ral had been proscribed by the Emperor. An
odious name was thus given to the lenient punishment which had been
inflicted upon Dupont, he who had shuffled off the allegiance which he
owed to his Emperor, and whose cowardice had surrendered into
captivity the legions intrusted to his command[6]. Weak, indolent,
irresolute, devoid of character and resources, he never had the wish
or the ability of becoming any thing else than the pliant functionary
of the court and the ruling courtiers.

[Footnote 6: When Dupont capitulated to the
Spaniards, the insurgents refused to acknowledge
the Emperor. Dupont therefore only took the title
of general in the French service.]

Another, the Abbe de Montesquiou, received the "porte-feuille" of the
home department. When a member of the Constituent Assembly he had
been honourably distinguished by his soft and persuasive eloquence.
The temperance of his public conduct seemed to be insured by his
personal character; he was a servant of the altar, his health was
delicate, he had lived long in quiet retirement. But Montesquiou,
meek, mild, and timid as long as he was in the background, became
scornful, angry, and overbearing the instant that he stepped into
power. He detested and despised the revolution--I may almost say, he
detested and despised the nation. This sentiment was the principle
which guided him. Montesquiou never deigned to inquire whether any
given portion of our polity was sound or useful, whether it had been
formed with difficulty, whether it could be modified, or ameliorated,
or fitted into existing circumstances. He only inquired into the date
of its institution--and the date decided the question.

A third, Dambray, the chancellor, and the chief law officer of the
nation, had distinguished himself in his youth as a Judge of
Parliament. His credit arose from his prudence and his principles no
less than from his talents. He had been long since recalled to his
country. During the reign of Napoleon he fulfilled the duties of a
citizen and a subject with zeal and fidelity. We never doubted but
that he would protect those constitutional forms of government under
which he had flourished in peace and honour. Scarcely, however, was
the Chancellor clothed in his robe, when he became the oppressor of
the magistracy, the antagonist of our new system of jurisprudence, and
the dull partisan of those slavish forms