royalist, the king; a subject, the throne. His position made his creed;
he bore in the Assembly the character and qualities of his uniform.
Language to him was only another sword, and in all the spirit of
chivalry, he devoted it to the cause of Monarchy. Indolent and
ill-educated, his natural good sense supplied the place of study. His
monarchical faith was by no means fanaticism of the past: it admitted
the modifications conceded by the king himself, and which were
compatible with the inviolability of the throne and the working of the
executive power. From Mirabeau to him the difference of the first
principle was not wide apart, only one decried it as an aristocrat, and
the other as a democrat. The one flung himself headlong into the midst
of the people, the other attached himself to the steps of the throne.
The characteristic of Cazalès' eloquence was that of a desperate cause.
He protested more than he discussed, and opposed to the triumphs of
violence on the _côté gauche_, his ironic defiance, his bursts of bitter
indignation, which for the moment acquired admiration, but never led to
victory. To him the _noblesse_ owed that it fell with glory; the throne,
with majesty: and his eloquence attained something that was heroic.

Behind these two men there was only a party, soured by ill-fortune,
discouraged by its isolation from the nation, odious to the people,
useless to the throne, feeding on vain illusions, and only preserving of
its fallen power the resentment of injuries, and that insolence which
was perpetually provoking fresh humiliations. The hopes of this party
were entirely sustained by their reliance on the armed intervention of
foreign powers. Louis XVI. was in their eyes a prisoner king, whom
Europe would come and deliver from his thraldom. With them, patriotism
and honour were at Coblentz. Overcome by numbers, without skilful
leaders who understood how to gain immortal names by timely retreats;
with no strength to contend against the spirit of the age and refusing