own, and not that of his cause. His speech amused all, and was admired by many, but it persuaded none. While M. Guizot, who then far surpassed him as a master of parliamentary eloquence, would fasten upon some one great principle, some prominent idea, and by presenting it to his audience in various points of view, render the dullest minds familiar with it, until he would make them believe the principle was their own. This is essentially the art of a professor, and hence the success of M. Guizot in its application. M. Thiers, on the contrary, would crowd into his speech such a diversity of topics, so intermingled with anecdotes and historiettes, that his discourse resembled a piece of mosaic, very dazzling to the eye, but having little to engage the more reflective powers of the understanding. While the one orator would reproduce the same leading idea in many speeches, the other would crowd a plurality of leading ideas into a single speech. In leaving the house, after hearing M. Guizot, the deputies went home, thinking of the subject. In leaving the house, after hearing M. Thiers, they went home thinking of the man.

This speech on the peerage was characterized both by the good and bad qualities which were so apparent in the eloquence of M. Thiers. But the former were more than usually conspicuous, and the latter were less than usually offensive.

He as usually exhausted the subject. He took up in succession all the common and popular objections on the score of the unreasonableness of hereditary legislators, and replied to them first on general grounds, and then by argument derived from the experience recorded in history. He maintained that the existence of hereditary rank was a principle inherent in human society; that wherever in popular commotions its extinction was attempted, it was sure to reappear; he gave as an example, the creation of hereditary titles and rank under the Empire. But as a matter of fact, he disputed the irrationality of the principle of an hereditary branch of the legislature. What is the objection to it? That intellectual endowments are not transmitted from father to son, and that therefore a House of Lords may become in time a House of Fools! But he contended that in the first place, although intelligence does not always descend, traditions do, and that we find men descended from high families,

prompted by traditions to a course of conduct, to which inferior ranks could only be conducted by reason. Besides, although it be true that talent does not descend from father to son, and therefore in an hereditary monarchy, the crown may descend on a head but feebly endowed by nature; this cannot happen with a body consisting of several hundred individuals. Among the families of three hundred peers, a fair average of intelligence will always be found. "If," said the speaker, wise fathers sometimes beget foolish sons, it happens also that foolish fathers sometimes beget wise ones. As examples of the descent of mental endowments in the same family, he produced the examples of the Medici and Lord Chatham. Here he indulged his propensity for historical anecdote, and amused the House with the (well known in England) story of the younger Pitt being put upon the table at six years old to recite, for the amusement of the company, passages from the celebrated speeches of English orators. While he was relating this, it was impossible for those who listened to him and saw him, to avoid comparing M. Thiers himself with the boy he described. His diminutive stature which left his head alone visible over the marble of the Tribune, his childish, shrill voice, his provincial accent, and the eternal singsong with which he delivered his periods, the volubility with which he poured forth those passages of history with which his memory had been stored, all irresistibly suggested to the minds of those who saw and heard him, that he was "himself the great sublime he drew," that he was in fact himself the surprising boy, mounted before the company to astonish them with the prodigies of a precocious memory!

Yet this speech with all its defects established the reputation of M. Thiers in the Chamber, and enabled the clearsighted to recognize in him one, who must, before the lapse of much time, rise to eminence in the affairs of the state. This speech was delivered in October, 1831, M. Thiers being then in his thirty-fourth year.

On the division of the Chamber on the question whether the hereditary principle should be recognized in the peerage, there were in favor of it only forty votes, against it three hundred and eighty-six; -a striking manifestation of the state of public opinion in France upon the question, especially when it is considered that

the head of the cabinet was from strong conviction in favor of the hereditary principle.

M. Thiers had now, so to speak, gained the ear of the Chamber, and with his usual restless activity he took full advantage of his success. He spoke frequently. The House served him as an arena for his oratorical gymnastics, and he was listened to with increased willingness and obvious interest. His physical defects and provincial disfavors were either forgotten or mentioned only as augmenting the wonders accomplished by his talent, in having surmounted disadvantages under which ordinary men would have succumbed. Finance was a favor ite subject of discussion with him, and he had some credit for practical knowledge of its administrative details from his long and intimate connection with the Baron Louis.

Among the intellectual feats ascribed to him, we shall mention one which he performed about the period at which we are now arrived. In January, 1832, the Chamber had been engaged in the discussion of a project of law upon the intermarriage of persons with their wives' sisters or husbands' brothers. M. Thiers at this time was named as the reporter of the committee on the Budget, and the state of the country was at the moment such that the work must necessarily have been work of great length and complexity. He expected that the debate we have just referred to would have protracted to a considerable length, and postponed accordingly the commencement of his report. It happened unexpectedly, how ever, that the debate on the marriage question was suddenly brought to a close on the 22d of January, the day on which it commenced and the report on the Budget was the order of the day for the 23d. To write a report so voluminous in a single night was a mechanical impossibility, to say nothing of the mental part of the process. What was to be done? Such reports are always prepared in writing and read to the Chamber for this obvious reason, that although necessarily the composition of an individual member of the committee, they are in fact supposed to proceed, and do really possess the sanction of all the members of the committee, as well as of that individual member who is more especially charged with their composition. M. Thiers, however, pressed by the exigency of the occasion, and not sorry to find an occasion for play

ing off a parliamentary tour de force, went down to the Chamber on the morning of the 23d. He presented himself in the Tribune, and apologizing to the Chainber for being compelled to depart from the usage of the House, by the unexpectedly early period at which the report was called for, in giving a vivâ voce and unwritten report, he proceeded at once to the subject aided only by a few numerical memorandas, and delivered a speech of four hours' duration, in which he discussed and exhausted every topic bearing on the matter of the budget. He plunged with the more ready and voluble fluency, into financial, political, and administrative details, unfolded with a logical perspicuity, an arithmetical order and precision, and intermingled with bursts of picturesque oratory with which he astonished and confounded the Chamber. History, politics, public economy, questions of national security and progress, were passed in succession before his wondering hearers, like scenes exhibited in a magic lantern. As usual no topic was omitted, every question was marshaled in its proper place and order, and the House nevertheless exhibited no signs of fatigue; they hung upon his words. On several occasions in pauses of his speech, after he had continued speaking for nearly three hours, they invited him to rest, not from fatigue on their part, but from apprehension of his physical powers being exhausted. "Repose-vous en pere," exclaimed several deputies. He proceeded, however, to the close without suspension.

The budget was at this moment a question of the highest importance. The country was placed between the dangers of foreign war and the disasters of civil broils. M. Thiers delivered from the Tribune a complete tableau of the financial condition of the State past and present, mingling the details with frequent bursts of spontaneous eloquence. Behind his demands for supplies he exhibited the question of life or death of the country.

Throughout this session M. Thiers was the extra-official champion of the ministry, and altogether the most prominent debater in the Chamber. The cholera broke out in Paris in the Spring, and on the close of the Chamber, M. Thiers, exhausted by his exertions, and willing probably to retire from the epidemic, started on a tour to Italy. On the 16th of May, Casimir Perier sank under the cholera, and the premiership became vacant, by

which event it was apparent that a reconstitution of the cabinet must ensue. The part which M. Thiers had played in the session which had just closed, was too important to allow him to be overlooked in the composition of the new_cabinet, and he was invited to return to Paris.

Towards the close of the session popuular disturbances took place in various quarters, and repressive laws against tumultuous assemblies were passed, which, like the other measures of the cabinet, were advocated by M. Thiers. The removal of the president of the council and the temporary reaction of the government, consequent upon the state of ministerial transition which followed, augmented by the difficulty of forming a new cabinet, emboldened the malcontents. Among those who fell under the effects of the prevalent epidemic at that moment was General Lamarque. His funeral was the occasion of the assemblage of the republican party in vast numbers, and an accidental circumstance, like a spark falling in a magazine of gunpowder, caused on this occasion a general emeute of the city and the Faubourgs.

A measure was proposed by M. Thiers in this emergency, which, in after years, cast great and general obloquy on his name, and for which, until very lately, no defence or explanation on his part has been offered by himself or his friends. On his proposition the city of Paris was declared in a state of siege, a measure of an extreme kind, which could only be excused by public disturbances of a much more serious and extensive kind than those which then prevailed.

The explanation or apology, if it can be called so, is to the effect that on the breaking out of the insurrection, on the occasion of the funeral of General Lamarque, Paris was a prey to the greatest anxiety; that it seemed to all well-disposed persons that the revolution of July was about to be recommenced. The Faubourgs had risen, armed as one man; the red flag had been unfurled; blood had been shed. At the moment the insurrection was at its height, as it is now said,* M. Thiers advised that, in order to oppose the excesses which were breaking out with adequate energy, the capital should be declared in a state of siege. But without any assigned motive, it was not until after the emeute had been suppress ed and tranquillity had been re-established

that this measure was put in force. To the astonishment of all, exceptional tribunals were at the same time established for the trial of the accused. Sentence of death having been pronounced against one individual by these illegal courts, it was set aside upon an appeal to the court of cassation. The ordonnance declaring the capital in a state of siege was soon after withdrawn, and the record of that measure, say the defenders of M. Thiers, only remains as an evidence of the existence of a groundless chimera and a barren menace on the part of power.

Meanwhile, the Chambers being about to assemble, the reconstruction of the cabinet was indispensable and pressing, and many and intricate.were the intrigues by which that process was obstructed. The personal interference of the sovereign in the administration which has since been so loudly complained of, was beginning already to manifest itself. The elder Dupin was invited to join the new ministry, but he objected to assume joint responsibility with MM. Sebastian and Montalivèt, who had been understood to be too obsequious instruments of the royal will. The chief difficulty, however, was to find a head for the new cabinet to replace M. Perier. Several eminent men there were, but not one to whom all the others would voluntarily submit to be subordinate. In the absence of statesmanlike eminence, it was therefore proposed to place Marshal Soult in the president's chair, whose great military reputation, like that of the Duke of Wellington, none could dispute. It was finally settled, accordingly, that under the Marshal's presidency a ministry should be formed, excluding MM. Sebastian and Montalivèt, the personal friends of the King, and consisting of MM. Bouthe, De Rigny, Hermann, the Duc de Broglie and Comte D'Argout, with M. Thiers as minister of the Interior, and M. Guizot minister of Public Instruction. This cabinet is known in the history of the day, as the ministry of the 11th of October, and it constituted the ministerial debut of M. Thiers.

The advent of M. Thiers to power was signalized by two remarkable events, in the accomplishment of one at least of which, the exclusive merit or demerit must be accorded to him. These were the capture of the Duchess of Berri, and the almost simultaneous capture of the

citadel of Antwerp. By the latter, the Belgian question was set at rest, and by the former all the surviving hopes of the elder Bourbons were laid in the grave. As the measures which terminated in this latter measure were conducted personally and exclusively by M. Thiers, we shall here relate them at length.

The Duchess of Berri was known to be concealed in La Vendée or its immediate vicinity. The minister of the Interior resolved that she should become his captive. With this view he ordered all the agents of the government and the police of that country, from whom he could hope to gain information on the subject, successively to Paris. The city of Nantes was supposed to be the place of concealment of the princess. M. Maurice Duval, known for his official ability, was named prefect of the place, with a body of the most able and active subordinates. To the various officials who had been commanded to attend at the ministry of the Interior, M. Thiers held a decided and unequivocal tone. The princess must be seized, but without resorting to the least violence. "No fire-arms must be borne by those in quest of her. It is impossible to foresee the effects of fire-arms-other weapons are under the more complete control of those who use them. There must be no killing; no wounding. If you are fired on, do not return the fire. The Duchess must be taken unhurt. In a word, we desire to take the Duc D'Enghien, but not to shoot him." Such were the instructions.

Great difficulties, however, still presented themselves. The information which had been collected was of a vague and uncircumstantial nature. Fortune, however, to which M. Thiers, like Napoleon, has been so frequently indebted, did not desert him in this emergency. An anonymous letter arrived one day at the ministry of the Interior, addressed to him, in which he was told that a person who was unknown to him had disclosures to make of the highest importance, relating to her Royal Highness the Duchess of Berri, and that if he would go unattended about nine o'clock that evening to a certain road called the Allée des Veuves, branching from the main avenue of the Champs Elysées, he would there obtain means of procuring all the information he desired relating to the Duchess.

Such an epise, it may be easily conceived, was well calculated to pique the curiosity of so lively a mind as that of M.

Thiers. Yet the place, and the hour, and the conditions annexed to the invitation, were not without danger. At that time, the part of the Champs Elysées which was named, had the reputation of being the haunt of robbers and assassins. It would have been easy to have sent agents of the police there, or to have gone under their protection. But in that case would the informant venture to appear? There was reason for hesitation, but so much was at stake that the minister decided to take his chance of the danger.

He accordingly ordered his carriage to draw up in the main avenue of the Champs Elysées, at the corner of the Allée des Veuves, where he descended from it, and walked alone to the appointed spot. Arrived there an individual emerged from among the trees, and addressing him by his name, informed him that he was the writer of the anonymous letter. This was the man DEUTZ, who afterwards gained an infamous celebrity. The traitor assumed an humble and respectful tone. It was the humility of baseness.

It soon appeared that Deutz was the depository of important secrets. He had been employed as the confidential bearer of dispatches between the exiled princes and those absolute powers which favored their pretensions, and had even been the recipient of favors from the sovereign pontiff. He was now about to sell the secrets of his benefactors to their enemies. M. Thiers could not esteem the wretch, but he nevertheless made him his tool.

Conducted to the Hotel of the Ministry of the Interior, and dazzled by the splendor which he saw around him, his cupidity was excited by the hope of gain and he at once placed himself at the disposition of the Ministry. M. Thiers ordered the commissary of police, Joly, to conduct him to Nantes and there take such steps as might seem best suited to the attainment of the desired object. When they arrived at Nantes they put up at the Hotel de France, Deutz assuming the name of M. Gonzague. He immediately transmitted information of his arrival to the Duchess, informing her at the same time that he was the bearer of important dispatches. M. Duguigny was commissioned by her in reply to see Deutz, from whom he received a private signal agreed on previously. Divided cards of address were exchanged between M. Duguigny and the traitor, anno doubt remained of his identity. In

fine, Deutz was introduced by Duguigny into a house where he had a long conference with the Duchess. He soon af ter succeeded in obtaining an appointment with her for a second interview which was fixed for the 6th of November.

On this day he had agreed to betray his mistress, but at the last hour his resolution gave way and he desired to retract. Instead of the Duchess he offered to deliver up Marshal Bourmont with whom, also, he had had an interview. But M. Thiers declined this, saying that he had no wish to take a prisoner whom he would be compelled to shoot. Deutz, still recoiling with remorse from the odious part he had undertaken, now offered to deliver up the correspondence of the Duchess. It was too late, however. He had advanced too far to retreat and was compelled to fulfill his engagement. He at length proceeded at the hour appointed and was admitted to her Royal Highness, with whom he had a long interview, during which there were no bounds to the expression of his gratitude, and he withdrew, leaving his mistress more deeply than ever impressed with his fidelity and devotion. This was the more singular, because, as it afterwards appeared, he tried, during the interview, by certain equivocal expressions to awaken her suspicions.

He had scarcely withdrawn, before the house, surrounded by soldiers, was forcibly entered by the agents of the police, pistol in hand. The Duchess, Mademoiselle de Kersabiec and MM. Maynard and Guibourg had only time to take re

fuge in a place of concealment previously prepared by forming a cell in the wall behind the fireplace, which was covered by the iron plate which formed the back of the chimney.

The house was to all appearance deserted; but the information given by Deutz was so clear and precise that no doubt existed of the presence of the Duchess within its walls. A number of masons and some soldiers of the sapeurs et pompiers were, therefore, summoned, and the work of demolition was commenced. A fire was lighted in the chimney behind which was the cell in which the four persons were squeezed together, the space being barely enough to allow them to stand side by side. A small hole was provided in the chimney plate, at which each in turn applying the mouth, took air. But the plate soon became intensely heated by the fire lighted by the soldiers in the chimney and the cell was converted into a furnace !

Mademoiselle Kersabiec, unable longer to suffer the torture to which she was exposed, was at length forced by her agony to utter a cry. M. Guibourg thereupon struck with his foot the plate, which is stated to have become nearly redhot, and the party surrendered themselves.

The mother of the legitimate heir to the throne of the greatest kingdom of the European Continent, pale, and almost expiring advanced to General Dermoncourt, saying, "General, I deliver myself to your loyalty." "Madame," replied the General," you are under the safeguard of French Honor."