and legal, and therefore irrepressible, progress of public opinion, how many similar triumphs may we not record? Throughout the whole of the wearying contest for Catholic Emancipation, what has been the ceaseless adjuration of O'Connell? That his countrymen would abstain from any and every act of violence, and content themselves with that unceasing but lawful demand of their rights which would, and did, at length lead to the concession for which they prayed. Can Canada show any wrongs like these? Passing over the redress of innumerable minor grievances, similarly obtained, we arrived at the Revolution of 1688. Can anything be a greater reproach to scenes of violence and blood than the peaceful manner in which the sovereignty was removed from the possession of one monarch, who was unworthy of it, to that of another in the same family, to whose safe keeping its high authority could be confided with security? Regard, on the other hand, the influence of the opposition principle-the mock assumption of the name of liberty by the puritans. Putting out of view the practical prosperity of the kingdom, which was dependent on the intrinsic circumstance of Cromwell's personal abilities, could anything be more execrable and detestable than the whole state of our unhappy country at that period? Religion a disgusting mask-freedom a bye-word—art and literature the martyrs of fanaticism. The national character appears to have suffered as perfect a departure from all that before distinguished it, as the scenes of blood then so lately enacted, have differed from everything that has since followed them. With these feelings, therefore, none can dissent more entirely than we do from Colonel Thompson, as to what he terms the "substantial act of justice" done at Whitehall. However potent and just a nation may be, in exiling a chief-magistrate, who has plunged them into bloodshed, like Charles the Tenth of France, yet we are bound to bring no man to trial for his life before a court illegally constituted -be he either a sovereign or a peasant. The death of Charles the First, therefore, was a murder perpetrated in guise but defiance of justice, a blot upon our history effected by the disregard of that axiom in favour of which we are writing-in favour of which the whole volume of our history speaks in a tone that cannot be mistaken. From this, in sober truth, we cannot fail to learn that constitutional wrongs are always to be repaired by constitutional means, provided that the firmness to endure them be equally united with the firmness to resist, and the appeal throughout be made, not to the sword, but to the law.

So much has been said of Colonel Thompson's allusion to "the crick in the neck," that he must long since have been heartily ashamed

We will therefore only add, that if anything could induce upright and reasonable men to disown a party to which they may, notwithstanding, have been consistently attached through life, it would be the tolerance of vulgarisms such as this-appealing to no passions but the worst, and redolent of the vilest taste at best. Turning, however, for a moment, from the precedents of our own country, let us look at our neighbour, France. What formed the deepest reproach ever brought against herself?-what raised the direst enemies to the Enjoyment of her liberties?-The revolting cruelty and violence of

her first revolution? Again, what glory most redeems that period of blood, and has won for her later struggles the unqualified respect of the whole world? The moderation that followed the Revolution of The Barricades.

With unlimited power in their hands-their bosoms still torn by the slaughter of many of their dearest relatives and friends-no arm was raised in vengeance on the infatuated bigot who had levelled the sword of one brother at the throat of another. With a feeling of magnanimity that has done more for the better fame of France than all her thousand victories, they allowed the monarch in their grasp to experience no part of their power but its mercy, and afterwards, from the exercise of this noble virtue, gathered greatness and generosity sufficient to pardon even those who were officially responsible for his misdeeds.

This leads us to attempt the definition of that period of executive outrage, when only the assumption of arms and violence can be justified on the part of the governed. When edicts have been promulgated in manifest violation of the constitution of a country, and its rulers have proceeded to enforce these illegalities by an application to the sword--the case may then become one of self-defence; and thus arose the Revolution of the Barricades. Was this the case in Canada? Far from it. Governor after governor had been sent out with a view to use every justifiable conciliation. The strongest sympathy for every right cause of complaint had been repeatedly shown by the inhabitants of the mother-country, engaged as they have of late years been in struggles of their own. The Parliament at home were in the midst of measures calculated to restore tranquillity, when a party of those who consider themselves aggrieved, rise in acts of treason, and become the first shedders of blood. Liberals as we are, we feel that the stronger our attachment is to real liberty, the more forcibly are we impelled to condemn, even while we deplore, such conduct. Than this nothing can be more calculated to bring suspicion and reproach on all our efforts, however moderate or reasonable. What sensible man can venture forward as the advocate of popular rights, if, while the argument is yet upon his lips, his clients, from a supposition of neglect, are to break forth into open rebellion? Viewing the question, then, in whatever light we may-affording to the colonists the full advantage of unquestioned wrongs-we cannot see that government has to fear the slightest reproach for coming to the only resolution that remained for its adoption. That the insurgents in Canada have placed themselves in the position of rebels without any sufficient excuse for such an outrage, there can be no doubt; and while the mother-country is bound to remedy to the utmost every real grievance, so is it equally her duty, in a manner as decisive and rapid as possible, to crush in its bud a bloodshed that may lead to every mischief, but little possible benefit.

Startled as we have been at the very different view of the case taken by Sir William Molesworth's section of the liberal party, in which we had always hitherto been inclined to include ourselves, two questions now arise before us. What effect will be produced on the public at large by that section continuing to abet the Canadians? and what is

the limit of liberality at which we propose to pause in the march of reform at home? These two queries appear to us to be so intimately blended, that the answer to one must inevitably comprehend that to both.

The recent declarations of Sir Francis Burdett had given so severe a shock to ultra-liberalism, that all who really mean what they sayif there be any such class in the country-may well begin to define in their own minds the exact bounds of the political creed which they profess. Among this number we are weak enough to confess ourselves; we believe that our confession is original, and we know that it requires no ordinary courage in the making; still we think it a good example to set, when so many are interested in confounding liberality with rebellion, and it may prevent much loss of character, and still more disappointment to the people, if it prove to be well followed up.

Mr. Wakley, amongst his other professions, includes the abolition of the laws of primogeniture; Sir William Molesworth declares also for universal suffrage. To our minds little good seems to be derivable from the attainment of either of these changes, for we can neither belie nor dignify them by the title of reforms. On the contrary, we conceive that the former would entail evils on the country, for which it would bring no equivalent good. The latter, we regard, it is true, as a great blessing, when bestowed on a people sufficiently educated to appreciate it, but still a privilege in no way rendered desirable by the present condition of the lower orders in Great Britain. While Sir William's section confined themselves to triennial parliaments, the vote by ballot, and a reasonable extension of the suffrage, we went with them most gladly. An address, by the writer, to one of the most liberal constituencies in Great Britain, is lying before us, founded on these data, and to these we still adhere we still hope to see, as the actual fruits of such measures, those practical benefits of legislation, which are now rather to be found in the dreams of the philosopher than the experience of the statesman. From the working of these we are yet sufficiently sanguine to anticipate enactments which shall provide food and labour for every industrious man in the kingdom-to all their children those inestimable blessings of education, which can alone fit them for the discharge of political trusts— and to the various departments of the state in succession, that just and reasonable improvement, which has long been rendered necessary, and would then become obtainable.

Will the present proceedings of the ultra-liberals tend to hasten this desired fruition? We much doubt it: on the contrary, there are hosts of our enemies eager to seize on every indiscretion. The fact of an illegal rising in our colonies meeting with the imprudent encouragement of this party at home, will be interpreted by our foes either into a desire to overleap the limits of the constitution, or a want of due acquaintance with them. For unjustly drawing such an inference, even the best and steadiest Liberals will then be more anxious than able to condemn them. Suspicions of a more serious nature will rapidly gather round our future intentions, and a schism far more important than any which has yet occurred will divide our ultras from the rest of our party.

But the government of the country must proceed, happen what will. If by thus denouncing ministers unheard, and refusing them support at a momentous crisis, they are driven into the arms of those Conservatives, from whom they are now divided more by an imaginary than an actual line, to whose conduct but their own can the ultraliberals impute this undesirable issue? Surely this, if no other consideration, might induce them to pause in the course they are pursuing. But, giving to the Molesworth section the fullest credit for sincerity and honour-believing their late demonstration to have been based on an enthusiasm praiseworthy in its origin, however wrong in its direction-still do they purpose to themselves no limit? Suppose universal suffrage to have been granted, and the law of primogeniture to have been abolished, do they imagine that this can be the ultimatum? Having passed the Rubicon, will they stop at the Po? Do they imagine that no still greater liberal will arise, to outbid even them? They need not ask the question twice. The popular voice will then have become so unduly powerful, that for the sake of its plaudits numbers will arise in such quick rivalry that they must either urge forward to their own ruin, or fall immeasurably and unavailably behind in the race they themselves began.

We are confident that many men are at this time pledging themselves to measures from which their better sense dissents, merely from a want of that determined moral courage necessary to say-We will advance to this point and no further. For us, we have already said that we only value political reforms for the practical benefits they bring, and when we shall have obtained the bounds we have already defined, and obtained therefrom the good that we anticipate, we shall then be ready fearlessly to advance to the uttermost point that the united welfare of the three constituent parts of the empire will admit. If Sir William Molesworth's section wishes to do more than this, we are certain that the great majority of the Liberals neither are, nor will be, parties to their efforts. But if, as we believe, they mean to be content within this area, then do they most seriously injure the cause of all, by not proceeding with more circumspection-by not endeavouring rather to assist the ministry in turning to practical account advantages already won, than idly straining towards mere political privileges that only breed dissension among ourselves, and give the mocking food of delusive hope to those who are famishing for want of the actual aliments of life.

To nourish our vanity with the high-sounding titles of patriots and liberals may, indeed, be very pleasing. Little, however, will such terms have been deserved, if they who are crying to us for bread receive nothing but a stone, and the fish of our gift form only a serpent. Yet can any better denomination be given to the suffrage that should be awarded to one unable to ensure the daily pabulum of life? or subscribe the name that designates him? to say nothing of reading, far less reasoning on the laws, to the forming of which he would thus be made a party? When truths like these are so evidentwhen towards our humbler fellow-countrymen a greater desire is shown to intrust with power, than to fit them for its future exercise, men of a more phlegmatic temperament may well question either

the discretion or the sincerity of our extreme reformers. The affairs of Canada have, however, brought them to such a point that they must either be content to review some part of their opinions, or stand so isolated and alone, as to have lost the power of carrying their own measures, without gaining anything but the ability to endanger the reaping of any harvest from those which, with their good aid, have been already passed.

We now once more approach our starting point. What have ministers to fear? Provided that they are true to themselves, and firm of purpose, we cannot apprehend for them any greater danger than many which they have already vanquished. But the "bold and resolute" of Shakspeare must not for an instant be forgotten. Their line towards Canada is clear, and forms a difficulty only requiring vigour and justice, tempered with mercy. If to this be added such measures of actual benefit and good to the people as are within their power to grant, the ultras of our party must soon see how great a detriment, and how slight a gain can in any way accrue to them from a vain following of that "denunciation,” which we cannot help pronouncing as premature.

In our next we may endeavour to show what are the actual "measures of benefit and good to the people," which we contemplate. For the present, we content ourselves with humbly presenting to the consideration of our brother Liberals the remarks we have here cursorily ventured to offer. Misrepresentation of our ultimate designs has been a powerful weapon in the hands of our enemy. That alone has drawn, or driven to their camp, many, perhaps timid, but still most influential adherents, who once buckled on their armour, and fought the good fight. Public speeches may be misrepresented in a thousand ways, and tortured to as many ends, in opposition to the views of those who uttered them. But the liberty of the press has ever been the palladium of true freedom. Revolution and anarchy are attributed to our motives in unnumbered shapes. There shall at least then exist, to the contrary, the written evidence of one of our party, however humble; and while it proves the adherence to those principles of enlightened government that formed part of the lessons and admiration of youth, shall also bear testimony to its ceaseless pursuit, under such necessary exercise of discretion as will simultaneously preserve the prerogatives of the Crown, the privileges of the Peers, and lastly, but far from least, the rights of the People.

February, 1838.

CAVENDO TUTUS.