really try to exceed one another in discoloration and distortion of the
circumstances. The government was in a deadlock--what was to be done?
Yes, all parties cried out, 'What was to be done?' and felt that we were
waist deep a fortnight ago in a state of crisis. In throwing back the
sovereignty from a 'representative assembly' which had virtually ceased
to represent, into the hands of the people, I think that Louis Napoleon
did well. The talk about 'military despotism' is absolute nonsense. The
French army is eminently civic, and nations who take their ideas from
the very opposite fact of a _standing army_ are far from understanding
how absolutely a French soldier and French citizen are the same thing.
The independence of the elections seems to be put out of reach of
injury; and intelligent men of adverse opinions to the government think
that the majority will be large in its favour. Such a majority would
certainly justify Louis Napoleon, or _should_--even with you in England.

I think you quite understate the amount of public virtue in France. The
difficulties of statesmanship here are enormous. I do not accuse even M.
Thiers of want of public virtue. What he has wanted, has been length and
breadth of view--purely an intellectual defect--and his petty, puny
_tracasseries_ destroyed the Republican Assembly just as it destroyed
the throne of Louis Philippe, in spite of his own intentions.

There is a conflict of ideas in France, which we have no notion of in
England, but we ought to understand that it does not involve the failing
of _principle_, in the elemental moral sense. Be just to France, dear
friend, you who are more than an Englishwoman--a Mrs. Jameson!

Everything is perfectly tranquil in Paris, I assure you--theatres full
and galleries open as usual. At the same time, timid and discouraged
persons say, 'Wait till after the elections,' and of course the public