The execution of Damiens produced, so fearful an impression on Gabriel Sanson, that he was induced to throw up the office of executioner of the Prévoté de l'Hôtel. He gave it to his nephew in return for a yearly stipend of two thousand four hundred livres. Charles Sanson henceforth discharged two functions which had hitherto been separate.

it is because he thought he had no right to divest this historical occurrence of that which might fully impress the reader with its atrocious cruelty, without entering into too sickening details.-N. ED.

115

CHAPTER XII.

LALLY-TOLLENDAL.

ON May 6, 1766, the Parliament assembled in Court of Justice condemned Thomas Arthur de Lally-Tollendal, lieutenant-general, and commander of the French forces in East India, to capital punishment, for betraying the interests of the King.

Iniquitous as this sentence was, it should be said that it was partially supported by public opinion, which, however, was so warm at a later period in asking for Count de Lally-Tollendal's rehabilitation. Our mishaps in India and the loss of our colonies had exasperated the national pride which the French are sufficiently disposed to exaggerate. Thomas Arthur de Lally-Tollendal was of Irish extraction. His family had followed the exiled Stuarts. He became a soldier when he was only a child. At twelve years of age he held a commission in Dillon's Irish regiment, and he took part in the siege of Barcelona. He promptly obtained the command of a regiment, which took his name in 1740; and at the age of thirty-seven he was appointed lieutenantgeneral.

He devised a plan for landing 10,000 men on the

English coast, to support the rights of the Pretender. This idea, which was as bold as it was impracticable, could not be carried out, although Count de Lally devoted a large part of his fortune to its execution. His dislike for the English and his extreme bravery induced the Government to entrust to him the chief command of the colonial troops; but the violence of his temper, his obstinacy, and especially his contempt for all means of action except brutal strength, were destined to lead him into mistakes in a position demanding more knowledge of politics than science of war. Sixteen years before Lally-Tollendal's appointment, Dupleix, with scanty forces, at enmity with the Company, receiving neither help nor subsidies from the mother country, had held in check English power in the Indian peninsula by mere diplomatic proficiency. Lally knew how to conquer; but he was incapable of studying and detecting the secrets of Dupleix's policy. He began by taking St. David by storm; he also captured Goudelour, and swept the Coromandel coast. At St. David he permitted frightful excesses. His ill-paid troops rushed into the town and ransacked it. At the same time Lally, in his contempt for the Hindoo religion, violated the most revered sanctuaries, and caused natives suspected of being spies to be blown from cannon. The Hindoos who had remained with the French now left them. Deprived of their co-operation, and against the advice of his generals, he marched forward. The English retreated before him; but when he was in the heart of the country they attacked him, and Lally,

at length aware of his mistake, but too late to repair it, retraced his steps, harassed in a retreat which cost him . a quarter of his army. Such a defeat, however, would not discourage a man like Lally. He attacked and captured Arcate, and besieged Madras, which soon fell into his hands. His soldiers repeated, or rather transcended, the horrors of the pillage of St. David. But 4,000 Englishmen had taken refuge in the white tower called Fort St. George, where they defeated all attacks. At the same time the Dekhan army, the command of which Lally had taken from Bussi, one of Dupleix's lieutenants, to entrust it to the Marquis de Conflans, was beaten and captured at Masulapatam.

To relate the sequel of Lally's career in India would be an infringement of history. The end of his resistance is well known; from disaster to disaster, Lally came to be surrounded and besieged in Pondicherry, which, however, he defended with extraordinary bravery. At length he was compelled to assemble a council of war to discuss the conditions of his capitulation. General Coote refused to accept anything except an unconditional surrender; and Lally-Tollendal, together with the greater part of his soldiers, were sent to England as prisoners.

The news of this disaster excited general indignation in France. Lally-Tollendal's numerous enemies threw the brunt of the misfortunes of the French arms on his shoulders. Not only were his military talents and his courage impeached, but it was said that he had wasted the public resources, and kept the money sent to him

to pay his soldiers. Lally was in London and had nothing to fear; but on hearing of the rumours that were current, he forgot the dangers that might threaten his life. He solicited of the English Government leave to return to France on parole, and arrived in Paris not as a culprit, but rather as a prosecutor, threatening his enemies with prompt revenge.

However great public anger might be at the time against the man to whom was attributed the disgrace of the French armies, the Government did not care to have Lally arrested. Perhaps the Ministry had no wish to sacrifice the innocent accomplice of the faults for the greater portion of which the Government of Louis XV. was responsible.

Count Lally's enemies, however, were powerful, and an order of arrest was at length issued. The Count's relations and friends urged him to return to England before it was too late; but the fiery general would not hear of a retreat, and implored the King to send him to the Bastille, where he was imprisoned on November 15, 1764.

His captivity was not a severe one, and he doubtless had little idea of the fate which was in store for him ; he was allowed to walk about the prison, and to receive his friends while preparations for his trial were being made. The trial lasted more than nineteen months. Far from appeasing the hatred of his enemies, his misfortunes inflamed the ardour with which they called for judgment upon him. On August 3 a petition was sent to the King by M. Legris and the members of the Superior Council