One of her objects in coming to Paris this time was to get a commutation of the sentence upon her friend Dufraisse, who was ordered to Cayenne.  She had an interview accordingly with the President.  He shook hands with her and granted her request, and in the course of conversation pointed to a great heap of ‘Decrees’ on the table, being hatched ’for the good of France.’  I have heard scarcely anything of him, except from his professed enemies; and it is really a good deal the simple recoil from manifest falsehoods and gross exaggerations which has thrown me on the ground of his defenders.  For the rest, it remains to be proved, I think, whether he is a mere ambitious man, or better—­whether his personality or his country stands highest with him as an object.  I thought and still think that a Washington might have dissolved the Assembly as he did, and appealed to the people.  Which is not saying, however, that he is a Washington.  We must wait, I think, to judge the man.  Only it is right to bear in mind one fact, that, admitting the lawfulness of the coup d’etat, you must not object to the dictatorship.  And, admitting the temporary necessity of the dictatorship, it is absolute folly to expect under it the liberty and ease of a regular government.

What has saved him with me from the beginning was his appeal to the people, and what makes his government respectable in my eyes is the answer of the people to that appeal.  Being a democrat, I dare to be so consequently.  There never was a more legitimate chief of a State than Louis Napoleon is now—­elected by seven millions and a half; and I do maintain that, ape or demi-god, to insult him where he is, is to insult the people who placed him there.  As to the stupid outcry in England about forced votes, voters pricked forward by bayonets—­why, nothing can be more stupid.  Nobody not blinded by passion could maintain such a thing for a moment.  No Frenchman, however blinded by passion, has maintained it in my presence.

A very philosophically minded man (French) was talking of these things the other day—­one of the most thoughtful, liberal men I ever knew of any country, and high and pure in his moral views—­also (let me add) more anglomane in general than I am.  He was talking of the English press.  He said he ‘did it justice for good and noble intentions’ (more than I do!), ’but marvelled at its extraordinary ignorance.  Those writers did not know the A B C of France.  Then, as to Louis Napoleon, whether he was right or wrong, they erred in supposing him not to be in earnest with his constitution and other remedies for France.  The fact was, he not only was in earnest—­he was even fanatical.’

There is, of course, much to deplore in the present state of affairs—­much that is very melancholy.  The constitution is not a model one, and no prospect of even comparative liberty of the Press has been offered.  At the same time, I hope still.  As tranquillity is established, there will be certain modifications; this, indeed, has been intimated, and I think the Press will by degrees attain to its emancipation.  Meanwhile, the ‘Athenaeum’ and other English papers say wrongly that there is a censure established on books.  There is a censure on pamphlets and newspapers—­on books, no.  Cormenin is said to have been the adviser of the Orleans confiscation....