and Royalists were no better than Jacobins.  Confusion was as much the object of the party of order as it was that of the party of disorder.  Men of all ranks, opinions, parties, and conditions were among the conspirators of those days, or in some way encouraged the conspirators, from Cadoudal, a hero of the Vendee, to Moreau, the hero of the Black Forest and Hohenlinden.  The vigorous, and in some instances tyrannical, action of the government put a stop to this kind of opposition for some years.  The seizure and execution of the Duc d’Enghien, though in itself not to be approved, was followed by a cessation of Royalist attempts against the person of the chief of the State.  It was one of those terrible lessons by which constituted power sometimes teaches its enemies that the force of lawlessness is not necessarily confined to one side in a political controversy.  Nothing contributed more to the establishment of the Empire than the violence of Bonaparte’s enemies, as they favored the plan of establishing an hereditary monarchy, the existence of which should not be bound up with the existence of an individual.  During the reign of Napoleon I. the opposition was quiet, but it was organized, and its conduct was from first to last illegal, as it corresponded with the banished princes, and with the foreign enemies of France.  The Mallet affair, in 1812, which came so very near effecting the Emperor’s dethronement when he was in the midst of his Russian disasters, shows how frail was his tenure of power when he was absent from Paris, and how extensive were the ramifications of the informal conspiracy that existed against him.  “You have found the tail, but not the head,” were the words in which the bold conspirator let his judges know that the danger was not over.  The Legislative Body endeavored to act as an opposition party in France after the disasters of 1813, and the Emperor, after giving them a lecture, dismissed them.  The Allies would never have dared to cross the French frontier, had they not been advised of the existence of disaffection, which was ready to become treason, in their enemy’s country.  The opposition to Louis XVIII.’s government was highly treasonable in its character; and so was that which Napoleon encountered during the Hundred Days.  When the second Restoration had been effected, the French government found itself in a strange predicament.  The extraordinary Chamber of Deputies which then met, “the Impracticable Chamber,” was so intensely royalist in its sentiments, that it alarmed every reasonable friend of monarchy in Europe.  It would have subjected the king himself to its will, in order that it might be free to punish the enemies of royalty with even more vigor and cruelty than the Jacobins had punished its friends.  There was to be a revival of the Terror by the party which had suffered in 1793, and for the purpose of exterminating imperialists, republicans, and moderate monarchists.  Lord Macaulay has compared this Chamber with the first