The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — 1824-06-21 (London, England)

FRANCE.  A modern hi:torian accuse; the Duke of Lerma of the murder of Henry IV. " This," says he, "is the best established opinion." This opinion is evidently the worst established. It has never been heard of iu Spain ; and in France, the continuator of De Thou is the only one who has given any credit to these vague and ridiculous suspicions. If the Duke of Lerma, Prime Minister, employed Ravaillac, lie paid him very ill, for when the unfortunate ,an was seised, he vas almost without money. If the Puke of Lerma either prompted him or caused him to be prompted to the commission of the act, by the promise of a reward proportioned to the attempt, Ravaillac would assuredly have named both him and his emissaries, if only to revenge himself. :lc named the Jesuit D'Aubigny, to whom he had only shown a knife—why then should he spare the Duke of Lerma ? It is very strange obstinacy not to believe what Itavaillac himself declared when put to the torture. is a great Spanish family to be insulted without the least shadow of proof ? Et roil: josternect comme on ierit l'histaire. (Yet thus is hi3tory written.) The Spanish nation is not accustomed to resort shameful crimes; and die Spanish grandees have always possessed a generous pride, which has prevented them from acting so basely. If Philip 11. s,:t a price on the head of the Prince of ()range, ate bad, at least, the pretext of punishing a rebellious subject, as the Parliament of Paris had when /he set fifty thousand crowns on the head of Admiral Coligtii, and afterwards on that of Cardinal Mazarin. These political prostriptibns partook of the horror of the civil wars, but how can it be supproed that the Duke of Lerma had secret communteitions with a poor wretch like Ravaillac? The same author says, that Marshal D'Ancre anil-hh wife were struck, as it were, by a thunderbolt. The teak I is, that the one was struck by pistol-balls, and the other burned as a witch. Ali assassination and a sentence of I death passed on the wife of a Marshal of France, an attendant on the Queen, as a reputed sorceress, do very little honour either to the chivalry or to the jurisprudence of that day. But we know not why the historian makes use of these words:—"lf these two wretches were not accomplices in the King's (Lath, they at least deserved the most rigorous chastisement: it is certain that even during the King's life, Concha and his wife had connections with Spain in opposition to the King's designs." This is not at all certain, nor is it even likely. They were Florentines ; the Grand Duke of Florence was the first to acknowledge henry IV., and feared nothing so much as the power of Spain in Italy. Concini and his wife had no influence in the time of henry IV.; if they intrigued with the Court of Madrid, it could only be through the Queen, who must, therefore, have betrayed her husband. Besides, let it once more be observed, that we art not at liberty to bring forward such accusations without proofs. What ! shall a writer pronounce a defamation from his garret, which the most enlightened jeidges of the kingdom would tremble to hear in a Court of Justice ? Why are a Marshal of France and his wife, one of the Qrteen's attendants, to be called two wretches? Does Marshal' D'Ancre, who raised an army against the rebels at his own expense, merit an epithet suitable only to Ravaillac or Cartouche—to public robbers or public calumniators? It is but too true, that one fanatic is sufficient for the commission of a parricide, without any accomplice. Demeins had none ; he repealed four times in the course of his interrogatory, that he tommitted his efirnesolely through a principle of religion.