and contempt, unallayed by any respect for talents, ought to be his portion.

European cabinets have hitherto been inclined to give great credit to Talleyrand as a profound statesman; and it is possible, that, though his master's reign may be near an end, yet Talleyrand may have art enough to preserve his consequence: we think this the more possible, if not the more likely, that he is supposed to have endeavoured to dissuade Buonaparte from some of his worst and latest extravagances and crimes.

It is of importance, then, to unmask this profound statesman, and undeceive the cabinets; and we shall shew, that, not only has he been wrong in detail, but that the principle on which he proceeded, if he encouraged and directed Buonaparte till 1807, as is supposed, was radically wrong, and betrays not only a wicked mind, but a weak head, and a great ignorance of the history of mankind.

Honour is of a similar nature with virtue, though springing from another root; it also produces nearly the same effects. There is, however, one great difference in respect to the circumstances under which they are found to flourish. Honour may flourish under the most despotic governments, and may be carried to the greatest height under kings whose

power has no limit but their will. Virtue, on the contrary, flourishes most where there is freedom: but, as republics cannot flourish without virtue, so monarchies can neither have prosperity nor stability without honour. The whole of Buonaparte's reign has been distinguished by treachery, and an utter contempt for every thing honourable.

This contempt for honour was coupled with unlimited ambition, which is another enemy to the stability of empires.

Montesquieu observes, that the advances of a government to despotism are so many approaches to danger. The history of the Roman empire is, of this truth, a great example. In proportion as the emperors became tyrannical, did they become dependant on their mercenary troops; as is the case at the present day in Turkey and Barbary.

In addition to contempt for honour, and giving loose to a despotic disposition, both of which are enemies to the prosperity and stability of a state, Talleyrand and Buonaparte struggled for an extensive increase of territory, which is more ruinous still.

The extent of the Roman empire, though gradually acquired, and rendered solid by all human means, was evidently the greatest cause of its

destruction*.

The same was the case with the

more crude empires of Alexander and Charlemagne. If, therefore, a prince wants stability to his fortune, and to establish a dynasty, (the modern mode of expressing the establishment of his race), he will be honourable in his dealings, moderate in his manner of governing, and limited in his ambition for extent of empire.

ap

A frantic sort of energy, which assumed the pearance of power and strength, has sometimes existed under despotic monarchs, who aimed at very extensive power. Louis XIV. of France, and Charles XII. of Sweden, are two examples, but they were like two brilliant and evanescent meteors

two transitory flashes passing athwart the political horizon, leaving both kingdoms in a state of weakness and debility. Those monarchs, however, were both honourable; and the men by whom they were aided, were, honourable in a high degree. Had they been otherwise, France must have been divided,

* An anonymous writer, about the middle of the last century, says, "Were the Gallic monarch as uncontroulable as he seeks to become, and conqueror of all the countries he desires to reign over, no means would be so likely to put an end to his family and their domination, as those that he is so assiduously applying for their establishment in greater glory."

and Sweden become a desert, after their exertions

were over.

The ancient government of France was guided by a principle of honour which, in adversity, rescued it from humiliation; and, in its moments of success, made it one of the most brilliant objects in modern times. Buonaparte and Talleyrand were not ignorant of this, but they wanted wisdom, moderation, and honour themselves; and, therefore, when they established a legion of honour, in imitation of those who understood and valued it, they bestowed their base-born badges on the most determined ruffians that the revolution had produced.

Opinion is free, even under the eyes of the most despotic tyrant; and every one felt internally, that Buonaparte's legion of honour consisted of those who had most distinguished themselves in the arts and practices of murder, plunder, and every species of crime that was suited to the taste or the interest of Buonaparte.

The man who on neutral ground way-laid, and afterwards murdered, the last descendant of the great Condé, might very properly have been decorated as a chief of banditti, but could never belong to a legion of honour. The consequence was, that there was no honour in wearing the decoration,

which, nevertheless, some honourable men have condescended to do, when the chief of the banditti was in the zenith of his power*.

The Spaniards and Portuguese were both powerful while they remained honourable; but when they forgot the road to honour, they sunk in rank amongst nations: nor is it surprising that honour is so effica cious in producing beneficial consequences, when it is considered, that its action on the mind which is guided by it, is constantly in operation, and equally fearless in every danger that does not incur merited disgrace. It never balances an instant in any circumstance between what ought or ought not to be done, if it is not perfectly honourable; the same

the case also with virtue: whereas, where honour or virtue are not, there is a vacilating, temporizing, and flexible conduct that is incompatible with lasting prosperity.

In the history of England we shall find, that the most honourable sovereigns were the most prosperous, as well as the most respected. Edward III.

* It would be useless to lose time in shewing, that the ambition. of too extended empire, and the want of good faith and honour, were the direct causes of the misfortunes of Buonaparte. So completely is that the case, that the Allies dare not trust him in a single instance, and see no safety while he exists.