“The Spirit of Laws,” said he, “is the production of a fanatic and weak mind (_imbécile_), replete with dogma and prejudice; if Montesquieu were now alive he would very soon be less by a head, _car il était un parlementaire, non pas un bon Republicain_.” The word _parlementaire_ means, strictly speaking, a Roundhead or a Whig; but such a person was not sufficiently divested of prejudice to be a good Republican in the eyes of Robespierre; besides, as the tyrant continued, “being a member of the ancient parliament of France (he was president of that at Bordeaux) he was _necessarily_ an enemy of Republican Government, for which reason, notwithstanding his dogmas and prejudices in favour of public liberty, he was without doubt worthy of death as an aristocrat and a conspirator.” When I heard that Montesquieu would have been less by a head had he fallen into Robespierre’s hands, I felt an unpleasant sensation in my throat, and I therefore was immediately _convinced_ that the tyrant’s arguments were correct; but knowing that extremes of servility and opposition were alike obnoxious to him, I endeavoured to appease him with observing that it was very true, the author of “The Spirit of Laws” groped in darkness, especially in the article in which he treats of Influence of Climate, as it was now _clear_ that the enlightened principles of the Revolution were equally applicable to the whole race of man, and that there would probably be a National Convention very soon in China; but still that I could not avoid considering Montesquieu, as well as Machiavel, in the light of a pioneer of liberty! “Machiavel, the pioneer of liberty!” he cried (giving me a fixed look with his two large tigerish eyes and clenching his fists, the usual preliminaries of a warrant of arrest), “you are not acquainted with the true principles, the doctrines of Machiavel established tyranny over the whole of Europe.” Every one who has read Machiavel with attention, which I am persuaded Robespierre never did, if he read him at all, must be satisfied that his book “The Prince,” was written solely to expose the machinations of tyrants, and caution the people of free States against their intrigues. I have been led to these remarks in order to expose the worthlessness of the literary claims of those _political_ writers and orators who affect a great deal of information when they possess none. No people possess greater facility than the French in persuading the world that they know everything, when in fact they know little or nothing. When I was about to depart for France I was requested by the proprietors of a long-established daily paper in London to procure if possible some intelligent person in whom they might confide to act as a proper correspondent, to give them authentic information of what was passing in France. When I arrived in Paris I therefore addressed myself to men of approved talents in science, and, as I had been informed, of knowledge in politics.