’Two days after, came a long remonstrance from Lord Palmerston, which Lord Bloomfield was desired to read to Nesselrode, and leave with him.  A man of the world, seeing that the thing was done, would have withheld an irritating document.  But Bloomfield went with it to Nesselrode.  Nesselrode would have nothing to say to it.  “Mon Dieu!” he said, “we have given up all our demands; why tease us by trying to prove that we ought not to have made them?” Bloomfield said that his orders were precise.  “Lisez donc,” cried Nesselrode, “mais il sera tres-ennuyeux.”  Before he had got half through Nesselrode interrupted him.  “I have heard all this,” he said, “from Lamoriciere, only in half the number of words.  Cannot you consider it as read?” Bloomfield, however, was inexorable.’

I recurred to a subject on which I had talked to both of them before—­the tumult of January 29, 1849.

‘George Sumner,’ I said, ’assures me that it was a plot, concocted by Faucher and the President, to force the Assembly to fix a day for its dissolution, instead of continuing to sit until it should have completed the Constitution by framing the organic laws which, even on December 2 last, were incomplete.  He affirms that it was the model which was followed on December 2; that during the night the Palais Bourbon was surrounded by troops; that the members were allowed to enter, but were informed, not publicly, but one by one, that they were not to be allowed to separate until they had fixed, or agreed to fix, the day of their dissolution; and that under the pressure of military intimidation, the majority, which was opposed to such a dissolution, gave way and consented to the vote, which was actually carried two days after.’

‘No such proposition was made to me,’ said Tocqueville, ’nor, as far as I know, to anybody else; but I own that I never understood January 29.  It is certain that the Palais Bourbon, or at least its avenues, were taken possession of during the night; that there was a vast display of military force, and also of democratic force; that the two bodies remained en face for some time, and that the crowd dispersed under the influence of a cold rain.’

‘I too,’ said Corcelle, ’disbelieve Sumner’s story.  The question as to the time of dissolution depended on only a few votes, and though it is true that it was voted two days after, I never heard that the military demonstration of January 29 accelerated the vote.  The explanation which has been made to me is one which I mentioned the other day, namely, that the President complained to Changarnier, who at that time commanded the army of Paris, that due weight seemed not to be given to his 6,000,000 votes, and that the Assembly appeared inclined to consider him a subordinate power, instead of the Chef d’Etat, to whom, not to the Assembly, the nation had confided its destinies.  In short, that the President indicated an intention to make a coup d’etat, and that the troops were assembled by Changarnier for the purpose of resisting it, if attempted, and at all events of intimidating the President by showing him how quickly a force could be collected for the defence of the Assembly.’