they were about to separate,
Pagnerre said: "Well, really, I did not expect for our proposals so
speedy and complete success. Do those gentlemen see what that may lead
to? For my part, I confess I do not see it clearly; but it is not for us
Radicals to be alarmed about it."

"You see that tree," replied Garnier-Pages; "engrave on its bark a mark
in memory of this day, for what we have just decided upon is a
revolution." Garnier-Pages did not foresee that the Republic of 1848, as
well as the monarchy of 1830, should in its turn speedily perish in that
revolution, so long big with so many storms.

For six months banquets were renewed in most of the departments--at
Colmar, Strasburg, St. Quentin, Lille, Avesnes, Cosne, Chalons, Macon,
Lyons, Montpellier, Rouen, etc. In many parts there was a great display
of feelings and intentions most hostile to royalty and the dynasty. On
several occasions--at Lille, for example--the keenest members of the
parliamentary opposition, Odilon Barrot and his friends, withdrew, soon
after taking their places at table, because the others absolutely
refused to dissemble their hostility to the Crown and the King. At other
banquets, notably at Dijon, the ideas and passions of 1793 unblushingly
reappeared. They defended Robespierre and the Reign of Terror. The "Red
Republic" openly flaunted its colors and hopes. The attack upon monarchy
and the dynasty ranged itself, it is true, behind the parliamentary
opposition, but like Galatea running away:

"_Et se cupit ante videri_."

It had succeeded well enough in making itself seen. The Government could
no longer shut their eyes. They had tolerated the banquets so long as
they could believe, or seem to believe, that the parliamentary
opposition directed, or at least ruled, the movement. When it became
evident that the anarchical impulse was more and more gaining upon the
parliamentary opposition, and that the latter was becoming the
instrument instead of remaining the master, then only they forbade the
banquets. It was their duty.

It was also their right, in the opinion of the most competent legal
authorities, as well as according to the recent practice of other free
governments, in presence of a situation full of certain danger. This
right, however, was disputed by the opposition. The Government, pushing
the principle of legality to its furthest limit, arranged with several
leading men of the opposition for the purpose of enabling the question