hings actually happened to readers of the future.

The story of the decline and fall of the second French empire has
often been told; yet it may be worth while to remind English readers
of the political situation in France just forty years ago. The Emperor
Napoleon III., importuned by reformers and reactionaries, by those who
pressed him to step forward into Liberalism, and by those who insisted
that he must stand still, had at last decided upon making those
changes in the form of his government that inaugurated the Liberal
Empire; and on January 3, 1870, the new ministry took office,
supported by the goodwill of the moderate party in the Chamber of
Deputies and by the general approval of the country. M. Ollivier was
recognised as its leader and spokesman, chosen by the emperor, and
enjoying his particular confidence; though he was not prime minister
in the English constitutional sense, for the power of issuing direct
orders, and of overruling the Cabinet, was still reserved to the
sovereign; nor was he always consulted in important military or
foreign affairs. The complex and enigmatic character of Napoleon III.
is becoming gradually intelligible to the world at large, and public
opinion has lately been veering round to a less unfavourable
conclusion upon it than heretofore. He had long been reviled as a
truculent despot, artful and dangerous, powerful and perfidious; the
genius of Victor Hugo had set on him a brand of infamy. In reality, if
we may trust later French writers, there was much that was good in his
nature, and they are disposed to regard him with compassion. M. de la
Gorce says that throughout his life Napoleon had been a humane prince.
From the entertaining memoirs of General du Barail, whose military
services brought him into frequent relations with the emperor, we
should draw the impression that the emperor was affable, considerate,
and sincerely well-intentioned. Giuseppe Pasolini, the Italian
statesman, found him simple and easy in conversation, naturally
right-minded and kindly,[42] though weak and irresolute. He was
equally capable of forming bold projects or adopting cautious
decisions; but he was apt to hesitate and turn round at the moment for
action; and it was just here that he was so unlike his uncle, Napoleon
I., who would have classed him among the _ideologues_ whom he
despised. He invented the theory of nationalities to justify his
polity of encouraging the unification of Italy, and of perm