the Neros, the Pauls the Henrys, the Ferdinands, and the Miguels, who figure in the history of royalty. Even of those amongst them who have committed no extraordinary acts of tyranny, how few can be held out as examples for the imitation of mankind! In point of talent and information, perhaps the sovereigns of England have, upon the whole, been more on a level with the genius of their nation than those of any other country. The sovereigns of France have been usually below theirs, and although this circumstance might not have much influence in a free country, it produces many evils in a nation that receives all its impulses from the go

vernment.

6

The more extraordinary, therefore, certainly, in every point of view, was the revolution which took place under the Bourbons. Our author can account for it only by the laws of compression. It calls forth, of course, his wonder and praise. It shut out the past and opened future ages,' he exclaims, in the language which he seems to have learned from the bulletins of Napoleon. He believes that it never would have occurred if the French had not adopted Christianity, and neglected those precious remains of ancient genius, the philosophy of Greece and Rome! But he thinks that France, which plunged Europe into darkness and then brought it back into light, which has erected despots and destroyed them, is now about to commence its sublime reparation towards all mankind.' 'If its power be reposing at present, its meditations are not suspended; it is instructing the people whom it is about to deliver. In the midst of the light which it is diffusing on all sides, it must nevertheless closely watch over itself. Every thing threatens it both within and without; it has to fear national as well as foreign factions, which are leagued in conspiracy against it. Such is the mysterious language in which our author speaks of the actual condition of France, and the destinies which she is. about to fulfil.

Concerning Austria he is not altogether so sanguine. Silence indeed reigns at present in her states, but murmurs are heard all round her confines.

The odious politics of this empire,' he observes, have excited an indignation that dates from our ancestors, that has increased with time, and every day becomes more menacing. The Roman empire was a very different colossus from the empire of Austria, but it perished beneath the universal hatred of mankind. The Roman empire, however, was destroyed by the anger of barbarians; the colossus of Germany is menaced by people the most civilized. When Napoleon deliberated whether he would not erase that empire from the earth, he had at least nothing to fear from the reproaches of the nations. Its fall would not have raised a single cry in its favour; and far from receiving any sympathy from Europe, Europe would have rejoiced in its destruction, and thus have seen Germany, Poland, and Italy avenged."--pp. 35, 36.

But although Austria forms the bulwark and guarantee of European slavery at this day, how long can she expect her insensate policy to endure? She has numerous enemies within and around her; a single hand may revolutionize her. What would not Joseph 11. have done for her, if he had lived and reigned forty years later!

• Austria is absolutely writhing in despair, in the cause of despotism; it is with her a passion which hurries her beyond the ordinary bounds of prudence. If she were alone and unassisted, she would still struggle for the honour of the cause; but she has only too many allies united in aid of her exertions, and she draws into the hazards of her policy the blinded cabinets of France, Spain, and Italy.'-pp. 39, 40.

If this be so, it is impossible that the destinies which our author has predicted for France, can be accomplished without another revolution-a revolution that is to overthrow the existing state of things, as well in that country as in Austria, Italy, and Spain; hence we may gather the principles and the objects of his work. Indeed he states them in a subsequent paragraph without much circumlocution :—

The three thrones occupied by the race of the Bourbons have been established on the same political principles; they form, as it were, the same genius who has beaten down the south of Europe, but who is not understood by the new generations. We have seen in our time three nations in revolt against their Kings, the French, the Spaniards, and the Neapolitans; and all these Kings are Bourbons. Here are facts stronger and more eloquent than reflections. It is for these Kings to reflect on the co sels which direct them, and on the principles of a policy which has been so unlucky for them.'-pp. 40, 41.

After this, it will not excite our surprise to find the author discussing the question, whether Europe will remain monarchical, or become republican? Perhaps, gravely speaking, this is a question which it would not be very easy to solve. But let us see how it is treated by the French liberal :

6

Here, elevating ourselves above every consideration of country, of Kings, of citizen, of family, without prejudice, or partiality, without even considering whether Kings have done most good or most mischief to mankind, we shall speak as if we had no interest in the question. At this moment royalty and liberty exhibit, in the eyes of the world, their boldest propositions, and in the ardour of their pretensions, one and the other are more anxious to support them than to legitimate them. Being mutually irritated, they both quit the bounds of moderation; royalty hurries towards despotism, and liberty towards republicanism. But in this unequal war, royalty has always its power, and liberty has, as yet, only its courage and its hopes.

'It cannot be dissembled, that the people perceive with the most serious alarm, the effects of royalty. Its audacity in France and Spain, its plots in Austria and Italy, its arrogance and its menaces in the empires of the north-every thing spreads a fear of the monarchies. In this respect, even England offers no exception; if it have less to complain than other nations of monarchy, it has much to apprehend from its aristo

cracy*, which is, in effect, a royalty composed of many persons. There is among the great states of Europe only one kingdom, that of the Netherlandst, in which the people live happily; they have no fears from the laws they repose on the benevolence of their magnanimous sovereign.

The people, nevertheless, in consequence of their investigations, and from their being well informed as to the conditions of their social existence, have no longer any doubts concerning the titles which legitimate command, nor the duties which submission involves; and, seeing the various criminal attempts which are made against their happiness and their dignity, strong in the universal reason which has preceded all things, and supported by the violated but imperishable rights of humanity, they have at last the courage to summon royalty to their bar, and to interrogate it:

"What are you? Are you force? Are you justice? If you are justice, we fall at your feet; if you are force, we know you not, and we will resist you, for we also are force. Tell us what is your origin? If you be justice, it is divine; if you be nothing but force, it is not even human. Whence springs your right to the dominion of the earth? Comes it from the bosom of God, or from the heart of men? If it be derived only from yourselves, you are power and not justice. Open not your sacred books; they anathematize you. Let royalty cease to appeal to them; the books of philosophy are more favourable to their views; and they will find it more safe to confide in human reason, than to take refuge in the enigmas of theological policy.'-pp. 52-56.

66

The author then proceeds to state the usual arguments in favour of hereditary monarchies; but he contends that they are of no force where the sovereign does not truly reign in the hearts of his subjects. It is only thus, he says, that they can pay due homage to the eternal maxims of the purest and the most useful policy; "that the force of empires consists in the consent of those who obey;"+ "that there is no republic more secure than the state in which those who exercise the supreme authority are endeared to the people;"" that an empire cannot be safe, unless it be founded in benevolence;"§ that the maledictions of subjects are more dangerous than the arms of enemies;"¶"that the destiny of kings is happy, when the people fear, not the prince, but for the prince;' and that, in fine, "in order to hold in the path of their duties the most undisciplined and savage men, wisdom and equity are infinitely more powerful than the authority of the sceptre, the confiscations, the proscriptions, the whips and the axes of power." These sublime maxims, he fears, may be found written in the code of royalty, but not in the hearts of kings, who act upon principles of a very different nature. As far as they go, therefore, they add nothing to the

"'**

* The author adds the epithet impitoyable, which, if generally applied, would certainly be most unmerited.—Rev.

+ It should be observed that this work was printed at Brussels.-Rev. ↑ Liv. || Sen. § Dion.

¶ Princeps plus timere debet subditorum maledictiones, quam inimicorum arma. Henricus Castiliæ Rex.

** Amiratus.

++ Nerburtus. Hist. Polon.

argument in favour of monarchy. The argument drawn from the right of conquest, is at best of a very disputable character; so that, in short, according to this writer, the continuance of monarchy entirely depends on the conduct of the sovereigns in Europe.

It cannot be denied, and the people of several nations have already ceased to forget, that all states were republics before they were monarchies. For the changes which they have undergone, many causes may be assigned; but it must be allowed, that if the question were to depend on the injustice of the transactions which, from time to time, converted all the old republics into monarchies, the arguments in support of royalty would be feeble indeed. It was undoubtedly the passion for power, aided by violence, which changed the nature of those governments. This is a fact that history attests in the clearest manner; and it is one that the people, when fully enlightened as to all their rights, will not overlook. Our author also contends that the republican is a more natural form of government than any other.

'If communities have commenced with republics, it is a proof that the republican feelings are the most natural to mankind; and such is their strength, that they cannot be altogether extinguished even in monarchies founded on long continued habits. The stormy annals of empires bear witness to this. Scarcely a century has passed over that the cry of republicanism has not been heard in some quarter or another. Royalty has hitherto succeeded in stifling this menacing cry, which originating in Rome, Greece, and Germany, has so frequently agitated all the countries of Europe, and shaken their thrones. Royalty has, with great difficulty been hitherto the conqueror; but is it always to be victorious, and can it always be safe in the presence of an enemy so formidable as the republican spirit?-Every thing changes, because every thing decays; a secret force threatens every thing; every thing perishes through abuse and excess. Absolute royalty is subject to this condition. The communities of mankind, after having searched in vain for happiness under every political form, and after having endured so many centuries of outrage, oppression, and iniquity, are returning to the point from whence they had originally It is a movement which may be observed as clearly as that of

set out. the stars.

The people passed from the republican to the monarchical state; and why do not the sovereigns perceive that the political world has entered into one of those great re-actions caused by the nature of human affairs, which have, like the great waters, their flux and reflux; that the people have a tendency to return from the monarchical to the republican state, and that this re-action has already begun? It is even perceptible that for some time this spirit, gathering strength from the fresh indiscretions of kings, precipitates itself down the declivity with the greatest rapidity, and that it threatens to surprize the monarchs in their security.

• In a hundred years there will no longer be a monarchy in France, foretold a prince of the reign of Louis XIV. His prediction has been accomplished. "I am alarmed at the progress of the republican spirit," exclaimed Louis XV. Do the sovereigns of our days imagine that the danger has passed away, and that the royal power will alone remain un

shaken amid the changes of the world? Do they think that the republican. spirit is extinguished by the victories of a conqueror? If the republican spirit has by its faults justified royalty for a moment, royalty, in its turn, by relapsing into its vices, has justified the republican spirit. If in France, for some time, the monarchical spirit has received greater extension than the republican spirit, who has counted the voices of the present day, and will take upon himself to assert that even in France, the opinions in favour of a republic do not occupy a larger space than those in favour of a monarchy? In that country, royalty has done wonders against itself, even within the last five years.'-pp. 90-96.

The example of America is of course adduced in favour of the answer which the reader may already foresee, the author gives to his own question.

'If America has been a new world, it creates a new world in its turn. Sovereigns should be on their guard, and we tell them, not for the purpose of threatening, but of warning them, that America is educating Europe. It has solved great political problems; every thing that exists in the Union has been denied by all the publicists to be possible. Every thing that appears monstrous to the governments of Europe is natural to its soil. Royalty alone is monstrous there. Europe is the place for political discussions; America is the place where they are decided; but the question that remains, is to know if she decides them for America alone; it would be by no means prudent for kings to abandon this question to itself and to time!'-pp. 96, 97.

It is hardly necessary to state the conclusion at which the author arrives after this course of reasoning. He thinks that the monarchical spirit in Europe still masters the spirit of republicanism; but at the same time that every year royalty is committing so many faults, that it is constantly losing a degree of strength which republicanism gains, and that in due course of time the latter will be triumphant.

The remaining sections of the work contain little more than repetitions, under various heads, of the sentiments expressed in the extracts which we have given. In order to prepare for the new state of things, which the author expects, there is scarcely a single old institution in existence which he does not wish to see abolished. There may be some truth in the notions which he entertains concerning the progress throughout Europe, of democratic opinions. Atheistic sentiments, or at least sentiments opposed to christianity, abound, also, we are aware, in France. But we do not see any reason to believe that the states of Europe will all be republics quite so soon as he imagines; neither do we fear that the doctrines of christianity will be eradicated from the continent so easily or so speedily as he predicts.