Correspondence Conversations of Alexis de Tocqueville with Nassau William Senior from 1834 to | Page 9

day. The Orleans confiscation has, I think,
almost too much weight given to it. After his other crimes the mere
robbery of a single family, ruffian-like as it is, is a slight addition.
I breakfasted with V. yesterday. He assures me that it is false that a
demand of twenty millions, or any other pecuniary demand whatever,
has been made in Belgium. Nor has anything been said as to the
demolition of any fortresses, except those which were agreed to be
dismantled in 1832, and which are unimportant.
The feeling of the people in Belgium is excellent.
Mr. Banfield, who has just returned from the Prussian provinces, says
the same with respect to them--and Bunsen assures me that his
Government will perish rather than give up a foot of ground. I feel
better hopes of the preservation of peace.
Thiers and Duvergier de Hauranne are much _fêtés_, as will be the case
with all the exiles.
I have been reading Fiquelmont. He is deeply steeped in all the
_bêtises_ of the commercial, or rather the anti-commercial school; and

holds that the benefit of commerce consists not, as might have been
supposed, in the things which are imported, but in those which are
exported.
These follies, however, are not worth reading; but his constitutional
theories--his belief, for instance, that Parliamentary Government is the
curse of Europe--are curious.
The last number of the 'Edinburgh Review' contains an article on
Reform well worth reading. It is by Greg. He wrote an admirable article
in, I think, the April number, on Alton Locke and the English Socialists,
and has also written a book, which I began to-day, on the Creed of
Christendom. I have long been anxious to get somebody to do what I
have not time to do, to look impartially into the evidences of
Christianity, and report the result. This book does it.
Lord Normanby does not return to Paris, as you probably know. No
explanation is given, but it is supposed to be in compliance with the
President's wishes.
I have just sent to the press for the 'Edinburgh Review,' an article on
Tronson du Coudray[1] and the 18th fructidor, which you will see in
the April number. The greater part of it was written this time last year
at Sorrento.
Gladstone has published a new Neapolitan pamphlet, which I will try to
send you. It is said to demolish King Ferdinand.
Kindest regards to Madame de Tocqueville. We hope that you will
come to us as soon as it is safe.
Ever yours,
N.W. SENIOR.
P.S. and very private.--I have seen a communication from
Schwartzenberg to Russia and Prussia, of the 19th December, the
doctrine of which is that Louis Napoleon has done a great service by
putting down parliamentaryism. That in many respects he is less
dangerous than the Orleans, or elder branch, because they have
parliamentary leanings. That no alteration of the existing parties must
be permitted--and that an attempt to assume an hereditary crown should
be discouraged--but that while it shows no aggressive propensities the
policy of the Continent ought to be to countenance him, and isoler
l'Angleterre, as a foyer of constitutional, that is to say, anarchical,
principles.

Bunsen tells me that in October his King was privately asked whether
he was ready to destroy the Prussian Constitution--and that he
peremptorily refused.
Look at an article on the personal character of Louis Napoleon in the
'Times' of Monday. It is by R----, much built out of my conversation
and Z.'s letters.
I have begged Mr. Esmeade to call on you--you will like him. He is a
nephew of Sir John Moore.

[2]Kensington, March 19, 1852.
My dear Tocqueville,--I was very glad to see your hand again--though
there is little in French affairs on which liberals can write with pleasure.
Ours are become very interesting. Lord John's declaration, at the
meeting the other day in Chesham Place, that he shall introduce a larger
reform, and surround himself with more advanced adherents, and Lord
Derby's, on Monday, that he is opposed to all democratic innovation,
appear to me to have changed the position of parties. The question at
issue is no longer Free-trade or Protection. Protection is abandoned. It
is dead, never to revive. Instead of it we are to fight for Democracy, or
Aristocracy. I own that my sympathies are with Aristocracy: I prefer it
to either Monarchy or Democracy. I know that it is incident to an
aristocratic government that the highest places shall be filled by
persons chosen not for their fitness but for their birth and connections,
but I am ready to submit to this inconvenience for the sake of its
freedom and stability. I had rather have Malmesbury at the Foreign
Office, and Lord Derby first Lord of the Treasury, than Nesselrode or
Metternich,