have seldom met with opposition in France, but still I have encountered more of it from some obscure and unarmed Frenchmen than from all these Kings so resolute, just now, no longer to have a man of the people for their equal!  See then what appears to you possible; let me know your ideas.  Public discussion, free elections, responsible ministers, the liberty of the press, I have no objection to all that, the liberty of the press especially; to stifle it is absurd.  I am convinced on this point.  I am the man of the people:  if the people really wish for liberty let them have it.  I have acknowledged their sovereignty.  It is just that I should lend an ear to their will, nay, even to their caprices I have never been disposed to oppress them for my pleasure.  I conceived great designs; but fate ’has been against me; I am no longer a conqueror, nor can I be one.  I know what is possible and what is not.—­I have no further object than to raise up France and bestow on her a government suitable to her.  I have no hatred to liberty, I have set it aside when it obstructed my path, but I understand what it means; I was brought up in its school:  besides, the work of fifteen years is overturned, and it is not possible to recommence it.  It would take twenty years, and the lives of 2,000,000 of men to be sacrificed to it.  As for the rest, I desire peace, but I can only obtain it by means of victory.  I would not inspire you with false expectations.  I permit it to be said that negotiations are going on; there are none.  I foresee a hard struggle, a long war.  To support it I must be seconded by the nation, but in return I believe they will expect liberty.  They shall have it:  the circumstances are new.  All I desire is to be informed of the truth.  I am getting old.  A man is no longer at forty-five what he was at thirty.  The repose enjoyed by a constitutional king may suit me:  it will still more certainly be the best thing, for my son.”

From this remarkable address.  Benjamin Constant concluded that no change had taken place in Bonaparte’s views or feelings in matters of government, but, being convinced that circumstances had changed, he had made up his mind to conform to them.  He says, and we cannot doubt it, “that he listened to Napoleon with the deepest interest, that there was a breadth and grandeur of manner as he spoke, and a calm serenity seated on a brow covered with immortal laurels.”

Whilst believing the utter incompatibility of Napoleon and constitutional government we cannot in fairness omit mentioning that the causes which repelled him from the altar and sanctuary of freedom were strong:  the real lovers of a rational and feasible liberty—­the constitutional monarchy men were few—­the mad ultra-Liberals, the Jacobins, the refuse of one revolution and the provokers of another, were numerous, active, loud, and in pursuing different ends these two parties, the respectable and the disreputable, the good and the bad, got mixed and confused with one another.