e paper.
They were addressed to the king's sister, Madame Adelaide. This
messenger was commissioned to place the billet himself in the hands of
the princess, and to tell her that the Prince de Talleyrand conjured her
to warn the Duke of Orleans that not a moment was to be lost; that the
duke might reckon upon his aid, and that he must appear immediately;
that he must come at once to Paris, to place himself at the head of the
movement, or all would be lost without recall. Above all, he was only to
take the title of Lieutenant-General of the Kingdom, which Charles had
conferred upon him before leaving St. Cloud. He implored him not to
manifest any other intention. In this advice the old diplomatist was
reserving for himself a back door to creep out at in case Charles should
march on Paris." (P. 39.)

There follows this conclusive revelation an account of Madame Adelaide's
astuteness (_astuce_)--her anxiety not to commit herself in writing; her
transmission to Prince Talleyrand of a verbal message; and of the climax
of the whole intrigue in the arrival in Paris that same night of Louis
Philippe, and of his proclamation in his capacity of Lieutenant-General
of the Kingdom. The transition from this to royalty was easy, for it had
been pre-arranged. It was M. de Talleyrand, we are assured, who overcame
the "faint scruples" of the Duke of Orleans, and it was his advice that
"decided the king to go at once to the Hotel de Ville, there to receive
publicly the sceptre of France, and to swear allegiance to the charter."

After such statements as these, what useful purpose can it serve to
declaim about conspiracies, reservations, and the like, when they so
conspicuously testify to the fact, that one of the most energetic
agents--after his own peculiar way--in bringing about a change of
dynasty in France, was the very man whose memory his secretary is so
anxious to relieve from this reproach? It is mere folly and blundering
to do so, the more especially when we are told that the Orleans party
comprehended all the leading members of the "Opposition" in both
Chambers; that M. de Talleyrand was its head; and that, without
declaring himself in favor of the new _regime_, he regulated all its
movements, and was in constant and direct communication with the
individual in whose behalf the Revolution of 1830 was got up. It is idle
to quarrel about words; but if this was not "conspiracy," it was
something so exceedingly like it, that it woul