapproved? Just the reverse-as the following resumé and extracts from that address will prove :

The affairs of the East had taken a favourable turn, and peace had been assured in Turkey. The address of the 221 congratulated the King on this result.

Greece had just been erected into an independent state by the joint measures of France, England, and Russia, and the address felicitated the Throne at such a result.

The affairs of Portugal the King had undertaken to endeavour to arrange, and the address approved his decision.

Algiers had been taken by the troops under Marshal Bourmont, and the address said "Sire, toutes les fois qu'il s'agira de defendre la dignité de votre couronne et de proteger le commerce Français, vous pourrez compter sur l' appui de votre peuple autant que sur son courage."

The speech announced laws to improve the condition of half-pay officers to ameliorate the administration of justice-to put on a new footing the sinking fund and the public debt-and the address declared that, for all these measures, his majesty entitled himself to the gratitude of his people.

What, then, was the meaning, the real secret meaning, of the following termination to that address? The answer will present itself to the mind of every honourable man, and every in

telligent reader-it was this, " France is able to govern herself; and, therefore, does not allow her King to choose any other ministers than those whom we shall nominate or approve.

"Cependant, sire, au milieu des sentimens unanimes de respect et d'affection dont votre peuple vous entoure, il se manifeste dans les esprits une vive in quietude, qui trouble la securité dont la France avait commencé à jouir-altere les sources de sa prosperité et pourrait, si elle se prolongeait, devenir funeste à son repos-notre conscience, notre honneur, nous imposent le devoir de vous en devoiler la cause. Sire, la Charte que nous devons à la sagesse de votre auguste predecesseur, et dont votre Majesté à la ferme volonté de consolider le bienfait, consacra, comme un droit, L'INTERVENTION

DU PAYS DANS LA DELIBERATION DES INTERETS PUBLICS. Cette intervention devait être, elle est en effet, indirecte, sagement mesurée circonscrite dans des limites exactement tracées, et que nous ne suffrirons jamais que l'on ose tenter de franchir; mais elle est positive dans son resultat, car elle fait du concours permanent des vues politiques de votre gouvernment avec les vœux de votre peuple la condition indispensable de la marche reguliere des affaires publiques. Sire, notre loyauté, notre devouement, nous condamnent à vous dire QUE CE CONCOURS N'EXISTE PAS. Une defiance injuste des sentimens et de la raison de la France, est aujourd'hui la pensée fundamentale de l'administration. Votre peuple s'en afflige, parce qu'elle est menaçante pour ses libertés.

were the measures which it adopted and the changes which it made.

Let us compare, second, the Chartas of 1814 and 1830, and it will be ob. vious that the alterations made were all anti-monarchical. The fourteenth article of the Charta of 1814 declared

"The King is to be the chief supreme of the state, to command the forces by sea and by land, to declare war, to make treaties of peace and alliances of commerce, to name all those who are employed in the public administration, and to make all regulations and ordinances necessary for the execution of the laws and the security of the state." This clause was struck out of the Charta of 1830, as too monarchical, and another substituted in its place.

The preamble to the Charta of 1814 was monarchical. It was effaced from the Charta of 1830; and the triumph of democracy recorded in its stead.

The nomination of the peers by the King to their hereditary titles, and the existence of an hereditary peerage, were monarchical facts and institutions -but the Charta of 1830 altered their character, and they exist no longer. The King of the French to-day cannot name even a peer for life, unless he shall belong to certain categories established by an act of parliament.

The Charta of 1830 annulled the creation of peers made during the reign of Charles X. This was the most antimonarchical of all the acts of the Revolution, for those peers had been legally and constitutionally named, and possessed all the required qualifications.

The Charta of 1814 placed in the hands of the King, as the chief of the state, the management, direction, and interests of the army and navy. The Charta of 1830 provided that a military code should in future usurp the rights and prerogatives of the throne.

The Charta of 1814 established that connexion of the church with the state which exists in all monarchies ; the Charta of 1830 abolished this connexion. The Charta of 1814 conferred on the King alone the right of The Charta of proposing new laws. 1830 extended this power to King, peers, and deputies.

The Charta of 1814 consecrated the secresy of the sittings of the Upper House, as essential sometimes to the

stability of the throne and to its defence in time of danger. The Charta of 1830 threw open the doors of the peers as well as of the deputies.

The Charta of 1814, and the laws which it gave rise to, authorized the Crown to grant pensions to poor peers who had been deprived of their estates by the first French Revolution, and had no other adequate means of existence. The Revolution of 1830 abrogated this power, and stripped the descendants of some of the best and bravest of men of the pensions granted by the Crown under the restoration.

The Charta of 1814 allowed the deputies to present to the King three candidates for the post of president, from which he could select one. The Charta of 1830 proclaimed the Cham. ber of Deputies omnipotent, and conferred on it the right of naming its own president, without the royal sanction.

But, above all, the preambles of the two Chartas mark distinctly the difference between the two epochs, and the two documents. The preamble of the Charta of 1814 was the recognition that the King granted to his subjects a royal charter. The preamble of the Charta of 1830 was the announcement that France granted herself a charter, and imposed its conditions on the new monarchy. The former recognised the hereditary rights of the Bourbons; the latter only acknowledged the "rights of the nation."

The Charta of 1814 was intrusted to the King to execute, and to cause it to be enforced. "The charter of 1830, and all the rights which it consecrates" (Article 66), "are entrusted to the patriotism and courage of the national guards, and of all French citizens."

The Charta of 1814 adopted the white unsullied flag of the Bourbons. The charter of 1830 (Article 67), declared, "France resumes her colours. In future no other cockade shall be worn than the tricoloured cockade."

Under the Charta of 1814, the Chambers were convoked at the Louvre, in the palace of the monarch. Under that of 1830, the King and the peers are compelled to proceed to the Chamber of Deputies.

The Charta of 1814 was made by the King. The Charta of 1830 was made by the Deputies, adhered to by the peers, without even a protest, and sworn to by the King without an observation.

Are we not right, then, when we say, that the Revolution of 1830, and the Charta of that period, were antimonarchical?

Third, let us look at some of the leading restraints imposed on the new royalty at and since 1830.

1st, The principle of election, on the part of the people, is introduced into nearly all the established institutions of the country.

2d, The institution of the national guards is one of a democratical, and not of a monarchical character. They name likewise their own officers, and form an opposing army to the army of the state.

3d, The King is compelled, by the laws regulating the land and sea forces, to select such and such men for promotion. And at this very moment Louis Philippe is unable to promote the naval officers who distinguished themselves at Vera Cruz, because there are not certain vacancies, required by the provisions of the anti-monarchical laws, which have been passed since 1830, on the subject.

4th, The departmental and municipal institutions of the country, which, before the Revolution of 1830, were monarchical, have all since been founded on an elective system. All the arrondissements of France, all her communes and her cantons, have now become the spheres of anti-monarchical elections, and of republican discussions.

5th, The civil list has been restrained to scanty limits-the royal appanages granted to princes of the blood have been refused-the King cannot even advance his own sons in the army or navy, unless subject to certain restrictions-and the public instruction, colleges, schools of the land, once granted by royal ordinances and royal favour, are now taken out of the hands of the Crown, and placed under the special protection of commissions.

Well may M. de Cormenin exclaim, when comparing the two epochs and the two charters, "La souveraineté du peuple Français est le prin cipe fondamental de la Charte de 1830."

And it is because the dogma of "the sovereignty of the people," is the basis of the Charta of 1830, that M. de Cormenin is right when he says that the Charta, and the laws made in virtue of that Charta, have all tended to

bring the monarchy down from its former sphere of elevation and hereditary power, to one of a more elective and democratic character. When this republican writer represents, then, the monarchy of 1830 as weak, enchained, and comparatively helpless, he writes plain truth, though his object is anarchical and revolutionary. He says, "The Charta has decided that the King cannot take a step as a king, make a jest as a king, do an act as a king, without a minister, his inseparable guardian, being at his side, always ready to protect the royalty, and always ready to reply to the nation for his acts.' The King can, "indeed, choose his ministers-but he must not choose them either from the minority of right, or from the minority of the left, in the Chamber of Deputies. He must choose them from the majorityand their doctrines, yes, and their appearance too, must please the majority —and that majority must say, Yes, we approve of them for ministers'or they cannot remain so."

,,

"Where, then," asks this able but subtle writer, "where is the power, the constitutional power, placed in France? In the Chamber of Deputies. And why? Because the Chamber of Deputies is elective and independent. It is because it is elective that it possesses all its force. It is independent and sovereign."

The Chamber of Peers in 1839 is powerless. The royalty in 1839 is helpless. The Chamber of Deputies is omnipotent. And why? M. de Cormenin shall answer, because France is anti-monarchical-and because France is under the influence of the doctrine of the "sovereignty of the people."

Fourth, let us now examine the complaints made against Louis Philippe by the Coalition in 1839-and let us see whether these complaints be not all based on the aversion of that Coalition to a monarchy.

Is Louis Philippe accused of being a disagreeable, unpleasant, violent, ungentlemanly prince; with rough manners, uncourteous conduct, and bad or low tastes and pursuits? Just the reverse.

Is Louis Philippe open to the objection of being placed on the throne of France by foreign bayonets? Just the reverse.

Is Louis Philippe objected to be

cause he was placed on the throne on account of his being a Bourbon? M. Dupin has set this question at rest by his celebrated declaration that Louis Philippe is King, not because he is a Bourbon, but in spite of being a Bourbon. Though this is not our opinion, it is at least that of the Coalition.

Is Louis Philippe accused of ingratitude to those who have served him, of rejecting those who have counselled him, and of betraying those who have confided in him? Certainly not. No prince has more richly rewarded with wealth, titles, office, power, and rank, those who have devoted themselves to his cause and to his service.

Is Louis Philippe accused of keeping up a correspondence with the old dynasty, of having a secret intention of abdicating in favour of the young Duke of Bourdeaux, or of bequeathing the throne to the eldest branch of the house of Bourbon? Such a charge has never seriously been made against him.

What, then, are the complaints made against the Citizen King? We will look at them briefly, and in their order.

First, He is accused of wishing to form part of the European family of sovereigns, and of desiring to be regarded as one of their number.

Now, what does this amount to? It amounts to this, that Louis Philippe, as a king, wishes to live, act, be looked on, as a king; whereas, the Coalition would reduce him to the level of the president of some small republic.

Second, Louis Philippe is accused of a resolution to maintain peace with Europe in order that his throne may be established firmly—and that France may not be exposed to war, in consequence of the changes which have taken place in the dynasty, and the Charta of the country.

But Louis Philippe announced these intentions from the beginning. In his very first speech he said, "Yes, gentlemen, this France which is so dear to me shall be happy and free; she shall show to Europe that, exclusively occupied with her interior prosperity, she cherishes peace as well as liberty, and desires the happiness and repose of her neighbours." The same language he made use of as lieutenantgeneral of the kingdom, as well as when elected king—and he announced this to be his policy to Lamarque,