ambition might blind his vision to political crimes, but in private life no man could evince less disposition to cruelty or bloodshed.  A proof that he bore little resemblance to Nero is that his anger against the author of the article in question vented itself in mere words.  “What!” exclaimed he, “does Chateaubriand think I am a fool, and that I do not know what he means?  If he goes on this way I will have him sabred on the steps of the Tuileries.”  This language is quite characteristic of Bonaparte, but it was uttered in the first ebullition of his wrath.  Napoleon merely threatened, but Nero would have made good his threat; and in such a case there is surely some difference between words and deeds.

The discourse of M. de Chateaubriand revived Napoleon’s former enmity against him; he received an order to quit Paris:  M. Daru returned to him the manuscript of his discourse, which had been read by Bonaparte, who cancelled some passages with a pencil.  We can be sure that the phrase about liberty was not one of those spared by the Imperial pencil.  However that may be, written copies were circulated with text altered and abbreviated; and I have even been told that a printed edition appeared, but I have never seen any copies; and as I do not find the discourse in the works of M. de Chateaubriand I have reason to believe that the author has not yet wished to publish it.

Such were the principal circumstances attending the nomination of Chateaubriand to the Institute.  I shall not relate some others which occurred on a previous occasion, viz. on the election of an old and worthy visitor at Malmaison, M. Lemercier, and which will serve to show one of those strange inconsistencies so frequent in the character of Napoleon.

After the foundation of the Empire M. Lemercier ceased to present himself at the Tuileries, St. Cloud, or at Malmaison, though he was often seen in the salons of Madame Bonaparte while she yet hoped not to become a Queen.  Two places were vacant at once in the second class of the Institute, which still contained a party favourable to liberty.  This party, finding it impossible to influence the nomination of both members, contented itself with naming one, it being the mutual condition, in return for favouring the Government candidate, that the Government party should not oppose the choice of the liberals.  The liberal party selected M. Lemercier, but as they knew his former connection with Bonaparte had been broken off they wished first to ascertain that he would do nothing to commit their choice.  Chenier was empowered to inquire whether M. Lemercier would refuse to accompany them to the Tuileries when they repaired thither in a body, and whether, on his election, he would comply with the usual ceremony of being presented to the Emperor.  M. Lemercier replied that he would do nothing contrary to the customs and usages of the body to which he might belong:  he was accordingly elected.  The Government candidate was M. Esmenard, who was