By what motive was he actuated? Must we see in this treason an act inspired by base cupidity? Was Matthioly a rogue, who, after having received Louis XIV.’s money, preceeded to sell himself by turns to the Austrians, the Spaniards, the Venetians, and the Piedmontese? Or, disquieted in mind and suddenly struck by the apparition of his country in danger, was he seized with remorse at the moment of bartering her away, and did he seek the only means of preserving her from the encroachments of an ambitious King? Was he an intriguer, a low informer, or a man struggling between two opposing sentiments, whose greedy ambition had first led him to assist his master’s criminal projects, and whose patriotism had then suddenly determined him to cause them to miscarry? These are questions which nobody will ever be able to answer, because nobody ever received his confidences. It is, however, worthy of remark, that if cupidity alone had been Matthioly’s motive, he would have stooped to the execution of the treaty of Casale, since this offered him many more material advantages than he could hope for from a sudden change of conduct. That Matthioly should be designated a rogue in the despatches afterwards exchanged between the Court of Versailles and the French representatives in Italy, is not at all astonishing; this anger was the natural consequence of a bitter disappointment. But the fact that there was room for a more noble motive, and that a patriotic inspiration was possible, is sufficient to prevent us from unreservedly condemning this man, who perhaps thought to save his country. No doubt he ought to have cast aside all the appearances of knavery, to have returned Louis XIV. his presents, to have first dissuaded Charles IV., and if the latter had persisted in introducing the French army into Italy, then, and then only, to have revealed the danger to the other princes. In this case it would have been necessary to do it openly, with frankness, without dissimulation, and by informing the Abbé d’Estrades of what would have no longer been a treason, but a truly patriotic act. Was, however, such a line of conduct open to Matthioly, surrounded with spies, watched over and having to fear a power so formidable as France, and a resentment so dangerous as Louis XIV.’s? Must we altogether blame him if he could not strip his character of all its craftiness and duplicity, and if, amid the dishonouring appearances of treason, he thought to perform an honourable act? To the present time people have seen in him only a contemptible cheat, but however weak the contrary presumption may be, do not let us altogether reject it. Let us cease to place ourselves only in the French point of view, and by considering the peril to which Italy would have been exposed by the cession of Casale, let us not refuse to suppose that Matthioly, by preventing it, understood, perhaps, the interest of his country better than his own, and that,