Correspondence Conversations of Alexis de Tocqueville with Nassau William Senior from 1834 to | Page 3

XVI. and Marie Antoinette Evils of Democratic
despotism Ignorance and indolence of 'La jeune France' Algeria a
God-send Family life in France Moral effect of Primogeniture Descent
of Title Shipwreck off Gatteville Ampère reads 'Le Bourgeois
Gentilhomme' The modern Nouveau Riche Society under the Republic
Madame Récamier Chateaubriand and Madame Mohl Ballanche
Extensiveness of French literature French and English poetry The
'Misanthrope' Tocqueville's political career Under Louis Philippe in
1835 Independence In 1839 and 1840 Opposition to Guizot Inaction of
Louis Philippe Tocqueville would not submit to be a minister without
power Mistaken independence of party Could not court popularity
Reform came too late Faults in the Constitution Defence of the
Constitution Tocqueville wished for a double election of the President
Centralisation useful to a usurper England in the American War
Defence of England Politics of a farmer Wages in Normandy Evils of
Universal Suffrage Influence of the clergy Prince Napoleon
Constitutional monarchy preferable to a republic Republic preferable to
a despotism Probable gross faults of a republic Evils of socialist
opinions Mischievous effects of strikes Mistaken tolerance of them in
England Tocqueville's tomb

* * * * *
APPENDIX.
Mr. Senior's report of M. de Montalembert's speech in 1854

TOCQUEVILLE DURING THE EMPIRE
FROM DECEMBER 23, 1851 TO APRIL 20, 1858.
CONVERSATIONS
PARIS, 1851-2.
[The _coup d'état_ took place on the 2nd, and Mr. Senior reached Paris
on the 21st of December.--ED.]
_Paris, December_ 23, 1851.--I dined with Mrs. Grot and drank tea
with the Tocquevilles.
[1]'This,' said Tocqueville, 'is a new phase in our history. Every
previous revolution has been made by a political party. This is the first
time that the army has seized France, bound and gagged her, and laid
her at the feet of its ruler.'
'Was not the 18th fructidor,' I said, 'almost a parallel case? Then, as
now, there was a quarrel between the executive and the legislature. The
Directory, like Louis Napoleon, dismissed the ministers, in whom the
legislature had confidence, and appointed its own tools in their places,
denounced the legislature to the country, and flattered and corrupted the
army. The legislature tried the usual tactics of parliamentary opposition,
censured the Government, and refused the supplies. The Directory
prepared a _coup d'état._ The legislature tried to obtain a military force,
and failed; they planned an impeachment of the Directory, and found
the existing law insufficient. They brought forward a new law defining
the responsibility of the executive, and the night after they had begun to
discuss it, their halls were occupied by a military force, and the
members of the opposition were seized in the room in which they had
met to denounce the treason of the Directory.'
'So far,' he answered, 'the two events resemble one another. Each was a
military attack on the legislature by the executive. But the Directors
were the representatives of a party. The Councils and the greater part of
the aristocracy, and the _bourgeoisie_, were Bonapartists; the lower

orders were Republican, the army was merely an instrument; it
conquered, not for itself, but for the Republican party.
'The 18th brumaire was nearer to this--for that ended, as this has begun,
in a military tyranny. But the 18th brumaire was almost as much a civil
as a military revolution. A majority in the Councils was with Bonaparte.
Louis Napoleon had not a real friend in the Assembly. All the educated
classes supported the 18th brumaire; all the educated classes repudiate
the 2nd of December. Bonaparte's Consular Chair was sustained by all
the _élite_ of France. This man cannot obtain a decent supporter.
Montalembert, Baroche, and Fould--an Ultramontane, a country lawyer,
and a Jewish banker--are his most respectable associates. For a real
parallel you must go back 1,800 years.'
I said that some persons, for whose judgment I had the highest respect,
seemed to treat it as a contest between two conspirators, the Assembly
and the President, and to think the difference between his conduct and
theirs to be that he struck first.
'This,' said Tocqueville, 'I utterly deny. He, indeed, began to conspire
from November 10, 1848. His direct instructions to Oudinot, and his
letter to Ney, only a few months after his election, showed his
determination not to submit to Parliamentary Government. Then
followed his dismissal of Ministry after Ministry, until he had degraded
the·office to a clerkship. Then came the semi-regal progress, then the
reviews of Satory, the encouragement of treasonable cries, the selection
for all the high appointments in the army of Paris of men whose
infamous characters fitted them to be tools. Then he publicly insulted
the Assembly at Dijon, and at last, in October, we knew that his plans
were laid. It was then only that we began to think what were our means
of defence, but that was no more a