man.

But they also know that if the sovereigns are responsible to God for the discharge of their duty, the people are also responsible to God for the performance of theirs; and that it is a part of this duty to protect their persons and rights from violation, whether by brute force, or under the forms of law. The late attempts of the northern alliance, to make out a case in their favour by introducing this doctrine of the divine right of kings, in its antiquated and exploded shape, is perhaps one of the strongest proofs they have given of their utter incompetence to the task they impose upon themselves, of regulating the interests of the civilised world, and of the absolute necessity of the political reformation they are opposing. Im provements in government, they continually urge, should be the work of the rulers themselves. In this way they are effected without convulsion or danger; while, if they are forced upon the rulersfrom other quarters, however useful in themselves, they are always attended with a greater or less degree of immediate positive evil. This doctrine is admirable; and the people ask for nothing better than that their rulers would attend to it, and introduce of their own accord the necessary changes. But suppose that the sovereigns, while they publicly admit in all their declarations that the duty of introducing the necessary improvements belongs to them, forget to perform it in practice, and sanction the existence of the most intolerable

abuses, must the nation leave the work undone, because the sovereigns might do it better if they would consent to undertake it? What if the sovereign himself happens to be strongly interested in the existing abuse? Is there no, appeal for millions of suffering men against the arbitrary and capricious or interested decision of a single person, his minister, or his mistress? These are the doctrines of eastern despotism; and it is honourable to the two most enlightened governments in Europe that they have withdrawn their countenance from an association that avows such extraordinary principles.

In applying strong expressions to the policy adopted by these monarchs, I would not be understood as intending to impute to them, or even to their advisers, a proportionate degree of personal blame; although it is difficult to consider them as wholly innocent, since we must suppose that individuals, however much their opinions and feelings are of necessity under the operation of circumstances, may still, with honest intentions and sufficient enquiry, especially in matters wholly practical like these, make a nearer approach to the truth. Still their views must, generally speaking, be in a great measure the result of their personal position, which on the other hand is itself the result of the political situation of the countries they respectively govern. They are the rulers of empires in the lowest state of civilisation. Such empires sup

pose, of necessity, an arbitrary form of government; and if the sovereigns who are called to rule over them are naturally imbued by their position with arbitrary principles and feelings, the circumstance is not productive of injury while they confine themselves to the administration of their own dominions. That a despot should hold to the doctrine of despotism is certainly natural; and that slaves must be ruled with a rod of iron, may perhaps be admitted. The misfortune is that these powerful despots are placed by circumstances in such a situation that they have the opportunity of introducing their arbitrary notions, salutary enough perhaps in their effect upon their own barbarous subjects at home, into the concerns of other countries in different states of civilisation, and which ought to be governed upon other principles.

Although it is clearly the interest, as well as the duty, of the privileged classes in Europe, upon a large and correct view of their position, to accommodate the existing forms of government, by their own voluntary act, to the altered state of society; still, as immediate interest generally predominates in determining human actions, such sacrifices could not have been anticipated as probable. Hence the period when the wealth and importance of the industrious classes should have risen to such a height as to give them reasonable hopes of success in an open conflict with the privileged orders, was naturally to be looked to as the age of revolutions;

and this is the period in which we live. The approach of it was not sudden and unexpected. It did not burst upon the world in thunder without affording time for preparation to meet the shock. Those who have suffered, and are still to suffer by it, had sufficient warning; and if the understandings of the governments had been on a level with the intelligence of the age, they had ample leisure and opportunity to take all the necessary precautions for preventing the impending danger. Through the whole of the last century there prevailed among the reflecting men in France, not a vague conjecture, but a settled conviction which may be now found repeatedly expressed in a thousand passages of their writings, that the existing institutions could not stand. Rousseau applies the remark to the thrones of Europe in general, and every day's experience bears witness to his sagacity. The present age, therefore, will be recorded in history as one of the most remarkable epochs in the progress of society; and it may be hoped, will be productive of the most important and beneficial results. It is an age distinguished for great personal talent and activity; for daring enterprises, sometimes defeated, but often successful; for a prodigious developement of every description of power, intellectual, physical, and moral. It is also, of necessity, an age of confusion and disorder, of violence, and, I may add, of much positive guilt. The virtues, if they exist at

all, must exist as habitual traits of character; and an age of great commotion is not favourable to the preservation of permanent habits of any kind, in the individuals who are placed by character or circumstances within the sphere of its influence. The Christian world, I may say the globe itself, for the movement seems to be extending very rapidly beyond the bounds of Christendom, is rocked to its centre by a great convulsion. Empires that bore the name of colonies have shaken, or are now shaking off the shackles of dependance. In America alone, eight or ten powerful nations are bursting at once into new forms of existence. In the old world reformation and transformation are every where the watch-words; and the bayonet, the universal instrument for obtaining new advantages or securing the old. There never was a period in history when Europe exhibited any thing. like the array of military and naval force which has. been habitually on foot for the last thirty years. The wars of the Reformation shrink into skirmishes. by the side of these Titanian campaigns. Even the multitudinous and tumultuary hosts of the crusaders are of small account, when we see a single monarch maintaining a peace-establishment of more than eight hundred thousand disciplined troops. In such times energy, rather than moral virtue, is the dominant quality. The wise and good are slow to engage in these violent enterprises, always hoping that the expected advantage