What necessity of fate demanded this concurrence of events-the ascendancy of the House of Orleans? the simultaneous extinction of the House of Condé ?

courts.

But the suspicions of the legitimists did not control the decision of the The Princes de Rohan failed in all their attempts to set aside the will of the duke. The final decision was in favor of its validity; the young Duke d'Aumale was pronounced the rightful heir of the Condés: and Madame de Feuchères confirmed in her various possessions and expectancies. Mistress of an immense fortune, she repaired to Paris to enjoy its advantages at leisure. It is true, that for some time after the catastrophe at St. Leu, her spirits were hardly equal to her good fortune. For fifteen nights, at the Palais Bourbon, she made Madame de Flassans sleep in her chamber, and the Abbé Briant in the library adjoining, as though she feared the solitude, and the images of terror which might chance to people it. But this passed away; and a gracious reception at court placed her at once in a position of influence, worthy of her perseverance and success.

The Condé affair was soon forgotten at Paris; or remembered only by those whose business it is to preserve the record of events, for the sake of future contingencies, personal, political, or public. Louis Philippe, who, as plain Duke d'Orleans, had not considered it disreputable to bargain with a ci-devant actress for the patrimony of the Condés, as roi des Francais, extended his operations to include princesses in esse, and crowns in futuro. The insignificant bourgeoise speculation of the Palais Bourbon was quite out of mind. Chantilly, with its parks, and forests, and clear, sylvan lakes, and high memorials of greatness, seemed as fair in its new proprietorship as under the old régime; the mystery of its new inheritance few remembered, or cared to remember. Latterly, however, since the overturning of the grasping and selfish dynasty of Louis Philippe, the old whispers of suspicion have revived, and there are not wanting those who add to the catalogue of his crimes, the assassination of the last of the Condés.

There is no evidence to support such a charge. The share of Louis Philippe in the concluding scenes of the Duke de Bourbon's life has been given; from his intriguing and ungenerous behavior, inferences may be drawn, but no certain conclusions to fix upon him anything more than the stale charge of that covetousness and unscrupulous desire for family aggrandizement, which have proved the final ruin of his House. Worse things he may have done; but it is scarcely to be believed that he had a hand in hanging his cousin Condé to his own window shutters, like an old broom. Even if he had, the republicans of 1848 are hardly the men to call him to account; it was only a superannuated duke that was put out of the way; the last of a troublesome and expensive family.

POVERTY AND MISERY, versus REFORM AND PROGRESS.

"THIS is the age of reform and progress." This wise saw is continually ringing in our ears. Every enthusiastic believer in the ultimate perfection of our race, and every successful capitalist, inventor and speculator, are ever ready to echo the assertion, without the least reflection. That this is the age of mechanical and scientific improvement, none will be inclined to deny; but when we look around us for the moral, political and social improvements of the day, we are compelled to admit that of these we have only retained the shadow, the substance having evaporated into "thin air." If we look into the old world, we are particularly struck with the truth of our assertion. It is no matter to what point of the compass we steer with our inquiry, or at what point of our proposition we commence our examination, the effect will prove the same. If we turn our attention to politics, and inquire whether the liberties of the people have been enlarged or improved, we are obliged to conclude that the boasted reforms which have taken place in the various nations of the earth are merely nominal or theoretical; that the political power of the masses is not really increased since the time of that arch politician, who is said to have founded the government and city of Rome together, although the present movement in Europe commences a new era, and new elements of power are to influence the political condition of the people. The Romans and Carthaginians were both governed by patricians or chiefs, in a senatorial capacity: though in one instance the mode of election is not very certain. The tribes who elected these chiefs under Romulus, appear to have had equal rights, and to have possessed their own municipal regulations; but this in time was found to be somewhat inconvenient to the ambitious part of the community. The constitution was therefore remodelled under Servius Tullius, who divided the tribes into classes, in which the votes were distributed according to the amount of possessions and the payment of taxes, thus throwing the political power into the hands of the wealthy, which they have hitherto under all circumstances, and under every modification of government continued to keep. We may look through the variety of forms which government has assumed since that period, from despotism to feudalism, and from feudalism to modern democracy, without being able to detect, except in a single instance, any infraction of this rule; and in this instance (Switzerland) its developements have neither produced grandeur, tranquillity nor happiness for the people. But this may not be considered a fair specimen of the effects of democracy. It may be said that, partly on account of its confined and insular position, and partly on account of other circumstances, it has not produced those splendid results which the ardent admirers of democracy could have wished; but one thing it may probably be allowed to prove that democracy alone, even in this enlightened age, is not sufficient to ward off entirely political and social evil. But if we take a survey of Europe, shall we find the condition of the people actually better than before the French Revolution? What have Spain and Portugal gained by all the political changes, revolutions and insurrections through which they have passed? Our verdict must be that there is no perceptible social or political amendment; they are still in a state of poverty, distraction and misery. The whole of Italy is at present, from the Alps to its most southern extremity, in a state of commotion and insurrection. And Austria, with her iron despotism, trembles at the prox

imity of these movements. It is only in the north-west of the continent of Europe that the eye of the political philosopher can rest with any degree of complacency; and yet these states through various causes, easily pointed out, are neither very happy nor very prosperous. It is only the absence of that extreme poverty and destitution which at this time pervades many other countries, which renders the prospect at all pleasing. If, in our course further west, we should visit France and England, two of the most powerful and enlightened nations of Europe, we shall find but little cause for gratulation. France is justly considered to excel in many of the arts and sciences, but with respect to her morals, social and political condition, it may be fairly questioned whether she has been improved by the process of political alchymy which she has undergone. The second charter of her liberties, after all her experience, has completely failed to secure to her that prosperity so fervently hoped for by its founders. It is true that political power has changed hands, but this has produced no benefit to the masses; the whole system is corrupt, and has lately been proved to be so before the highest tribunals of the land, from the highest minister of the crown to the meanest voter in the provinces. Extreme changes have taken place in social as well as political arrangements; the laws of primogeniture and entail have been abolished, and laws enacted (prospectively) for the equalization of landed estates; and these laws have had their legitimate results. But if they have divided the estates of the nobles, they have not succeeded in the equalization of wealth. According to the report of the Director General of Domains (in the year 1837, if our memory serves correctly) the mortgage debt upon the estates of France, parcelled out into small proprietaries of about twelve acres upon the average, amounted to the large sum of eleven thousand millions of francs, charged with an interest more than equal to the interest of the national debt of England, and leaving probably not more than twenty-three or twenty-four per cent. of the whole production for the maintenance of the proprietor and cultivator; if also we take into consideration the fact, proved by statistical returns, that France does not produce more than fourteen bushels of corn to the acre, or twenty bushels of oats, we need not be astonished at its present social condition. From statistics lately published, it appears that one-eighth of her population are habitually clothed in rags; that nearly three-fifths never eat wheaten bread; that very nearly two-thirds wear wooden clogs instead of shoes; that more than threefourths cannot get wine to drink, (their staple production;) and more than ten-elevenths of the whole population cannot afford to consume sugar and animal food; thus showing that out of a population of thirty-three millions, there are only two millions who can obtain all the necessaries and conveniences of life. Bad as the condition of the people of France is represented to have been previous to the first revolution, it is not to be supposed that it could possibly be worse than at present. What progress, then, have the people of France made towards solving the all-important social problem as respects government? How have they been benefitted by the extreme changes which they have undergone. Some enthusiastic reformers have gone so far as to say that it would be necessary to destroy the popular be lief in the Bible before any great alteration can be made in the condition of the world. for the better, and they have zealously endeavored to consummate the impossible achievement; but none will presume to say that the French people have been crippled and impeded in their progress by religious prejudices. If we look to England, we find that her political and social institutions differ very much in some important particulars from those of France, and yet the great mass of her people are also in extreme distress. The laws of primogeniture and entail are in full operation, and according

to McCulloch, property in land is vested in about thirty thousand individuals. What a contrast to the position of France as stated above. But it is not to be supposed that these are the sole and only proprietors of the soil in England; there is, no doubt, an enormous amount of mortgages upon the land as well as in France, besides other large burdens which do not af fect French landlords. In the year 1832, two years previous to the alteration of the British poor-law, the rate for the relief of paupers amounted to a sum equal to forty millions of dollars, which was chiefly raised from the land, in addition to rates for the prosecution and maintainance of criminals, repairing of roads, &c. Since the new poor-law was passed by the legislature, it is said that these taxes have somewhat decreased in amount; but that can only have taken place from the poor having been obliged to depend more entirely upon their own resources, or forcing them to adoptea coarser kind of food, as Lord Brougham declared was the intention of his enactment. In addition to the original causes of English distress, whatever they may be, there are others both weighty and effective; such as the failure of the Irish crops and the mismanagement of the currency under these circumstances by the Bank of England. It would no doubt be a curious speculation, if not a profitable one, to the political philosopher, to trace the causes of distress in these two countries, whose institutions and habits are in so many instances diametrically opposed to each other. What a theme for the national reformer, who talks so much about the evil effects of land monopoly. In one country the nominal proprietorship of the soil resides in the hands of probably more than twenty millions of people; while in the other only about thirty thousand possess that advantage; and yet both populations are almost equally distressed. But there are other important differences besides those already named. The currency of France until lately differed materially from that of England, being composed almost entirely of the precious metals, but is now more assimilated to that of England, and probably has, and will continue to have, a tendency to cause those fluctuations so injurious to all but the monied interest. But notwithstanding this alteration, the currency of France is still superior to that of England, and both differ from our own. But what do these dissimilarities prove? Simply, that the distress in either case may not arise from any of these causes; but probably from some other circumstance, applicable to both, which we have not seen or considered. England as well as France has undergone many important political changes; but these have had the advantage of being extended over a longer period of time, and have been to some extent less violent. We cannot too much admire the rough but sterling qualities of our Saxon ancestors, which have raised their influence to its present height. But not to go too far back into their history, which might lead us into a disquisition upon the formation of national character, rather than an estimation of relative political progress, we will commence at the period just preceding the reform bill. At that time the British government, though bearing to a certain extent a popular form, was entirely in the hands of the aristocracy; nearly one half of the members of the House of Commons being returned by the direct nomination of the nobles, under the fiction of representing boroughs, which had few or no inhabitants; and a great portion of the rest were directly or indirectly under the same influence. The reform bill cut off a considerable part of this abuse, and extended so far the power of the people. But notwithstanding this progress of popular power, the people have been nearly fifteen years in obtaining the removal of the corn-law; a law enacted for the purpose of increasing the rents of the aristocracy, and supposed to be extremely prejudicial to the commercial and manufacturing interests. If the general distress in Britain

but

has arisen from this cause, it will now soon be removed, as that monopoly will cease in a few months, and England will commence a new commercial era. But it may be found, as in France, that the disease will not give way to a single course of treatment; it may require some moral medicine also; something may depend upon the individual conduct of the people themselves as well as upon the political institutions of the country. It is however a singular fact, that from whatever cause the misery and distress of the old world has arisen, it is plain that it is a general and obstinate disease, and offers a subject of deep interest to the political doctors of the age, especially those of our own country. How stands it with us? We have been considered almost uniformly prosperous, and have undergone no great political changes since the establishment of the government; lately we have heard the cry of national reform, land monopoly, &c. And this cry is not entirely without foundation. Our large cities are rapidly filling up, and with a population the majority of whom are neither moral nor independent, and whose necessities we ought rather to assist, if only in self-defence. We may be quite certain that if they continue to flock into our maritime cities as they have hitherto done, the disease will spread and increase, and an increased provision for the poor will become necessary, and the value of landed estate, the profits of capital, and the wages of labor will decrease, if no other evils accrue. It is obvious, however, that our position and relations are very different to those of other countries. We have sufficient land to sustain an increasing population for hundreds of years to come without inconvenience, providing that the poor of other countries are not thrown upon our shores in too large quantities, and our natural increase is sufficiently moral and prudent to secure the means of migration if necessary, before taking upon themselves the responsibility and care of a family; but if it be otherwise, we cannot hide from ourselves the fact, that in time we must share the fate of older countries; we cannot contravene the laws of nature. It is therefore important that politicians should ponder well upon these things. It is plain, that if an increasing population be cramped and confined in too small a space either by artificial or natural restrictions, it will necessarily bring on those evils so prevalent in other countries. It may be bought that these fears are somewhat overdrawn; but when we look at the increase of crime, immorality and pauperism in our large cities, and our prospect of a vastly increasing pauper emigration from the old world, we think the picture is not too highly colored.