teen years ago, all
are there, all have joined to insult and irritate France. Squeeze,
wring this ministry, it drips only humiliations, misfortunes, dangers."

The Abbe Vedrenne, historian of Charles X., wrote:--

"How is the language of the writers of the Debats, who called
themselves royalists, to be understood? Was not Charles X. at Coblenz?
Did not Chateaubriand emigrate with the King and the princes? Did he
not follow Louis XVIII. to Ghent? Was he not in his council at the very
hour of the battle of Waterloo? They might as well have stigmatized the
white flag and demanded the proscription of the King's dynasty. But
such was their blindness that they feared nothing for it. 'The throne
runs no risk,' said Chateaubriand, 'let us tremble for liberty only.'
Yet the nomination of the Polignac ministry was an error. It appeared
to be a provocation, a sort of defiance. Charles X. doubtless only
wished to defend himself, but in choosing such ministers at such an
hour, he appeared to be willing to attack."

From the debut of the new cabinet, the Opposition, to use a recent
expression, showed itself irreconcilable. It raised a long cry of
anger, and declared war to the death on Prince Polignac.

"It is in vain," said the Debats, "that the ministers demand of Time to
efface with a sweep of his wing their days, their actions, their
thoughts, of yesterday; these live for them, as for us. The shadow of
their past goes before them and traces their route. They cannot turn
aside; they must march; they must advance.--But I wish to turn
back.--You cannot.--But I shall support liberty, the Charter, the
Opposition.--You cannot. March, then, march, under the spur of
necessity, to the abyss of Coups d'Etat! March! Your life has judged
and condemned you. Your destiny is accomplished."

The man who excited hatreds so violent was Jules de Polignac. He was
born at Versailles, May 14, 1780. As the German historian, Gervinus,
has said: "His past weighed upon him like a lash of political
interdict. He was the son of the Duchess of Polignac, who had been the
object of so many calumnies, and who had never been pardoned for the
intimate friendship with which she was honored by the unfortunate
queen, Marie Antoinette, a friendship that had evoked against her,
first all the jealousies of the envious courtiers, and then all the
aversion of the people. It was believed that a like favoritism could be
recognized in the relations of the son of the Du