have not yet the means of appreciating, but which has a very formidable aspect-we mean parliamentary reform. It is admitted, we believe, on all hands, that, under the existing laws, the total number of electors cannot, by any possibility, exceed 200,000, being not one-hundred-and-sixtieth of the population. Such a proportion-though adequate, perhaps, to a sufficient practical representation-is obviously at utter variance with the principles of the Revolution of July; and accordingly we find, that, from all quarters of the country, there have arisen complaints against what they call the monopoly of elections; and the Royalists—or at least a most busy and stirring portion of those who call themselves Royalists have thrown themselves headlong into this opinion:—a grievous mistake, we think, and pregnant with the most lamentable consequences-but seeing no other mode of overturning the existing government, they, in the blind ardour of party, have adopted a principle which, though it would in the first instance certainly overthrow Louis Philippe, would at length as certainly overthrow Henry V., or any monarchical power whatsoever. It is with deep regret that we see this inauspicious union between the French Royalists and Radicals, which, if successful, would open, as we think, an interminable career of change and anarchy. Louis Philippe, with such a chamber as now exists-which is more than sufficiently democratic-affords a better prospect of order and peace to France and to Europe than the legitimate branch with anything approaching to universal suffrage. Our first wish for France-we hope and believe the first wish of every right-minded man in Europe is a stable government. We think that most attainable under the old system of hereditary succession, and should therefore-pro tanto rather see Henry V. than Louis Philippe on the throne; but if these pseudo-Royalists are so blind-so mad—as to connect Henry V. with what is emphatically called the Movement, we do not hesitate to say that it is the duty of every man who wishes for private safety or public order to rally round Louis Philippe and the existing system, which, bad as it is—and it is bad chiefly because unstable-is infinitely better than the stormy ocean of experiment upon which this new doctrine proposes to launch the destinies of the world. We trust that these madmen are less numerous than the noise they make would lead us to fear; but our readers would not believe the extreme folly and violence of some of their organs. They repudiate all alliance not only with the English Whigs, but with the English Tories-not merely with moderate reformers, but with everything like an aristocracy. They affect to build their hopes on our Radicals-they hail the prospect of the dissolution of the Irish Union-they prophecy the establishment of Popery in these countries-and profess, in terms, that that the triumph of Mr. O'Connell over the Church and aristocracy of England must ensure the restoration of Henry V. in France! These short-sighted idiots confound the English people with the English ministry; and because the latter favours Louis Philippe and the July Revolution, they-in their ignorance and fury-hate and calumniate the British nation. In this spirit they carry back their animosity even to our Revolution of 1688, which-so learned are they in our annals-they attribute to the TORIES. (Gazette de France, 16th July, 1830.) And, following out this historical discovery, they affirm that the religion and government of this country can never be fixed on any secure basis till all the principles of the infamous Tory Revolution of 1688 shall have been retracted and effaced; and that Universal Suffrage, and the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome, shall be established in the THREE kingdoms of Great Britain, France, and Ireland! Such extravagant folly may seem hardly worthy of notice; we hope that it is not extensive, but we know that it has made sufficient progress to cause in our minds additional apprehensions for the tranquillity of France. If we could believe that the great body of the Royalists were inclined to unite with the Republicans on any such grounds-and the combination would, we know, constitute the great body of the nation-if, we say, we could anticipate such a general frenzy, we should expect an anarchy more fierce, more destructive, and more protracted than that of Marat and Robespierre, and should put up our prayers-sincere, though, we confess, interested prayers-for the permanence of Louis Philippe or any other man of common sense, in preference to the insane extravagances of such Jacobin-Royalists. We are not amongst those who believe that the Parisian Revolution of July had originally any very considerable effect in producing the Reform frenzy in this country. We are well aware that Mr. Brougham, and a few other candidates at the general election of 1830, did endeavour to improve that occasion to the disorganization and dissolution of our ancient system of government; but their efforts at that moment produced, we think, little or no practical result. We do not believe that one single election was decided by the influence of the recent occurrences in Paris. Nor was it until the change of ministry-when Mr. Brougham had become Lord High Chancellor, and Lord Althorp, the leading organ of the Crown in the House of Commons, had pronounced his memorable welcome to the tricoloured flag-that the principles of the Parisian revolt began to make any sensible effect amongst us. How far, if they had not been thus adopted, preached, and promoted by the King's Government, they might have advanced, it would now be idle to speculate; for his Majesty's VOL. LI, NO. CIII. U ministers ministers have contrived a mode of revolutionising more formidable and more effective than anything that the French example could have suggested. From the hour that the King of England so far departed from the ancient policy of the Crown, and so entirely mistook the duties for which the kingly function was originally created and had always been exercised, as to authorize his ministers to increase, by the Reform Bill, the already too great power of the popular branch of the constitution-from that hour we left the events of July far behind, and have taken the advanced guard in the march of European revolution. The violence of the proceedings in France tended rather to deter than to encourage other countries; but we, in our own more quiet way, have given an example which, by its apparent moderation and legality, is likely to have a more extensive influence. A popular revolution is unmanageable enough; but we are much mistaken if we, and all Europe with us, do not find that a royal revolution is infinitely more difficult to guide or to restrain. But though we have outrun France in the principle, we are, fortunately, still behind her in the practice; and it is possible that we may yet derive some wisdom from her experience. For this reason we continue to bring under the consideration of our readers the several works which throw light on the conspiracy by which the July Revolution was produced, and which exhibit its baneful effects on the political condition of the people of France. To conclude-we confess, with equal sincerity and sorrow, that we do not see our way through the difficulties that press-almost in our opinion equally-upon the governments of France and England. All is doubt, disorder, and dismay. We are in a moral earthquake, and what portions of the social edifice may survive the shock, or what shelter the unhappy survivors may find among the ruins, no mortal eye can foresee. But our danger, though somewhat more remote, is probably greater than that of France. She has passed through the stage of massacre and spoliation which must occur once in every radical revolution. With her, one natural event, by legalizing the title of Louis Philippe, might extinguish the revolu tionary principle, and enable a man of vigour and good sense to amalgamate and consolidate the new interests and the old rights into one stable system of constitutional monarchy. Nay, moral circumstances might produce the same result; for if the cause of Henry V. be-by that insane party to which we have alludedconnected with the Movement, the true Royalists may be driven by the common danger to a sincere and cordial coalition with Louis Philippe. In either of these cases there is at least a chance for France; but for ourselves we have hardly any hope until we shall have passed through an ordeal similar to that which France has has undergone. The democratical, or, to speak more truly, the anarchical principles of our Reform, must, we suspect, work themselves out. A frequent change and succession of administrations, each weaker and worse than that it has displaced, will inevitably lead to the contempt, and from the contempt to the dissolution of government. Heavy was the declension of Lord Grey from his accession to his resignation-heavier still the fall from Lord Grey to Lord Melbourne-lower yet will be the degradation that must succeed the early retirement of Lord Melbourne-and-following our downward flight-we shall proceed, we fear, to find in each successive depth a lower still. The last ministerial paper we have chanced to look into (the Globe of the 12th of August) announces, we see, to the House of Peers, that, by their rejection of the Irish Tithe Bill, they have prepared for themselves the fate of the Church Convocation.' Ominous, but instructive words! And Sir Samuel Whalley, member for the Marylebone district, has given notice of a motion -which, three years ago, would have been high treason for the abolition of hereditary legislation: this person does not appear to have explained whether his notice meant to include that chief hereditary legislator-the KING. There is, we sincerely believe, only one remaining chance for us. The blind haste and violence of our enemies may-we do not speak sanguinely, but may-defeat their own designs. The combined attack on The Church and the House of Lords, now at length audaciously avowed, may rouse a general feeling in England, for which the assailants are not prepared. There, at all events, is a great and popular principle, to which even yet perhaps the Conservative party may appeal with real confidence. If their ultimate defeat, and the annihilation of the Peerage, shall be suffered in the defence of the Church, they will at least have the universal sympathy of Protestant Christendom to console them amidst the ruins of their country. NOTE TO THE FIRST ARTICLE. Ir is with deep regret that we announce the death of Mr. COLeridge. When the foregoing article on his poetry was printed, he was weak in body, but exhibited no obvious symptoms of so near a dissolution. The fatal change was sudden and decisive; and six days before his death, he knew, assuredly, that his hour was come. His few worldly affairs had been long settled, and, after many tender adieus, he expressed a wish that he might be as little interrupted as possible. His sufferings were severe and constant till within thirty-six hours of his end; but they had no power to affect the deep tranquillity of his mind, or the wonted sweetness of his address. His prayer from the beginning was, that God would not withdraw his Spirit; and that by the way in which he would bear the last struggle, he might be able to evince the sincerity of his faith in Christ. If ever man did so, COLERIDGE did. Mr. COLERIDGE wrote, about a month or two ago, his own humble and affectionate epitaph. Stop, Christian passer-by! Stop, child of God, He asked, and hoped through Christ. Do thou the same.' Mr. COLERIDGE breathed his last at half past six o'clock, in the morning of Friday the 25th day of July last, under the roof of his dear and kind friends Mr. and Mrs. Gillman of Highgate; and was interred on the 2d of August in the vault of Highgate Church. London: Printed by WILLIAM CLOWES, Duke Street, Lambeth. |