person. Can there be any cause of alarm if the crown shall appoint the officers, while the men are all citizens? We clearly think not; and we fervently pray that this view of so important a point may be taken in France. Far better at once say, "We can trust no kingly government;" better resolve to have a republic in name and form, as well as in substance; because then it would be utterly impossible to have it on the principle of military election. The republican who honestly desires to see an end of all kingly rule, is grievously deceived if he dreams that the proposed scheme is the path to this consummation. It is the high road, no doubt, to the overthrow of any given government,-regal, or aristocratic, or oligarchical, or democratic; but it takes to a point a good deal farther on-it leads direct to a military despotism. Some things have been thrown out by way of recommending large restraints upon the royal authority. It has been proposed to limit the power of making peace and war; to restrain the number of troops by a fundamental law; to take away some of the patronage usually vested in the crown. On these and similar topics we say nothing; being quite satisfied that little reflexion, independent of the instruction afforded by our experience in this country, will convince any one how impracticable such restraints are, if the government is to be really monarchical. A free press, a reformed representation, a standing army only large enough to defend the country against foreign enemies, and its internal police in the hands of armed citizens,these form the best and safest checks upon prerogative, the most ample security for the liberties of the people. We are all along assuming, that a limited monarchy is the kind of government best suited to the wishes and habits of the French people, and to their love of military glory-a position which, in our humble judgment, it would be wild to question. A republic would inevitably, as before, begin in anarchy, and end, as before, in the despotism of some fortunate soldier. It is certain that, in framing a constitution, no regard is to be had to the personal qualities of the individuals who may first be called to administer its powers. But there is one circumstance not to be left out of the account, in providing for the powers of, and restraints on, the crown-we allude to the certainty, that for some generations the King of the French will have a competitor. The ex-King of France will be a pretender; and more than the word is unnecessary to remind those who are acquainted with English history, how materially this circumstance tends to keep the reigning family in check, or, in the ordinary phrase, to set them upon their good behaviour. II. The first consideration that meets us in bringing our regards homewards, and surveying the bearing of the late revolution upon our own concerns, relates to the kind of part which the English government has sustained throughout those events of which we have been sketching the history. That it labours under very grievous suspicions of having befriended the infatuated tyrant and his ministers, unfortunately admits of no doubt; and that these suspicions extend to the French nation as well as our own countrymen, is unhappily equally true. Are they, can they be, likely to rest upon any foundation? Or do they merely proceed from the known sentiments of our ministers regarding every thing free, all popular rights, all royal immunities upon the Continent? Certain it is, that, however much they may have yielded to the people at home, or rather whatever concessions the people may have extorted from them-abroad, where they have neither parliamentary opposition, a free press, nor associations, nor VOL. IV. 25 public meetings, to wring from them an assent to improvements, they are found the steady and unflinching patrons of all the forms of antiquated superstition and hateful despotism. Theirs is the preference of the Turk over the Greek,-over those whom they would rather restrain in their efforts for independence than gain the benefit of a counterbalance to Russia, where she is likely to domineer the most perilously for our own interests; and yet they hate the Calmuck, in spite of his despotic accomplishments, because, in fighting his kindred Turcoman, he must, whether he will or no, in some measure, wage the war of freedom. For them it is to back the savage tyranny by which Austria has been justly said to renew, in fair Italy, the inroads of the Goths.* The faithless and detested Ferdinand, the vile, bloodthirsty Miguel, receive from them,-from the ministers of a mild monarchy and a constitutional king, countenance and support; nay, the navy of England, is prostituted by her rulers to break the known laws of nations, for the odious purpose of comforting and abetting the worser of the two most flagitious tyrants of modern times. That men, to whom despotism the most barbarous and atrocious never looked in vain for sympathy, and as far as they dared lend it, for succour, should be deemed the natural allies of oppression in the milder form, which it put on under the Charleses and the Polignacs, can hardly be deemed very wonderful; and accordingly, we find the belief deeply rooted in every man's mind, first of all, that the English ministry favoured the formation of the late French cabinet, and next, that they approved of its misdeeds. To these charges very inadequate contradictions, it must be confessed, have been given. One minister, and only one, in one House, and in one only, of Parliament, positively denied that the English cabinet had interfered to make Prince Polignac premier of France. We verily believe this denial. Who ever supposed that such interpositions were the acts of cabinets? Possibly, if a like denial had been given by another minister in another House of Parliament-a minister of somewhat more weight, and who could with something more of authority take upon himself to say what had not been done, the country might have been better satisfied. He, however, held his peace; and yet, if even he (though he sometimes acts like a whole cabinet, and seems to forget what in truth the public can hardly ever bear in mind, that he has any colleagues at all,) had only denied" the interfe rence of the cabinet," so plain an outlet for escape would have been left. that Lord Eldon would doubtless have excepted to the answer, and men far less astute in detecting evasions must have desiderated a far more search. ing denial. The phrase, interference, is so vague, and the phrase, interference to make a man premier, so much more uncertain, that no one can well say what he may not have done, who solemnly denies having done this. The English ministers were friends of Prince Polignac; they wished well to this promotion. No one denies, no one affects to deny this, even after they all see the disastrous consequences it has led to. It is possible that no direct communication may have subsisted between the English ministry and the Prince upon the subject. It is barely possible that nothing may have passed in conference between the English ambassador and the Prince. It is conceivable that nothing had ever been said by the ambassador, nor any hints thrown out to Charles X. It is a thing which a man may imagine to be true-it is not mathematically impossible, that the late King of * Monti's celebrated Sonnet on the Peace:-"Che ci ha dato Iddio.” "Gli Austriaci in Italia Gottizando vanno." England, who cherished in his latter years a hatred of those principles of liberty in which he was educated;-who detested the Spanish Revolution in 1823 to such a pitch, as to pour forth vows for the success of the French arms, and whose minions at Paris encouraged that detestable crusade against liberty, by assurances that it was favoured by their king, and would not be opposed effectually in Parliament;-it is a thing, which a man may bring himself to suppose, who yet could not believe that two and two made ten, that neither such a king, nor any of his personal favourites, furthered the suit of Prince Polignac to be premier of France. All this we will, for argument's sake, admit; and still it remains undenied, that both the court and the cabinet did mightily rejoice in that infatuated creature's accession to office; regarding, and through all their accustomed organs proclaiming, that event most auspicious to the cause of regular government," as it is most hypocritically termed; in other words, to the interests of arbitrary power, and the enemies of freedom. Even one or two of the papers once liberal, but of late permitted, or permitting themselves, for wise but inscrutable purposes, to be ranged under the ministerial banners, sedulously defended the appointment, and hailed it as one auspicious to the best interests of England. 66 As these men and their organs began, so they went on. The opposition in the Chambers was derided by them; the resolution of all France, as well as her representatives, to reject the ministers, was stigmatised as unreasonable and factious; the necessity of the Polignac ministry to internal peace, and the security of the throne, was plainly maintained; and, when the majority were decidedly against the government, the most sanguine hopes were held out of the results of a dissolution, by the same politicians, who had notoriously (and we now speak of the Earl of Aberdeen's department in an especial manner) conceived the most lively expectations of Old Spain reconquering her emancipated colonies, partly by the prowess of the imbecile Barradas, and chiefly by the Mexicans flocking to join his standard. The new elections having greatly increased the force of the patriotic party, and actual violence being manifestly threatened by the wretched junto in power, we will admit that, for the first time, there was some pause, some hesitation, on the part of their English friends. At any rate, no minister thought it quite safe now to avow himself the patron of the Bourbons. They deemed it more expedient to await the event. But if any man will say, he believes the success of their measures would have given pain to our ministry, we will tell that man, that a greater dupe does not breathe the air than he! Nay, we cannot avoid feeling a perfect conviction, that the English cabinet (there may be one or two exceptions, but speaking of the body,) hoped to see the vigour of the Polignacs rewarded by success, and a firm government, upon true monarchical principles, established in France. Let but the conduct of their supporters, if not their organs, be examined. The detestable doctrines of a writer, who has escaped from the country he would so fain have given a dictator to, were openly adopted by the chief ministerial Journal. The necessity of silencing the French press, and changing the law of election, was there proclaimed in round terms. It is even said that Cottu's book was originally written in English and in England, and translated into French; and the Anglicisms of the style, and the apparent originality of the passages given as translations, are cited in support of this assertion. Be that as it may, the respectable Journal to which we refer, and which is known to be under the immediate patronage of men high in office, and occasionally as sisted by their pens, led the way in recommending that writer's doctrines to the people of this country, and to the French, as adapted to the state of France. The periodical works of less importance, the weekly and daily papers, with a single exception, which espouse the ministerial side of the question, adopted the same line; and weekly and daily laboured in their vocation to vilify all that the French patriots did, to defend the Polignac ministry, and to exhibit the bitterness of their disappointment at the signal failure of its late measures. In answer to all this, how ridiculous is it to cite the recognition by the English government of the Duke of Orléans as King of the French? Had they any choice? Could they have refused to acknowledge the King whom all France had with one voice set upon the throne? Were they prepared to summon the new Parliament, and such a Parliament as had just been returned, and to meet it with an announcement of a new war of five-andtwenty years for the restoration of the Bourbons? The idea is ridiculous; but we verily believe that the recognition of Louis-Philippe I. was hastened by the loud expression of public opinion at the elections, and by the gratifying fact that no persons held more decided language against the dethroned tyrant and his ministers than the staunch Tory supporters of the government and of all governments. In the face of such appalling warnings, to have refused the recognition was at once to have signed their own expulsion from office. The recognition, therefore, proves absolutely nothing. The English ministers may have made Polignac minister by direct interference-they may have prescribed his whole conduct-they may have dictated through their ambassador every Ordinance he issued-they may have sent over the draft from Downing Street of every state paper he signed and yet when the whole plot failed-when their tools were driven with ignominy out of France, or detected in the plot, and shut up in the dungeons of Vincennes, -they were compelled to submit, exactly as Charles X. was. It would be precisely the same argument as is urged for our ministers, if that sove reign were to deny that he had any concern in the events which brought about the Revolution, because he at once yielded to it, abdicated the throne he had polluted, and quitted the country he had vainly attempted to enslave. The mention of that personage brings to mind another passage in the conduct of our ministers, and one not immaterial to the present enquiry When a criminal is detected in plotting some foul enterprise, or, having attempted to carry it into execution, fails, and flies from the scene of his iniquity, does the government of this country make it a practice to receive him with open arms,-to direct that the revenue laws shall be suspended in his favour, and to give him shelter and comfort, with much deference and respect, on our shores? No such thing-and why? Because our g vernment never avows a patronage of rapine or murder, and regards with just abhorrence the perpetrators of such crimes. Then why, we ask, bas Charles and his family been received, not only with courtesy, but with a degree of favour, which no man living believes would have been shown to the most illustrious patriot that ever bled for freedom-the most venerable philosopher that ever enlarged the powers of man, or bettered the lot of humanity? Had Washington sought our shores, after resigning the sceptre which he might have held for life, possibly transmitted to his kindred, but that he loved his country better than all power-would his baggage have been suffered to pass without search at any custom-house quay in all England? No man dreams of such a thing. Suppose Polignac had succeeded, if any of the unoffending Parisians whom the tyrant ordered his artillery to mow down by thousands, had escaped from the slaughter he was destined to, who believes that the wreck of his fortunes would have been allowed to pass duty-free, and unexamined? Indeed, had the alien bill still armed our ministers with the power, such a refugee would have been sent back to certain execution by the next tide. Then why was the oppressor so differently treated? This is the question which we ask now; the question which the people of England are asking, and which it is the bounden duty of their representatives to ask. Charles X., by the very act of our government recognising Louis-Philip, is admitted by that government to be no longer a king-is ranked by that government among private persons. What right, then, had that government to treat him as a king? What possible motive could they have for thus flying in the English people's face, and insulting the French people also, except to show ostentatiously their sorrow for his failure, and their fellow-feeling for his fate a fate brought on by his crimes-a failure in the attempt to perpetrate the most atrocious wickedness of which a monarch can be guilty? But it was not a mere attempt. The abdicated king came among us stained with the blood of his unoffending subjects. He had ordered his soldiers to the charge; the onslaught had been tremendous; the artillery had been, with a cold-blooded cruelty unknown to the most atrocious tyrants, brought to bear upon crowded streets, and to sweep down thousands of all ages, and of either sex. From the miserable slaughter which he had commanded, the wretched despot had withdrawn his own person to a place of safety; and providentially discomfited, he had fled from the scene of his crimes. This is he for whom the sympathies of our ministers are speedly unlocked; for whose accommodation the laws are suspended; who is received with distinctions which would have been denied to the greatest benefactor of his kind who had never been a king, and a tyrant! What right, then, have those ministers to complain, if they are suspected of a leaning towards his designs? Do they not become accessaries after the fact, by this their conduct? any man is seen submitting to a criminal's fellowship, whom all others detest, the conclusion is immediate, that he was a partner in his guilt, and that he has put himself in the offender's power. Are we to infer that our ministers dare not turn their backs upon their French allies for fear of disclosures? Certain it is, that a strange alacrity to get into suspicion by their conduct has been succeeded by as strange a reluctance to disavow the charge by words. The more respectable of the treasury journals announced that the Duke of Wellington would deny the odious charge at the late Manchester meeting. His Grace made no sign. He listened to some of his adherents expressing their alarms at the progress of public opinion, and their sagacious apprehensions that the people were becoming so well educated, as to overwhelm the higher orders." Without stopping longer than to observe, that if by overwhelm he meant outshine, a scanty portion indeed of knowledge might cause such wiseacres to be overwhelmed by any class of the community, at least on the supposition that a man's sense is in proportion to his information.* No other remark of a political cast was made. Yet, was it beneath the Duke of Wellington's dignity to defend 66 If The newspapers are supposed to have greatly misrepresented one noble person's words on this occasion, |