which has ever made the two greatest nations of modern Europe run the same race of rivalry in improvement, will now help us in the amendment of whatever defects exists in our institutions. The people of England will not long brook any marked inferiority to their neighbours; and especially will such an eclipse be galling, if it lie in the freedom upon which they have so long prided themselves as their distinguished and exclusive excellence. France has now a freer government than England. This truth must be told. Shall we not make such improvements as may restore us to our pristine station, and regain for us what Milton called " our prerogative of teaching the nations how to live?" The people have but to will it, and the thing is done. Such ministers as the present, have at least the recommendation of utter inability to resist the tide of popular opinion, They are, it is true, wholly unfit to lead the public sentiment; altogether impotent to carry through great measures of themselves; but if the country decrees a thing to be done, be it right or be it wrong, they have no power to resist. Reform within certain limits is the right thing which they must now do, or rather suffer to be done. What though all the present cabinet be deeply pledged against it? What though Sir Robert Peel has of late come forward, somewhat ostentatiously and very needlessly, to deny representatives to the great towns? So did he, for many a long day, refuse the Catholics and the Dissenters their rights; and in a few weeks, continuing quite unconvinced, as he declared, he, and his principal, himself as stout an enemy to the repeal, came round—right round about, and carried the grand measure through Parliament, as it was said, "triumphantly," to the no small benefit of the empire, if not to the immortal renown of the senate or its leaders. So will such men yield again if the people desire it, perhaps they will even volunteer the measure of reform, in order to keep their places a little longer; and they are surely well worth having at such a price. Religious liberty, received as a fine upon renewing the lease of office one year; law reform for the next year; reform of Parliament for a year longer-never sure did landlord make a better bargain, or poor tenant

This declaration of Sir Robert Peel is certainly by far the most strange that any public man ever made. He had surely opposed the Catholic question from a conviction that there was more mischief in granting than in withholding it. Then, if his opinion remained, as he solemnly and repeatedly asserted, unchanged, he was, for some reason or other, induced to grant what it was more mischievous to give than to refuse. What could induce any man to do it? What right had any man to act so? It won't do to say that circumstances were altered-for that saying that the question is safer given than refused; and he declares his opinion to be unaltered, and that the mischiefs preponderate. What then can Sir Robert Peel have meant? We know very wel! that his enemies say, he means only that he preferred giving up his opinion to giving up his place. We believe no such thing, and we mean no such thing; but we cannot comprehend what he means, and we believe he had no distinct meaning when he made the very incomprehensible statement. At all events, he must now allow, and he ought in a manly way to say, that he was wrong from the first. For his argument was that the emancipation was full of danger and risk; these are prospective words, and they mean that the measure would lead to mischief if carried. Carried it has been; what was the future is now the past; no mischief whatever has ensued. Five or six members in England, and as many in Ireland, are Catholics; there's the whole evil we have encountered to pacify Ireland! Does Sir Robert Peel say that the evil may yet arrive? Then he should tell us at least how, if not when; or he is like the Jew who waits for the Messiah, (and, ought, therefore, says this statesmanlike reasoner, to be excluded from parliament and from office), or the Portuguese who is looking for the return of King Sebastian from Africa. Had he not far better admit, what most men now see, and all men of candour believe he sees, that he was in error from the first? He put himself at the head of a party in church and state which wanted a leader, and had in those days much more power than they now have. And he took their creed with the command. He afterwards found he had paid too dear for the station, and abandoned both, to the great benefit of the country, and his own great and lasting honour. His way of doing so is another matter; so is his wholly inexplicable opposition to Mr. Canning in 1827. These are the dark parts of his conduct; and these, we take it, never can be cleared up, although further services and new sacrifices of prejudice may tend to efface them from our memory.

himself by a single sentence of disclaimer? At least, let the ministers keep some appearance of consistency. Sir Robert Peel, in Parliament, distinctly announces, at a time when he feels how extremely insecure the hold over that assembly is, that the ministry will throw themselves upon the country, looking only to the people for support. Well, then; their chief goes to a meeting of the better classes of the people, assembled to do him a civility; and he thinks it beneath him to open his mouth in refutation of the worst charge which could be brought against a public man. He prefers labouring under it for a season, to denying it at the earliest opportunity. Is this the conduct of men who appeal to the people, and throw themselves on the country?

If, however, such be the predicament of the present ministers in respect of French affairs, such is not that of the people. With an unanimity wholly unexampled, they have suffered their delight at the late glorious Revolution to burst forth, and to reach all the ends of the earth, in accents of applause, of exultation, of heartfelt thankfulness to the French people. The reason why gratitude is felt as well as admiration may easily be discovered. The cause of the French is that of all freemen. If Polignac had succeeded, there would not have been wanting imitators of his conduct elsewhere. We should ourselves have had our Polignacs. No man of common sense can doubt this. But such a consummation is now, God be thanked rendered utterly impossible. Several lessons have been taught in the university of Paris, which will not soon be forgotten. The soldiers of other countries have taken a degree there; it will be an honour to them, for it will make them remember they are citizens; it will be an advantage to them for it will keep them from being exemplarily punished, and without any delay, by their fellow-citizens. The lesson which all armies have learnt is, first, that their duty is not to butcher their fellow-subjects at a tyrant's commands, in order to save a priest's favour, or a minister's place; next, that if in breach of their duty they lend themselves to such treasonable plots of courtiers, they are rushing upon their own certain destruction. For a lesson has also been taught to the citizens of all great towns, that the soldiery cannot succeed in enslaving them by force of arms. A well-inhabited street is a fortress which no troops can take if the inhabitants be true to themselves; provided there be other streets near requiring a like attack from the military. Far be it from us to suspect the gallant soldiery of other countries of showing less patriotism, less humanity, than those of France lately displayed but the example is encouraging to the virtuous portion of the army; the lesson, the warning, is wholesome to the profligate and unprincipled, who alone make a standing army dangerous.

Furthermore, the emancipation of France is the hope and-strength of freemen all over Europe. Had she succumbed, the chance of liberty in Italy, in Spain, in Portugal, was indefinitely postponed; in England herself, a sight of much evil omen was held out to both rulers and people. The most imbecile of ministers, and the least trusted by their country, are ever ready to retreat behind the ranks of the army; ever prepared to support their power by force. But no reflecting man can now entertain a doubt, that if our rulers, untaught by the recent lessons, should ever attempt to enforce arbitrary acts by arms, the people of this country would be ashamed of being outdone by those of France in defending their most sacred liberties.

Finally, we take it to be clear, that the honest and generous emulation,

which has ever made the two greatest nations of modern Europe run the same race of rivalry in improvement, will now help us in the amendment of whatever defects exists in our institutions. The people of England will not long brook any marked inferiority to their neighbours; and especially will such an eclipse be galling, if it lie in the freedom upon which they have so long prided themselves as their distinguished and exclusive excellence. France has now a freer government than England. This truth must be told. Shall we not make such improvements as may restore us to our pristine station, and regain for us what Milton called "our prerogative of teaching the nations how to live?" The people have but to will it, and the thing is done. Such ministers as the present, have at least the recommendation of utter inability to resist the tide of popular opinion, They are, it is true, wholly unfit to lead the public sentiment; altogether impotent to carry through great measures of themselves; but if the country decrees a thing to be done, be it right or be it wrong, they have no power to resist. Reform within certain limits is the right thing which they must now do, or rather suffer to be done. What though all the present cabinet be deeply pledged against it? What though Sir Robert Peel has of late come forward, somewhat ostentatiously and very needlessly, to deny representatives to the great towns? So did he, for many a long day, refuse the Catholics and the Dissenters their rights; and in a few weeks, continuing quite unconvinced, as he declared, he, and his principal, himself as stout an enemy to the repeal, came round—right round about, and carried the grand measure through Parliament, as it was said, "triumphantly," to the no small benefit of the empire, if not to the immortal renown of the senate or its leaders. So will such men yield again if the people desire it, perhaps they will even volunteer the measure of reform, in order to keep their places a little longer; and they are surely well worth having at such a price. Religious liberty, received as a fine upon renewing the lease of office one year; law reform for the next year; reform of Parliament for a year longer-never sure did landlord make a better bargain, or poor tenant

This declaration of Sir Robert Peel is certainly by far the most strange that any public man ever made. He had surely opposed the Catholic question from a conviction that there was more mischief in granting than in withholding it. Then, if his opinion remained, as he solemnly and repeatedly asserted, unchanged, he was, for some reason or other, induced to grant what it was more mischievous to give than to refuse. What could induce any man to do it? What right had any man to act so? It won't do to say that circumstances were altered-for that is saying that the question is safer given than refused; and he declares his opinion to be unaltered, and that the mischiefs preponderate. What then can Sir Robert Peel have meant? We know very well that his enemies say, he means only that he preferred giving up his opinion to giving up his place. We believe no such thing, and we mean no such thing; but we cannot comprehend what he means, and we believe he had no distinct meaning when he made the very incomprehensible statement. At all events, he must now allow, and he ought in a manly way to say, that he was wrong from the first. For his argument was that the emancipation was full of danger and risk; these are prospective words, and they mean that the measure would lead to mischief if carried. Carried it has been; what was the future is now the past; no mischief whatever has ensued. Five or six members in England, and as many in Ireland, are Catholics; there's the whole evil we have encountered to pacify Ireland! Does Sir Robert Peel say that the evil may yet arrive? Then he should tell us at least how, if not when; or he is like the Jew who waits for the Messiah, (and, ought, therefore, says this statesmanlike reasoner, to be excluded from parliament and from office), or the Portuguese who is looking for the return of King Sebastian from Africa. Had he not far better admit, what most men now see, and all men of candour believe he sees, that he was in error from the first? He put himself at the head of a party in church and state which wanted a leader, and had in those days much more power than they now have. And he took their creed with the command. He afterwards found he had paid too dear for the station, and abandoned both, to the great benefit of the country, and his own great and lasting honour. His way of doing so is another matter; so is his wholly inexplicable opposition to Mr. Canning in 1827. These are the dark parts of his conduct; and these, we take it, never can be cleared up, although further services and new sacrifices of prejudice may tend to efface them from our memory.

pay more handsomely! It will not be hard to find some fourth fine fit to be exacted when this third year shall be out.*

The articles on Foreign Politics occupy a very considerable portion of the Edinburgh Review. Without encroaching upon other departments, it was impossible to transfer to this work more than a few of the most interesting, either for the importance of the topics, or the ability displayed in their discussion. For obvious reasons, I have preferred selecting those only which are likely to be perused with satisfaction at the present eventful period. Many of the Essays in the early Numbers, on the Foreign Policy of England during the memorable struggle with France and America, are written with distinguished talent, though, in some instances, the predictions of the writers have not been verified. As the subjects to which they refer have, in the progress of other events, lost much of their interest, 1 shall be the more readily excused for rejecting them, and retaining only a limited number of those dissertations that are connected with political transactions of a more recent date. I do not conceive it necessary to direct the attention of the reader to all the articles, under the head of Foreign Politics, for which I had not space. The following may be considered the most valuable :- Inquiry into the State of the Nation in 1806, with regard to its Foreign Policy, Vol. viii. page 190.-Reasons for making Peace with Bonaparte in 1807, Vol. x. page I.— Don Pedro Cevallos on the French Usurpation of Spain, Vol. xiii. page 215.-Review of Leckie on the Foreign Policy of Great Britain, Vol. xiii. page 186.-Examination of the State of the Foreign Affairs of Great Britain down to 1809, Vol. xiv. page 442.-The Expediency of making Peace with France in 1812. Vol. xx. page 213.—Conduct of the War, Vol. xv. page 197.- Foreign Policy of England in 1806 and 1807, Vol. xi. page 219.-The War with America, Vol. xix. page 290. Vol. xx. page 451. Vol. xxiv. page 243.-Conduct of the English Government towards Genoa, Vol. xxviii. page 106.-Disgraceful Policy of the Allies towards Saxony and Naples, Vol. xxxii. page 399.; and Vol. xxxv. page 72.-Exposure of the Flagitious Proceedings of the Holy Alliance, Vol. xxxix. page 467.-Dethronement, Detention and Treatment of Bonaparte, Vol. xxx. page 452.-Aggressions of France against Spain, Vol. xxxviii. page 241.

END OF VOL. IV.