Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

the fact, for the purpose of making his ignorant readers in the country disbelieve it. The riotors," he says, "consisting chiefly of starving sailors, though they had arms in their hands, did no violence to any body, except in the unlawful seizure of the arms, and in the wounding (if that really was so) of one man who attempted to stop them, and who laid hold of one of them!" Another of this firebrand's twopenny papers is before us, in which he says that the ministers, the noblesse, and the clergy of France wilfully made the revolution, in order to prevent the people from being fairly represented in a national council. "It was they who produced the confusion; it was they who caused the massacres and guillotinings; it was they who destroyed the kingly government; it was they who brought the king to the block !" And in the same spirit which dictated this foul and infamous falsehood, he asks, was there any thing too violent, any thing too severe, to be inflicted on these men ?" He says that" Robespierre, who was exceeded in cruelty only by some of the Bourbons, was proved to have been in league with the open enemies of France.'

66

We can only afford room for another sample, taken from a review of some works on England, among others, of that of Simond, in the 30th No.

"The liberty of the press," says M. Simond, "is the palladium of English liberty, and at the same time its curse-a vivifying and decomposing principle, incessantly at work in the body politic. It is the only plague, somebody has said, which Moses forgot to inflict on Egypt. This modern plague penetrates, like the vermin of old, into the interior of families, carrying with it defamation and misery." The private nuisance, however, has been in a great degree checked by the heavy damages which were awarded some years ago in a case of flagrant slander; before that time the infamous attacks which were made upon the characters of women, married or unmarried, rendered this abuse a national disgrace. But the public evil continues, and exists in an aggravated degree. "There is not," says the American traveller, "another government in Europe who could long withstand the attacks to which this is continually exposed;" and again: "the threatening storms of faction hovering incessantly over the British horizon,-the exaggerations of debates, the misrepresentation of party papers,-give to this country the appearance of being perpetually on the brink of revolution." In his judgment the danger is more apparent than real, because military usurpation is impossible in a country like England, where the people are by long habit and principle averse to a military system, and because an ambitious reformer would find himself installed as minister by his success, and must then inevitably discover that the reforms concerning which he had long and loudly declaimed are impracticable. This indeed is certain. But it is not of usurpation that we are in dangerusurpation, whether civil or military, is one of the latter stages of revolution; and overturn! overturn! overturn! is as much the maxim of the reformers, as it is the text of the Luddites, their practical disciples.'

The press has in it a decomposing as well as a vivifying principle:let us beware how we suffer the decomposing one to predominate! It has already been at work too succesfully and too long. The outrages of the Luddites-in consequence of which the manufacturers are removing from Nottingham, and the next generation may perhaps see grass growing in the streets of that now populous city-were not occasioned by any grievances real or imaginary, nor by any actual distress; they have proceeded from a spirit of insubordination, created, fostered, and inflamed by the periodical press. The agricultural riots were not occasioned by distress--the unhappy culprits who suffered for them under the sentence of the law were men of substance. It was not " Poverty and his cousin Necessity who brought them to these doings," and to that deplorable end,-it was the spirit of factious discontent, excited for the purposes of revolution by demagogue orators, and demagogue journalists, who now do not even affect to conceal the object at which they aim. If one man instigates another to commit murder, the instigator, as well as the instrument, is punished: here the instruments alone have suffered, and the greater criminals proceed with unabated or even increasing zeal in their endeavours to provoke fresh excesses, and hurry on fresh victims to destruction, without compunction for the past, and regardless by what means they may accomplish the consummation which they seek.'

‹ A provincial paper is now lying before us in which it is affirmed, that a systematic revolution has been effected by the politics of Mr. Pitt. The liberties of the country having been overturned, and the whole wealth of the nation absorbed by taxation, "what the people are instigated by their sufferings to do afterwards," the incendiary says, "is not à Revolution, it is the just and natural effort of men to recover the possession of prosperity for themselves and their posterity-it is the uncontrollable exertion of a people striving to regain their rights, to exist as men, and to act as a community. The scheme of public subscription, he says, is a specious mode of delusion, which the honest and independent poor even in the midst of their want justly regard as an insult. The alleviation of their miseries can proceed only from the restoration of their rights as men: patient endurance can never be the fate of this realm-we will not be still and die quietly while a drop of vitality remains." This is a chance specimen of the language which is at this time preached at public meetings, and has long been promulgated by the provincial as well as the London press. The orators and journalists of this active and noisy faction tell the poor that the subscription which would alleviate their immediate necessities is a mockery and an insult; and instead of giving them bread, or devising means for employing them in public works, they advise them to cry out for such measures and pursue such conduct as lead immediately to popular revolution-of all curses the greatest which the Almighty in his anger could inflict upon this nation. One orator exhorts the people to refuse payment of the taxes; another recommends that the national debt should be extinguished by a vote of parliament-parliament of course being previously reformed, so that it may consist of representatives who

will not scruple at passing such a vote; a third advises that the tithes be sold and the produce funded; a fourth demands universal suffrage— and some of these united politicians engage never to cease their exertions till they shall have obtained what they call speedy, radical and effectual reform-patient endurance, they tell us, shall not be their fate, they will not be still, their cry shall be too general to be mistaken and too powerful to be resisted. Were there any limits to human folly and human wickedness, it would be incredible that there should be men erroneous enough, and criminal enough-with the example of France before their eyes (fresh and reeking as those horrors are!) to hold forth language like this, and exert themselves zealously and perseveringly to convince the mob that the physical force is in their hands, and that it is their own fault if they submit longer to be governed by the educated and intellectual part of their countrymen. Have these persons ever asked themselves what would be the consequence of the measures which they advise? if universal suffrage were established, whether it would afford universal employment for the quiet and industrious part of the people as surely as it would for the worthless, the turbulent, the mischievous and the wicked? if the church property was seized, whether the title deeds of the landholder would long be considered as giving him an indefeasible right to his estates?-if the national debt were extinguished, whether the public would be benefitted by the ruin of the funded proprietors, that is, whether the body would derive advantage from having one of the limbs paralysed, and whether national prosperity be the natural and necessary consequence of national bankruptcy, the breach of national faith and the loss of national character?. finally, if the people, according to the advice of one of these popular representatives, were to refuse payment of the taxesWHAT THEN? Let these men suppose themselves successful in their projects, and following in imagination the career of their ambition, ask themselves this question at every step-WHAT THEN? If they should succeed in instigating the people to resistance, to rebellion, to civil war, to revolution, WHAT THEN? What might be the consequences to this great-this glorious-this venerable country, He only can tell without whose inscrutable will no calamity can befal us; the consequences to themselves may be foretold with perfect certainty-guilt, insecurity, fear, misery, ruin, unavailing repentance, violent death, and infamy everlasting. It was remarked by one of the numerous French demagogues who fell into the pit which they had digged, that Revolutions were like Saturn and devoured their own children. Should there be a

Revolution in the other world, said Danton to one of his friends, when they were on their way to the guillotine-take my advice and have nothing to do with it! Danton asked pardon of God and man for having instituted the Revolutionary Tribunal: it was only on the first anniversary of its institution that he was carried before it to receive sentence himself,-so short is the reign of a Revolutionist !

[ocr errors]

Perhaps if M. Simond had seen England under its present aspect, he might have thought that the danger was real as well as apparent. But there is a vis conservatrix in the state, and the preventive means which

exist are easy and effectual. It is only necessary to enforce the laws and to stop the progress of sedition by such punishment as shall prevent a repetition of the offence-any other is absurdly inappropriate.'

Outcries of this sort against the press are endless in the pages of the Quarterly Review.

There are some other characteristic features of this produc-, tion, which we had intended to display in this article; but it has already extended to such a length, that we must reserve them for some future occasion.

ART. X. Edinburgh Review, Number LXXX. Art. IV.

THE

HE disposition of his property by will has been permitted to the proprietor, in very different degrees, in different ages and nations. In some, he has been empowered to dispose of the whole. In others, his power has been restricted in favour of his children or parents, or even of his more remote relations.

By the Roman law, as finally settled by Justinian, the father might disinherit any or all of his children for certain causes defined by the legislator, provided the cause or causes were expressly mentioned in the testament. If the cause or causes were not expressly mentioned, or could not be proved, a legitimate portion, as it was called, of the father's property went to the children, in despite of the will, in shares determined by the law of succession.

The legitimate portion thus reserved to the children varied in amount with their number. If there were four, or fewer, the legitimate portion to be divided amongst them, amounted to a third of the whole property. If there were five or more, it amounted to a half. In every case, therefore, the disposable portion (the part of his property, which the father might deal with at his pleasure) amounted, at least, to a half.*

In those parts of old France, in which the authority of the Roman law prevailed (pays de droit écrit), a legitimate portion, corresponding for the most part in amount with that which we

Est autem portio legitima pars bonorum lege definita, liberis, parentibus, et, certo casu, fratribus et sororibus, a testatore sine onere relinquenda. Ea initio fuit quarta portionis ab intestato debitæ. At postea Justinianus constituit, ut si liberi (vel parentes, fratres ve vel soreres) sint quatuor vel pauciores (connumeratis etiam exheredatis), tunc portio legitima sit triens: sin quinque vel plures; semis bonorum. See Heineccii Elementa J. C. secundum ordinem Pandectarum. Lib. v, Tit. 2, Lib. xxviii. Tit. 2. 3.

have described, was in like manner reserved to the children. In the districts in which the law consisted of local usages (pays de coutumes), the rule in this, as in all other respects, seems to have been infinitely various.*

By the law now in force in France, the gratuitous dispositions which the father may make of his property, whether they be made by gift or will, or whether they be made in favour of a child or a stranger, are limited to half of it, if he die, leaving one child; to a third, if he leave two; and to a fourth, if he leave three or more. If he leave more than one child, the two thirds, or three fourths, which are thus reserved as the legitimate portions, descend (as would be the case with the whole, if he died intestate) to his children in equal shares.†

This law has been severely censured in the last number of the Edinburgh Review; and had the writer simply contended that the restrictions which it imposes upon the power of willing ought to be withdrawn, he would have met with our hearty assent, and we should have permitted his Essay to rest in peace. To insist on the numerous and, we think, cogent reasons, which lead us to concur with him to that extent, were beside our present purpose; though we may venture to submit them to our readers on some future occasion, if we should find them not altogether intolerant of discussions of this nature. The occasion, however, which provokes the present article, calls upon us to intimate one of these reasons. In our opinion, an approximation to equality in the 'conditions of the children is much to be desired; and we think that the power of willing tends more certainly to this desirable end than any scheme of succession that any legislator could contrive. That the power is much abused in England to the opposite end, we admit. This abuse, however, as we shall shew presently, is not the consequence of the power, which we would leave to the proprietor, of selecting the person or persons upon whom his property shall devolve at his decease. That the cause, to which this abuse is almost universally attributable, may not only be removed by provisions of the most simple kind, but would be obviated in France by certain existing provisions of

* See the discussion on the 913th article of the Napoleon Code, in the Conference du Code Civil. The original draft of the Code having been first submitted to the Judges of the several Courts of Cassation and Appeal, and having undergone various alterations at their suggestion, was discussed, article by article, in the Council of State. The Conference, in 8 vols, Svo., contains a Report of these discussions.

+ See Articles 745, 913, of the Civil Code.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »