Does not this phrase show the illusions of which Charles X. was the victim?  He never even suspected that his choice was a challenge to the old soldiers of the Empire.  Yet the violence of the liberal press certainly extended the range of insult.  “As for the other,” said the Journal des Debats disdainfully, “on what field of battle did he win his epaulets?  There are services by which one may profit, which may even be liberally paid for, but which no people ever dreamed of honoring.”  And, as if the allusion was not sufficiently transparent, “I see,” added the same writer, “but one kind of discussion in which the minister can engage with credit—­that of the military code, and the chapter relating to desertion to the enemy.  There are among our new ministers those who understand the question to perfection.”  As for the Figaro, it confined itself to quoting this line from a proclamation of the General during the Hundred Days:  “The cause of the Bourbons is forever lost!  April, 1815.—­Bourmont.”

Despite the virulent attacks of the journals, General de Bourmont, who had distinguished himself on so many battle-fields, had authority with the troops, and the Expedition of Algiers the next year was to show him to be a military man of the first order.  If Charles X. committed an error in naming him as minister, he committed a greater one in sending him away from Paris before the “ordinances,” for no one was more capable of securing the success of a coup d’etat.  M. de Chateaubriand remarks:—­

“If the General had been in Paris at the time of the catastrophe, the vacant portfolio of war would not have fallen into the hands of M. de Polignac.  Before striking the blow, had he consented to it, M. de Bourmont would beyond doubt have massed at Paris the entire royal guard; he would have provided money and supplies so that the soldiers would have lacked for nothing.”

We are inclined to think, however, that when he took the portfolio of war General de Bourmont was not dreaming of a coup d’etat, and that the Prince de Polignac had as yet no thought of it.  This minister, who was so decried, showed at the outset such an inoffensive disposition that the Opposition was surprised and disturbed by it.

“The minister,” said the Debats, “boasts of his moderation, because in the ten days of his existence, he has not put France to fire and sword, because the prisons are not gorged, because we still walk the streets in freedom.  From all this, nevertheless, flows a striking lesson.  There are men who were going to make an end of the spirit of the century.  Well, they do nothing!”

The journals of the Right lamented this inaction.

“If the ministerial revolution,” said the Quotidienne, “reduces itself to this, we shall retire to some profound solitude where the sound of the falling monarchy cannot reach us.”

Then, more royalist than the King, M. de Lamennais wrote on the subject of the new ministers:  “It is stupidity to which fear counsels silence.”  M. Guizot says in his Memoires pour servir a l’histoire de mon temps:—­