revolutionary newspapers published a manifesto in which the committee
for the defence congratulated and encouraged the accused men. One
hundred and ten signatures were affixed to this document, which was a
forgery. It had been drawn up by a few of the upholders of the scheme,
and, in order to make it appear more important, they had affixed the
names of their colleagues without their authorization. Those who had
done this then took fright, and attempted to get out of the dangerous
adventure by a public avowal. In order to save the situation, two of the
guilty party, Trelat and Michel of Bourges, took the responsibility of
the drawing up of the manifesto and the apposition of the signatures
upon themselves. They were sentenced by the Court of Peers, Trelat
to four years of prison and Michel to a month."(22) This was the most
shocking inequality, and Michel could not forgive Trelat for getting
such a fine sentence.

(22) Thureau Dangin, _Histoire de la Monarchie de Juillet_,
II. 297.

What good was one month of prison? Michel's career certainly had been a
very ordinary one. He hesitated and tacked about. In a word, he was just
a politician. George Sand tells us that he was obliged "to accept,
in theory, what he called the necessities of pure politics, ruse,
charlatanism and even untruth, concessions that were not sincere,
alliances in which he did not believe, and vain promises." We should say
that he was a radical opportunist. To be merely an opportunist, though,
is not enough for ensuring success. There are different ways of being an
opportunist. Michel had been elected a Deputy, but he had no _role_ to
play. In 1848, he could not compete with the brilliancy of Raspail, nor
had he the prestige of Flocon. He went into the shade completely after
the _coup d'etat_. For a long time he had really preferred business