did I not believe that from your information and your talents you were of all my English acquaintance the most capable of enlightening me.

A. DE TOCQUEVILLE.

London, December 20, 1842.

My dear M. de Tocqueville,-I have always hitherto been delighted to hear from you and to answer you; but I am less so this time, as I fear some portion of what I must say may appear unfriendly or presump

tuous.

I do not believe that a parallel case to M. Guizot's has ever occurred in England or ever could occur. An English minister finding a treaty signed by his ambassador, after. a negotiation in which the ambassador had not exceeded his powers, would have felt himself bound, for the sake of his own honour or for the honour of his country, to ratify it. And would have done so, even in the case—also I think an impossible one-of the House or Houses of Parliament declaring their disapprobation. He would have said, This is an executive, not a legislative act, and I must ratify it, whatever be the consequence. Cases certainly have occurred, though rarely, of treaties signed, and not ratified, in other countries. But it has been either in absolute monarchies, where the king is in fact the minister, or in those constitutional countries, such as America, in which a treaty is a legislative, not an executive act. In America too the President is the minister, and he never resigns.

1842.]

English Constitutional Practices.

29

I think, therefore, that you will find no precedent, and no discussion on the subject.

But assuming the possibility of an English minister being in M. Guizot's position, would he now resign? I think not, according to our present feelings. I say our present feelings, for since the Reform Act a great change has taken place in public opinion on this subject.

Formerly, when the adverse parties were really only adverse personal factions, a minister used to resign at the first check. It was considered one of the rules of the game that he should do so. And it was a convenient rule, since it enabled the party in power to rule absolutely, and kept up the interest of the game by a frequent change of ministers.

But now politics are not a game but a business. A change of ministry is now a national event, and a minister feels himself bound to remain in office as long as the majority of the House of Commons desire that he should do so. The example was set by Peel in 1835, and followed, indeed improved on, by his successors.

An English minister in M. Guizot's position would say, 'I have been defeated in a measure which I think right, but the Chamber still confides in me, and while it does so, I remain at my post. If you think that I have lost the confidence of the Chamber, put that question to the vote; but while you fear to take that step I will continue minister.'

So much for politics.

Indeed I most earnestly wish that I could have the pleasure of seeing you again. But unfortunately at the

times when I can best quit England (August, September, and October) you are never in Paris. And this circumstance, joined to the absence of railroads and steamboats, has made me turn my steps rather towards Germany than France. Is there any chance of our meeting abroad? Next autumn we remain in England, but in 1844 we shall be in Bohemia, Silesia, and Saxony. Ever yours truly,

N. W. SENIOR.

February 12, 1844.

My dear Mr. Senior,-I did not answer your letter immediately, because I did not wish to do so until I had read your pamphlet,' and the excitement of our parliamentary debates did not allow me to read it for a long time.

I have just finished it, and I can assure you that I have never read anything on the subject of Ireland which has appeared to me more worthy of the consideration of statesmen.

It would be impossible to put a more complete and striking picture into a smaller frame.

Most of the things you say are, as you yourself remark, already known. Nothing new can, in fact, be said upon a subject which has for so many years attracted the attention of the whole world, and has been studied by so many eminent men.

'An article in the Edinburgh Review for January 1844, re-published in Mr. Senior's Ireland. Longmans, 1868. —ED.

1844.]

Article on Ireland.

31

But you have succeeded so well in bringing out the chief features of this immense and confused picture that it seems as if one saw it for the first time in your pages.

As for the remedies you propose, a great deal might be said about them; even a long letter would be insufficient to discuss them. I would rather wait for the opportunity, which I hope soon to have, of conversing with you.

The announcement that you are coming soon gives me great pleasure. This is not the first time that I have told you of the value I set on your friendship, and on the pleasure and instruction I derive from your conversation.

You will meet here many who share my opinion, and. a great many more who earnestly wish to know you.

You ask for my advice as to your journey. Here it is : I think that your best plan would be to go to Havre. From Havre to Rouen there is a very agreeable mode of transport by steam-boat, and a quick land journey. When once you have reached Rouen, the railroad takes you to Paris in four hours.

I am, &c.,

A. DE TOCQUEVILLE.

[There is a gap here in the correspondence.-ED.]

To N. W. Senior, Esq.

Tocqueville, August 25, 1847.

Many thanks for your route; not that I hope to fall in with you in Italy, but because I hope to be able to meet you in Paris. in Paris. I shall be delighted to see you again after so long an absence, and to talk over with you all that has been going on, and is going on in the world. You will find France calm and not unprosperous, but anxious. Men's minds have been subject for some time to a strange uneasiness. In the midst of tranquillity more profound than any that we have enjoyed for a very long time, the idea that our present position is unstable besets them. As for myself, though not without alarm, I am less anxious; I do not exaggerate our danger. I believe that our social edifice will continue to rest on its present basis, because no one, even if he wish to change its foundation, can point out another. But yet the state of public feeling disturbs me.

The middle classes, cajoled and bribed for the last seventeen years by the Government, have gradually assumed towards the rest of the nation the position of a little aristocracy, and without its higher feelings: one feels ashamed of being led by such a vulgar and corrupt aristocracy, and if this feeling should prevail among the lower classes it may produce great calamities.

And yet how can a Government be prevented from using corruption, when the nature of our constituencies makes corruption so convenient, and our centralisation