was like one of the old Condottieri, who were made
friends of lest they should become enemies, and who owed all their power
to the soldiers enrolled under their banners.

Such was Fouche, and Bonaparte perfectly understood his situation. He
kept the chief in his service until he could find an opportunity of
disbanding his undisciplined followers. But there was one circumstance
which confirmed his reliance on Fouche. He who had voted the death of
the King of France, and had influenced the minds of those who had voted
with him, offered Bonaparte the best guarantee against the attempts of
the Royalists for raising up in favour of the Bourbons the throne which
the First Consul himself had determined to ascend. Thus, for different
reasons, Bonaparte and Fouche had common interests against the House of
Bourbon, and the master's ambition derived encouragement from the
supposed terror of the servant.

The First Consul was aware of the existence in Paris of a Royalist
committee, formed for the purpose of corresponding with Louis XVIII.
This committee consisted of men who must not be confounded with those
wretched intriguers who were of no service to their employers, and were
not unfrequently in the pay of both Bonaparte and the Bourbons.
The Royalist committee, properly so called, was a very different thing.
It consisted of men professing rational principles of liberty, such as
the Marquis de Clermont Gallerande, the Abbe de Montesqiou, M. Becquet,
and M. Royer Collard. This committee had been of long standing; the
respectable individuals whose names I have just quoted acted upon a
system hostile to the despotism of Bonaparte, and favourable to what they
conceived to be the interests of France. Knowing the superior wisdom of
Louis XVIII., and the opinions which he had avowed and maintained in the
Assembly of the Notables, they wished to separate that Prince from the
emigrants, and to point him out to the nation as a suitable head of a
reasonable Constitutional Government. Bonaparte, whom I have often heard
speak on the subject, dreaded nothing so much as these ideas of liberty,
in conjunction with a monarchy. He regarded them as reveries, called the
members of the committee idle dreamers, but nevertheless feared the
triumph of their ideas. He confessed to me that it was to counteract the
possible influence of the Royalist committee that he showed himself so
indulgent to those of the emigrants whose monarchical prejudices he kne