TALK AT THE TUILERIES. [From Punch.]

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VIII, Issue 749, 6 October 1852, Page 3

TALK AT THE TUILERIES. [From Punch.]

(M. Guizot, as the head of the French Academy, has introduced the Marquis de Montalembert to the President.) President. I am charmed with any occasion that brings M, G'lizot to the Palace. Would tffat his visits — elevating and instructive as they mast ever ~be — were more frequent ! (M. Guizot bows.) President. For the glory of French letters, I must permit myself to hope that M. Guizot continues his History of the English Revolution. Cromwell, M. Guizot, was a great man ! M. Goizot. I am in possession, Prince President, of original papers hearing upon the political history of Oliver Cromvrell. President. lam delighted with the assurance. Yes, Cromwell was a great man. Nature pro-.

duces few such men. Cromwell — my uncle, and — and — perhaps, another. (M. Guizot bows.) 'President. There can be little doubt, M. Guizot, of Cromwell's tendencies. Having confiscated the properly of tlie Stuarts — I believe he •old Charles the First's wardrobe by Dutch auction — Oliver looked to the Crown. Had he lived a few months longer, there would have been a coronation in Westminster Abbey. Yes, Cromwell was a great roan 1 (M. Guizol bows.) President. And you have original papers further illustrating his political greatness ! lam delighted to know if. M. Guizot, will, lam sure, reveal the true political philosophy of Cromwell's coup d'etat, X mean, when lie knocked dovVn "Whitehall with forty-two pounders — raked' the. Strand with grape — shot a thousand of tlie canaille in St. James's Park — and shipped all the cavalier members of Parliament, and Oxford and Cambridge to the Bermudas. You will, of course, give all this, M. Guizot, when — M. Guizoi. (with a very low bow) When I find it. [Exeunt severally.

The Will of the late Prince op Conde. — A rumour was hi circulation in some'lof the saloons of Paris- two or three days ago, and has since- spread through every circle, political or otherwise, occupying the attention of the public at the Bourse, the theatres, and the cafes, and, in fact, seems to interest people exceedingly. The rumour I allude to, which was at first shadowy and doubtful, hut which is gradually acquiring a palpable shape, has reference to the intention at* tributed to the representatives of the ancient and noble family of De Rohan to renew the legal proceedings of 1832 touching the validity of the -will of the Prince of Cond6, who, it has not been Forgotten, was found dead and hanging from the Bolt of a window of his chateau of St. Leu. If - the rumour be well founded, it would appear that certain preliminary steps have already been taken. Tims, perhaps, we are about to see another dark .page of contemporary history again opened, and fresh publicity given to events which so intensely occupied the public mind soon after the revolution of July, and in which some of the greatest names in France figured. But for the testament, the annulling of which is, it appears, now demanded the family of De Rohan would be the proprietors of the immense property of the chief of the house of Condi?. The family of Rohan, which is divided into several branches — the Rohans-Chabot, the Robans-Monlmoreocy, &c. — was allied by one of those branches to the family of Cond6. A Princess of that house having maried a Duke do Rohan, the Rohans considered themselves, as collaterals, the sole heirs to the vast domains of the now extinct house of the Dukes d'Enghein, -Pinces of Coude. It was, in fact, on such connexion that, in 1832, the Rohans founded their suit against the Baroness de Feucheres aud the Duke d'Aumale, the iuheritors, by will, of the -Prince of Cond6. Though years have passed away since then, the violent passions and the crnel and -unjust comments these proceedings excited are not forgotten. M. Hennequin, a member of the Paris bar, who acted as counsel for. the family of the Rohans, embodied, in the speech delivered on the momentous occasion, manyof the dark and improbable stories and mysterious hints that then circulated among a public always anxious for excitement ; while he no less gratified the tastes or ministered to the prejudices of the Legitimist party, and to the hatred of the friends of the plaintiff. M. Lievaux, the counsel of the Baroness de Feucberes, and M. Dupin, the younger, brother of the President of the late National Assembly, counsel of the Duke d'Aumale gave proof of great talent in their reply to M. Hennequin, who was considered among professional men, as one of the most eminent lawyers of France. They replied with eloquence and indignation to the foul accusations their adversary had borrowed in support of his cause from public rumour or public credulity ; and they exerted themselves to sbow that the whole proceedings were uothing more nor less than a plot, hatched by the Legitimists, to avenge the cause of Charles X., and the overthrow of the monarchy. The opinion of the judges was not different from that of the advocate of the Duke d'Aumale and the Baroness de Feucheres. The Rohans lost their cause. It is that decision of the tribunal that is now sought to be quashed. Many changes have, however, taken place since then. The Baroness de Feucberes has gone to her account ; and many -other personages, whose testimony might be now invited or compelled, have disappeared from the scene. If the revision of the proceedings be officially granted, as, it is stated, the family of De .Rohan require and hope, the affair promises to be long and the inquiry difficult, and the details may remind the present generation of the famous history of tbe Iron Mask, or the no less famous prods of the diamond necklace, where the name of a Rohan, a Duke, and Cardinal, was then also- mixed up, in the 18th century, wiih that of Marie Antoinette and Madame de Lamotte, the last x the survivor of a race that had once ruled France, the descendant of the Valois. — Paris Correspondent. of. the. Times, The Constitutionnel publishes to-day General Chaogaruier's letter, and adds another from General Lamoriciere, which is as follows : — "Brussels, May 14th, 1852. General, torn from my house, thrown into prison, prosecuted in defiance of the laws, I did not think you would have gone so far as to ask me to take an oath of allegiance to a power usurped by violence and maintained only by force. But a decree has emanated from your office, which contains a paragraph that is evidently applicable to the banished generals, and imposes the obligation upon' them of taking the oath. Two months are allowed to those residing in Belgium to reply to that summons. I am told that an oath is not binding towards one who has not maintained his own. However widely diffused such a doctrine may be at the present day, I reject it. Ido uot want the delay allowed for consideration. I refuse to take the oath. lam aware of the consequences of my determination. Twenty-nine years and & half of tctive service, thirty- six campaigns during eighteen years- of war in Algeria, services rendered to France in foreign lands and during the. fatal dayi of June, 1848 — services which, perhaps, are not forgotten — all will be sunk by this refusal, and my name will be struck off the army list. Another pi oof will be given that an officer's rank is in the hands of an arbitrary will. The law' of 19th May, 1834,

bad made an officer's rank his patrimony'; lie could not be deprived of it by the sentence of a couit martial. That law is discarded, as many others have been, by a government which respects , neither person nor property. The sword which I have devoted to the service of France will be taken out of my bands, ,' What use could I make of it under such a government ? But, which God forbid, if our frontiers should be invaded, I should, hasten to resume it to fight for our national independence ; for history has sufficiently proved that in the hour of danger', brought on by ambition, despotism requires no oath from men of courage who are willing' to march in defence of their country. (Signed) General De Lamobiciere.