on.

Conde accused Gondy in the Parliament chamber of being author of a
_factum_ condemning severely the Prince's conduct. La Rochefoucauld,
getting Gondy between two doors, treacherously seized, and was about to
strangle him, had not the son of the first President, M. de
Champlatreux, come to the rescue, at the very moment that one of the
bullies in Conde's pay had drawn his dagger to despatch him.

Two days afterwards (17th of September) the King had attained his
thirteenth year, and one day beyond; and by the ordonnance of Charles V.
became of age and capable of governing for himself.

A change of ministry--Chateauneuf being recalled to head the Council and
Mole to the Seals--deprived Conde of all hope of imposing the conditions
of a reconciliation; therefore, as has been said, at a Council held at
Chantilly with his chief adherents, Conti, and the Dukes de Nemours and
La Rochefoucauld, he determined to set out for Berri. The impartial
student who examines the conduct of the Prince de Conde is at this
juncture compelled to draw an indictment against him, under pain of
belying his conscience and the truth; he must concede that Conde rashly
engaged in civil war, and exerted himself to drag France into it, solely
because he could not endure any authority above his own. He was desirous
of being first in the State, of disposing at will among his creatures of
honours, dignities, strongholds, and governments. On such conditions, he
would have consented to let Mazarin, Orleans, De Retz, or any other,
govern the realm, for the administration of which he felt himself that
he had neither the slightest inclination nor the smallest capacity
(October, 1651).

The Fronde is reputed, not without reason, to have been one of the most
interesting as well as _diverting_ periods in French history; that in
which the volatile and frivolous vivacity of the national character
shone with irresistible comicality. How striking was the contrast
between it in its main features and the great Civil War waged at the
same time in our own country! Yet the Fronde had its serious--terrible
aspect, too, in the wide-spread misery it entailed upon France, as may
be seen from the valuable statistical researches of M. Feillet. That
writer cites the following passage from the record of an eye-witness of
what he describes:[4]--"No tongue can tell, no pen describe, no ear may
hear that which we have seen (at Rheims, Chalons, Rethel, &c). Famine
and death on