could be heard. Some tried to hide themselves, others to escape. Coffinhal, maddened by a transport of rage, seized Henriot in his arms, and exclaiming, Vile wretch, your cowardice has undone us all!' threw him out of a window. Heariot was not destined to die then; a dunghill on which he fell so broke his fall as to preserve his life for the punishment which he so richly merited. Lebas took a pistol and blew out his brains; Robespierre tried to imitate him; his hand trembled, he only broke his jaw, and disfigured himself in the most frightful manner. St. Just was found with a poignard in his hand, which he had not the courage to plunge in his bosom. Couthon crawled into a sewer, from whence he was dragged by the heels; the younger Robespierre threw himself from the window."

The scene here described is, perhaps, the most memorable in the history of modern times; that in which the most vital interests of the human race were at stake, and millions watched with trembling anxiety-the result of the insurrection of order and virtue against

tyranny and cruelty. It is a scene which, to the end of time, will warmly interest every class of readers; not those merely who delight in the dark or the terrible, but all who are interested in the triumph of freedom over oppression, and are solicitous to obtain for their country that first of blessings-a firm and well regulated system of general liberty.

Happen what may in this country, we do not anticipate the occurrence of such terrible scenes as are here described. The progress of knowledge-the influence of the press, which is almost unanimous in favour of humane measures-the vast extent of property at stake in the British islands-the habit of acting together, which a free government and the long enjoyment of popular rights have confirmed, will in all probability save us from such frightful convulsions. If the English are ever to indulge in unnecessary deeds of cruelty, they must belie the character which, with the single exception of the wars of the Roses, they have maintained in all their domestic contests since the Norman Conquest.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1830.*

THOSE who are conscious of a good cause, and of the support of historical facts, should never despair of making truth triumph, even under circumstances the most adverse and apparently hopeless. When we began to treat of the French Revolution two years ago, never did a resolute journal attempt to stem a more vehement torrent of public opinion. It was almost like striving in the days of Peter the Hermit against the passion for the Crusades. The public mind had been so artfully prepared by the incessant abuse of the revolutionary press in France and England for years before, against Charles X. and the Polignac Administration, to receive the worst impressions concerning them: they were so completely deceived by the same channels as to the real nature of the Parisian revolt, the objects to which it was directed, and the consequences with which it was attended, that it was all but hopeless to resist the torrent. But we knew that our case was rested on historical facts; and, therefore, though not possessed of any information concerning it, but what we derived from the public journals, and shared with the rest of our countrymen, we did not scruple to make the attempt.

We had looked into the old Almanac, and we did not find it there recorded, that constitutions, cast off like a medal at a single stroke, were of long duration; we did not find that the overthrow of government by explosions of the populace in great cities had been found to be

Blackwood's Magazine. December, 1832.
Saint Chamans sur la Revolution de 1830, et ses
Suites. Paris, 1832.

Peyronnet-Questions concerning Parliamentary Jurisdiction. Paris, 1831; and Blackwood, Edinburgh. Polignac-Considerations Politiques sur l'Epoque Ac

tuelle. Paris, 1832; and Blackwood, 1832.

instrumental in increasing the happiness or tranquillity of mankind; we did not know of many examples of industry thriving during the reign of the multitude, or expenditure increasing by the destruction of confidence, or credit being augmented by a successful exertion of the sacred right of insurrection; and we saw no reason to conclude that a government arranged in a back-shop in the neighbourhood of the Hotel de Ville, by half a dozen democrats, supported by shouting bands of workmen, and hot-headed students, and sent down by the diligence or the telegraph to the provinces of France, was likely to meet the views, or protect the interests, of thirty-two millions of souls in its vast territory. For these reasons, though possessed of no private information in regard to that important event, we ventured from the very first to differ from the great majority of our countrymen regarding it, and after doing all we could to dispel the illusion, quietly waited till the course of events should demonstrate their justice.

That course has come, and with a rapidity greatly beyond what we anticipated at the outset. The miserable state of France since the glorious days, has been such as to have been unanimously admitted by all parties. Differing on other subjects as far as the poles are asunder, they are yet unanimous in representing the state of the people since the Revolution as miserable in the extreme. The Royalists, the Republicans, the Orleanists, the Doctrinaires, vie with each other in painting the deplorable state of their country. They ascribe it to different causes; the Republicans are clear that it is all owing to Casimir Perier and the Doctrinaires, who have arrested the people in the middle of their glorious career Y

nourable to their present candour, as their former intemperate and noisy declamation in favour of democratic insurrection was indicative of the slender judgment, and limited historical information, which they bring to bear on political questions. It is contained in the preface with which the "Caledonian Mercury" ushers in to their readers a series of highly interesting and valuable papers, by a most respectable eye-witness of the Parisian revolt:

and turned to gall and wormwood the sweet | Scottish metropolis. The passage is as hofruits of popular conquest; Guizot, the Duke de Broglie, and the Doctrinaires, ascribe it to the mad ambition of the democrats, and the incessant efforts they have made to agitate and distract the public mind; Saint Chamans and the Royalists trace it to the fatal deviation from the principle of legitimacy, and the interminable dissensions to which the establishment of a right in the populace of Paris to choose their sovereign must necessarily lead; while Marshal Soult has a clear remedy for all the disorders of the country, and without stopping to inquire whether they are revolting from starvation, ambition, or experienced evils, cuts them down by grape-shot, and charges their determined bands by squadrons of cuirassiers. Men in this country may vary in the causes to which they ascribe these evils, according to the side to which they incline in politics; but in regard to their existence and magnitude, after such a concurrence in the testimony of unwilling witnesses, no doubt can be entertained by Tory, Reformer, or Radical.

One single fact is sufficient to place in the clearest light the disastrous effect of this convulsion upon the internal industry of the country. It appears from the returns of the French Commerce lately published, that their imports before and after the Three Glorious Days stood

thus:

Francs.

"It has appeared to us desirable to lay be fore our readers a view of a great event, or rather concatenation of events, so different from any which they have hitherto been ac customed to have presented to them; and we have been the more easily induced to give insertion to these papers, because hitherto one side of the question has been kept wholly in the shade,-and because differing as we do, toto calo, from the author in general political principle, we are, nevertheless, perfectly at one with him in regard to the real origin or primum mobile of the Revolution of July, as well as the motives and character of the chief personages who benefited by that extraordinary event. The truth is, that, in this country, we prejudged the case, and decided before inquiry, upon the representations of one side, which had the advantage of victory to recommend and accredit the story which it deemed it convenient to tell: nor-first impressions being proverbially 638,338,000 strong-has it hitherto been found possible to 519,825,000 persuade the public to listen with patience to any thing that might be alleged in justification, or even in extenuation of the party which had had the misfortune to play the losing game. Of late, however, new light has begun to break 489,242,000 in upon the public. All have been made sen374,188,000 sible that the Revolution has retrograded; that its movement has been, crab-like, backwards; 111,054,000 and that the best of republics' has shown i!Thus it appears, that although the Revolu- self the worst, because the least secure, of actual des tion did not break out till July 1830, so that potisms; while the throne, surrounded by reone-half of the imports of that year was affect-publican institutions'-that monster of fancy, ed by the revolt of July, yet still the general engendered by the spirit of paradoxical antiimports in 1831, as compared with 1830, had thesis-has proved a monster in reality, broken fallen nearly a fifth, and those for home con- down all the fantastic and baseless fabrics by sumption about a fourth in a single year! Such which it was encircled, and swept away the is the deplorable effects of popular triumph very traces of the vain restraints imposed upon upon public industry, and the suffering and it. The empire, in short, has been reconstarvation brought upon the poor by the crimi-structed out of the materials cast up by a denal ambition of their demagogues.

General imports, 1830,
Do..

1831,

Decrease,

Imports for home consump

tion,

Do.

1830,

1831,

Decrease,

118,513,000

mocratical movement; with this difference The progress of events, and, above all, the only, that, instead of a Napoleon, we now see necessity under which Marshal Soult was laid, a Punchinello at the head of it; and hence the of quelling the insurrection of June, 1832, by same public, which formerly believed Louis "a greater number of armed men than com-Philippe to be a sort of Citizen Divinity, now batted the armies of Prussia or Russia at Jena or Austerlitz," and following up his victory by the proclamation of a state of siege, and ordinances more arbitrary than those which were the immediate cause of the fall of Charles X., have gone far to disabuse the public mind on this important subject. In proof of this, we cannot refer to stronger evidence than is afforded by the leading Whig journal of this city, one of the warmest early supports of the Revolution of July, and which is honoured by the communications of all the official men in the

*Sarrans.

discover in that personage only a newly-created despot without any of the accessories or advantages which give, even to despotism, some hold on public opinion. A reaction has accordingly taken place: and men are in consequence prepared to listen to things against which, previously, they, adderwise, closed their ears, and remained deaf to the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely."

But although from the very first we clearly discerned and forcibly pointed out the disastrous effects on the freedom, peace, and tranquillity, first of France, and then of the world, which the Parisian revolt was calculated to

produce, yet we were not aware of the strong "A very obvious necessity demands the adgrounds in constitutional law and public jus- mission, either, that the power to provide for tice there were for the ordinances of Charles X. the safety of the state, was independent of the We considered them as a coup d'etat justified by power to enforce the execution of the laws; necessity, and the evident peril in which or, that the rules commonly admitted in legisCharles stood of losing his crown, and throw-lation must be abandoned, to the extent of asing the nation back to the horrors of revolu- suming that a positive provision, which has a tion, if he did otherwise, but as confessedly an known object-an evident meaning-a natural infraction of the constitution. Upon this sub- and important reference-means, however, noject we are now better informed: The great thing by itself, but is confounded and lost, as and energetic ability of the royalist party has though it did not exist in the preceding provibeen exerted in France to unfold the real sion, to which it adds nothing. Lawyers-litgrounds of the question, and it is now mani- erary men-all men of sense-well know that fest that the ordinances were not only imperi- such an assumption is inadmissible. When ously called for by state necessity, but strictly the law is clear, nothing remains but to exejustified by the Charter and the constitutional cute it; and even when it is obscure, the right law of France. Many of those who now ad- of interpretation only extends to the preferring mit the lamentable effects of the overthrow of one meaning to another; it does not authorize Charles X. are not disposed to go this length, the declaring it of nó effect. The interpreter and are not aware of the grounds on which it of the law does not annihilate it. He expounds is rested. Let such persons attend to the fol- and gives it life. Quoties oratio ambigua est, lowing considerations:commodissimun est id accipi, quo res de qua agitur

The king's defence of the ordinances is con- in tuto sit.?' Whenever the meaning of a law is tained in the following proposition:

1. That by an article of the Charter, granted by Louis XVIII. to the French, and the foundation of the constitution, power is reserved to the king to make such regulations and ordinances as are necessary for the execution of the laws, and the safety of the state.

2. That matters, through the efforts of the Revolutionists, had been brought to such a pass, that the ordinances of July were necessary "for the execution of the laws, and the safety of the state."

The 14th article in the Charter is in these terms-"Reserving to the king the power to make regulations and ordinances necessary to insure the execution of the laws, and the safety of the state." On these words we will not injure, by attempting to abridge, the argument of M. Peyronnet.

"The alleged treason is a violation of the Charter; and how can the Charter have been violated by the exercise of a power, of which it authorized the use? It has been asserted repeatedly, that the Charter authorized the king to make regulations and ordinances, necessary for the execution of the laws, and for the safety of the state. The execution of the laws, and the safety of the state;' these words demand attention. They were not written without a motive, nor without their signification and force being understood. Those who introduced these words into the Charter, well knew that they expressed two things, between which there was still more difference than analogy.

"If the first words had sufficed, the latter would not have been added. It is quite obvious, that if the framers of the Charter had understood that the safety of the state was in every case to be provided for only by the execution of the laws, these last words would have been sufficient. Why give an explanation in a special case, of the execution of the laws, after having decreed a general rule, including every case, whatever it might be? Can it be imagined, that a legislator could have spoken thus, You are to execute the laws: and, farther, if the safety of the state be in danger, still you will execute the laws?'

doubtful, that interpretation is to be adopted which will insure its effect. This is what the law pronounces of itself; and this maxim has been transmitted to us by the Romans.

"Besides, what are the true interpreters of the law? They are, at first, example; and subsequently, the opinions of persons of authority, expressed at the period of the publication of these laws. Let the provisions of the Charter be submitted to this double test, and it will be seen, that, from the first days of the Restoration, the most enlightened, the most esteemed, and the most impartial men, have explained this provision as I have done. Of this, the Moniteur has collected the proofs. It will be farther seen, that in 1814, 1815, and 1816, even the founder of the Charter exercised without dispute the right I refer to,-sometimes as regarded the press-sometimes in relation to the enemies of the Crown-and sometimes, but in an opposite sense, as regarded the elections. No one has, however, asserted that the Ministers who signed the ordinances have been impeached as traitors, and threatened with death. On the contrary, they were not only obeyed, but applauded. Some have thought the ordinances of 1815 to have been just; others have considered those of 1816 salutary. Approval was general, and was given by all parties in succession. The measures were various, it is true, and could not fail to produce different results; but the source whence they sprang was the same-the right to dictate them was the same; and thus, whoever has approved of these measures, has consequently admitted this right."

M. Peyronnet proceeds to confirm, by examples, what is here adduced in regard to the power reserved to the king by this clause, and the practice which had followed upon it. The following instances, in none of which the exercise of the dispensing power was challenged as illegal, afford sufficient evidence of this po sition.

"In 1822, when the law relating to the censorship of the press was proposed, the following declaration was addressed to the Chamber of Deputies by its commissioners:

"In virtue of the 14th article of the Charter, the king possesses the right to decree by an ordinance the measure which is submitted to you, and under this view it might be thought that this proposition was not necessary. But since the government has thought that the in--three were allotted to the first, two to the tervention of the Chambers would be attended with some advantages, they cannot hesitate to consent to it.'

These examples are worthy of the mos serious consideration, and, in truth, are decisive of this legal question-How is it possible to stigmatize that as illegal in 1830, which had been exercised to fully as great an extent, on more than a dozen different occa sions, from 1815 onwards? How is the change on the electoral law in 1815 and 1816 to be vindicated? And who ever complained of this? But, above all, attend to the important changes introduced in 1815, on the qualifica tion of electors, and the representative body, "This is still but of minor importance: The by ordinances. The age of an elector was Charter declared that each department should lowered from 30 to 21 years, and of a deputy return the same number of deputies which it from 40 to 25; the number of deputies inhad hitherto done. (Art. 36.) What, how-creased from 262 to 395, by an ordinance. ever, happened?

It is quite another question, whether it was wise or constitutional to have conferred this power on the crown. Suffice it to say, that it did possess it; that its exercise had repeatedly taken place on many different occasions, with the full concurrence and applause of the popu lar party; and therefore that the legality of the ordinances is beyond a doubt.

The question remains, whether the exercise of the power was justified by necessity, or called for by expedience?

law, or father? Or that which admitted members of the Legion of Honour to vote in the minor assemblies without paying any taxes? Why were not the ministers impeached who signed the ordinances in favour of the Liberal party? Not a whisper was heard of their illegality on any of these occasions. But this is the uniform conduct of the Revolutionists in all ages and countries, and in all matters, foreign and domestic. Whatever is done in their favour is lauded to the skies, as the height of liberality, wisdom, and justice; Upon this subject, if any doubt existed, it whatever is aimed at their supremacy, is in- has been removed by the events of the last two stantly stigmatized as the most illegal and op-years. No one who contemplates the state of pressive act that ever was attempted by a blood-thirsty tyrant. Had the ordinances of July, instead of restoring the number of deputies to something approaching to that fixed by the Charter, and restraining the licentiousness of the press, been directed to the increase of democratic power, they would have been praised as the most constitutional act that ever emanated from the throne; and Charles X., for the brief period of popularity allotted to conceding monarchs, been styled "the most popular monarch that ever set on the throne since the days of Charlemagne."

France during that period can doubt, that the power of the democracy has become too great, not merely for royalty, but for freedom; that the balance has been altogether subverted; and that the martial law, arbitrary measures, and relentless prosecution of the press, which has distinguished the administration of Casimir Perier and Marshal Soult, were imperatively called for, to restrain the anarchy which was rapidly conducting society in France to its. dissolution. What the power of the democracy was—what formidable weapons it possessed-how complete was its organization, is There are many other instances of the exer- proved by what it has done. It has subverted cise of the same power by the crown. In the most beneficent government that ever ruled particular, in a report made in 1817 to the in France since the days of Clovis; whose Chamber of Peers, respecting the jury law, wisdom and moderation had gone far to close which also contained several enactments, it is the frightful wounds of the Revolution; which declared, to remove the fears expressed by the gave perfect freedom to individuals, and absoadversaries of the project of the law, that if lute protection to property, during the fifteen. these fears were realized, "the king would years of its rule; and the unexampled proshave the resource of using the extraordinary perity resulting from whose administration all power provided by the 14th article of the Charter." the anarchy and wretchedness consequent on This report was received without opposition the Revolution of July have not been able altoby the liberal part of the Chamber. Prince gether to extinguish. The Revolutionists were Polignac has adduced two instances, among a victorious in the strife; they got a king of host of others which might be adduced, of the their own choosing, and a government of their manner in which these acts of the crown were own formation; their journalists were made received by the Liberal party in France. "The Ministers of State, and the system for which Charter," says the National, "without the they contended established; and what was the 14th article, would have been an absurdity." consequence? Why, that out of the triumph. The founder of the Charter said, and was right of the Liberals has arisen such turbulence, in saying, "I am willing to make a conces-anarchy, and wretchedness, as rendered it absion; but not such a concession as would injure me and mine. If, therefore, experience proves that I have conceded too much, I reserve to myself the faculty to revise the constitution, and it is that which I express by the 14th article. This was perfectly reasonable; those who supported legitimacy and the Restoration, were right in insisting that the king was not to yield up his sword."

An equally decisive testimony was borne by a learned writer, in the tribune of the Chamber of Deputies, now a minister of France. "When the Charter appeared in 1814, what did the supreme authority do? It took care to put in the preamble the word 'octroyé,' and in the text the 14th article, which conferred the power of making ordinances for the safety of the state; that is, he attributed to himself before the Charter an anterior right prior to the Charter, or, in other words, a sovereign, constituent, absolute power." t

National, June 20th, 1831.

solutely necessary for the Liberals themselves to re-enact Prince Polignac's ordinances with still more arbitrary clauses, and support them by a bloody fight in the streets of Paris, and the array of "a greater number of armed men,” as Sarrans tells us, "than combated Prussia or Russia at Jena or Austerlitz." This result is decisive of the question; it is the experimentum crucis which solves the doubt. It proves that Polignac and Charles were correct in their view of the terrible nature of the pow er they had to combat; that they foresaw, before they occurred, what the progress of events. was destined to bring forth, took the measures best calculated to prevent them, and erred only by not duly estimating the magnitude of the physical strength which their adversaries had at their disposal.

On this subject we cannot do better than quote the able and eloquent observations of the Viscount Saint Chamans:

ed to the 14th article by the Liberals, and contends only + Sitting of Dec. 29, 1830.-Polignac, 51, 52. Polignac for such a power as is essential to save the remainderjustly disclaims so arbitrary a power as is here attribut-of the constitution.