dance, filling up every pause caused by change of actors, or otherwise, in the performance. And this dance is not of the quiet, stately, walking kind-not a bit like the languid lounge of a used-up swell in a London ball-room; but it is one of leaps, and bounds, and whirls, and of rapid and complicated steps, such as must try the wind and muscle and sinew of the performers to the utmost. No shirking is allowed or even thought of; in fact, it is a severe gymnastic exercise. Now the dance was kept up by these lads, with little intermission, not only through these nine hours of the actual play, but for many others of the previous night, of the same evening, and of the succeeding day. When on the stage and not actually dancing, the Satans were rushing about in a wild but not ungraceful way, yet still sufficiently trying to wind and limb. For it is curious to observe how the Basque idea of virtue and heroism seems to be associated with quietness of demeanour and gesture. The Angel glided along most gently with noiseless steps; the Archbishop paced slowly and solemnly across the stage; Richard and Charlemagne, even when in most terrible wrath, never went beyond their stately march; their inferior followers sometimes shook their fists at their enemies, and occasionally stamped at them but the English were always rushing along at the double-quick, and the Saracens stamped and raved about as if in frenzied rage, and the Satans were never still. Endless, aimless, restless motion seemed to be the devils' peculiar attribute.

As has been said above, the female parts were acted by boys; and excellently well they were played too. Many a young lady who thinks herself not illlooking might be jealous of the beauty of Clarissa and the false Brindamour at Larran; and not of their appearance only, for their whole bearing was most ladylike. Indeed, a lady quietly remarked to the writer, with that exquisite sweet malice wherewith French ladies so much delight to acu-punctuate their English sisters, "I have never seen any English lady handle her fan nearly so gracefully as that Basque boy does; they ALWAYS

make themselves in a heat by blowing so hard, but look at him." The voice, too, was admirably managed, and the feminine tones imitated to perfection. Altogether, the boy-lady proved a far better substitute for the real lady than any of us could have imagined beforehand.

As to the origin and history of these Pastorales-No definite traces of them are to be found beyond the twelfth or thirteenth century, after the very late establishment of Christianity among these remote valleys. The music and dances are undoubtedly ancient, and appear to have a distinct national character; but the Saracens introduced are all (except in some Pastorales of recent origin) from the Holy Land; the anachronisms of the plays make Clovis and Charlemagne coeval with the Crusaders; and, as far as we are aware, none touch on the earlier and neighbouring struggle with the Moors in Spain. The names of the devils, too, are distinctly those of the romances of chivalry,-Satan, and Brindamour, and Bulgifer; there is not a trace, as far as we can discover, of the names of the heathen Basque deities, as given in the list compiled by CénacMoncaut. The stories seem mainly to be derived from the Lives of the Saints, the Mysteries, and especially from the "Chansons de Geste" of the Middle Ages, the Arthurian and Carolingian Epics. But how came these poems, which breathe the very spirit of feudalism, to be adopted among the Basques, so many of whose traditions and instincts are so antagonistic to feudality, and among whom the traces of feudalism are comparatively so few? How comes it that the victors of Charlemagne and the slayers of Roland should be those who alone now celebrate their fame? There can be little doubt, we think, that the Tragédie of "Richard, Duc de Normandie" is derived from some lost epic of Northern France (it is full of that insatiable lust of fighting for fighting's sake, which made the Scandinavian Paradise an ever-renewed battlefield, and which does not exist at all in the Basque character); and the outline of many another old "Chanson de Geste"

might doubtless be recovered from these Basque Pastorales, if the study were worth the while. These might have been introduced through the close intercourse between Basque and Norman sailors in the thirteenth century, when they were respectively the hardiest seamen in the world; but, considering that La Soule, where alone these Pastorales are acted, and where, as far as is known, they have almost exclusively been composed,-considering that this is the most remote of the Basque provinces from the sea-the fact would seem to point rather to the influence of the neighbouring petty feudal and chivalrous courts of Armagnac, Béarn, Bigorre, Foix, and Navarre, as the media whence the subjects of these dramas may have been derived in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. But then, if these pastorales are of so comparatively late a date, how is it that we have no account of their introduction? The obstacle of language does not seem wholly to account for this. Were they intended to supplant some former heathen festivals, to be a concession to tastes already established among the Basques; or were they introduced originally as a means of instructing the people in Christianity? In this very district of La Soule there is a curiosity of church architecture, which is explained, rightly or wrongly, after a somewhat analogous fashion. Many of the churches are observed to be crowned with three small triangular towers of equal size, and which look as if they were an after-thought to the plan of the main building; and these are said to have been constructed in order to impress on the Basques the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which they had great difficulty in comprehending by mere verbal instruction, till it was thus substantially brought before their eyes. Whatever their origin and history, these Pastorales we believe to be unique in Europe.1 At

1 In Brittany rhymed mysteries seem to have been acted till very lately; but the representation of them, we know not for what reason, was prohibited by the police. A translation of one of these, "Sainte Tryphine et le Roi Arthur," by M. F. M. Luzel, was published

one time they must have played a very prominent part in the education of the people-in fact, have been their chief literary culture; embracing as they do almost all things in earth and heaven in their encyclopædic length. But they are disappearing even in La Soule. At Mauléon, we found the whole affair rapidly degenerating into the common buffoonery of a village theatre; the Basque music exchanged for the operatic and waltz airs of the day; the actors old, and half ashamed of their parts, and seeking to raise a laugh by farce and gross buffoonery and indecent gesture; and the dresses hired from the theatre at Bayonne.

In conclusion, if this description should have roused in the minds of any of our readers a desire to witness one of these Pastorales, we must remark that we believe a few years will see the last of these performances, at least in any of their seriousness and simplicity, without which they will be no more worth seeing than any other village stage. The whistle of the steam-engine can now be heard almost in the heart of La Soule; and the tourist can easily reach it from any of the central stations of the Pau and Bayonne railway. But it is more difficult, when in the valley, to discover when and where a Pastorale is to be acted. There are no flaming hand-bills pasted on walls and marketplaces. The traveller must inquire of mine host, of his driver, and of other worthies whose acquaintances he may make. Almost for a certainty there will be more than one Pastorale about the time of the great summer festivals, St. Peter's or St. John's day; and, if the tourist can choose which of two Pastorales to witness, let him select the most inaccessible-by all means one higher up the valley than Mauléon. Tardets, Licq, and Larran are the villages which bear away the bell in these representations. May he have as fine weather, as fair and amiable an interpretess, and as good-natured a reception as had the present writer in June, 1864!

last year in Paris, by Aubry. We regret that we have not seen it.

A RECENT article in the Revue des deux Mondes draws an interesting comparison between the financial condition of France and that of England.

The English balance-sheet for 1863-4 shows, the writer says, a surplus of 3,152,000.; while in that of France for the same period there is a probable deficit of 1,720,000l. The expenditure of England, which in 1860-61 was 72,500,0007. was reduced to 70,808,000l. in 1861-2; to 69,302,000l. in 1862-3; and to 67,186,000l. in 1863-4; while the estimate for the current year is less by 166,0007. than the last-named amount. Moreover, during these five years taxes have been removed or reduced to the extent of 9,415,000l. On the other hand, the expenditure of France was, in 1860, 83,360,000l.; in 1861, 86,840,000l.; in 1862,90,000,000Z.; in 1863, 92,000,000l.; her probable expenditure for 1864 is 94,200,000l.; and for 1865, 94,880,000l.; while in each of these years there has been a deficit, and on the whole period additional taxation to the extent of 2,960,000l. Again, the expenditure of England in 1852-3 was 50,291,000l.; it is now 67,000,000Z.; showing (when allowance has been made for a sum of 4,692,0007. on account of " expenses of collection," which appeared in the budget for the first time in 1857) an increase of 12,000,000l. On the other hand, the expenditure of France was, in 1852, 57,680,000l.; and in 1863, 92,000,000l.; showing an increase of 34,000,000%. With respect to the debts of the two countries that of England was, in 1815, 861,000,000l. on which the annual charge was 31,646,000l. By the year 1853 it had been reduced to the extent of 92,000,0007.; but it was again increased by the Crimean War to 805,000,000Z.; since which it has been diminished by 16,800,000l.; being now, in round. numbers, 790,000,000l. The ordinary

funded debt of France was, in 1814, 52,000,000l.; it is now more than 440,000,000l. and the charge upon it 13,600,000. The total nominal capital of the French debt, funded and unfunded, M. Bonnet states at 560,000,0007. and the annual charge upon it (in which he includes the sinking fund and the charge for "dotations") at 27,934,9487.; while the total charge upon the English debt for the year 1863 was (he says) 28,115,6677.

of

These figures are, in some respects, less favourable to England than the writer supposes. The fact that Mr. Gladstone's actual surplus for 1863-4 was only 2,352,0007. 2,352,000l. instead. 3,152,000l. as M. Bonnet states, may, perhaps, be hardly worth mentioning. But it is important to notice that the expenditure of either country, as given by M. Bonnet, does not include "departmental and communal" expenses; and there can be no doubt that the expenditure of England under this head. (including, as it does, a single item of some 8,000,000l. for Poor Rates, which are unknown in France) is so much larger than that of France as to place the real outlay of the two countries much more nearly upon a level than appears. In the next place, though it is true that since the year 1860-61 there has been an annual reduction of our expenditure, it is also true that our expenditure is at the present moment greater by 4,000,000Z. than it was in 1858, a year in which the Budget had very imperfectly recovered. from the inflammatory attack brought on by the Crimean war. With respect to the French debt, M. Bonnet himself states that a great part of the increase which has taken place since 1814 was incurred immediately after that year for the purpose of "repairing the disasters consequent on the revolutionary war. It would have been fairer, therefore, to

date the comparison from a later year. M. Bonnet contrives to run up the charge upon the French debt to within a short distance of our own; but there is this important difference in favour of France, that no inconsiderable part of the annual charge upon her debt consists of a sinking fund, by means of which the debt itself is in course of gradual extinction. There remains the unpleasant but inevitable reflection that our own debt is still, in actual solid bulk, greater, even on M. Bonnet's showing, by nearly onethird than that of France.

There is, however, a subject of more importance than our financial position considered in relation to that of France; and that is, our financial position considered in itself. In a free country, where the hands that hold the pursestrings are subject to the incessant, vigilant, and inevitable control of Parliament and the public; in an eminently commercial country, where wealth advances with a steadiness and swiftness elsewhere unknown, and the productiveness of fiscal imports increases with corresponding rapidity; in a singularly practical country, where the shrewd conduct by individuals of their own business is reflected in the administration of public affairs, -it would be strange if the balance-sheet did not compare advantageously with that of any other nation. Viewed not relatively but absolutely, the picture is by no means so gratifying. In the year 1842-3 our expenditure was 51,167,2367.; and it remained for the following ten years at nearly the same figure, the amount for 1852-3 having been 50,782,4767. Our expenditure for 1864-5 is estimated in round numbers at 67,000,000l., showing an increase upon that for 1852-3 ostensibly of about sixteen millions, but actually (when the account is rectified for the purposes of comparison) of about fourteen and a half millions. This is surely a condition of affairs which is very far from being a subject for selfgratulation. That at a time when (exception being made of those petty hostilities in remote parts of the world, which are of comparatively small financial

importance, and which, moreover, are little to the purpose, since they may be said to have long ago assumed a chronic character) we are neither at war, nor, to all appearance, in the remotest danger of being so, having adopted a nonintervening and strictly defensive policy, our expenditure should be greater by some 28 per cent. than it was twelve years ago, is a fact to be viewed, if with patience, certainly not with complacency. It is no answer to urge, though the statement is undoubtedly true, that the wealth of the country has increased by at least as large a per-centage as its expenditure, and therefore that though there is additional expenditure there is no real addition to taxation. The taxation of the country is heavier by 28 per cent., not than it was in 1852-3, but than it would have been at the present time but for the increase in the national outlay. And that it should be thus heavier is anything but satisfactory. A nation which has made regular annual progress in commercial prosperity, and may fairly calculate upon its continuance in future years, has a right to expect, in the absence of disturbing causes, not that the burden of taxation will remain stationary, but that it will it will become progressively lighter. Every increase in the national wealth implies a proportionate increase in the productiveness of existing taxes, or, in other words, an increase of revenue. But as, by the supposition, nothing has occurred to occasion an increase in the cost of government, the increase of revenue is not required, and a reduction of taxes ensues. commerce with increasing expenditure means increased taxation; progressive commerce with stationary expenditure means, diminished taxation. And if, while its wealth increases, the per-centage of its contributions to the treasury remains the same, a nation is deprived of one of the legitimate advantages of commercial improvement, and has certainly no reason to look with unmixed complacency on the state of its affairs. Still less has it reason to do so when no exceptional cause is at work sufficient to

Stationary

account for the abnormal scale of expenditure which is the source of the evil. If such a cause exists, the evil, however much it may be regretted, should be cheerfully endured; if not, it is one which calls not only for regret, but for remedy. The idea that a nation, like an individual, should increase its expenditure as its wealth increases, and that therefore any addition to the national expenditure affords no ground for dissatisfaction provided that there is a corresponding addition to the national wealth, is based upon а false analogy. The parallel case is rather that of an individual who, because his income had improved, should authorise his agent to manage his affairs in a more expensive manner, though nothing whatever had occurred to necessitate their more expensive management. Undoubtedly, as a nation advances in wealth and population, the cost of an administration of its affairs proportionate to their extent and importance tends also to advance; but, speaking generally, it is only after a period of time much longer than that to which the present comparison applies that any marked difference in this respect can have taken place. In the present instance it is obvious that no such explanation can be given of apparently plethoric Budgets.

If we now inquire as to the particular direction which the public extravagance has taken, we find (as was to be expected) that it is that of naval and military armaments. The expenditure on the army and navy (including ordnance) in 1841-2 was 14,882,1907.; in 1852-3, 15,768,4177.; and the estimate for them in the current financial year is 25,276,000l. (exclusive of the cost of "fortifications"), showing an increase of nearly ten millions. Thus of the fourteen and a half millions which we have found to be the total increase of expenditure in the present year, as compared with the year 1852-3, no less than ten millions are consumed by the army and navy alone.

The simple truth is (and it seems to be gradually gaining recognition) that, owing to various causes by which the

public has of late years been more or less consciously influenced, we have adopted a scale of expenditure only to be justified by the necessity of preparation for imminent war. If, for instance, we had consented, in conjunction with France, and for the sake of Poland, to try another fall with the colossal power of Russia; and if, by some chance, the Russian answer to the "ultimatum' had been delayed or doubtful for a year, our present outlay would have been no unreasonable one during that year. As it is, we submit to the charge, without having incurred the necessity. We protest loudly against intervention, but not against its cost. We decline to indulge in the luxury, but not to pay for it. We refuse to fire a shot for suffering humanity, but not to incur the expense which was the chief reason for our refusal; and the only incident of a "meddling" policy which we bear with equanimity is that which we look upon. as its principal disadvantage.

If an opponent of reduced estimates be asked what are the grounds of his opposition, there are only two upon which he will insist with any tenacity

reconstruction of the navy," and "our powerful neighbour." With respect to the first, he will forget that he has to account for an extraordinary expenditure, on the army and navy alone, of some ten millions; that at a cost of one million annually six iron-vessels of the most powerful and expensive kind could be annually constructed; and that we have now been " reconstructing" for several successive years. With regard to the second, there are persons who begin to doubt whether-" our powerful neighbour" having neglected one or two signal opportunities, not likely ever to return, of inflicting upon us the mischief which he is supposed secretly to intend, and it being his interest, as well as apparently his earnest desire, to keep the peace with this country-this ground for "bloated armaments is any longer tenable. But, even supposing that it actually exists, the firmest believer in designs of invasion masked under the garb of friend