Page images
PDF
EPUB

Speedily will be published, in 3 vols. post 8vo,

THE INHERITANCE.

By the AUTHOR OF MARRIAGE.

Printed for WILLIAM BLACKWOOD, Edinburgh; and T. CADELL, London. Of whom may be had,

MARRIAGE, A NOVEL.

Second edition. Three vols. 12mo, L.1, 1s.

"There remains behind, not only a large harvest, but labourers capable of gathering it in. More than one writer has of late displayed talents of this description; and, if the present Author, himself a phantom, may be permitted to distinguish a brother, or perhaps a sister shadow, he would mention, in particular, the Author of the very lively work, entitled, MARRIAGE.'”

Conclusion of "Tales of my Landlord.”

[blocks in formation]

If those states which were formerly known by the name-Spanish America, had remained without influence on the general politics of Europe, they would still have presented a most important theme for political discussion; but when they have, unaccountably enough, carried division into the grand European Alliance, and even given rise to rumours of offensive leagues and general war, they supply a question, which, for complexity and gravity, takes precedence of all others that at present interest the politician.

Speaking of them, in the first place, with reference to their own interests alone, their revolution has rendered them in effect independent, and this `is perhaps all that can be said in its praise. It was capable of yielding the most magnificent benefits, but these have been sacrificed, less by the ignorance, than the cupidity and false principles, of its parents, and its fruits could only have been worse than they have been, had it failed of success altogether.

New Spain would have formed one or two nations, respectable, tolerably powerful, and full of well-founded hope for the future. The manner in which the world is divided-the extent, power, and ambition of its neighbour, the United States—the past his tory of nations-everything to which it had been accustomed-and, in a word, every interest and hope, forbade its dismemberment. The unit was nevertheless split into a multiplicity of fractions. South America was parcelled out into an infinity of contemptible states, and, by this, its brilliant prospects were destroyed, and the sucVOL. XV.

cess of its conflict with the mother country was rendered almost as much a matter of regret, as of rejoicing. If any reliance can be placed on history, these states must, from their proximity and various other causes, be generally embroiled in disputes, and ever kept from cordial friendship by jealousy. They must be for ever comparatively powerless even for defence, and it will scarcely ever be possible on any emergency to make them powerful by alliance. They must, therefore, be without weight and influence in the administration of the law of nations, and the maintenance of the proper distribution of dominion-indebted for the preservation of their rights and existence to the jealousies entertained by the leading powers of the world towards each other-the cringing, pliant dependants of these powers-and capable of being at any time involved in strife with each other, and swallowed up in detail, by that Buonapartean system of aggrandisement, to which the republic of North America has had recourse so often. This must be the case if we look at them in the most favourable light possible-if we assume that, contrary to the conduct which all other nations have hitherto pursued, they will never appeal to the sword in their quarrels, and will never thirst for increase of territory at each other's expense. But if we believe that human nature will remain unchanged, and that they will do what other countries have constantly done; then we must believe, that they will be incessantly at open war with each other, until, perhaps, that which has been so unnaturally torn S

[blocks in formation]

But this was not all; the form of government established in these states was precisely that which was the most discordant with the knowledge, habits, and characteristics of the people.

The British Constitution was happily formed before the making of Constitutions had become a regular trade, even when the name of Constitution was scarcely known, and it was formed by those who merely sought to remove perceptible evils, and to supply what was clearly necessary. It was no imported -exotic, but it grew spontaneously out of the British heart, and it grew according to the laws of nature. It was a seed before it became a beautiful and productive tree. The proud, independent, jealous, querulous, stubborn, and dictatorial spirit of the Briton, could only be governed by such a Constitution, therefore it sprung into birth ;-the incorruptible, generous, moral, honourable, reflective, and intelligent spirit of the Briton could only support it, therefore it flourishes and endures. He who wishes to know how arbitrary forms of government may be changed into free ones-how popular institutions may be rendered benefits, and not evilsin what the food of liberty consists, and how the maximum of liberty may be reached, must unlearn all that he has learned of the present generation of "Constitutionalists," and devote his days and his nights to the history of this Constitution.

The Crown, no matter from what motive, fortunately placed the first limit on its authority, and this afforded precedent and analogy for gradually extending the limit afterwards, according to circumstances, in peace and good will. The real rearers of our Constitution were the wealth and intelligence of the country, to the exclusion of the multitude; and they were guided, not by speculative theories, or the wish to usurp the supreme authority, but by plain common sense, and the visible needs of the nation. They were careful to make that which was meant to be a monarchy, essentially monarchical, and to endow the Sovereign with abundant power for discharging the duties which devolved upon him; and they were anxious to preserve at all times, a government suf

ficiently strong for all legitimate purposes. It is a remarkable fact, that, although they occasionally wrenched the crown from the monarch in open fight, and either returned it, or gave it to another, on their own terms, when they were smarting from its abuse of power, they still placed no other permanent limitations on this power, than are found to be, in the present day, indispensably necessary for public good. When the Sovereign did not voluntarily barter away a portion of his.authority for the supply of his needs, restraint was only cautiously forced upon him when it was felt to be imperiously necessary, not by a faction, but by the body of the nation; and popular institutions and privileges were only slowly conceded, one by one, as the want of them became pressing, and as the people acquired the qualifications for duly enjoying them. Whenever a different system was adopted-whenever creeds of faith were followed instead of public wants, and the multitude were called upon to decide on changes in the government-the power of the crown was weakened until it was unable to discharge its duties, and faction took the helm of public affairs -attempts were made to impose restraints upon the Sovereign not clearly called for by national necessities-and popular institutions and privileges were given when the people were not sufficiently enlightened, upright, and unanimous, to use them properly-then the consequences were, fanaticism, phrenzy, civil war, and the loss of all that freedom had previously gained. The reasons are too obvious to need pointing out. When a question is left to the decision of those who understand it, the probability is, that it will be decided properly; but if it be carried to those who do not understand it, and who generally forsake truth when falsehood will lead them, it is pretty certain that the decision will be precisely what it ought not to be. The people will be reasonably unanimous in endeavouring to obtain what they feel, as well as think, to be necessary for their own good; but if the necessity and the benefit be only matter of speculation and uncertainty, they are sure to be fiercely divided in opinion; and it is only when unanimity prevails to a very great extent, that vital changes can be made in a government without producing the utmost measure of calamity. The

monarch will, at all times, be able to rally round him, at least, half the nation, if attempts be made to diminish his power in any other than the precise moment when he is abusing it. If he be not invested with sufficient power to control factions, he will exist only to produce public injury; his adherents will continually use his name to excite hatred against the government of which he nominally forms a part; and his incessant efforts to obtain his natural right, will render it a matter of self-preservation in the faction that rules him, to make itself despotic, and to look at its own interest only, without regard to those of the nation. The struggle between them must yield, in the first moment, all the worst fruits of mal-government; and, in the second, it must end either in his triumph or extinction. If popular institutions be formed unsuited to the habits and genius, and uncalled for by the actual needs, of the people, they must either fall into disuse, or be used only for purposes of public evil: no matter what the institutions and pri-vileges may be, they will be nullities, blessings, or curses, according to the character of those who possess them. The power of the ruler must be exactly proportioned in extent to the ignorance, incapacity, and vices of the subject, and it must only be diminished as these are diminished: men can only be kept in order either by the rod of authority, or their own good qualities; and they can only be free by being enlightened, conscientious, and peaceable. If, unhappily, a nation be involved in civil war by doctrinal disputes respecting its form of government, the consequences must be, a government despotic to the utmost extent of practice, or none at all.

Our present Whigs, who disgrace the name of statesmen as it was never disgraced before, have the hardihood to assert, that the freedom, which France now possesses, sprung from the Revolution. They might with equal truth maintain, that our first revolution gave us our present liberty. France possessed in Louis the Sixteenth, a sovereign whose chief failing was, his wish outran his wisdom in giving freedom to his people. Had he only conceded it as they became qualified for making a right use of it, France had obtained durable liberty without a revolution, but he conceded

it more profusely, and the consequences were, civil war, anarchy, and despotism. The iron sceptre which this revolution created, was fitted, even to perfection, not merely for cutting off liberty for the present, but for rendering the hearts of the French people incapable of receiving its seeds. It was not only the most galling one that the world knew with regard to the persons and possessions of its slaves, but it incessantly and most effectually laboured, both by example and otherwise, to banish knowledge, religion, morality, honour, integrity, in a word, everything that can give root to, and sustain freedom. Yet with this sceptre the French people, notwithstanding what the revolution had taught them, were perfectly contented; if it had not broke itself to pieces by its mad attacks on other nations, it would, in all probability, have ruled them for centuries, without any curtailment of its power. At the moment when Buonaparte was crushed, and when France was even called upon to choose herself a new form of government, no cry was raised by the people for popular institutions and liberty. The charter emanated, rather from a few of Buonaparte's cast-off minions, than from the nation; and, judging from their previous history, their object was to secure for themselves power as a faction, rather than to give freedom to their country. This charter rendered France comparatively free, yet, on the return of the tyrant-although he would not even deign to cry berty!"-not a sword was drawn to defend it. He was again dethroned by foreign prowess, and the present monarch was restored, but still liberty was only called for by a few individuals, whose conduct since has abundantly proved, that they were demagogues seeking only their own interest. France does not owe her present liberty to her revolution. She made no effort to throw off the yoke of the tyrant which the Revolution gave her; she made no general movement to obtain liberty when he was dethroned; and she made no endea vour to preserve liberty after it had been even forced upon her. The Revolution had made frightful inroads on public morals, and it had thereby disqualified her in a great degree from becoming free; it had, however, taught her population to regard poli

"Li

[ocr errors]

tical disputes with horror, and to be perfectly indifferent as to what was their form of government, provided they could enjoy internal peace; and perhaps it was owing to this, that the liberty the unsolicited, unearned, and undeserved liberty-was enabled to take root, which was planted in her by strangers. It is a remarkable fact, that, while almost all that liberty has lost in latter times, has been destroyed by those who call themselves its exclusive champions, the most splendid triumph that it has achieved for ages, has been gained for it by the swords of the very men whom we are told to regard as despots, anxious to banish liberty from the universe.

Our own Constitution is unquestionably the most stupendous and magnificent monument of human wisdom and ingenuity that the world can boast of. That it is as perfect in its essentials as it can be made, seems to be proved by the fact, that, although half the heads in the country are constantly occupied in endeavours to carry it a step farther, not one of them can hit upon a scheme that wears the features of plausibility. Yet it is impossible to contemplate it without perceiving, that it is calculated for ourselves alone, and that to the mercurial Frenchman, the ignorant and sluggish Spaniard, the profligate Italian, and, perhaps, the enthusiastic and imagination-led German, it would be but an instrument of mischief in the first moment, and of ruin in the second. We must see, that we are only enabled to work it properly by being trained to the art from our infancy, and that if it were now given us entire, in exchange for a despotism to which we had been alone accustomed, we should scarcely draw anything from it at the outset but calamity, or acquire sufficient skill to manage it as we ought, before we destroyed it by our ignorance. What would this boasted Constitution be if the King were in disposition a tyrant, and the people were ignorant and regardless of matters of government?-if the people were infuriated with false political doctrines, and the House of Commons used its mighty power for purposes of usurpation and oppression? What keeps the "Three Estates," distinct and endowed with distinct and often adverse interests, as they are, in general harmony? Assuredly, in a very great de

gree, their own will. What would our free press be, if it were chiefly in the hands of ignorant, corrupt, immoral, and seditious writers? What would our trial by jury be, if the jurors were not intelligent and conscientious? What would our House of Commons be, if its members were not chosen by the votes, or influence, of knowing, public-spirited, and honest men? And what would the Ministers, and even the Monarch, be, if this House were chosen by persons of opposite character? Notwithstanding the perfection of our Constitution, it is in itself an inert instrument, as powerful for evil as for good, and it cannot compel those who possess it to use it properly. Our freedom, and the blessings which it yields, must, after all, be found, not in our Constitution, but in our knowledge, wisdom, activity, concord, honour, disinterestedness, morality, and religion. When these depart, freedom must depart with them, and our free institutions, instead of retarding, will only hasten its exit.

Our Liberals, indeed, stoutly maintain, that the establishment of liberty will immediately produce in the people everything necessary for its proper use, but they only support the stupid doctrine by those hackneyed declamations which have become loathsome to the ear from their absurdity and horrible consequences. Did our Constitution give us those natural qualities, which it makes its foundation? Could it make the Frenchman and the Spaniard, the Negro and the Russian, the New Zealander and the Esquimaux, to resemble each other in intellect and temperament? Can it even melt the Irishman, the Scotsman, and the Englishman into one race? Freedom will expand the intellect of all, but it will not remove the inequalities which nature has made; it will strengthen, and not change, the temperament which nature has given, and, if we be by nature" prone to evil," its natural tendency is, to pollute rather than to purify the heart. It removes restraints, places temptations before us, and multiplies our means of indulging in vice and guilt. From the factions which it creates, the competition which it causes for public trusts, the comparative poverty of those who dispose of many of those trusts, the inability of the government to command support, and various other causes, it is

« PreviousContinue »