This was the real revolution.

Within the

Young

last thirteen years a population of twelve millions and a half had been added to France,' a population of ten millions belonging to 'Old France' had gone down to the tomb. In 1828 the electors belonging to the new

6

régime' were 25,089, to the ancient régime 15,021. Thus the two generations were in presence; the one published the ordonnances, and the other raised the barricades.

THE ORDONNANCES.

Not violent enough for their purpose; Charles X. would have acted more wisely in throwing himself entirely upon the army-The people did not look to the mere act of the Government, but its object-They saw that if these means failed to effect that object, another would be tried.

ON July 26th* appeared the Ordonnances, accompanied by that famous report, not less remarkable for the eloquence than for the history it contains. As a matter of history, that document stands forth as the most singular and public protest against constitutional liberty that ever appeared in a constitutional country; as a display of eloquence,† that document convinces us that arbitrary power, even in the worst times, and under the least favourable circumstances, will never want able, perhaps conscientious defenders. The Ordonnances totally put

* Signed the 25th.

+ Supposed to be written by M. de Chantelauze.

down the liberty of the press,* and altered the system of election in a manner favourable to the aristocratical interests of the country.

Their violence has been reproached, and in some degree exaggerated: I have no hesitation in saying they were not sufficiently violent for the object they had in view. Such was the state of feeling, that I deem it more than doubtful whether a Chamber elected according to the new prescription would not have returned a majority against the ministry of Polignac. And this was the folly of the proceeding: for if the Government had met with no immediate resistance, the difficulties of the Government would only have been in their commencement. Charles X. most assuredly would have done a wiser thing had he declared that "finding by experience that his subjects were unfit for the Charta which had been given to them, he withdrew it, and threw himself entirely upon the army for support"he would have done a wiser thing for himself had he done this, for he might have rallied his partisans around him by an appearance of force; it is just possible too, that he might

* The press is put down because it points out certain members as unpopular, and advises, contrary to the royal wish, the re-election of the two hundred and twenty-one liberal deputies.

have pleased the soldiery by a plausible address; while it is certain that he could not have made more enemies or separated himself more entirely from the great body of his subjects than he really did.

People looked not to the mere act itself, they looked to the object the sovereign had in view who resorted to it. They saw that his object was to govern as he pleased—that he altered the form of government in order to effect that object; and that it was quite clear, if the present experiment were unsuccessful, he would be perfectly willing, and was perfectly ready to try any other.

REVOLUTION OF 1830.

I.

The conduct of the Newspapers and the Journalists— 27, Struggle commenced in Palais Royal-28, Troops concentred and the People's courage rose-The Duc de Raguse's plans-How far successful-Night of 28thThe great charge of the Parisian populace-Retreat of the troops from the Tuileries to the Champs Elysées-Command taken from Duc de Raguse and given to Duc d'Angoulême-Order to march to St. Cloud.

IT was the energetic conduct of the press, which had at once to choose between ruin and resistance, that first aroused the Parisians from the boding stillness by which the royal decree had been succeeded.

The editors of the liberal newspapers, fortified by the opinion of M. Dupin, and the ordonnance of M. Debelleyme,* published their pro

* M. Debelleyme, president of the tribunal of première instance, declaring that the ordonnance relative to the press was illegal in its form, and unjust in its immediate provisions, recognised the right of the journalists to continue their publications.