"The pressure of sixty millions of taxes have indisposed more sound and loyal men to the Constitution of their country than the harangues of Citizen Brissot and the fraternizing decrees of November could have done in a hundred years."

After carefully tracing the history of our Constitution from its germ to the present fair fruit, with great skill and care, and pointing out its many blessings and advantages, Lord John concludes his work by discussing the securities we possess for its stability. The two principal ones he considers to be the National Debt and the Liberty of the Press. The latter is an instance which occurs to the mind of everyone; but the former appears somewhat paradoxical. He contends that liberty alone reconciles nations to the payment of large imposts (has it done so in America?); that despotism, to establish itself in England, must at once destroy the national debt (has it done so in France?); that the Fundholders, and all indirectly interested in the Funds, would never consent to this; and that, finally, the English people prefer open discussions of affairs with large taxes to an absolute monarchy with light taxes. This is true; but would they not vastly prefer the liberty and the light taxation together? Indeed, Lord John significantly adds

"It behoves the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, not to provoke them to balance this question in their minds."

Truly, my lord, the nation relies more on its own indomitable will, to maintain its liberties intact, and on the warning which its history furnishes to experimental despots, than on all its other guarantees put together. If ever the kingdom should be afflicted with another Charles the First, there will not be wanting another Cromwell to chop off his head.

This Essay, which we recommend to general perusal, concludes with quoting Milton's few but sublime words "Let not England forget her precedence of teaching nations how to live!"

The year after the publication of this Essay appeared Lord John Russell's tragedy of Don Carlos, inscribed to Lord Holland. It has been usual to speak of this work as a perfect failure, both in regard to its circulation and its merits. That it could scarcely have been so, in the former respect, will appear from the fact that in 1825 (three years after its publication) it had reached a fifth edition. If the play had not many admirers, it certainly had plenty of readers. How many of the critics who have sneered at it ever wrote anything that obtained such a sale? That Don Carlos is not deficient in literary merit-that it is far above the general run of modern tragedies-is equally certain. Its grand defect, and one that would inevitably prevent its success on the stage, is its want of sufficient action.

The story is founded on certain events in the reign of Philip II. of Spain, whose son, Don Carlos, is greatly disposed to be a "heretic," and is suspected of an attachment to his step-mother, who was formerly betrothed to him. The author does not profess to have adhered closely to history, and confesses that he has rendered the character of Don Carlos more amiable than it was in reality. An Inquisitor, named Valdéz, plays a conspicuous part in the tragedy, and thus speaks of the passion of Carlos :

"The Prince is in that melancholy mood,

The offspring of a young and teeming fancy,
That boys call love; but no more like to love
Than the weak lightning of a summer night,
That plays upon the horizon's edge, is like

To that which issues from the loaded cloud
And rives the oak asunder."

The mind of the King is soon poisoned against his son, the calumny being gradually instilled into him. that Don Calos is the favoured lover of his step-mother. Philip, therefore, hates his son, and resolves on his destruction. Meanwhile the populace love the heir to the throne, and the King comments on the fact:

"Thus for the future monarch Fancy weaves

A spotless robe, entwines his sceptre round
With flow'ry garlands, places on his head
A crown of laurels; while the weary present,
Like a stale riddle or a last year's fashion,
Carries no grace with it. Base, vulgar world!
'Tis thus that men for ever live in hope,

And he that has done nothing is held forth
As capable of all things."

The character of Don Carlos is merely an amiable one. Hating tyranny and priestcraft, he is, nevertheless, quite unsuited to wield the sceptre of Spain. He feels this; and says-in rather puling language

"My faculties but ill become a Prince.

Our mother Nature, with a strange caprice,
Fits us for other parts than those we play :
A priestly robe covers the brawny limbs
And lion-heart that should have been a soldier's;
While many a delicate fibre, that seems formed
To be for ever wrapt in silken bonds,

Is torn by peasant toil, or wastes itself
Beneath the scorching Phoebus or night-storm
In guarding camps. I, even I, was framed

To wander idly all day in the woods,
To gather flowers, to feed on the wild grape,
To drink the natural spring, to list to birds,
And find my joy in breathing balmy air-
I was not made for sovereignty."

The King, as thoroughly priest-ridden as ever was even a Spanish monarch, wishes to bring Carlos under priestly dominion; but his son, who was once fated to be present at an Auto-da-fé, has imbibed the greatest horror of religious persecution, and thus addresses Philip :

"King, I have drank

The stream of revelation at its source!
That book, to common eyes denied, to me
Was early given: best and dearest gift
That man can give to man, becoming thus
The minister of God, and, angel-like,
Carrying glad tidings to the immortal soul.

*

"There have I read,

Alone and unassisted, late at night

And early in the morning, words of peace,
Forgiveness ev'n for sin, brotherly love

And charity that beareth, hopeth all.

I found, and wept with joy: but to this hour

Find I no precept that commissions man

To slay his erring brother."

This kind of language was not very likely to be acceptable to his auditors—a bigotted King and a Priest of the Inquisition. The latter resorts to the old plea that persecution is pursued in order to reclaim heretics into the bosom of the "true Church." Don Carlos is entirely dissatisfied with this plea, and answers—

"Souls of immortal men acquire new strength,

New temper from the fire of persecution;

And future ages shall avow the truth

That, in the warfare of contending creeds,

The Martyr's blood waters the Victor's palm!"

Then, turning on these blood-thirsty priests, who arrogate to themselves a commission from Heaven to perpetrate the crimes of persecution, he exclaims

"Shame upon you all!

Your hands are bloody; to the God of Peace

You offer carnage: this is not divine:

It cannot be; your title-deeds are forged

A mortal usurpation.

"The faith

Of an all-powerful Benevolence

Thrives not by blood; nor is it given to spread

The charity of Christ by homicide."

Of course so rampant a heretic as this could never escape in Spain in the days of Philip the Second. The Inquisitors resolve to have his life; and his father, believing in his guilt in reference to his step-mother, connives at his murder. He is slain; but he does not die before he has convinced the King of the falsehood of the dark charge against him. The father is in despair-the murderer of his own son his wife, a gentle, tender-hearted being (whose character is rather feebly drawn), arrives to upbraid him a bit of poetical justice is done by throwing the arch-priest Valdéz into prison, for life: and the curtain drops.

We have necessarily given but a rough outline of the play; and the few extracts we have made have been taken from it almost at random. They by no means represent its best poetry; but we think that any candid reader will confess that they show enough power, poetry, taste, and passion, to entitle Don Carlos to an honourable place in the dramatic literature of our country. Those who will turn to the play itself will be even more disposed to admit this.

From 1818 to 1827 Lord John Russell's Parliamentary career was chiefly distinguished for his annual motion on the subject of Representative Reform, for his defence of Queen Caroline on the discussion of the notorious Pains and Penalties Bill, for his attempt to procure the Emancipation of the Catholics, and to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts. During this period his only literary work was a kind of narrative or review of The Affairs of Europe since the Peace of Utrecht, a work little known and of no great interest at the present day.

Canning became Prime Minister in 1827; and Lord John Russell, though he would not join, abstained from opposing him. He even relinquished his annual motions regarding Reform and the Corporation Acts, during the tenure of office by the Tory-liberal. But Canning died, and the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel came into power. It was in 1828 that Lord John Russell brought before Parliament his bill to repeal the acts which forced every man to take the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England, before he could hold any corporate office. The bill was carried by a large majority, in spite of the opposition of the Government, and its author now took his stand as a leading Reformer.

In this same year he appeared again before the world in the capacity in which we are more especially viewing him, by publishing (anonymously) the History of the Establishment of the Turks in Europe.

It is expressly stated by the author of this work, in his preface, that the historical matter contained in it is not his own, but merely a compilation from well-known sources; but the disquisitions are original. It is curious to refer to them at a moment when everything connected with the Turkish Empire is attracting such attention, and to observe what were Lord John Russell's views regarding that nation six-and-twenty years ago. Our limits forbid us to make many extracts from the volume, which is only a small octavo, very thin and very widely printed, but our readers may be interested by its concluding paragraphs :

"So long as fanaticism retains its influence over their (the Turks') minds, the Christians must look for contumely, insult, and injury: race, religion, manners, policy, all forbid that the Turks should ever be the just and righteous governors of the Christian people of their provinces. Some have pleased their fancy with the notion of an extraordinary Sultan, assisted by an extraordinary Vizier, pushing forward the Turks in the path of knowledge and civilization: if such an one were ever to arise he would probably be strangled, and his successors would repeal his laws and regulations."

66

At the very time his lordship wrote this the "Extraordinary Sultan" had arisen in the person of the late Mahmoud. Indeed the author, in a note, refers to the destruction of the Janissaries (which had recently taken place) as a step in the right direction:" but he seems to have had little idea of the extent to which Sultan Mahmoud would push his reforms; and still less suspicion that his subjects would submit, acquiesce, and finally take up and pursue, of their own accord, the new system he sought to introduce. But what shall we say of Lord John's assertion that everything forbids "that the Turks should ever be the just and righteous governors of the Christian people of their provinces?" That it is true even to this day; and that although we may in one sense be said to be at war to retain the Turks in possession of these provinces, yet in reality our object is merely to prevent a still worse system of rule-the hateful, grinding, soul-enslaving despotism of Russia-from usurping the place of the milder, though incompatible, sway of Turkey. Lord John Russell might not venture to say this now, in his position of Cabinet Minister; but we may be tolerably confident that such is his opinion.

Regarding the future of Turkey, as a military power, Lord John Russell proved himself a bad prophet; for he thus concludes his volume :

:

"The Turks owed the empire to religious and military fanaticism. With the extension of their conquests the military spirit declined, but religious fanaticism remained, and enabled them to withstand the armies of the Christian powers. But as the art of war became more and more enlightened, a new dilemma presented itself to the Turks: either they must gain the knowledge of their opponents, or they must fight them without it. If they were to attempt to acquire the knowledge, and

KK