hy since 1688.

From this pamphlet it may be seen how even the ablest individuals of
the _ancien regime_, how even people who in their own way are not
devoid of historical talent have been so completely thrown off their
balance by the fatal event of February (1848) as to have lost all
historical comprehension, even the comprehension of their former
behaviour. Instead of being impelled by the February Revolution to
study more closely the wholly different historical conditions, and the
wholly different positions occupied respectively by the various
classes of society in the French monarchy of 1830 and in the English
monarchy of 1688, M. Guizot gets rid of the entire difference between
the two situations in a few moral phrases and asserts in conclusion
that the policy overthrown on the 24th February "can alone master
revolutions, as it can sustain States."

The question which M. Guizot professes to answer may be precisely
formulated as follows: Why has middle-class society developed in
England under the form of a constitutional monarchy for a longer
period than in France?

The following passage serves to show the nature of M. Guizot's
acquaintance with the course of middle-class development in England:
"Under the reigns of George I and George II, public opinion veered in
another direction; foreign policy ceased to be its chief concern;
internal administration, the maintenance of peace, questions of
finance, of the colonies, of trade, the development and the struggles
of the parliamentary regime, became the dominant preoccupations of
the Government and of the public" (p. 168).

M. Guizot discovers only two factors in the reign of William III that
are worthy of mention: the maintenance of the equilibrium between
Parliament and the Crown, and the maintenance of the European
equilibrium by means of the struggle against Louis XIV. Under the
Hanoverian dynasty, public opinion suddenly "veered in another
direction," nobody knows how and why.

It is obvious that M. Guizot has applied the most banal platitudes of
French parliamentary debate to English history, believing he has
thereby explained it. Similarly, when he was Minister, M. Guizot
imagined he was balancing on his shoulders the pole of equilibrium
between Parliament and the Crown, whereas in reality he was only
jobbing the whole of the French State and the whole of French society
bit by bit to the Jewish financiers of the Paris Bourse.

M. Guizot does not think it