ART. XI.-Tableau de la Dégénération de la France, et des Moyens de sa Grandeur. Par A. M. Madrolle. (Picture of the Degeneracy of France; and the means of her greatness, and of a fundamental Reform in Literature, Philosophy, the Laws, and Government.) 8vo. Ir may be taken for granted that the author of a work under such a title could not fail to discover abundant matter for severe censure, indignant reproof, and bitter sarcasm; that, if so disposed, he would find→

"Ample room, and verge enough

The characters of hell to trace;"

and this, were he merely to confine himself to the Dramatists and Novelists of the day. But his work appears to us to be a singular performance. While, on the one hand, it contains many evident truths clearly and forcibly stated, and supported by incontrovertible facts; it puts forth many notions which will be deemed literary heresies, and many bold assertions, chiefly remarkable for the dogmatical naïveté, (if the expression may be allowed) with which they are advanced. He dedicates his work à la jeune France. He says

France alone is great,

"The greatness of France is the hope of the world. gentlemen, and you are France.-You are France, and you know it; and you act accordingly. On whatever side we turn our eyes, in the lower, in the middle, in the higher classes, among all the factions which now divide society, among the citizens and the merchants, in the University and at the bar, even in the Academy, in the Chamber, in the Ministry, and above all at the Tuileries, it is la jeune France that is the most prominent, that gives the law."

He then compliments la jeune France as commanding public opinion by the Journals, the young editors of which, and not Messrs. Soult, Guizot, Thiers, &c. and Louis Philip, are now the true prime ministers of France, and its kings.

We fear that those who are acquainted with the French journals of the present day will hardly join our author in expecting from their conductors the religious and moral regeneration of France; for which, in fact, he does not seem to have any much more solid foundation than that his principle, which is exclusively religious, is proclaimed by the most independent of them; that one of them has said, that "the annihilation of religious faith has left a vacuum in the world, which it is difficult to fill up; that a religious tendency, a moral reaction are evident; that the journals hesitate less than ever to mention God." But, in another chapter, treating of the bad effect of the revolution in putting every thing out of its place, he says:-" Old age, so respected among the ancients, is now an object of contempt; it has every where given way to youth, which inundates (he says incumbers, encombre) the public functions, the journals, the schools, societies, the forum. In a word, we have children every where; all that we now want is one upon the throne, and all that we do, our passions, and even our virtues, are about to place him there.”

We must leave it to the author to reconcile these sentiments with his VOL. XV. NO. XXX.

H H

compliments to la jeune France in commanding public opinion by the journals.

"Modern literature is complex, obscure, hollow, unintelligible, untranslateable. I defy you to understand a single word of Messrs. Janin, Hugo, Villemain, Chateaubriand, Lamennais, as they themselves understood it. Only one of their thoughts is clear to every body; I mean the blank spaces, pages, and even leaves, which they interpose in their works; these are their real lucid intervals."

"There is nothing more systematic than genius; nothing more opposite to the sublime than literature; nothing more different from great men than men of letters. We are so blind, so simple, that we give the epithet of sublime only to ignes fatui, the name of genius to flagrant contradictions, of great men to dwarfs."

It would require a work much larger than that of the author to accompany him in the development of his opinions, either to show their truth or to expose their errors. There is scarcely a name of eminence in literature or science, from the remotest ages to the present time, that is not pressed into the service. While we agree with much that he alleges respecting the existing evils, we are by no means sure that we should be satisfied either with his remedies, or the results which be would obtain. From what he says of the reformation, of England, of its government and the spirit of the people, and from the whole tenor of his argument, we conclude that, while he would with reason make a religious principle the foundation and the strength of political institutions, he has the Roman Catholic religion alone in view. We apprehend that he misunderstands the signs of the times; and that there is perhaps more truth than he will allow in the assertion, which he quotes, of the Globe, the Tribune, and the National, that "Catholicism, Legitimacy, Nobility, all this is dead, absolutely dead, in France. You may give to it, as to a corpse, a convulsive semblance of life, but life itself is fled for ever."

M. Madrolle has composed a work called "Universal Legislation," of which he gives the heads, and which he seems to expect will produce the happy change to which he looks forward.

ART. XII.-Pensées d'un Prisonnier, par le Comte de Peyronnet. (Second Edition.) Paris. 1834.

THERE are many reasons why we should not give our own opinions concerning the above-mentioned work, of which we will state only one. There is a sacredness in the present situation of the author, that would prevent us from openly expressing ourselves, either to praise or to condemn; for we might be accused of being misled by our feelings of compassion, or admiration of the magnanimous bearing of the prisoner of state; or, on the other hand, we might be thought to insult an unfortunate minister, who has been punished for doing what he deemed his duty.

However all this may be, there can be no reason why we should not

66

tell the reader what is the nature of the Count de Peyronnet's work. It is prefaced by a zealous and admiring friend, Count Jules de Rességuier, who commences in the following manner : Thoughts of a prisoner! . . . . Are these thoughts marked by the impress of fetters? narrowed by the want of space? discoloured by the absence of light? No; they are animated, they are lofty, they are free; because bolts cannot curb either the mind or the soul of the prisoner;" and who relates the following anecdote :-"The chapter concerning the punishment of death was written while the author was imprisoned at Vincennes, when the people were loudly demanding his execution." M. de Rességuier conjured him to lay more stress on several parts of his defence; but he, valuing his reputation more than his life, said, with the utmost tranquillity" My friend, I have two causes in hand, that of the present, and that of the future. I should be sorry to lose the first, but I am anxious to gain the latter."

The book consists of a series of political reflections and essays, some written before the last revolution in France, others at Vincennes, during the Count's temporary imprisonment in that castle, and the rest at Ham. It is dedicated to his friends, and is divided into short chapters, treating of some of the great political questions which have, in all modern times, agitated mankind; such as, Liberty of the Press, Civil War, Capital Punishments, Amnesty, Oaths, Obedience, Factions, Perseverance in Opinions, and (which forms a very curious chapter) Women in Adversity; to which is added an imitation of Montaigne, entitled, " De la Solitude Forcé," a sort of jeu d'esprit, an ingenious defence of, or rather reconciliation with, the Count's present situation.

In order to give an example of the style in which the work is written, we make the following extracts :--

"Now, how are we to understand this? If the people are to command, who is there to obey? If the people are to obey, who shall command? Shall we have obedience without command, or command without obedience? Do you take it to mean that the people shall be their own masters, and at the same time their own subjects? that they shall obey themselves collectively, and command themselves in like manner? that there shall need a deliberation of this collective sovereign for each collective act of this subject, prince and people?"

"And where shall reside the sovereignty, one of whose principal attributes is command, while the people, reduced to obedience, shall have no other condition than that of subjects? Will you tell me that it shall be vested in the prince? Is it then an essential of your popular sovereignty to reside habitually elsewhere than in the people? Oh, the marvellous prerogative, which one possesses merely to be subject to it, and which one obtains only to let it be exercised by others! Do you tell me that it will not be in the prince? Shall it then be no where? Admirable sovereignty, whose character is that it exists scarcely for once, and but for a day during many ages!" . . . .

"Confess, then, that popular sovereignty is but the negative of sovereignty. You give the appearance of it to the people, to take its reality from the prince; you take the reality from the prince, without being able to give more than an empty and false appearance to the people."

HH 2

Our female readers will thank us for giving the Count's opinion of them while labouring under misfortune :

"What can be more beautiful, what can be greater, what less analogous to our miserable characters as men; in general so cold, so inattentive, to all that does not concern ourselves! Pure and true devotion, that is to say, the entire sacrifice of self for others, is incompatible with us, and out of our nature. This virtue, which brings with it so many others,-exquisite mixture of courage, perseverance, charity, and forgetfulness of self,-is the most perfect of perfect virtues. "It is nevertheless to this that weak women raise themselves, where great calamities help and conduct them: it is in this that they excel, and ennoble and fortify their sex. Their soul is transformed, if I may so express myself, and the emotions which take possession of it far surpass the common limits of humanity."

Far otherwise does the noble Count speak of the weaker sex in prosperity; but we suspect that he will be forgiven when it is seen what he thinks of it in the hour of trial.

ART. XIII.-Réponse de Lucien Bonaparte, Prince de Canino, aux Mémoires du Général Lamarque. London, 1835.

THE object of this pamphlet is to justify the writer and his imperial brother from the accusations of General Lamarque, who, in his Memoirs, imputes to them the having been actuated, respectively, by self-interest and mental feebleness, in the course they adopted after the battle of Waterloo. The Prince of Canino is an acute and subtle dialectician, who reasons ingeniously and plausibly, even when he fails to convince. With respect to his own conduct and motives, however, we think he does more, and, although we can occasionally detect a fallacy, resting upon an ambiguous use of words, we think he may be fairly said to exonerate himself from the charge of having been then, or perhaps ever, influenced by views of personal aggrandizement.

With respect to Napoleon the case is different. Lucien Buonaparte himself allows that, at the time, he thought Napoleon's last abdication an act of weakness, a mean dereliction of his exalted post; and avers that his own advice was, not to abdicate, but to dissolve the refractory chambers, and appeal to the nation for support against the invaders. It is only twenty years of subsequent meditation that have converted him to his present opinion, which will probably startle our readers as much as ourselves. It is, that Napoleon never held himself to be more than the chief magistrate of the French nation; that their good, not his own glory or greatness, was ever his paramount consideration; that he knew he could effect his own personal objects by the help of the army, without the chambers, but thought he could not thus save the country, and, caring for nought else, abdicated. Now, as we before intimated, the prince has failed to convince us of Napoleon's noble and perfect disinterestedness, or indeed, to make it intelligible to our foggy insular capacity; for, though we readily conceive that the sacrifice of a sovereign and his dynasty may be the price of a country's independence, we

cannot make out how an emperor can preserve his empire without preserving the independence of the country which constitutes that empire: unless, indeed, it be meant that Napoleon might have bargained to be sent back to his empire of Elba, thence annually to invade France.

But we suspect that any question as to the political virtue of a great character who disappeared from the stage of active public life twenty years ago—a considerable period in the life of man-possesses but little interest for the English reading public of the present day; and to our own mind, the more important part of the pamphlet consists of the views entertained by the Prince of Canino-a professed and unflinching republican, be it remembered of political liberty, the English constitution, and the late French revolution. This last he holds to be illegal; but why? Upon grounds thoroughly republican, but elsewhere conservatively qualified. He says

"But this revolution is as yet a mere fact, because it has not received the indispensable baptism of universal suffrage, or votation. Since the three general votings upon the consulship, the empire, and the acte additionel, the French people, whom you call sovereign, has not been consulted. Without such universal voting, there can be no popular legitimacy. You must acknowledge either the principle of absolute sovereignty, and so Henry V. is your king, or the principle of popular sovereignty, and then you are renegades from your political faith if you do not consult the people of to-day upon the authority that you have substituted to the authorities voted by the people of yesterday."

Respecting the forms of liberty, let us hear this stanch republican. "From my childhood I was accustomed to regard the English government of balanced powers as the only species of monarchy compatible with public liberty. A witness of, an actor in, the French revolution, I could not be ignorant of the national antipathy of France for aristocratic power: or, knowing that, conceive how those who proscribed all intermediate bodies, could dream of constitutional royalty. Without a peerage, I cannot comprehend a limited monarchy; wherefore I thought, and still think, that France, if irreconcileable to an hereditary peerage, independent by fortune and position, cannot hope for English liberty; can establish herself only upon a republican basis."

"I am aware that such institutions are still as antipathetic to public opinion as they were thirty years ago; but all that can be argued from this antipathy is, that it must either be conquered by the influence of a monarchical and constitutional press, or the consulship with two chambers must be revived. Should there be a wish to know more of the opinions of a citizen who has vegetated in exile for so many years, I would say that, could a monarchy, like the English, be established in France, I think it preferable, for the interest of humanity, even to the consular republic; because it is better adapted to modify, by the force of example, the absolute monarchies of the continent, and thus to establish the constitutional system throughout Europe, without new revolutions, or with the fewest possible. But if, as it is asserted, the successive generations increase in their hatred for hereditary bodies, then I see no possible liberty for France except in a republic, the elective powers of which shall be so equipoised as to maintain us at an equal distance from despotism and anarchy."