encumbrance of over thirty millions-the unpaid balance of their father's debts, which, at the time of the confiscation, had amounted to no less than seventy-four millions. His vast possessions were thus encumbered to more than half their value.

Louis Philippe might have declined to accept this inheritance of twelve millions, with an encumbrance of thirty millions, which of course rendered it insolvent. But, says his advocate, he and his sister conceived "the generous design of paying off with honour all the creditors." The design had more of policy, perhaps, than honour or generosity. Louis Philippe had an eye already upon the throne; and he well knew that an insolvent debtor, or even the son of the insolvent debtor, was held more infamous in Paris than a blasphemer or an adulterer. He accepted then the restitution, but sous benefice d'inventaire; that is to say, on the condition of being responsible to the creditors but for the sum which the inheritance would bring at public auction: so that this was quite a safe sacrifice to generosity and to honour. The property restored was accordingly put up for sale, and bid in by Louis Philippe himself at twelve and a half millions. This was at once applied to the payment of the debts, pro rata. The poorer were paid totally, says M. Dupin ; remissions of interest and some reductions of principal were obtained from the more independent creditors. On the whole, it seems, all ended with being satisfied. But to effect this consummation, besides the produce of the public sale, Louis Philippe devoted yearly, we are told, three millions from his own appanage. So that besides the immense patrimony of his father as above sketched, it seems this personage had a vast appanage in his own right as prince of the blood!

There results, then, for the basis of the final state of the Orleans property: first, this appanage, of which the mere income could afford annually three millions, besides the regular expenditures of a prince; secondly, the vast domains of the re-purchase, bought for twelve millions; thirdly, a two-third portion of the vast inheritance of his mother, who died about the same time, bequeathing Louis Philippe and his sister one-third each of a territorial property yielding one and a half millions revenue, and valued in 1821 at over sixty millions; fourthly, five millions, accorded to the same pair, (whose portions always devolved alike to the common family fund,) in virtue of the law of indemnity passed in 1825 in behalf of those whose property was confiscated by the Revolution. It is further to be noted that these enormous properties are all rated at their current value some thirty years ago; a value that must have doubled in this rapidly progressive period. And it is a family possessed of

this incalculable mass of wealth that has been beggared by the ten millions of it sequestrated by Louis Napoleon!

Moreover, we are persuaded that the foregoing summary inventory is, without mentioning the civil list and the "dotations," incomplete. It is, in large part, only indirectly that we have been able to extract those results from the tortuous statements of the advocate in the cause. A lawyer, with the best dispositions, is never candid or complete. From his habits of one-sidedness, he can present the simplest subject only in section, as it were, and never in its full scheme. But the dispositions of M. Dupin are, besides, avowedly apologetic. He carries this, indeed, so far as to invoke our sympathies for Louis Philippe, by the assurance that he left his palace on the fatal 24th of February, in such a state of destitution, that by the time he reached Versailles he had to borrow, poor man! the sum of three thousand francs before he could go further!

M. Dupin parades in detail the expenditures of Louis Philippe on palaces his patronages, pensions, and a million a year in charity. It is true he has no documents to show these latter forms of disbursement; but, lawyer-like, he has instead of them a pretext for their absence, which, for the rest, is very probable and very characteristic. It is, that "all the papers, (according to the Report of a Committee appointed on the subject by the Provisional Government itself,) all the registers of assistance, all that could reveal the bounties of the king and of the royal family, and that could disclose the names of the obligees, (turned ingrates,) were burned on the night of the 24th of February, in the midst of the disorder that prevailed at the Tuileries." This is fortified and specialized by the ex-treasurer of the crown, in a publication which he made upon the sack of the Tuileries. "I remarked," says he, "toward midnight, that the flames appeared to issue from the spot which was allotted to my department. I learned the next morning the true cause. Fire had been set on purpose to four apartments underneath, serving as offices for the section of the cabinet of the king charged with the distribution of charity, and of which the archives which certain persons might have an interest in destroying, had been entirely consumed." These "certain persons" were of course republicans, as these alone attacked the palace.

However, we are quite willing to give Louis Philippe and his advocate the entire benefit of the destruction of their proofs. There is no doubt, in fact, that handsome sums were thus invested by the citizen king: the only question would relate to the intention, which is everything in judging of the merits of the individual, although in estimating his actions we should observe a dif

ferent rule. However, to leave our readers in a state of feeling to decide impartially, we close with quoting the peroration of Dupin's pecuniary panegyric :—

"We see the Duke of Orleans," says he, "though receiving but the meagre wrecks of his paternal property, paying off its debts to an amount beyond the value of the principal. As appanagistic prince, he improves and ornaments the appanage; improvements which must turn to the profit of the state. As king, he uses like a king his civil list-employing a million a year in acts of charity and generosity; giving work in all directions to artisans and artists; restoring at great expense and with taste those royal palaces of which he owned himself but the splendid usufruct; augmenting, at an expense of nine millions, their sumptuous furniture; and above all, founding at Versailles that national museum, devoted, without distinction to "all the glories of France." In fine, as man we see him bear adversity, exile, and ruin, with the grandeur of a royal soul and the resignation of a Christian (!); uttering no complaint, nor mentioning his exile but merely to say, 'I had not deserved it.""

This vindication of the pelf of the Orleanists will be doubtless followed, in the future volumes of the Memoirs, by a vindication of their politics. We may return to the subject, if the revelations should deserve it, when we shall also treat the character and famous bons mots of Dupin.

ART. III.-THE EASTERN WAR.

1. A Visit to the Camp before Sevastopol. By RICHARD C. M'CORMICK, Jr. NewYork: D. Appleton & Co. 1855. 12mo., pp. 212.

2. The Unholy Alliance: An American View of the War in the East. By WILLIAM GILES DIX. "Christo et Cruci." New-York: Charles B. Norton. 1855. 12mo., pp. 257.

3. A History of the War between Turkey and Russia, and Russia and the Allied Powers of England and France. By GEORGE FOWLER. London: Sampson, Low, Son & Co. 1855. 12mo., pp. 328.

WE have placed these works at the head of this paper as a matter of form, rather than with the intention of subjecting them to a special review. They suggest our theme, but do not explore the ground we design to examine. The first is a narrative of observations made by the author during a six weeks' visit to the camp before Sevastopol, and a brief sojourn at Constantinople, written in a pleasant and sprightly style, but giving very little information beyond what may be culled from the newspaper press. The second is a declamatory harangue, without solid sense or argument, upon the invincibility of Russia, and the folly and wickedness of the alliance of

England and France for the protection of Turkey. It declares Sevastopol to be impregnable, and predicts the conquest of Constantinople by the Russians, and the total defeat and ruin of the Allies in the war. Events have already proved the declaration false; and as improbable, we opine, as the arrival of the Greek Calends is the fulfilment of the prediction. The last work mentioned above we have found useful in the preparation of this paper. It is an effort to present, in a concise form, the various events of the war up to the end of the year 1854, and is made up chiefly of public documents, and of extracts from the letters of the war correspondent of the London Times.

Though the remote cause of the present war must be sought far back amid the cherished traditions of Russia, and in the policy which for more than a century and a half has given tone and complexion to her councils, yet its immediate cause was apparently trivial and insignificant.

At Jerusalem stand certain sanctuaries and chapels on spots embalmed in a thousand cherished recollections. Among these are the localities of the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord, and particularly the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre, a splendid work of art, built by the Empress Helena, the mother of Constantine. The possession of these places has always been coveted by Christians; and from the earliest ages of the Church they have been accustomed to visit the country trodden by the feet of the Saviour, and especially the city where he died for the redemption of the world. A desire to recover these "holy places" from the hands of the followers of Mohammed gave rise to the Crusades of the Middle Ages; and since that period, both the Greek and Latin Christians have enjoyed by treaty stipulations, certain rights of visitation and worship at the shrines erected on these localities.

In the year 1535 Francis I. was recognised as the protector of the Latin Christians; and in a treaty of that year, made with Selim I., their claim to the "holy places" was insisted on and agreed to. Two hundred years later, (1740,) by another treaty between the same nations, this claim was admitted and confirmed. The Greek Christians possessed the exclusive claim to some sanctuaries, and also insisted upon a joint occupancy of some of those most prized by the Latins. As the treaties to which we have referred did not define the rights of the parties, disputes frequently arose, and the Latin and Greek Christians were brought into collisions resulting in bloodshed and loss of life within the edifices so much revered by both. In 1757 open war existed between the rival Churches in Palestine. In 1808 the Holy Sepulchre was partially destroyed by

fire, and the Greeks obtained a firman from the Sultan, giving them authority to repair the edifice. After its restoration, on the authority of this firman or decree, the Greeks assumed additional rights and privileges, which led to fresh dissentions with the Latins, and finally caused such scandal, that, in 1819, the Russian and French governments interposed. The King of France claimed the right to protect pilgrims of the Romish faith by virtue of the title accorded to him by the Pope of "Most Christian King;" while the Czar of Russia, as "Patriarch of the Greek Church," a title which has descended to him from Peter the Great, claimed the right to protect pilgrims of the Greek Church. In order the better to adjust these differences, France and Russia each sent an envoy to Palestine; but the Greek Revolution in 1821 broke off the negotiations, and no further attention seems to have been given to the subject by France until 1836. In that year the Prince de Joinville having visited Jerusalem, the monks of the Latin faith appealed to him, and solicited his influence in procuring the restoration of the "keys of the holy places," of which the Greek monks had for a long time held possession. In consequence of his representations to his father, Louis Philippe, the French ambassador at the Porte was instructed to bring the matter to the attention of the Sultan, who issued a firman ordering the Greeks to surrender the keys to the Latins; but, through Russian influence, the governor of Jerusalem neglected to obey the firman. In 1847 fresh complaint was made by the Latin monks through the French ambassador. The cause of the complaint was a trivial one, and should have been dealt with, we think, by the police, or civil magistrate, rather than by the corps diplomatique. A silver star, which was suspended on the spot said to be exactly that of the Saviour's birth at Bethlehem, disappeared, and the Latin monks, through the French ambassador, accused the Greeks of having committed this sacrilegious larceny.

In 1850 Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, the British ambassador at the Porte, wrote thus to Lord Palmerston :

:

"General Aupick has assured me that the matter in dispute is a mere matter of property and of express treaty stipulation. The immediate point of difference is the right of possession to certain portions of the Holy Church at Jerusalem. The Greeks are accused of having usurped property which belongs of right to the Roman Catholics, and of having purposely allowed the chapels, and particularly the monuments of Godfrey de Bouillon and of Guy de Lusignan, to go into decay."

As soon as this subject was brought to the notice of the Porte a commission of inquiry was ordered; but before the commissioners had completed their investigations, the Czar addressed an autograph