only to about ten condemnations, has been stopped by force-by bayonets-and by illegality. Its bureaus have been invaded, its establishment occupied by the "force armée," its editors, subeditors, and all workmen connected with it, arrested and sent to prison, no one knows why or wherefore, and the head printer of the journal has been likewise arrested and his partner with him, and their presses have been all stopped, and their workshops closed, and their right to print taken away from them, because they had printed the Tribune, which was a Republican journal. No subtleties, no shallow unprincipled excuses will get over this fact, or be able to torture it into either a legal or constitutional measure. Thus the censorship is re-established. Thus the French are not free to print and to publish their own opinions, and thus the seventh article of the Charter is flagrantly violated.

The eighth article of the Charter declares, that "All property is inviolable ;" and yet, to say nothing of a thousand facts which I could cite to prove the contrary, at this very moment the house, furniture, books, papers, registers, &c. of the Tribune, are in the possession of the police; and the proprietors of the journal cannot carry on their enterprise.

The twelfth article of the Charter declares, that "The Ministers of the King are responsible for the acts of the King ;" and yet the Ministers of the King are not allowed to meet in council, without the King being present; and the King refuses to allow any deliberations not made before him.

The twenty-fourth article of the Charter declares, that "The peers of France cannot be members before twenty-five years of age, and cannot deliberate before thirty years of age;" and yet the young DUKE OF ORLEANS both belongs to the Chamber, and deliberates, and votes in it, although he has not attained the required age.

The forty-fourth article of the Charter declares, "That no Member of the Chamber of Deputies, can be prosecuted during the Session in a criminal matter, except in the case of flagrant délit,'" (such as taking up arms against the Government, leading a revolt, or committing a crime, &c.) and yet M. CABET, the Deputy, has been prosecuted and condemned to fine and imprisonment, during the session of 1834, for a mere political attack on the present system of government, in the journal called "Le Populaire." The fifty-third article of the Charter declares, "That no one can be tried in France, except by his national judges,”—or, in other words, civil offences by civil tribunals, and criminal offences by criminal tribunals, judging regularly and legally with juries and judges ;—and yet in 1832 private citizens were tried and condemned to death by "MARTIAL COURTS," by PREVATAL COURTS;" and, but for the intervention of the Court of Cassation, which declared all these judgments to be illegal, violent, and flagrantly unconstitutional, these citizens so unjustly con

to the galleys for the rest of their days.

The fifty-fourth article of the Charter declares, that "There never can be created either Commissions or Extraordinary Tribunals, under any title or denomination whatsoever;" and yet, in 1832, these very extraordinary tribunals were erected at Paris and in the West of France, and multitudes of citizens were arraigned before and tried by them. All the sentences they pronounced were declared null by the Court of Cassation.

The fifty-sixth article declares, that "The Institution of the Jury" is preserved; and yet constant efforts are making to try before Judges without juries, (efforts which, in the case of the National, for a long while, succeeded, and would have continued to do so, but for the Court of Cassation,) all who are connected with the press,-with political associations, or with the patriotic party. The late outrageous laws against the hawkers of journals, and against all associations, are flagrant and desperate violations of the spirit and letter of this article.

The sixty-fourth article declares, “ That the Colonies are to be regulated by special laws;" and yet these laws, though four years have nearly elapsed since the Revolution of 1830, have not been prepared or proposed; notwithstanding the Colonies demand these laws, and notwithstanding ALGIERS is simply governed by royal ordinances and military despotism.

The sixty-sixth article declares "That the Charter and all the rights which it consecrates, are confided to the patriotism and courage of all French citizens;" and yet the Lyons Republicans, who demand that their charter and these rights be at least respected by the Government which has made and sworn to defend it, are accused of REBELLION.

The sixty-ninth article of the Charter declares, "That the offences of the press, and political offences, shall be tried by juries ;" and yet the Judges appointed by the new dynasty have claimed the right of trying the press, in several cases, without the aid of the jury; and by the "publiès crieurs' " law lately passed, the offences of the press are to be judged by the Judges of the Correctional Police.

The SAME ARTICLE declares, that "A laws hall be at once made, settling the responsibility of the Ministers of the King, and other agents of the Government ;" and yet, though we are now towards the close of April, 1834, no such law has been made!

And the same article declares, in like manner, "That a law shall at once be made, establishing Departmental and Municipal Institutions, founded on an elective system;" and yet, though four years have nearly passed away, that promise has not been fulfilled; and the Departmental and Municipal Institutions of France, at this moment, remain unsettled. The little that has been done has likewise been so done, not in accord with, but in opposition to the declaration, that the system is to be one of Election," or, in other words, representative, i. e. Republican.

The Lyonese Republicans have, therefore, attempted to regain their original physical as well as moral position. It is said they have failed. It is said that after seven days of conflict, after a bombardment of the city, after the destruction of thousands of citizens and of soldiers, the military have triumphed, and that Lyons, the new Saragossa, has yielded to the besiegers. Well, and what then? Did the entry of the Russian troops into Warsaw establish the illegality of the Polish insurrection? Did the triumph of the troops of Lord Londonderry at Manchester, on the field of Peterloo, give the lie to the fact, that Parliamentary reform was then demanded by the people? Success or failure only establishes, in such contests, the physical strength of the combatants,and at Lyons it has only been shown that the military were physically the most powerful.

But is this an answer to the violation of the engagements made at the Barricades, at the Hotel de Ville, with Lafayette, and afterwards in the Charter? None whatever. If the Lyonese Republicans would have been entitled to the terms of "Heroes," "Patriots," and " Defenders of the Public Rights and Liberties," had they succeeded, they are not less entitled to those marks of approbation, because they have failed. If, on the other hand, their object be not national, their principles be not worthy of applause and admiration, imitation, and aid, then let it be proclaimed at once, that the whole of the revolution of 1830 was a mistake, that nothing was meant but a change of dynasty, and that France must not expect to gain, but only to lose by the events of the great week."

Let us now look at the EVENTS OF PARIS. They are of another description. They are partly to be commended, partly to be censured, and partly to be denounced. The movement was, to a certain extent, the result of a previously combined Republican arrangement, but very partially, indeed, and the Government must know it. The Government must and does know, that out of twenty-four sections of the "Society of the Rights of Man," only ONE section, and only a portion of that one section, consented to aid in making that movement. All the other twenty-three and a half sections decided that it was premature, that it would injure instead of serve the cause of the Republic, and that it must be discountenanced. When, therefore, the agents of police, disguised | in the smock-frocks or clothes of workmen, aided at nightfall on Sunday, the 13th of April, this half of one section of the members of the "Society of the Rights of Man," to cut down the lanterns and make barricades in the Rues St.

the mass of the Republican members of this society would not come forward. All that great display of National Guards, of Gendarmerie, of Municipal Guards, of troops of the line, of cavalry, and of artillery and engineers, was therefore not only unnecessary, but was made for a political object and with political intentions. Of this I have no more doubt than that I breathe and move at the present moment. For, 1st, How came it to pass, that the Rues St. Denis and St. Martin were not occupied with troops, the moment the insurrection began? and, 2d, How came it to pass that the troops remained on the Boulevards while the barricades were being formed in the streets I have just mentioned? and, 3d, How came it to pass, that the National Guards had all been informed beforehand, when and where the insurrection was to break out. Nothing would have been easier than to have arrested those who appeared at the barricades on Sunday night; but yet the troops, police, and guards were all ordered to wait till the next morning. The object to be accomplished was gained. The Republicans were made to appear very few, and so they were, for not one out of a hundred were present; the events at Lyons were momentarily forgotten ;-the calamities of the Departments were kept in the back-ground ;-the Chambers were engaged to run off out of breath to the palace, and protest love without bounds, and devotion without limits,-and last, though not least, a large standing army, 360,000 men, and 65,000 horses, with a large extra war budget, and a law against fire-arms and barricades, were demanded, and will, in all probability, be granted, which the Chambers durst not have accorded for the simple events of Lyons. In addition to a small portion of the Republican party, and a large portion of police agents and instigators, there were likewise another party which joined them both, without being invited, and only for the purpose of plunder. I mean the social revolution party. Against this party, all lovers of freedom and of humanity must protest. They committed excesses, and we grieve over them. But alas! it must be recorded, that the innocent suffered for the guilty; and that quiet, peaceable, and well conducted citizens have been horribly massacred at mid-day in the centre of Paris, in their own private residences, by the soldiers of the 35th regiment of the line.

The Republicans at Paris have then had but little, very little to do, with the events which have transpired. Those who took up arms, or prepared to do so, were moved to this, first, by the events at Lyons; second, by the passing of the law against associations; and, third, by the nomination of the Persil ministry. That name, "Persil," has been the signal of attack everywhere; and not only at Lyons and Paris, but at St. Etienne, Arbois, Strasbourg, Dijon, Marseilles, Chalons, Auxerrie,-ay, everywhere, it has been. received with execrations and menaces. But though the Republicans, "en masse," did not

take any part in the recent Paris movement, they are not the less resolved on defending the right of association; and continuing, by their journals and writings, to enlighten public opinion, and remove the objections made by some worthy and honest men, to a republican form of government for France. Their moral and physical force both remain the same, and their moral and physical, energies and courage are wholly undiminished.

The movement of "St. Etienne," was at once republican and social. It was republican, inasmuch as nine-tenths of the population of that place entertain those opinions; and it was social, inasmuch as it originated in sympathy for the Lyons workmen, and Lyons Republicans, who were being attacked without mercy by the troops of the government. Of this movement, however, we, as yet, have but few details, and its final results are even unknown. There, however, as everywhere else, the deplorable march of the government is the exclusive cause of these most sanguinary and melancholy conflicts.

What then is to be done? Should the government yield to revolt? Should it consent to see itself deposed, when it has arms and bayonets to defend itself? And should it proclaim its own incompatibility with the age in which we live, and the institutions which are desired by the French nation?

Let us answer these questions fully, fairly, and fearlessly. The answer is as follows:-No Government can be abstractedly blamed for seeking its own preservation, and for endeavouring to secure it. But, on the other hand, no people can be blamed for their endeavours to relieve themselves from the oppressive and death-like influence of a Government which is opposed to na tional vigour, national peace, and national prosperity and happiness. That a Government should voluntarily abdicate, it would be idle to expect, and foolish to anticipate; and that a people will eventually (I speak of an enlightened, reasoning, liberty-loving people,) consent to be deprived by that Government, by the simple force of bayonets, of the rights and advantages which belong to them-it would be worse than idle or foolish it would be madness to hope for, or suppose.

What then is to be done? Here we are placed between two difficulties. They are immense difficulties they bow down our backs to the ground, our heads to the dust, and our hearts in profound grief and sorrow. But yet they are difficulties which must be met. The Councillors of the Throne advise it to attempt a military Government. They demand 360,000 soldiers, and 65,000 cavalry, to keep France in order!! We shall soon have a Budget of Two BILLIONS of Francs per annum,—and Loans and Taxes will

crush us.

This is their system. No press! no associations! no opinions to be expressed! and terror to take the place of both the charter and the laws! That which is violent, however, cannot be durable. The avalanche arrives in the valley. The thunder is spent upon the plain. The tem

pest subsides into a calm. As with nature, so with human passions, and human circumstances. The French en masse would rise against a permanent military Government. It would not find any sympathy now, even though Napoleon could be resuscitated, and placed at the head of his invincible Guards. The charter, with its numberless faults, is still some rampart. The magistracy, with all the feebleness of some, contains men of great vigour of mind, and singlensss of purpose, amongst its ranks. In almost all cases the court of Cassation has done its duty. But in times like these, such men need nerves of brass and hearts of iron.

What then is to be done? Can a middle course be taken? If the republicans will not yield on one side, (and why should they?) and the Government will not yield on the other-then are we to have conflict after conflict, battle after battle,-as soon as one town is destroyed, another destroyed, and are we to have all trades ruined, and all commerce put an end to, and all manufactures stopped? And is the question everywhere to be tried by force against right-force against public opinion,-and by cannon-balls and grape-shot against the charter, the laws, and the national sympathies, and national affections? The answer to this question cannot be difficult. Such a state of things cannot, and ought not to be durable.

Is a middle course possible? Will that which exists by force make some concessions to right?— and will that which exists not in force, make some concessions to that which disposes of the public treasury, the public army, navy, and all the resources of France? Can there be a compromise? I fear not! upon my word, I fear not! and yet still we are bound, for the sake of humanity, and reason, and virtue, and patriotism, and public happiness, and the general good, to attempt it. Can the words GENERAL AMNESTY be admitted? I fear not! and yet it is not our duty to pronounce them. I ask the question, for I hardly know. Should the Republicans amnestyze the monarchy—and the monarchy amnestyze the Republicans? I ask the question, but I hardly dare to reply to it.

The

and yet surely this might be attempted. But on what conditions? That the Charter should be revised by the nation,-the laws revised by the nation-and a new era, but without war or violence, commence for France and for humanity. But my voice will not be heard. tempest will howl on. The oaks of the forest, as the young trees, will be all rooted up together! And when France shall be involved in the horors of a prolonged civil war, then the word "amnesty" will be pronounced in vain. The English government, and the English people may become indeed mediators; but if they do not, or will not bestir themselves, then the prospects of France in April 1834 are most gloomy.

Our present situation is untenable. We must go back-and back-and back-even to military government and absolute despotism; and then to foreign invasion, national humilia

tion, and eventual revolution; or we must go forwards. Can we forget the past? Can we take securities for the future? Can we come to an arrangement which shall be durable? Surely surely it is worth the experiment. Only ignorant or wicked men can encourage a perseverance in the present system. I implore then the British Government, and the British Parliament, and the

British press, to cause the voice of truth and the accents of moderation to be heard; and at least to attempt to save us from all the woes which long and sanguinary civil contests cannot fail to entail. This is my object. May God grant success to my exertions, and raise up for us in the British dominions—a generous, wise, noble, daring, and practical sympathy. O. P. Q.

THE King of England is so poor that one of his modes of paying his servants, down to his cook, porters, coachmen, and footmen, has been to grant the honour of knighthood, on the condition that certain fees shall be paid to them. The present monarch, desiring to relieve Knights of the Bath from such exactions, and finding himself too poor to do what is just to his servants, has sent a message to Parliament, requiring it to make the proper compensation! Thus the nation is to pay even the domestic servants of the palace, or redeem shabby perquisites which never ought to have been permitted, and the claim to which might have been taken away upon the appointment of any new persons to the offices.

Upon this application, so consistent with the dignity of the Crown, for the maintenance of which the nation is so heavily charged, a discussion arose upon honours.

Mr. Hume observed, " England was strictly a civil country, a nation opposed in constitution, habits, feelings, and desires to the despotic states of the Continent; still it was found that all distinctions were almost exclusively conferred upon military and naval officers. There were no Orders to reward the man of genius and of science; none to pay him for the halo he gave to the name of England. If honour was to be conferred on him, the King should look beyond the seas for it. He must go to Hanover to find the Crosses and the Ribands. There were but few men of eminence, whose pursuits were civil, Knights of the Bath; they were, indeed, few and far between. There were five Orders-the Garter, Thistle, St. Patrick, the Bath, and the fifth, a new one, St. Michael and St. George of the Ionian Islands; but there was not one to give honour to the man of genius and talent. It was quite different on the Continent: there was found the man of literary eminence in his proper place. If they went to Prussia they found him honoured; if to France, highly and nobly distinguished. England stands alone, and still she was a civil country."

Upon this Sir Robert Peel remarked, "There were some men to whom honours were unnecessary, which could not confer higher dignity than their genius and their talent had invested them with. What he (Sir R. Peel) would ask, would a blue ribbon or a collar do for a Newton? (Hear, hear.) Would they make his name more hallowed, his family more endurable? tainly not."

No, cer

Mr. Warburton replied, "That Mr. Hume had not proposed the creation of a new order of knighthood, but he had stated that rewards were solely conferred on naval and military officers."

We thoroughly agree with Sir Robert Peel, that a Newton could derive no dignity from a ribbon or a title. But then let it be settled that science is superior to such marks of honour, and let it not be degraded by giving to its very highest claims the lowest titles of honour. Here, however, our expression is incorrect. Science is not degraded by the inferior titles assigned to its highest claims. A Newton was not degraded by the paltry addition of Sir to his name; but the dispenser of honours is disgraced by so barbarous an estimate of merit as is indicated in the grade of distinction he allots. The greatest ornaments, the greatest benefactors of mankind, are found either at the bottom of the titled orders, or altogether neglected.

Jenner, whose services in saving have so incalculably transcended those of Wellington in destroying, died without a title; while Court sycophants, panders, and political prostitutes, were advanced to the highest honours of the Peerage. Watt was untitled; Davy a baronet ; Scott the same. A plodding or a servile lawyer, a squire of large estate, a Parliamentary jobber, passes to the high grades of the Peerage; and to the first in science, the first in letters, are assigned the lowest titles.

Had Scott been a Duke his fame would not have been loftier; but having been a Baronet, what should be the fame of him who thus meanly measured his claims to honour? The King (George IV.) did not argue, "This is a merit which is not to be exalted by title-this is a merit which is not to be recognised and rated by title." No, instead of so reasoning, he in effect said, “This is a merit which calls for a mark of recognition; and acknowledging its claims, I will give it the last place but one in the scale of distinction."

We ask, for men of science and men of letters, none of these baubles of a monarchy; but we desire that the distribution of them may be ob served, in order to rate the judgment of the distributors. Let it be noted, that the highest ser vices to mankind, and the loftiest genius, are most lowly rewarded by the head of an aristocratic Government. The dispensers of honours show their own unworthiness for the office. In their allotments of titles we see their ignorance, their insensibility to the most exalted claims. It

is plain that a Midas sits in judgment, and prefers a Pan to Apollo. Let us rate our fountains of honour as we see them rate the objects of honour. Were no titles conferred upon those who possess titles to the world's love and gratitude out of the fields of war and politics, we should be satisfied. But such is not the case. They who possess titles to the world's love and gratitude out of the fields of war and politics, have titles allotted to them, to mark the Sovereign's sense of their desert; and those titles are of the lowest order. We despise the ambition of men of science, literature, and art, who supplicate such poor recognitions of their greater

distinction; but we yet more despise those who, undertaking to rate their claims to honour, rate them so low in the scale, while the vulgar arts of human butchery and political intrigue hold the first place. Let any one compare the promotion of soldiers and sailors, of commonplace lawyers, political intriguers, boroughmongers, court parasites, panders, husbands of handsome wives,— let any one, we say, compare the long list of these with the promotions of the Scotts, the Davys, or the less insulting neglect of the Watts, the Jenners, and the fountain of honour will be more justly estimated than the objects upon which it has cast its favours.

ENGLISHMEN! you give much capital, much skill, much labour, for a little profit, a little enjoyment, a very little food steeped in bitter sweat and tears. But why do you not obtain remuneration for your capital, skill, and labour? Because your landowners will not let you. By a vast expenditure of blood and treasure, you have enabled them to decide, that society shall overbuild its base, until the edifice fall and crush them. Patient, long-suffering, and long-eared Englishmen! your ears are, at least, as long as your sufferings, or you would not have fought twenty-six years for a Bread-Tax! It is retri- | butive upon you—the hand of God is in it—that all your miseries can be traced to your wars on French liberty. Where did you win your BreadTax? You won it at Waterloo. You have since been reminded of that fact-at Peterloo, and elsewhere. You will again be reminded of it, whenever it shall please the Great Unpaid-or, as it would now seem, any one of his Majesty's coroners to shoot a dozen or so of you, at a quarter of an hour's notice, and justify a massacre by a glazier's bill, on the authority of a law made by the pensioned Parliament of Charles the Second, which sate seventeen years, and was itself an usurpation! Yes, and I fear you will again deserve to be told by your oppressors, with a sneer or a frown, that they have an instrument in the Grand Jury, (made by the same Parliament?) by which they can, at any time, secure impunity to official butchers. If these things are true, I need not ask whether the Corn-Laws were inflicted upon you by an insolent aristocracy, as a tribute on a conquered people; but I ask, why any free people should endure them? why any man of common sense, or common feeling, should support them? It seems like an insult to ask, why men who work with their hands, should support laws which at once raise the price of food, by restricting the supply, and lower that of labour by lessening the demand? Yet if there were not millions of such persons now living in this country, the CornLaws would not exist an hour longer. Let me, then, go through the various classes of British

society, one by one, and inquire whether there really is any one class that has an interest in supporting these Corn-Laws.

Why should the proprietors of commercial land-land near towns-support them? The wealth of such persons depends upon trade alone. Yet, with inconceivable folly, some of them defend laws which are prohibiting commerce itself!

Why should the mortgagees of land or houses support Corn-Laws? By offering an accepted premium for the ruin of our trade, those laws are annihilating the only fund out of which the interest of our mortgages can be paid, and consequently destroying the securities of every mortgagee.

Why should any master manufacturer, any merchant, any shopkeeper, support Corn-Laws? By constantly lowering the rate of profit on all capital, they are depressing the wages of all labour and skill. Consequently they strike at the securities of life and property, and endanger all trading establishments. They are at the root of our strikes, and trades-unions; and seem likely to close every shop in the realm-except the potato-shop! Poor nation of shopkeepers! perhaps, your approved good masters will leave you the green-grocer after all.

Why should the owners of house property support Corn-Laws? By rendering it impossible to employ capital profitably in trade, those laws are forcing the ruinous competition of builders, and lowering rents in every street.

Why should farmers support Corn-Laws? Under our restrictive system, tenants compete for land; but, if the trade in corn were free, landowners would compete for tenants! In 1793, when the duty on imported corn was almost nominal, the price of wheat was the same at Hull as at Hamburgh; but higher than at present, though rents are now doubled! If the CornLaws continue, the people of England will not be able to buy wheat at any price; but the competition for farms may go on, until the whole country is covered with potato-patches—a glorious prospect for English farmers! How much