This may be carried to such a pitch that mankind will shun the gate within which only dullness reigns; and then what will become of the gate-money?'

Let us all, players and spectators, use our best endeavours, however small our sphere of influence, to keep cricket a game.

Incomparably the brightest aspect of cricket this summer has been shown by the youth of England. There may have been University matches in the past that have reached a higher standard, so far as individuals are concerned; but none have been more keenly contested than the latest, and never was fielding better, whilst some of the admittedly exceptional attractiveness of the game came from the bowling being superior to the batting. Nothing could have been more sporting than the spirit shown in the Eton and Harrow match, while the subsequent school matches at Lords in no way fell below a standard far more exhilarating and keen than is too often shown by their elders in county cricket. Were all cricket to be played after the fashion of these games, it is safe to assert that the grounds would not hold the crowds that would gather. But when-to quote one glaring case-Essex made no effort to go for runs ; when a match is allowed to dribble out against the clock; when batsmen of fame are jeered at by the crowd for not taking the trouble to stop balls, then we understand why the popularity of cricket is erroneously supposed to be on the wane. The fine finish between Yorkshire and Hampshire and the sportsmanlike running across the ground by Warwickshire at Lords to enable Middlesex to defeat them, show that the old spirit still exists.

Cricket, as at present practised, shows but slight defects; and apart from such trifling improvements as covering the whole pitch in case of rain, providing scoreboards like those used in Australia, indulging in less ease in the pavilion but showing more energy in the field—which will come when matches are fewer in number but all of importance-the game needs no tinkering. We want no fourth stump, no shaven bat, no heightened wicket. All we need is that cricketers shall play the game for all they are worth, instead of patronising it as though conferring a favour on the spectators by playing it in public; and this, as was said above, the youth of England has been

doing. The success of our last team in Australia was due to the fact that it was a young side; and the substitution of a couple of powerful young cricketers for the veterans enrolled in our English teams this summer might have brought more of these games to a conclusion in spite of adverse weather. Cricket in its first-class aspect must ever be a case of the old order changing. Youth is triumphant at rowing and football. Middle-age, which can cleave to golf, is too often reluctant to resign cricket. But time rights everything; and time will show that the youth of to-day can play cricket as well as the veterans of yesterday. New men will soon bring back at least a goodly number of spectators. Yet modern conditions will necessitate briskness and keenness of demeanour in the field and entire absence of pottering. No one ever hears that Kent lacks local support; and the policy of the Kent eleven is to play with zest. When the spectators are accused of being impatient with moderate cricket, it must be remembered that the Press have taught them to understand the game theoretically and to discern when lukewarmness in practice is contrary to its true spirit. A new 'Ranji,' a fresh fast bowler of the highest class, particularly that marvel we have not yet seen-the quick legbreak bowler-will effect a popular revulsion. It has been pointed out by Lord Hawke that the question of the popularity of cricket, as shown by the turnstiles, is largely one of weather. What is more significant is that the contemporary discussion of the subject is sure to furnish the small remedies required. So much would not be heard were not the game dear to uncounted millions all over the Empire; and a game so beloved must be above temporary mischances and have a future yet more glorious than its past.

HOME GORDON.

Art. 11.-FOUCHÉ.

1. Fouché, 1759-1820. By Louis Madelin. Two vols. Paris: Plon-Nourrit, 1901.

2. Les Mémoires de Joseph Fouché, Duc d'Otrante. Two vols. Paris: Le Rouge, 1824.

3. Types révolutionnaires. Étude sur Fouché et sur la communisme &c. (Part 1). Fouché et Robespierre &c. (Part II). By the Comte de Murtel. Paris: Lachaud, 1873; Plon, 1879.

4. Un Ami de Fouché, d'après les Mémoires de Gaillard. By Baron Despatys. Paris: Plon-Nourrit, 1911.

And other works.

I PROPOSE in this article to say something about a man who, for the better part of a quarter of a century, was one of the most important figures in French political life the most important, I think, after Napoleon. Joseph Fouché's name is doubtless pretty well known among us; but probably very few know much about his astonishing career. It is a career which throws a flood of light upon the times, and is therefore worth studying, whatever estimate we may form of the man. Certain it is that most of his contemporaries held him in great disesteem. Liar, cheat, assassin, traitor, nay, fanfaron de trahisons, were epithets which they freely applied to him. Napoleon, summoning up, at St Helena, remembrance of things past, called him ce coquin, and expressed poignant regret at not having hanged him. On the other hand, the Duke of Wellington does not seem to have thought him more unprincipled than most politicians, and had a kindly feeling for him. That was the case, too, with Metternich; and Fouché was also on terms of intimate friendshippurely platonic, be it noted-with Madame de Custine, with Madame de Rémusat, with Madame Récamier, and with many other charming and accomplished women. The literature about him is enormous; but happily it has been thoroughly investigated-I may say winnowed-by M. Louis Madelin, whose two ample volumes supply a long-felt want in French literature. This monumental work is the first attempt to present a complete life of Fouché. Its author gives us to understand that he was engaged upon it for six years. They must have been six

years of unremitting toil, which the result thoroughly justifies. M. Madelin has used his abundant materials with discrimination and impartiality. Moreover, his book is not merely a biography. It may truly be described as being also an essay in psychology, unpretentious, indeed, but not, on that account, of the less value. In what I am about to write I shall freely use it.

Joseph Fouché was born in 1759 at Pellerin, five leagues from Nantes. He came of a good middle-class family belonging to the French mercantile marine-a more adventurous calling then than now, for, owing to the constant hostilities with the English, there was in it an element of war. At nine he was sent to the College of the Oratorians at Nantes to learn 'grammar and the humanities'; but arithmetic, physics, the exact sciences, had a greater attraction for him. It was soon decided that he was unfit for a seafaring career on account of his delicate health; and he continued his studies with the Oratorians, who, since the expulsion of the Jesuits, had had the higher education of France in their hands. In 1781, having received the tonsure, he removed to their Seminary in Paris, where, among other students, who were to be damned to everlasting flame for participation in the worst atrocities of the French Revolution, were Joseph Lebon, Ysabeau, and Billaud-Varennes. He himself came much under the influence of a pious priest, Père Merault of Bisy, of whose 'angelic soul' he wrote forty years afterwards, declaring that it had penetrated his own. Clearly the effect of the alleged penetration was not lasting; but there can be no doubt that down to the year 1792 he was a devout Oratorian. He took his colour, then as always, from his surroundings. After teaching in various Oratorian institutions, he was sent in 1788 to the college at Arras, as professor of physics. Here he came under the influence of the new ideas which found expression in the French Revolution; and here he made the acquaintance of Robespierre, then an advocate, with little business, to whom he lent money, and to whose sister Charlotte he paid much attention, without how

That is to say, he was admitted to minor orders; he never went further in the ecclesiastical career. M. Wallon, therefore, is in error-an error shared by many other writers-when he speaks of him as 'prêtre défroqué, moine apostat.' He was neither a priest nor a monk,

ever, becoming actually affianced to her. In 1790 he was transferred to the Oratorian college at Nantes. There the Revolutionary doctrines were fermenting in the heads of many students, the consequence being an epidemic of anarchy. Fouché shortly became principal or prefect of the college, and laboured successfully to introduce order and discipline.

*

The old institutions of the country-the French Oratory among them-were now crumbling away, sapped by the Revolutionary tide; and Fouché, always a man of circumstances,' as his biographer calls him'opportunist' does not seem a precise equivalent-watched keenly the signs of the times. He became a member of the Club of Friends of the Constitution,' a liberal royalist society, if I may so speak, and in a few months he was elected its president. In 1792 the Oratory came to an end, and with it Fouché's community life of celibacy. On September 17, 1792, he married Mlle Coignard, daughter of the president of the administration of Nantes, a lady endowed with many excellent virtues, but of singularly unprepossessing appearance.† Barras, a good judge, speaks of her 'horrible ugliness'; and Vicenzo Monti applies to her the adjective 'brutta.' Fouché himself was, to say the least, as ill-favoured as his spouse— Michelet attributes to him 'une figure atroce '—a fact which, later on, Robespierre, oddly enough, urged against him in the course of a general indictment. But he and his wife appear to have been indifferent to external parts and graces, and were unquestionably a devoted couple. Moreover, he always retained the simple and frugal habits, the gravity and austerity, which had marked his career as an Oratorian. M. Madelin, in an interesting page, traces the influence, visible throughout his career, of heredity and early education. The descendant of a family of sailors, the qualities of energy, self-confidence, and coolness, so necessary to seafaring men, and treasured

A different institution from the Oratory of St Philip Neri, though derived from it.

Baron Despatys describes her as 'une femme maigre, rousse, aux pomettes osseuses, une vraie laideron' (p. 11); he speaks of 'son caractère difficile, son humeur acariâtre' (p. 250), and refers passim to her vulgarity and avarice. But to these defects and blemishes Fouché seems to have been blind. His marital fidelity was matter of wonder in those days.