Sidor som bilder


thoughtful still, but they are coming to be more practical in their thoughtfulness, and to think on subjects of sublunary and immediate interest. Germany has long possessed a literary unity, a common feeling created by the possession of a beautiful, a noble, an exalted common literature; but the sentiment of political unity, the craving after a German fatherland, was produced by a series of events affecting Germany almost as powerfully as did the Reformation, namely, the wars consequent on the French Revolution. Germany,' it has been said, with her supineness, - with her gentle infirmities,her almost useless virtues,with her aimless overflowing genius,

with her vague cosmopolitanism, - with her divided forms of religion, and her fruitless metaphysical speculations, needed some resistless agency to clench and draw together her severed parts,' and she found it in the mailed hand of Napoleon. Her inhabitants were united by common misfortune ; their reunion was cemented in their common blood; they were trampled as it were into a community of national feeling. The Germans, like the Italians, have now gained definite aim, and they are moving on towards it slowly, but surely; and that aim is the reconstruction of Germany; not the Germany of the existing league, subject to the control of the King of Hungary or the Elector of Bradenburg, but a Germany of popular rights and constitutional powers, a Germany of one great nation, capable of playing its part efficiently in the affairs of Europe, and in the work of European civilization.*

* New Monthly Magazine for January 1823, p. 41.

[blocks in formation]

Great Britain.--Accession of William IV.-State of Par

ties - Dissolution of Parliament.-Progress of Opinion New Parliament.-Opening Debates.-Change of Ministry.Condition of England.--Ireland.--The British Constitution. The Reform Bill.--Debates.--Dissolution of Parliament. -New House.--Rejection of the Bill by the Lords.Debates.--Public Excitement.— Riots.-Resumption of the Bill.-The House of Lords.-Resignation of the Ministers. Their Recall.-Passage of the Bill.—Dissolution of Parliament.--State of Parties.-The reformed Parliament.-Concluding Remarks.

It is undeniably true, as a general remark, that the people of the United States possess more full and accurate knowledge of the condition of things in Europe, than Europeans possess in respect of the United States. This knowledge proceeds, in the first instance, from our colonial relation to certain countries of Europe, especially Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Spain, and Germany. It is augmented by the habits of Americans, - their enterprising spirit, -- their extensive personal intercourse with Europe in the pursuit of wealth, instruction, or pleasure, their characteristic curiosity to understand, 'and readiness to be profited by, the peculiarities of European skill and science, - their freedom from the conventional prejudices, which attach to the stationary mass of the population of Europe. The inhabitants of each individual European nation in general, and with exception of the highest classes in wealth or knowledge, move within the straight circle of their particular nationality much more than the Americans; and for the simple reason, that national prejudices are altogether



traditional; and where a people, like that of the United States, is of recent existence, and derives its blood from many different stocks, there is, of necessity, less of narrow exclusiveness in their knowledge, and a juster appreciation of foreign objects of interest.

And while this position is true as to the whole of Europe, it is eminently so in the case of England. Our population, although mixed of other countries, is chiefly drawn from British Isles; their language is our language; their forms of religion, their judicial system, their laws in regard of private rights, closely resemble ours; and it wants little to make us the common possessors of the same literature. Our prominent men of letters, equally with so many of our statesmen and merchants, are personally conversant with the mother-country. Not only the choice productions of the English press, bụt even much of its ephemeral matter, and many works that are totally unworthy of the honor of a reimpression or of perusal, are now republished in the United States; and the better periodical publications of Britain are read here almost as extensively as at home. The recent devise of ‘Libraries' so called, and similar cheap and compact forms of publication, have greatly increased the number and variety of English works reprinted in this country. And if their newspapers are not republished here, yet they are the fountain-head, from which most of the current political information of the day flows into our own newspaper-press. All these considerations, added to our large and constant commercial intercourse with Great Britain, render us familiar with the general course of political history and opinions in the United Kingdom

Therefore, in a cursory review, like the present, of the Revolution of the Three Days and its



immediate effects, it seems less needful to enter extensively into the multifarious questions of constitutional history or philosophy, suggested by the remodelling of the British House of Commons, that remarkable consequence of the battle of the Parisian Barricades. It will suffice to present a brief account of the progress of the great, but happily bloodless, revolution, which has burst upon the land of our forefathers,-leaving much to the reader's intelligence of English affairs, where, if it concerned other countries, explanations might be desirable. *

George IV died at Windsor Castle on the 26th of June 1830, leaving behind him a memory stained with the worst personal vices, and marked by no eminent public virtue. His reign, as Regent and King, witnessed the splendid triumphs of England in Asia and on the Continent of Europe; but

* It would be scarcely possible for the highest class of American statesmen to fall into the grave errors of fact respecting English affairs, which occur in the writings and speeches of the best informed among the English, when treating of America. A signal example of this occurs in a late speech of Mr. Stanley, at present decidedly the leading debater in the House of Commons of the ministerial side, an able and a peculiarly well informed statesman, and one who has travelled in the United States. In his elaborate speech upon the Colonial Slavery Bill, he is reported as making the following statements :

He felt unwilling to trouble the house by citing instances of the interference of the mother country in the internal affairs of the colonies, but could not avoid referring them to the doctrine laid down on this head by Mr. Otys, the President of Massachusetts, 1765. The right honorable gentleman here read a passage from the manifesto of Mr. Otys, to the effect that the mother country possessed the right, and was bound to exercise it, of interfering in the regulation of all its colonies and dependencies for the good of the wholethat she alone was the judge of the propriety and time of this interference and that from her final decision there was no appeal.' He could not be charged with having confined

to him individually belongs hardly even the credit of selecting the civil and military functionaries, by whom those triumphs were achieved. Entering upon life the idol of the nation, he died unwept, as he had lived unhonored. The associate, in his youth, of the great geniuses of the age, he copied nothing from them

but their vices, which in them were the spots upon the sun's disk, but in him were dark clouds obscuring all his native brightness. He used them to subserve his prodigality, so long as he needed their aid in that respect, and then cast them off with the same recklessness of cold-blooded egotism, which characterized his treatment of the female sex. That infamy of persevering malice, which began by driving the Princess of Wales from his arms,then plotted her ruin, - and finally, when after

himself to the precedents of England after this declaration af an American.'

Now this passage is to be marked for two things. One is, the singular ascription of title or office to Mr. Otis unknown to our history ; which would hardly seem to be a blunder of the reporter, because the word manifesto’ is afterwards used, implying the authoritative act of the executive head of a country. Be it, that this is a trifling mistake, touching only the history of a small American colony:- it is a mistake such as Mr. McDuffie or Mr. Everett would not commit in our House, as to the obscurest bye-places of the history of England.--The other remarkable trait of the passage is Mr. Stanley's extraordinary simplicity, in going to Massachusetts for proof that Americans admit the unlimited right of legislation over the British colonies assumed by the Parliament of Great Britain. Is not this the great political question, which runs through the history of Massachusetts, -- the question argued unceasingly by the colonial patriots, beginning with the Puritan founders of Plymouth and Boston, and ending with the sturdy yeomen, who manned the brow of Bunker's Hill ? Did not our fathers dispute, and protest, and remonstrate, for more than a century, against this claim of the Metropolis that she alone was the judge of the propriety and time of legislating for us, and that from her final decision there was no appeal?" And when

« FöregåendeFortsätt »