Rochecotte, December 1, 1840.—The Duc de Noailles tells me: "I had a long talk yesterday with M. Guizot, and I told him that recent events and all that discussion has brought forth will considerably complicate the present situation for a long time. He thinks, on the contrary, that the difficulties are only momentary, and that public feeling upon this question will be as short-lived as it was upon the Polish war eight years ago. [144] I also had a long talk with Berryer concerning his speech; he is thinking it over, and has some good ideas; his conclusion will probably give the Ministry a set-back. He will say that war is obviously impossible at this moment, but that peace as formulated by the Ministry is not acceptable to the Chamber, and that the Address should be referred to a new commission. Odilon Barrot and M. Dufaure have already proposed this idea, which might easily become popular. I also met Thiers at the Chamber, and walked about for ten minutes with him. I reminded him that I had already prophesied the events that have come to pass, because in this great business nothing could be done without alliances, while France was united to an ally who was opposed to her interests and obviously likely to abandon her. He replied that France even alone could have prevented action, at the expense, however, of great energy and a large display of force. He throws the whole responsibility upon the King; he says that it is a case of inertia upon the throne, and that with inertia in high places and also naturally ingrained in the nation, nothing can be done; that if the Duc d'Orléans had been King the course of events would have been different; that he would perhaps have perished, but have perished with dignity, and would not have left France in her present state of humiliation and hopelessness, in which she will long continue. In any case, he is entirely devoted to the Left, and M. Odilon Barrot drew the bonds tighter yesterday. Madame de Lieven is, I think, really attached to Guizot, for she no longer goes to the sessions of the Chamber, and confines herself to asking news of them with much anxiety."

I now come to an extract from a letter from the Princesse de Lieven herself: "Thiers seems to have decided that he will no longer serve the King. He says that he will wait for the Duc d'Orléans. Syria is lost for the Pasha. It is hoped and believed that he will yield to the summons of the English Admiral Stopford. I suppose that the French Government is advising him to do so; then the matter will be concluded with no glory for France, we must admit, and with every credit to Lord Palmerston. There are many people who strongly object to this latter result. The Ministers here expect a decent majority of fifty or sixty in favour of the Address, after which they will get on as well as they can. M. Guizot seems very tired, but is full of courage. At Vienna people are delighted with the change of Ministry and full of confidence in the present Ministers. I have no news of public opinion as yet from St. Petersburg. I am a little curious to hear what our Russian public will say about this great affair which has been settled without any active interference on the part of us Russians; it will cause us some astonishment. You will probably ask me whether there is a Russian public; the question is not unreasonable, but there is one, as far as the East is concerned. When I was at London as Ambassadress I ventured to call Turkey our Portugal; my own Court much appreciated the epigram, but the English did not. No haste is shown here to nominate a London Ambassador; I think they would prefer the Egyptian business to be settled first. We shall certainly have to wait until the middle of December. Madame de Flahaut does not know what to do, torn as she is by the whims and fancies which are natural to her and the extreme desire of her husband for a diplomatic post. The King greatly wished his ambassadors to call upon Queen Christina in a body; many of them felt scruples upon the point, but at length they decided to go, regarding her as nothing more than the widow of Ferdinand VII., and in fact she is nothing more now. The Queen of England is said to have had a very easy confinement, and will probably have seventeen children like her grandmother. Madame de Nesselrode lives at the Chamber of Deputies; she is in love with Thiers, and has joined the Opposition extremists; she is finding life quite pleasant here. I see very little of her as her time is taken up with the debates in the Chamber and with theatres. My ambassador is crushed beneath the weight of all the great Russian ladies who are grouped together in Paris. I am sorry for him, for I can believe that it is entirely tiresome."

I would have been ready to make a bet that Madame de Nesselrode would conceive a violent fancy for Thiers, if it were only to rival Madame de Lieven's fancy for Guizot. After reading the speech of M. Barrot and the series of invectives which he aimed directly at Guizot, I began to wonder yesterday how such things could be said and heard without leading to further explanations by means of swords and pistols.

Rochecotte, December 3, 1840.—The following are the most important passages from the bulletin sent by M. de Salvandy, under date December 1, before and during the session of the Chamber. He says: "Have you heard at Rochecotte a pleasant epigram by Garnier Pagès, who is to speak to-day? 'I would strip them both, and their ugliness would then be obvious.' This epigram very well sums up the situation. M. Thiers retains his revolutionary attitude, but that is all; he remains incompetent to many and impossible to all. M. Guizot is far from having gained all that M. Thiers has lost. He has immense talent, admirable strength of mind in times of storm, the gift of overaweing all hostile revolts in the Assembly, and the art of raising the minds of his audience to consider questions with him upon a higher plane and from a wider point of view; these are his special advantages, though he has never made the best of them. Yet he grows stronger, though he raises no defences, and rests his power upon the majority without permanently establishing it. The soil declines to be cultivated. M. Thiers is like a mistress who is asked only to behave herself; anything will be permitted to him, and his reputation will not suffer. M. Guizot is the woman of strict morals who has been a failure and is blamed for everything. This struggle between the Ambassador and the Minister, in spite of attempts to soften it, does harm to the Chamber and to public opinion. He is not even pardoned for his firm resolve to abandon the principles of the Coalition, as if people would have preferred him faithful to infidelity personified. The speech of Dufaure seems to many people a manifesto intervening between the Cabinet and M. Thiers; the action of Passy and Dupin in this direction has caused much anxiety. My name is coupled with this movement because no one imagines that Ministers in retirement are not displeased to be employed. M. Molé is represented as hovering above all, although he has no connection with the sphere in which the Ministry of May 12 predominates, for that Ministry, I think, regards it as a point of honour to preserve its consistency by holding aloof from M. Molé, as Jaubert thinks to remain consistent by retaining his seat among the others, whom he wounds and annoys by his constant outcries against the King and his enthusiasm for M. Barrot. Such is our position. The ground seems to be crumbling beneath us. Alas for our country, which should be strong and cannot be governed! Our Chamber is really the Œil de Bœuf of the democracy. [145] Favourites, male and female, disturb everything by their intrigues, and spend the time in overthrowing one another, with the result that ruin is universal. I am going to the Chamber, where MM. de Lamartine and Berryer will cross swords, and shall close this letter there.

"P.S.—Berryer has just spoken, a clever, brilliant, and perfidious speech. He has protected Thiers by going straightway to the Tuileries. There he has displayed his thunderbolts and launched anathemas against M. Guizot the Ambassador, which have been definitely applauded three times by the Assembly. M. de Lamartine is now rising to reply."

Rochecotte, December 4, 1840.—The speech of M. Berryer shows the state of the country from one point of view and that of M. de Lamartine from another. These two speeches seem to me to be the most brilliant effort on the part of one orator and the most lofty on the part of the other that the whole discussion upon the Address has produced. M. de Lamartine, for whom in general I have but a moderate liking, greatly pleased me with his reply which seems to be wise, well supported by facts, well thought out, and well delivered, with excellent touches of straightforward feeling, which had its effect upon the Assembly.

We are assured that the mission of M. Mounier to London is intended to secure the help of England for the proposal of a marriage between the innocent Isabella with her cousin Carlos, Prince of Asturias.

The remains of Napoleon have now been brought to Cherbourg. In Paris no preparations are said to have yet been made for this ceremony, which in my opinion will be very ridiculous.

Rochecotte, December 5, 1840.—Yesterday I had a letter from M. Royer Collard, from which the following is a striking extract: "A week ago, madame, I was a prisoner in the Chamber, following a great debate upon the Address with close interest. The audience have alternately expressed dissatisfaction with the chief actors, but not from the same point of view. The faults of Thiers are those of the Minister, and the faults of Guizot those of the man. I do not know whether you noticed in the newspapers that I was led to make a declaration in Guizot's favour which he greatly needed, as he was in a difficulty, for no one believed a word of what he was saying, although he spoke the truth. The next day he came over to my place to thank me, boldly crossing the whole Chamber for the purpose. I did not accept his thanks, and told him that I had done nothing for him, but had been thinking only of myself. He then buttonholed me in a corridor. I maintained a distant attitude and refused to converse. The difference between the two men is that Providence has not granted Thiers the power of distinguishing between good and evil; Guizot has this power, but will not use it. He is therefore the more guilty, but not, perhaps, the more dangerous. If one could regard any decision of to-day as irrevocable, I should say that they are both utterly ruined. I wish they were, but I am not sure of it."

My son-in-law hears that the effect of Berryer's speech has been tremendous. It seems to have dealt a death-blow to M. Guizot, and a vigorous thrust in higher quarters. The Carlists are overjoyed. I am inclined to think that they regard the event as more important than it really is. Thiers loudly praises Berryer, and tells any one who will listen to him that in point of art nothing is superior to it, and that in 1789 no better performance was achieved.

The Princesse de Lieven, to whom some one related the thrust that Guizot had received, answered that he had not been hit.

It is said that the ceremony in honour of the remains of Napoleon will take place on the 15th of this month. How opportunely his ghost arrives!

Rochecotte, December 6, 1840.—I hear from a correspondent: "I have no certain confirmation of Demidoff's death, but I know from a sure source that he had a very unpleasant journey to Rome, and afterwards some harassing interviews with the Cardinal's Secretary of State and with the Russian Minister, after which he was obliged to leave the Papal States, in accordance with orders. The consequent excitement then caused him one of his worst attacks. Apparently he told a Greek priest that his children would all be brought up in the Greek religion, while he told the Catholic authorities that they would be brought up as Catholics. Moreover, he said, with his usual assurance, that with money anything could be gained from the Court of Rome, and that he had sent a hundred thousand francs to the Pope for the dispensations which he has procured. Cardinal Lambruschini, indignant at this story, inserted an article in the Gazette romaine, which has been circulated everywhere, and which denies the statement, affirming very positively that M. Demidoff only paid ninety francs for his dispensations—namely, the cost of their postage. The Russian Minister then refused to intercede with the Roman Court on behalf of Demidoff. Demidoff abused him, in consequence, and after all this fine performance was obliged to leave Rome; and if he is not dead with fury he is none the less in an awkward position."

Rochecotte, December 7, 1840.—The chief news of the day is the rejection of M. Odilon Barrot's amendment by a majority of more than a hundred.

One or two clever epigrams current at Paris are these: MM. Jaubert and Duvergier de Hauranne—in short, the Doctrinaire section that has gone over to the Left—are known as the unrestrained schismatics from the Doctrine. In other circles partisans of Mgr. Affre, the Archbishop of Paris, are known as the affreux (frightful). People must have their joke.

Rochecotte, December 9, 1840.—Madame Mollien informs me that, as the Address is now voted, men's minds are beginning to turn to the ceremony of the Remains, as the people of Paris call it. The expenses of the ceremony will amount to a million; thousands of workmen are busy day and night with preparations, and thousands of loafers spend their time looking on until nightfall. What foolishness all this comedy is, coming at such a time and in such circumstances! I think that the rock of St. Helena would have been a more fitting sepulchre, and perhaps a safer resting-place, than Paris, with its storms and revolutions.

Rochecotte, December 10, 1840.—M. Raullin writes to say that the Stock Exchange gambling was discussed at the session of the Chamber, and M. Thiers actually wept. He also says that the hatred and acrimony which embroil all these people is quite unparalleled, and that it is impossible to talk with any one unless you share their particular form of madness. Thiers wished to fight a duel with M. de Givré, which was prevented by Rémusat. M. Jaubert is also slightly infected by the disease. Madame Dosne is in bed, a result of the effects of the last session of the Chamber at which she was present. The revelations made upon the subject of the Stock Exchange gambling have overwhelmed her.

M. de Saint-Aulaire writes from Vienna saying that he is going to stand for election to the French Academy; he displays great disgust with public affairs, and there is every probability that this feeling will become general.

Rochecotte, December 13, 1840.—Yesterday, as my solitude was more complete than usual, I returned, as I constantly do, to my recollections of the past. It occurred to me to write a few lines upon certain mental characteristics of M. de Talleyrand, as follows:

His mind was strong, but his conscience was weak, for it needed enlightenment. The age in which he lived, his education, and the position into which he was forced were all incompatible with that reflection which can illuminate the soul. His natural want of sensitiveness also disinclined him for the serious work of self-examination and left him in darkness. Thus his unusual mental powers were entirely devoted to political interests. He was swept away by the terrible movement of his age, and threw the whole of his energies into it. If stress was required his energy was great; he could live without repose and rest, and deprived others of it as well as himself, but when he had attained his object he would relapse into a lengthy indifference, upon which he cleverly prevented any encroachment. He could be idle so gracefully that no one could disturb him without self-reproach, but he had a keen and accurate eye for a situation and a penetrating perception of its possibilities, while his mind was tempered with excellent common sense. When he took action he worked but slowly at first, but with rapidity and precipitation as the crisis approached. The attitude of carelessness, which he abandoned as little as possible, was most disastrous to him in private life, for he carried it to excess. His door was always open, his rooms were constantly invaded, while his indifference to the reliability and moral worth of the men who made their way to him was deplorable. At the same time he saw everything through his half-closed eyes, but he took little trouble to judge men, and even less to avoid those of whom he thought least. In conversation, if he felt no need of opposition, he allowed people to talk or act as they would, but if he felt himself attacked he was immediately aroused, and the answer was a crushing blow; he overthrew his opponent on the spot, though he never retained any bitterness of feeling for him. He speedily relapsed into his indifference, and as easily forgot an impropriety as he sincerely pardoned an insult. In any case, he was rarely called upon to defend himself. His dignity was natural and simple, so well protected by his reputation, his great past, and by the apparent indolence which was known to be only a mask, that I have rarely seen even the worst characters venture to show their true nature with him. I have often heard him say with real satisfaction: "I was a Minister under the Directory; all the hobnailed boots of the Revolution have tramped through my room, but no one ever ventured upon familiarity with me." He spoke the truth; even his nearest and dearest addressed him only with respectful deference. I am, moreover, convinced that his overpowering dignity was supported by a natural characteristic which could be felt even beneath his indolence. This was a cool courage and presence of mind, a bold temperament and instinctive bravery which inspires an irresistible taste for danger in any form, which makes risk attractive and hazard delightful. Beneath the nobility of his features, the slowness of his movements, and his luxurious habits there was a depth of audacious boldness which sometimes peeped out, revealed a wholly different order of capacities, and made him by force of contrast one of the most original and most attractive characters.

Rochecotte, December 14, 1840.—Among the letters which I received yesterday I had one from Berlin from M. Bresson, who says: "Frankfort is by no means a misfortune for Herr von Bülow; he has long desired it for private reasons; the post ranks as at least equal to that of London. The strange outcome of Eastern events has restored the credit of those responsible for the negotiations. The men who made the loudest outcry against Bülow are to-day warmest in his praises. We are so indulgent to those who show daring that I am myself inclined to regard them as correct. Humboldt has no political influence over the King of Prussia; no one has any as yet, and it is impossible to say exactly at present what attitude he will adopt. Some recent nominations of members of the Pietists have slightly damaged his popularity; his liking for them is not shared by the country. Lord William Russell extends the area of his amusements more and more; he is now divided between three ladies, one of whom attracts him with some frequency to Mecklenburg. Prince Wittgenstein no longer takes any share in public business; he has had several attacks and will not live long. I need not tell you what I felt concerning the discussion upon the Address; existing conditions make life abroad most unpleasant. Is it true that Flahaut is going to Vienna to replace Saint-Aulaire? If so, I shall certainly be left here. The wind of favour does not blow in my direction. A certain street and house very well known to you are not so well disposed to me as they were." This last passage alludes to Talleyrand's residence in the Rue Saint-Florentin, where Madame de Lieven now lives.

I am informed of the death of the young Marie de La Rochefoucauld, daughter of Sosthène and granddaughter of the Duchesse Mathieu de Montmorency. This poor woman has survived her contemporaries, her children, and her grandchildren. Heaven has severely tried the high courage and profound faith with which she is endowed.

I am also informed that at the much-talked-of ceremony of the Remains the Queen and the Princesses will be in mourning as for Louis XVIII. It seems that everybody is mad; the newspapers only speak of the funeral, or rather of the triumphal procession and of the religious honours which will everywhere be paid to the remains of Napoleon. After all, Napoleon, twice in forty years, will have performed the same service for the French. He will have reconciled them to religion, for it seems that it is quite curious to see the crowds upon their knees surrounding the clergy who bless these remains. Curious, too, is the general wish that their hero should have the benediction of the Church. Strange are the people who accept order personified in the midst of actual anarchy for the sake of a revolutionary idea, for it seems clear to me that there is no other motive for all these honours, which are paid, not to the legislator, but to the usurper and to the conqueror.

Rochecotte, December 15, 1840.—Yesterday I had some news from Madame de Lieven, the chief points of which I will copy: "Egypt is now done for. Napier was rather violent, contrary to his instructions, but at the same time he has succeeded. Napier wished to show his learning, and is asking the Pasha to restore the reign of the Ptolemys, a strange position for a vassal, but there it is. At Constantinople the principle of hereditary succession will be recognised for his family, and he will afterwards surrender the fleet. At London delight is great and Lord Palmerston cannot contain himself. Relations between the two countries remain very strained; it is not war, but cannot be called peace. The discussion upon the Address has been forgotten in view of the funeral of Napoleon; this will be a superb ceremony, and I hope it will be nothing else.

"Queen Christina has gone, after making a conquest of your King. She will go to Rome, but not to Naples, where her daughter has not been recognised. The whole of Russian female society is here; five of the palace ladies are at Paris and only four left at St. Petersburg. The ambassadors have declared that they will not be present at the funeral. Most of them have adopted this idea independently, but Lord Granville asked for instructions; after some hesitation he was told to do as the others did. The confinement of the Queen of England was perfectly easy."

Rochecotte, December 17, 1840.—We have not yet heard how the funeral passed off at Paris the day before yesterday. Some uneasiness prevailed. The Duchesse de Montmorency told me: "There is an idea of attacking the English Embassy and wrecking the house. Some soldiers have been placed within the residence and Lady Granville has moved. It is estimated that eight hundred thousand people will be on foot. My children went to the Pecq, and thought that everything was very well conducted; there was a general silence when the boat came in, and all heads were bared. General Bertrand was on the right of the coffin, General Gourgaud on the left, M. de Chabot before it, and the Prince of Joinville went to and fro giving orders and had all the decorations removed which were not religious. The priests were there with surplices and many candles, and there was nothing worldly or mythological."

The newspapers speak of great excitement. I shall be delighted when the evening post tells us how it has all gone off. I have written to secure my grandson Boson a view of the ceremony. Foolish, incoherent, contradictory, and ridiculous as it may be, still the solemn arrival of the coffin brought back from St. Helena will be very imposing, and he will be glad one day to have seen it. Unfortunately at his age he will be merely impressed, and will be unable to draw any of the strange conclusions which the sight should inspire—the complete forgetfulness of the oppression and the universal maledictions with which Europe resounded twenty-six years ago; to-day nothing remains but the recollections of Napoleon's victories, which make his memory so popular. Paris, proclaiming her eager love of liberty, and France, humiliated before the foreigner, are doing their utmost to honour the man who did most to reduce them to servitude and was the most terrible of conquerors.

In the newspapers we have read a description of the decorations in the Champs Elysées, with the row of kings and great men. The great Condé at least should not have found a place among them. Condé offering a crown to his grandson's assassin! What I think should be fine is the hearse. I like the idea of Napoleon brought back to France on a buckler....

Rochecotte, December 18, 1840.—Yesterday we awaited the post most anxiously, and by some fatality the box was broken and we had to go to bed without letters. Fortunately my son Dino, who had been at Tours, brought back a copy of a telegram received by the Prefect which said that everything went off very well, apart from a small demonstration by some fifty men in blouses, who tried to break through the lines in the Place Louis XV., but were driven back.

Rochecotte, December 19, 1840.—At last our letters have come. Madame Mollien, who was at the Church of the Invalides in the King's suite, says: "This ceremony was just as unpopular in the position where I was placed as it was popular in the streets of Paris. For every reason people are delighted that yesterday is over. Before entering the church we met in a kind of room, or rather chapel without an altar, which had already been used for the same purpose at the funeral of the victims of Fieschi. The royal family, the Chancellor, the Ministers, the Households, and even the tutors, waited together for two hours. The time was chiefly spent in speculation upon the progress of the procession and in attempts to derive some heat from two enormous fireplaces that had been hastily constructed and avoid the volumes of smoke which they belched into the room. Recollections of the Emperor were conspicuous by their absence; people talked of any subject except that. The Chancellor [146] was noticeable for his cheerfulness and his comical outbursts against the smoke. The Queen was feverish, but nothing could prevent her from accompanying the King, and she went home from the Invalides really ill. I can tell you nothing of the scene within the church. I was so shut in on my stand that I saw nothing, and could hardly hear the beautiful mass by Mozart, divinely sung."

The following is another account: "The hearse, in my opinion, was really admirable; nothing could be more magnificent and imposing; the departmental standards borne by subalterns made an excellent effect, and the trumpets playing a simple funeral march in unison impressed me deeply. I liked, too, the five hundred sailors from La Belle Poule, whose austere appearance contrasted with the general splendour; but a ridiculous effect was produced by the old costumes of the Empire, which looked as though they had been brought out from Franconi's. The progress of the hearse was not followed sufficiently closely by the crowd, so that the people rushed along in too noisy a fashion. There were some unpleasant shouts of 'Down with Guizot!' 'Death to the men of Ghent!' Some red flags were also seen, and the Marseillaise was heard once or twice, but these attempts were immediately checked. The Prince de Joinville has grown brown and thin, but he is handsome and looked very well. He was warmly welcomed throughout the procession yesterday."

The Duchesse d'Albuféra saw the procession pass from Madame de Flahaut's house, who had invited the old ladies who had figured under the Empire, the wife of Marshal Ney, the Duchesse de Rovigo, &c., with a number of modern society figures or strangers. The eighty thousand troops are said to have given the ceremony the aspect of a review rather than of a funeral. The Marshal's wife reasonably disliked the attitude of the people, which was neither religious nor impressive nor respectful.

I have also a letter from M. Royer Collard, who says nothing about the ceremony, at which he was not present; but in answer to a statement of mine, expressing my astonishment at his silence concerning Berryer's speech, he says: "If I were to give you my plain opinion of the protagonists in the debate upon the Address, I should be tempted to use very violent language. M. Berryer is supporting the cause of good by evil methods, an imaginary good by what is certainly wrong, and the cause of order by means of confusion. He has the outward graces of an orator, but not the essential points. He makes no impression upon men's minds, and nothing will be left to him but his name. You ask my opinion of M. de Tocqueville. He has a fund of honest motives which is not adequate for his purposes, and which he imprudently expends, but some remnants of which will always be left to him. I am afraid that in his anxiety to succeed he will wander into impossible paths by an attempt to reconcile irreconcilable elements. He extends both hands simultaneously, the right hand in welcome to the left, and the left hand to ourselves, and regrets that he has not a third hand behind him which he could offer unseen. He proposes to present himself for election to the French Academy in place of M. de Bonald. My first vote is promised to Ballanche, but he will have my second. His opponents—for there is an opposition—say that his literary success has already brought him into the Institute, the Chamber, and will give him an armchair at Barrot's house, and that he can therefore wait." Our hermit of the Rue d'Enfer displays a considerable spice of malignity beneath his excellent qualities. The notion of a third hand is very persuasive, a capital metaphor, in my opinion.

Rochecotte, December 20, 1840.—The Duc de Noailles also sends me a small account of the funeral, and says that the crowd of onlookers watched the procession going by almost as if it were that of the Bœuf-Gras, and that the people in the church were entirely absorbed by the question of the cold and the business of wrapping themselves up; that the service was confused and that the social spectacle was the main point in everybody's mind. The obvious inference seems to me to be that there are no more Bonapartists in France. The fact is that there is nothing in this country except newspaper articles.

My son-in-law is told that a proposal is to be brought forward in the Chamber to efface the figure of Henry IV. from the star of the Legion of Honour and to replace it by the effigy of Napoleon. As a matter of fact there will be nothing more extraordinary in destroying the image of one's ancestor than in staining one's coat of arms. [147]

Rochecotte, December 23, 1840.—I have a letter from M. de Salvandy, of which the following are the essential points: "A note has arrived from Lord Palmerston stating that Napier's convention has been ratified, and guaranteeing the fact in the name of England.

"M. Thiers will be president of the Commission concerning the fortifications, and will report their proceedings to the Chamber; thus he will have the Cabinet on the stool of repentance and be able to keep the Chamber in check. It thus appears that M. Thiers is by no means so weak as was thought, and that M. Guizot's position is by no means assured. In this general state of uncertainty anything is possible. The credit of the Chamber is shaken by it within, and a European disturbance may very well follow. Austria has presented a very moderate note upon the question of armaments, but Germany will not disarm."

M. de Salvandy says the same as my other correspondents with regard to the funeral. He complains that there was too much gold, which was to be seen in every possible position. Apparently those who arranged the ceremony thought that it was the best means of representing glory. He also said that nothing could be less religious than the religious ceremony. This is natural when one has an archbishop who cannot walk or pray or use incense. I notice in the Moniteur a phrase which is quite admirable: "De Profundis was sung by Duprez and the prayer by the Archbishop."

M. de Salvandy says that during the ceremony M. Thiers was remarkably hopeful at the outset, very angry at the conclusion, and preoccupied throughout; apparently he had set his hopes upon a day which, thank heaven, has been a failure. Even in the church he attempted to begin a discussion with M. Molé concerning Napoleon's thoughts and chances during the Hundred Days.

Now I have an extract from a letter sent by Frau von Wolff from Berlin: "Hitherto nothing has disturbed the perfect harmony between the Sovereign and his people; on political questions there is practically no difference of opinion among them, so we are almost all orthodox in this respect; but religious opinions are strongly divided, and from this point of view the first steps of the King are watched with some anxiety. It is to be hoped that the King will never sacrifice true merit to sectarian prejudice. With regard to the new nobility which the King has just created, it will be difficult for me to give you a precise explanation, for the institution seems to be still somewhat vague. The King hopes to obviate the inconvenience of a poor nobility—and the Prussian nobility is usually poor—by introducing new titles and attaching them to territorial estates, so that the title will pass only to those children or descendants who inherit land, and will become extinct if the succession leaves the family. This idea has not been greatly appreciated so far. People fear possible complications and entanglements and it is thought that the institution will hardly survive, as it is not in harmony with Germanic custom."

Rochecotte, December 27, 1840.—The Duc de Noailles tells me that M. de Tocqueville has withdrawn his candidature for the Academy. The Duc has just been to dinner with M. Pasquier, where he met Mgr. Affre; he speaks of him as a regular peasant; even the enemies of Mgr. de Quélen noticed the difference at the ceremony in the Invalides. It was Mgr. de Quélen who officiated for the victims of Fieschi. Mgr. Affre is an appropriate prelate for this wretched age, which is so devoid of dignity wherever it is looked for.

Rochecotte, December 30, 1840.—I hear from Paris that a despatch in a mild and friendly tone has arrived from Russia for communication to the Government, saying that the isolation of France is regarded with regret and that there is a readiness to begin the usual measures for bringing France into the train of negotiations since a Conservative Ministry has been re-established at Paris. The despatch was read to M. Guizot and then to the King. Can it betoken a desire for a closer union? I hardly think so, but I do think that there is a general wish to avoid war in Russia as well as elsewhere; that there is a wish to calm the feelings of France and induce her to disarm, and that disarmament may follow elsewhere, for these general armaments are the ruin of Europe.

320

APPENDIX
I
Message from President Jackson of the United States

Such, as is admitted, has been the nature of our grievances, grievances in many cases so flagrant that even the authors of them never denied our right to satisfaction. Some idea of the extent of our losses may be gained by considering the fact that the burning of vessels at sea and the seizure and sacrifice in forced sales of American property, apart from awards to privateers before condemnation was pronounced, or without such formality, have brought the French Treasury a sum of twenty-four millions of francs, apart from considerable customs dues.

For twenty years this business has been the subject of negotiations, which were interrupted only during the short period when France was overwhelmed by the united forces of Europe. During this period, when other nations were extorting their claims at the bayonet's point, the United States suspended their demands in consideration of the disasters that had overpowered the brave people to whom they felt themselves bound, and in consideration of the brotherly help which they had received from France in their own times of suffering and danger. The effect of this prolonged and fruitless discussion, disastrous both to our relations with France and to our national character, was obvious, and my own course of duty was perfectly clear to me. I was bound either to insist upon the satisfaction of our claims within a reasonable period or to abandon them entirely. I could not doubt that this course was most conformable to the interests and honour of the two countries.

Instructions were therefore given from this point of view to the Minister who was once more sent to demand satisfaction. When Congress met on October 10, 1829, I considered it my duty to refer to these claims and to the dilatory attitude of France, in terms sufficiently strong to draw the serious attention of both countries to the matter. The French Minister then in power took offence at the message, under the idea that it contained a threat, upon which basis the French Government did not care to negotiate. The American Minister refuted the interpretation which the French authorities attempted to place upon the message, and reminded the French Minister that the President's message was a communication addressed not to foreign governments, but to the Congress of the United States, and that in this message it was his duty under the Constitution to provide this body with information upon the state of the Union with reference both to foreign as well as to domestic affairs. That if, again, in the performance of this task he deemed it his duty to call the attention of the Congress to the consequences which might result from strained relations with another Government, one might reasonably suppose that he acted under a sense of duty in thus frankly communicating with another branch of his own Government, and not that he acted with the object of threatening a foreign Power. The French Government was satisfied and negotiations were continued. These were concluded by the treaty of July 4, 1831, which partially recognised the justice of our claims, and promised payment to the amount of twenty-five millions of francs in six annual instalments. The ratifications of the treaty were exchanged at Washington on February 2, 1832. Five days later the treaty was presented to Congress, which immediately passed the Acts necessary to secure to France the commercial advantages conceded to her by the arrangement. The treaty had been previously ratified with full solemnity by the King of France, in terms which are certainly no mere formality: "We, regarding the above convention as satisfactory in all and each of the conclusions which it contains, declare, both for ourselves and for our heirs and successors, that it is accepted, approved, ratified, and confirmed, and by these presents, signed with our hand, we do accept, approve, ratify, and confirm it, promising upon our faith and word as King to observe and to secure its observance inviolably without contravention at any time and without permitting direct or indirect contravention for any reason or pretext whatsoever." The official announcement that ratifications had been exchanged with the United States reached Paris while the Chambers were in session. The extraordinary delays prejudicial to ourselves by the introduction of which the French Government have prevented the execution of the treaty, have already been explained to Congress. It is sufficient to point out that the session then opened was allowed to pass without any effort being made to obtain the necessary funds; that the two following sessions also went by without any action resembling a serious effort to secure a decision upon the question; and that not until the fourth session, nearly four years after the conclusion of the treaty, and more than two years after the exchange of ratifications, was the law referring to the execution of the treaty put to the vote and rejected.

Meanwhile the United States Government, in full confidence that the treaty concluded would be executed in good faith, and with equal confidence that measures would be taken to secure payment of the first instalment, which was to fall due on February 2, 1833, negotiated a bill for the amount through the Bank of the United States. When this bill was presented by bearer the French Government allowed it to be protested. Apart from the loss incurred by non-payment, the United States had to meet the claims of the bank, which asserted infringement of its interests, in satisfaction of which this institution seized and still holds a corresponding amount from the State revenues.

Congress was in session when the decision of the Chambers was communicated to Washington, and an immediate announcement of this decision on the part of France was a step which was naturally expected from the President. The profound discontent shown by public opinion and the similar excitement which prevailed in the Congress, made it more than probable that a recourse to immediate measures for securing redress would be the consequence of any appeal made upon this question to Congress itself.

With a sincere desire to preserve the peaceful relations which have so long existed between the two countries, I wished to avoid this step if I could be convinced that in thus acting, neither the interests nor the honour of my country would be compromised. Without the most complete assurance upon this point I could not hope to discharge the responsibility which I assumed in allowing the Congress to adjourn without giving it an account of the affair. These conditions seemed to be satisfied by the assurances which were given to me.

The French Government had foreseen that the feeling in the United States aroused by this second rejection of the credit vote would be as I have described it, and prompt measures had been taken by the French Government to anticipate the consequences. The King personally expressed through our Minister at Paris his profound regret for the decision of the Chambers and promised to send a ship of war with despatches to his Minister here, forthwith authorising him to give every assurance to the government and the people of the United States that the treaty would be in any case faithfully performed by France. The warship arrived and the Minister received his instructions. Professing to act in virtue of these instructions he gave the most solemn assurances that immediately after the new elections, and as soon as ever the Chamber would allow, the French Chambers would be convoked and that the attempt to obtain the necessary credit would be renewed; that all the constitutional power of the King and his Ministers would be exerted to secure this object. It was understood that he pledged himself to this end, and this Government expressly informed him that the question ought to be decided at a date sufficiently near to enable Congress to learn the result at the commencement of the session.

Relying upon these assurances, I undertook the responsibility of allowing Congress to separate without offering any communication upon the matter.

Our expectations, reasonably based upon promises so solemnly given, were not realised. The French Chambers met on July 31, 1834, and though our Minister at Paris urged the French Ministers to lay the matter before the Chambers, they refused. He then insisted that if the Chambers had been prorogued without coming to any conclusion in the matter, they should be again convoked in time to enable their decision to be known at Washington before the meeting of Congress. This reasonable demand was not only refused, but the Chambers were prorogued until December 29, a date so remote that their decision in all probability could not have been obtained in time to reach Washington before the Congress was forced to adjourn by the terms of the Constitution. The reasons given by the Ministry for their refusal to convoke the Chambers at a nearer date were afterwards shown to have been by no means insurmountable, for the Chambers were convoked on December 1 for the special purpose of considering home affairs, though this fact did not become known to our Government until after the last session of the Congress. As our reasonable expectations were thus deceived, it was my imperative duty to consult Congress as to the advisability of reprisals, in case the stipulations of the treaty were not promptly carried out. For this purpose a communication was indispensable. It would have been unworthy of us in the course of this communication to refrain from an explanation of all the facts necessary for an exact comprehension of the affair, or to shrink from truth for fear of offending others. On the other hand, to have gone a step further with the object of wounding the pride of a government and a people with whom we have so many reasons to cultivate friendly relations to our mutual advantage would have been both imprudent and disastrous.

As past events had warned us of the difficulty of drawing up the most simple statement of our grievances without wounding the feelings of those who had become responsible for redressing them, I did my best to prevent any interpretation of the message containing the recommendations placed before Congress as a threat to France. I disavowed any such design and further declared that the pride and the power of France were so well known that no one would expect to extort satisfaction by fear. The message did not reach Paris until more than a month after the Chambers had met, and to such an extent did the Ministry disregard our legitimate claims, that our Minister was informed that the matter would not be made a Cabinet question when it had been brought forward.

Although the message was not officially communicated to the Government and although it contained definite declarations that no menace was intended, the French Ministers determined to regard the conditional proposal of reprisals as a threat and as an insult, which the national honour made it their duty to reject.

The measures by which they proceeded to show their resentment of this supposed insult were the immediate recall of their Minister from Washington, the offer of passports to the American Minister at Paris, and a declaration in the legislative Chambers that diplomatic relations with the United States Government were suspended.

After they had thus avenged the dignity of France, they proceeded to show their justice. For this purpose a law was immediately presented to the Chamber of Deputies asking for the funds necessary to perform the terms of the treaty. As this proposal afterwards became a law, the terms of which are now one of the chief subjects of discussion between the two nations, I am bound to retrace the history of this law.

The Financial Minister in his explanation alluded to the measures which had been taken in answer to the supposed insult, and represented the performance of the treaty as imperative upon the honour and justice of France. As the mouthpiece of the Ministry he declared that the message, until it had received the sanction of Congress, was merely the simple expression of the President's personal opinion. On the other hand he declared that France had entered into engagements which were binding upon her honour. In accordance with this point of view, the only condition upon which the French Ministry proposed to consider the payment of the money was to defer this payment until it was certain that the United States Government had done nothing which could injure the interests of France, or, in other terms, that Congress had not authorised any measure hostile to France.

At this moment the French Cabinet could not have known what was the attitude or the decision of Congress, but on January 14 the Senate decided that there was no reason for the moment to take any legislative measures with reference to the business proceeding between the United States and France, and no decision upon the subject was made in the Representative Chamber. These facts were known at Paris before March 28, 1835, when the Commission which had been considering the bill of indemnity presented its report to the Chamber of Deputies. This Commission repeated the opinions of the Ministry, declared that the Congress had put aside the proposals of the President, and proposed the adoption of the law with no other restriction than that originally stated. The French Ministry and the Chambers thus knew that if the position they had adopted, and which had been so frequently stated to be incompatible with the honour of France, was maintained, and if the law was adopted in its original form, the money would be paid and this unfortunate discussion would come to an end. But this flattering hope was soon destroyed by an amendment introduced into the law at the moment of its adoption, providing that the money should not be paid until the Government had received satisfactory explanations concerning the President's message of December 2, 1834. What is still more remarkable, the President of the Council [148] adopted this amendment and consented to its insertion in the law. As for the pretended insult which had induced them to recall their Minister and send our Minister his passports, not until then did they propose to ask for an explanation of this incident. The proposals and opinions which they had declared could not reasonably be imputed to the American people or government were put forward as obstacles to the accomplishment of an act of justice towards this government and people. They had declared that the honour of France required the performance of an undertaking into which the King had entered unless Congress adopted the proposals of the message. They were certain that Congress had not adopted them and none the less they refused to perform the terms of the treaty until they had obtained from the President an explanation of an opinion which they had themselves characterised as personal and ineffectual. The supposition that I had intended to threaten or to insult the French Government is as unfounded as any attempt to extort from the fears of that nation that which its feelings of justice would have made it refuse, would have been foolish and ridiculous; but the Constitution of the United States obliges the President to explain to Congress the situation of the country and the American people cannot admit the intervention of any Government whatever upon earth in the free performance of the domestic duties which the Constitution has imposed upon its public officials. The discussions proceeding between the different branches of our Government concern ourselves alone, and our representatives are responsible for any words which they may utter only to their own constituents and to their fellows in office. If, in the course of these discussions, facts have been inaccurately stated, or wrong inferences have been drawn from them, correction will necessarily follow when the mistakes are perceived, from their love of justice and their sense of self-respect; but they will never submit to be questioned upon that matter as a right by any foreign Power. When these discussions lead to action, then our responsibility to foreign Powers begins, but it is then a national and not an individual responsibility. The principle upon which a demand is issued for an explanation of the terms of my message would also justify the claim of any foreign Power to demand an explanation of the terms employed in a committee report or in the speech of a member of Congress.

It is not the first time that the French Government has taken offence at messages from American presidents. President Washington and President Adams, in the performance of their duties to the American people, encountered ill-feeling on the part of the French Directory. The grievance raised by the Minister of Charles X. and removed by the explanations offered by our Minister at Paris, has already been mentioned when it was known that the Minister of the reigning King took offence at my message last year by interpreting it in a sense which the very terms of it forbade. Our last Minister at Paris in reply to the last note which showed dissatisfaction with the language of the message, sent a communication to the French Government under date January 28, 1835, which was calculated to remove all the impressions that undue susceptibility might have received. This note repeated and recalled to the attention of the French Government the disavowal contained in the message itself of any intention to use intimidation by threats; it declared in all truth that the message did not contain either in words or intention any accusation of bad faith against the King of the French; it drew a very reasonable distinction between the right of complaining in measured terms of the failure to perform the terms of the convention, and an imputation that the delay in performance was due to evil motives; in short it showed that the necessary exercise of this right was not to be regarded as an offensive imputation. Although this communication was made by our Minister without instructions and entirely upon his own responsibility, my approbation has since made it a governmental act and this approbation was officially notified to the French Government on April 25, 1835. However, it produced no effect. The law was passed with the unfortunate amendment, supported by the King's Ministers and was definitely approved by the King.

The people of the United States are reasonably inclined to pursue a pacific policy in their dealings with foreign nations; the people must therefore be informed of the loyalty of their government to this policy. In the present case this policy was carried to the furthest limits compatible with due self-respect. The note of January 28 was not the only communication which our Minister took the responsibility of offering upon the same subject and from the same point of view; when he found that it was proposed to make the payment of a just debt dependent upon the accomplishment of a condition which he knew could never be performed, he thought himself bound to make a further attempt to convince the French Government that, if our self-respect and our regard for the dignity of other nations prevented us from using any language which might give offence, at the same time we would never recognise the right of any foreign government to require an explanation of communications passing between the different branches of our public service. To prevent any misunderstanding the Minister recalled the language used in a preceding Note and added that any explanation which could be reasonably asked or honourably given, had already been furnished and that the annexation of this demand to the law as a condition, was not only useless but might be regarded as offensive and would certainly never be fulfilled.

When this last communication, to which I called the special attention of the Congress, was submitted to me, I conceived the hope that its obvious intention of securing a prompt and honourable settlement of the difficulties between the two nations would have been achieved, and I therefore did not hesitate to give it my sanction and my complete approbation. So much was due from me to the Minister who had made himself responsible for the act. The people of the United States were publicly informed of it and I am now communicating it to the people's representatives to show how far the Executive power has gone in its attempts to restore a good understanding between the two countries. My approval would have been communicated to the French Government if an official request for it had been received.

As the French Government had thus received all the explanations which honour and principle could allow, we hoped that there would be no further hesitation in paying the instalments as they fell due. The agent authorised to receive the money was instructed to inform the French Government of his readiness; by way of reply he was informed that the money could not then be paid because the formalities required by the act of the Chambers had not been fulfilled.

As I had received no official communication concerning the intentions of the French Government, and as I was anxious to conclude this disagreeable affair before the meeting of Congress, I instructed our Minister at Paris to inquire into the final determination of the French Government and if the due payment of the instalment was refused, to return to the United States without further explanations.

The results of this last step have not yet reached our knowledge, but we expect information daily. I trust that information may be favourable. As the different powers in France have recognised the justice of our rights and the obligations imposed upon them by the treaty of 1831, and as no real cause remains as an excuse for further delay, we may hope that France will at length adopt that course of procedure demanded no less imperiously by the interests of the two nations than by the principles of justice. When once the treaty has been carried out by France, few causes of disagreement will remain between the two countries, and in short there will be nothing that cannot be surmounted by the influence of a pacific and enlightened policy and by the influence of that mutual good will and those generous recollections which will, we trust, then be revived in all their early strength; but in any case, the question of principle which has been raised by the new turn given to the discussion is of such vital importance to the independent action of the government, that we cannot abandon it or make it the subject of a bargain without compromising our national honour. I need not say that such a sacrifice will never be made by any act of mine. I will never stain the honour of my country to relieve myself of my obligation to tell the truth and to do my duty; nor can I give any other explanations of my official act than those required by honour and justice. This determination, I feel sure, will meet with the approbation of my constituents. My knowledge of their character is very inadequate if the sum of twenty-five millions of francs should outweigh for a moment in their eyes any question which affects their national independence; and if unfortunately a different impression should prevail they would rally, I feel certain, about their chosen Government vigorously and unanimously, and silence for ever this degrading imputation.

Having thus frankly submitted to the Congress the further steps which have taken place since last session, in this interesting and important affair and also the views of the Executive power concerning it, it only remains for me to add, that as soon as the information expected by our Minister has been received, it will become the subject of a special communication. [149]