others which it so readily accepts and applauds-as is instanced in its boisterous eulogies of Cruikshank's Bottle,' which is a libel on the purity of home, and the affection of domestic intercourse. Even Mackay has not scrupled to desecrate poetry by wedding it to the same extravagance of advocacy. Eliza Cook is the only instance within our knowledge in which a popular name has been courageously associated with liberal and serviceable advocacy of this cause. If teetotal advocates should take our advice, we know it would operate as it has upon some of our own friends, who fell into an extreme opposition to theology—it will rob their speeches of some saliency. As advocates, they will be less 'spicey'-will win fewer cheers; but they will be more just and do more good, and in the end they will find that to be always reasonable will prove to be the only lasting acceptability. As evidence of the correctness of these allegations against the ascerbity and injustice of the Temperance advocacy as usually conducted, I may allege that if these remarks are noticed in the tectotal journals, I shall be set down as a friend of drunkenness or enemy of the Temperance cause.' If I do anybody an injustice by this assertion, I shall be prompt to make reparation.

But before this reform in drinking, which relates only to alcholic liquors, stands the more embracive agitation of Dietary reform. The Teetotal, or, as it is sometimes misnamed, Temperance agitation, requires abstinence only from fermented fluids; it leaves you tea and coffee-the boasted cup Which cheers but not inebriates'a far more unpleasant and fatal potion to the sedentary than the other liquors condemned.

When we talk of personal reforms, the more closely we come to actual being, the nearer we come to the root of the matter-and, therefore, (except the reformation of posterity-if the phrase may be allowed) the dietary reform is the most radical. It surveys the entire field of health, and takes cognizance of all we eat and drink.

That prince of British mystics, James Pierrepont Greaves, (from whose transcendental writings we intend yet to make an Eclectic Gathering') was the great logician of personal reform. His sayings seem to me to supply what all other systems want. He proposed to press every act with an inexorable why. He alone taught the duty of waiting for a warrant to act. Amid the impatient cries for more action and more energy, he alone had the courage to say stand still. The world is too much governed,' said a far seeing American. There is too much done,' said the friend of Pestalozzi. We were always the friends of this philosophy as the precursor of action, but not as the substitute for it. We have had the misfortune to witness what seemed to us the perversion of Greaves's philosophy. We have seen people looking for a warrant who have never found it we have seen them wait always, till waiting became to them a duty, and action a dream, and a very distant dream too, of the future. But with such application of his wise advice as seems to us relevant and universal, the most astonishing and gratifying results, in the science of reformation, must follow.

"What right have I,' asks George Sand, in her Letters of a Traveller,' (Letter X., p. 264) to despise the bad taste of a man deprived of education? With what face could I reproach a poor man with abdicating the dignity of human intelligence, when it is I and my equals on the social

ladder who refuse him the exercise of this intelligence and repulse its employment? Why, therefore, oh thou who we have reduced to the state of the beast of burden, shouldst thou not seek to render thy fate less odious by destroying thy memory and thy reason, by drinking, as Obermann says in his sublime pity, forgetfulness of thy griefs?"

We know of no answer that can be returned to these sad questions except those derived from the Philosophy of Being. Unless men begin by asking-why am I? what am I? and what for? Unless men recognise that to be is a primary advantage is itself a dignity-that to possess life and reason includes an independence of power, which is to rule all things, not to be ruled by them-the sad aspect of society, and the sad fate of too many of its members, will justify any degradation into which the wretched may sink. But the space available to me this week is exhausted, and I must follow out this subject on another occasion. G. J. HOLYOAKE.

LEDRU ROLLIN.

If ever an event deserved to be denominated a dispensation of Providence, for its own inscrutable ends, it is the French Revolution of 1848. Unforeseen, unexpected by the most sanguine of democracies, undreamed of by the most energetic and resolute of statesmen, that event burst like an earthquake upon the people of Europe, and shook to atoms, after an insignificant conflict, what men deemed to be the strongest of governments. The people had not prepared it, and they were scarcely prepared for it. Supported by 100,000 bayonets, served by hundreds of devoted functionaries-with an immense parliamentary majority, a fortified capital, the press under the eye of a vigilant and relentless censorship, the tribunals at their disposal, and alone possessing the keys of a system of the most complete centralisation-this boasted government, this steadfast dynasty, was shaken by an emeute, and toppled headlong beneath the efforts of the gentlest of all physical revolutions. No event in history affords so remarkable an instance of apparent weakness overthrowing such an amount of apparent strength. No change in the government of any country was ever effected by agents seemingly so weak, but really so powerful. The Republic, springing forth so fresh and phoenix-like from its tomb of half a century, was a sight which struck awe into the soul of the political sceptic, and filled the absolutist with a wholesome fear.

For it was not the creature of human will. It was not the result of well-organised and far-seeing conspirators. It was not the work of a compact party, openly aiming at a republic by a revolution. It arose. It was created. Robespierre was destroyed by a conspiracy whose aim was the death of Robespierre. The usurpation of Napoleon was determined on beforehand. The allied armies invaded France avowedly to reinstate the Bourbons, as the French have invaded Rome avowedly to reinstate the Pope. The reign of Charles X. depended on his prudence in refraining from an attempt to establish an absolute monarchy. These events were, so to speak, foregone conclusions. But the downfall of Louis Philippe and the resurrection of the republic have an appearance of spontaneity quite unique; and if we were accustomed to employ such

language, and entertain such notions on the government of the world as are therein implied, we should surely call those events marvellous dispensations of Providence.

The Revolution was neither an accident, a chance result, nor a dispensation from on high. It had its causes, which, though simple enough on paper, are sufficiently interwoven in reality. In three words, they were corruption, deficit, and despotism.

Corruption was eating into the morality of France. By the system established by Napoleon,, and perfected in all its iniquity by Louis Philippe-a man without a single principle of political honesty-the functionaries of the government, from the Chamber of Peers down to the lowest prefect of police, were the tools of power. Bribery and intimidation visited all alike. The elections were carried on under the direction of the local authorities. No party in power scrupled to make use of this vast system to the utmost possible extent. The political existence of the functionaries depended on their subserviency. The election struggles were conflicts of life or death between the Inns and the Outs. When, in the spring of 1839, the Molé ministry carried their address only by a small majority, they dissolved the Chamber, and determined to try their strength, in the electoral colleges, with the coalition of parties arrayed against them, which was then composed alike of Guizot, Thiers, and Odillon Barrot. For this purpose, no sooner was the Chamber dissolved than the prefects were sent for, from all parts of France, to Paris, and sent back with firmans, to use the expressive word of Louis Blanc, or instructions, as we should say, concerning their conduct in the approaching struggle. It was then that Guizot, surpassing his colleagues, in his anxiety and exertions for the success of the coalition, was heard to exclaim, Do not forget, above all things, to intimidate the prefects. Let them clearly know that to-morrow we, perhaps, shall be the conquerors, and inflexible.' But not only politically speaking was the nation suffering under a system of corruption. The venom found its way into the speculations in the public funds; and when the companies were formed to establish the railways of France, in order to obtain the necessary concessions, ministers, under secretaries, peers of France, deputies, and courtiers were bribed by rival speculators. The monarchy of July became the head-quarters of stock-jobbing.

The deficit, in our opinion, was one of the great characteristics of Louis Philippe's policy. It seems to have been systematic aud calculated, the result of intention, a work of design. The bourgeoisie needed a curb, and, following the example of England, it was thought good policy to rein them in with a national debt. The monarch endeavoured to build his throne upon the pillars of the Bourse. Money, in his moral creed, was the power of powers, the virtue of virtues. Govern by corruption-every man has his price, was the motto of the monarchy. This necessitated a profligate expenditure, which resulted in a deficit, which necessitated a loan or the creation of public funds. The fundholders are anxious, naturally enough, for internal peace, and a strong government. The very nature of their property makes them cling to absolute authority and mistrust popular power. Louis Philippe would have assured them prosperity-at least, regular payments-if they would have assured him in

the maintenance of his personal government. Accordingly, in February 1848, he had a parliamentary majority, bought and paid for either with salaries for places, or supposed protection for pecuniary interests.

Despotism was the end and aim of this policy. When February 1848 arrived, it had reached its climax. A popular demonstration sufficed to shiver it to pieces, and exile its authors. But the machinery created by that infamous policy still remained, and it must be obvious to all that the agents of Louis Philippe were not the fittest men to administer the laws and consolidate the institutions of the republic. The men of the palace fled it was necessary that the system they had bequeathed to their successors of the Hotel de Ville should be swept away. And amonst the statesmen who composed the Provisional Government of the 24th of February, there was one who had the resolution to attempt, and the courage to perform, this duty. This statesman was M. Ledru-Rollin.

It would be sufficient praise to say of M. Ledru-Rollin that he saved France from the horrors of civil war. All depended on the vigour and energy of his administration; for in France the Ministry of the Interior is the seat of power, and a weak, irresolute minister would have given the Legitimists an opportunity to revolt, which they would not have neglected. But he did more. The Man of the Revolution, the guardian of the traditions of the old republic, faithful to his principles as a democratic republican, he not only organised an electoral system in an incredibly short period of time, but he took care that that system should be carried out. Accordingly he sent forth his commissioners throughout the land to deliver the provinces from the rule of the corrupt agents of the monarchy, in whose hands it would have been madness to have left the power, for they were professionally the agents of monarchy. The commission of the commissioners was to revolutionise the country; in plain English, to free the people from the despotic sway of these tools of corruption. Ledru-Rollin gave them unlimited power-that is, a large discretion-because they had to act under circumstances which could not be foreseen, and it was necessary that they should be able to meet and vanquish all obstacles which might be raised in the way as obstructions to the free choice of the people. This was the duty of the minister, his sacred duty, a duty which no sophistry can explain away; and whatever might have been his own opinions, since the object was the convention of the nation, it was necessary he should do his best to make that convention as nearly as possible really represent the nation. Honour to whom honour is due. Ledru-Rollin effected this; and in so far as the National Assembly complied with these conditions, to him be the honour. Under the auspices of the calumniated commissioners, the elections were carried on with firmness, order, and dignity. The measure was a great success. It is idle to canvass its legality, when the French nation had appealed to principles, and only regarded what was right. When a revolution is an accomplished fact, legality becomes a phrase. A man must consult his conscience and convictions, and act accordingly. In this spirit, devoting his days and his nights to the task, LedruRollin carried out his convictions and performed his duty. He did not start back, too fastidious to touch corruption. He did not scruple to go thorough, for fear his reputation should be blasted. He did not shun the

consequences of carrying out his principles, though he must have known that he would incur the hatred of the followers of expediency. He had a man's rough work to do, and he did it manfully.

From the 24th of February to the 5th of May, France had no constitution. The Minister of the Interior, like the other members of the government, was obliged to govern at his own discretion. It was loyalty to his own conscience, to his convictions, which he had to preserve-not legality. And who is daring enough now to charge Ledru-Rollin with having either violated his conscience, or falsified his convictions? When the charge was made in the Assembly he met it openly and manfully. He denied the accusation and challenged inquiry. The Assembly held

him vindicated.

When the 8th of May arrived the pure revolutionary epoch ceased; the supreme power of the state was about to enter on the path of legality; the Provisional Government required the sanction of the National Assembly to those acts which they had performed while in power, and it was resolved that they had deserved well of their country. There were no exceptions made. M. Ledru-Rollin was included.

Since that famous day he has acted-certainly up to the 13th of June within the domain of legality. He has indeed proved a vigorous, indefatigable, redoubtable, leader of the opposition, but he has not played. the part of an anarchist, or employed those tactics, which are justifiable in revolutionary periods, to harass or overturn the government. On the contrary, he displayed coolness and self-control under the most biting provocations; and it was only when the majority of the Chamber shielded the ministry in their infamous violation of the Constitution that he threatened them with an armed resistance, and resorted to the people to overthrow those who had no respect for the law, and who defied the sanctity of an oath. The people did not respond to the appeal of their Tribune, and he became an exile.

It was thus that he reached the shores of England a few days before M. Guizot returned to France. The leader of a strong party; gifted with oratorical power such as few possess; in the prime of life; a career opening before him at once arduous and brilliant, no single man in France wielded so much influence: and, like very few men in France, he used it to carry out those principles to which he was devoted, and disdained to prostitute it to ensure the triumph of his ambition. It was because he had a conscience-because he had a faith-because he followed where the logic of democracy led him-because he was the inflexible and relentless enemy of the policy of interests and the tactics of expediency-that he fell. Besides endeavouring to defend the violated constitution, it was the duty of the leader of French democracy to make an effort to save Rome. He risked his prospects of attaining to power, he staked his political reputation, with a devotion rare in history, not for party purposes or personal ambition-they would have been best accomplished by peaceful opposition-but for the salvation of Rome. Remember, had Ledru-Rollin been the victor on the 13th of June, Rome would have still been free, and France would have become the ally and protector instead of the destroyer of Italian liberty. The 'great. mistake' would then have been a 'great success.'