same things, without issuing it in inordinate quantities. Should the power to supply the State with paper money be even vested solely in a government, it would be quite as insecure as if under the management of private banking companies. It is therefore indispensable that the issuers of paper money should be placed under some efficient check or control; and the comparative steadiness of the value of the precious metals at once suggests, that no check can be so effectual as to subject the issuers of paper money to the obligation of exchanging their notes, at the pleasure of the holder, for a given and unvarying quantity, either of gold or silver.

NOTICES.

ART. XIII.-Lectures on European Civilization. By M. GuiZOT, Late Minister of Public Instruction. Translated by PRISCILLA MARIA BECKWITH. 12mo. pp. 469. London: Macrone. 1837,

FROM Our review of the "General History of Civilization," &c., by the same high authority, which appeared a few months ago, some idea might be obtained of his philosophy and research on a subject which embraces everything that bears upon the development of man's capacities and the progress of the human race in its social relations in long past to recent times. In the present work, we have the same grand themes discussed in the more impressive form, perhaps, which is naturally adopted by a teacher who utters his sentiments to an expectant and eager audience from the desk,—a form which the gifted authoress of the translation of these Lectures has particularly preserved and sustained. M. Guizot is an original thinker, and a masterly expositor of the theories he constructs. His doctrines are in general so valuable and luminous, that they cannot be propagated without affecting hopefully the progress of political knowledge, and thereby lending a decided impulse in behalf of that very civilization which he so ably traces and elucidates. Traversing as he does many centuries, having to treat of states of society wonderfully at variance with one another; having to exhibit, for example, the wreck which lay strewed after the fall of the Roman empire-the origin and growth of priestly domination-the infusion of barbarian independencethe subsequent rise of feudal institutions-the effects resulting from the Crusades, and all the other mighty features which indicate particular epochs of time, as well as the stages in the mental and moral progression or transitive states of society throughout Europe during its grandest displays-having also to characterise the march and the influence of science, literature, and art, and to define what monarchy and republican forms of government have undergone or done, must require the very highest species of philosophizing of subtle disquisition, of bold and commanding speculation. These and many subordinate qualifications are unquestionably possessed by M. Guizot, for the furtherance and perfection of his doctrines, and therefore the oftener we see them clothed in English, the more hopefully will we augur with respect to the infusion of that knowledge

and those sentiments amongst us which are the surest indices and the best securities of advancing civilization.

In every work which treats of European civilization, we must look for some of the most interesting and striking evidence and illustrations in that of our own country. Need we refer to the Reformation, or to Republicanism as instances. Upon these and other grand points in our history has M. Guizot brought all the resources of his analysis, and the weight of his conclusions to bear. Let the student of history and of the philosophy of civilization turn to the reign of Henry VIII., and test our author upon that period. We wish that every one of our readers had an opportunity to see how he distinguishes between the results of reform and revolution. Part of the discussion that regards the revolution which saw a republican assume kingly power, will afford a specimen of the author's manner of regarding certain celebrated antagonist opinions and parties, and solving certain intricate questions. Speaking of the year 1653, after twelve years of conflict, when all the parties which had appeared in the state had failed, he says,

Anarchy appeared on every side, in material, as well as in moral life; and neither the house of commons, nor the republican council of state, had any power to repress it. The three grand parties of the revolution had, therefore, been successively called on to take the lead, to direct the movement, and to govern the country in accordance with their principles and their desires. They had all been unable to do so; they had all completely failed; they could do nothing further. It was then, says Bossuet, that a man arose, who left nothing for fortuue to do, which his own prudence and foresight could effect;' an expression full of error, and which is contradicted by all history. No man ever trusted more to fortune than Cromwell; no man ever risked more; advanced more rashly without an object or a plan, resolved however, to go as far as fate would permit. A boundless ambition, an admirable talent in drawing all possible advantages from the events of each day, from the incidental circumstances that constantly occurred; the art of profiting by fortune, without pretending to direct it-this is the character of Cromwell. He did what no other man, placed in analogous circumstances, has ever done. He accommodated himself to all the different phases of the revolution. He was a leader, both at its commencement and at its close. He was, at first, the promoter of insurrection, the abettor of anarchy, the most furious revolutionist in England; he after became the leader of the anti-revolutionary reaction: and encouraged the re-establishment of order and social reorganisation, he filled alone all the parts which, during the course of most revolutions, are divided amongst many great actors. We cannot say that Cromwell was a Mirabeau-he wanted eloquence; and though very active, did not obtain any renown during the first years of the long parliament; but he was, successively, Danton and Buonaparte. He had done more than any other man to overthrow authority; he raised it up again, because no one but himself knew how to take possession of, and manage it. It was necessary that the country should be governed by some person; all others failed, he succeeded: this was his title. Once master of the government, this man, who had shewn so bold, and so insatiable an ambition, who had always pushed fortune before him, and seemed determined never to stop, displayed a fund of good sense, prudence, and knowledge of resources,

which controlled his most violent passions. Undoubtedly, he had an extreme love for absolute power, and a very strong desire to gain the crown for himself, and to transmit it to his family. He renounced his designs in the latter particular, having had the sagacity to perceive the danger of it; and with respect to absolute power, although he exercised it in fact, he still comprehended that it was opposed to the character of the times in which he lived; that the object of the revolution, in which he had taken so leading a part, was to overthrow despotism and that the unceasing desire of England was to be governed by a parliament, and according to parliamentary forms. Therefore, although a despot, both in disposition and in fact, he desired to have a parliament and to govern by parliamentary forms. He addressed himself to every party in succession. he endeavoured to form a parliament from amongst the religious enthusiasts, the republicans, the presbyterians, and the officers of the army. He tried every means to assemble a parliament which could and would follow in his track. He tried in vain-no matter of what party the parliament was composed; so soon as it had assembled in Westminster, it sought to deprive him of the power he exercised, and to rule in its turn. I do not mean to assert that his interests and his personal passions were not his first care; but it is not the less certain, that if he had abandoned the supreme power, he would very soon 'have been obliged to resume it. Whoever had undertaken the government, whether he were a puritan or a royalist, a republican or a soldier, could not have held it-no one but Cromwell, at that juncture, could have governed with any degree of justice or order. The proof had already been made. It would have been im possible to allow the parliament, that is to say, the parties holding seats in parliament, to assume a power they could not hold. Such was, then, the situation of Cromwell; he governed by a system which he well knew was contrary to that of his country; he exercised a power which was felt to be necessary, but was not recognised by any one. No party regarded his government as definitive. The royalists, the presbyterians, the republicans, even the army, that party which appeared most devoted to Cromwell, all were convinced that his power was only transitory. He never really ruled over the popular mind; he was never any thing more than a last resort, a political necessity. The protector, the absolute ruler of England, was all his life obliged to have recourse to coercive measures, in order to retain power; no party was able to govern so well as him, yet all opposed him-he was constantly attacked by all parties at once. At his death, the republicans alone were able to seize on the supreme power--they did so, and succeeded no better than they had done before. It was not from any want of confidence, at least in the fanatics of the party. A tract, written by Milton, full of talent and nerve, published at that crisis, is entitled A ready and easy Way to establish a free Commonwealth. You see how great was the blindness of these men. They soon shewed themselves as incapable of governing as they had previously done. Monk undertook the direction of that event, which all England expected. The restoration was accomplished."

There are some obscurities in the translation of these Lectures, and slight errors of typography, which we have no doubt will be amended in a second edition for to this the work ought speedily to arrive, since the

original is one of mark that will abide patient reflection and lasting admiration.

ART. XIV. The Churches of London: A History and Description of the Ecclesiastical Edifices of the Metropolis. No. VII. By GEORGE GODWIN, JUN. Architect, Assisted by JOHN BRITTON, ESQ. London: Tilt. 1837.

ALTHOUGH We do not always find it convenient or necessary to notice particularly every additional portion that may appear of such works as the present, we yet bear in mind the precise merits of each successive part or number when, now and then, we fix upon some individual specimen as the subject of a few observations. On the appearance of that which is now before us, devoted as it is to the Temple Church, one of the most interesting fanes in London or the Empire, whether its architectural features be considered, or the historical and antiquarian associations that so abundantly attach to it, an apt opportunity occurs for us to express our hearty commendation of the plan and the execution of this metropolitan and, consequently, national publication. While the accuracy and exactness of the drawings bring before the ordinary spectator the characteristic features of each edifice, the descriptive department of the work evinces a deep and masterly intimacy with the rules and phraseology of art, that cannot but very widely conduce to the dissemination of similar knowledge and to the correction of public taste in regard to our national temples-those sacred monuments which utter the voice of the past, which should preach lessons to the present and to the future.

Mr. Godwin's description of certain sepulchral Effigies within the circular nave of the Temple Church, which have excited much discussion, and are regarded as amongst the most interesting remnants of ancient English sculpture, would, had we space for the whole of it, amply recommend his part of the performance. We must make room for a few sentences, however, not merely as a specimen of his manner and the variety of information which he has brought to his task, but of the appropriate reflections which he builds upon his facts. Speaking of the Effigies, now alluded to, he says,

"The northern group consists of five recumbent figures of knights, armed cap-à-pie, cut in high relief out of solid blocks of stone-each independent of the others—which at the same time form the plinths on which they rest; and the southern group, of four similar figures and a coffinshaped stone en-dos-d'ane. The knights are represented in chain armour with surcoats, and bear shields of the Norman form, which however differ much in length: all, with one exception, repose on cushions, and the greater number have a lion, or other animal, at their feet. In attitude, which is mostly spirited, they differ. Six of them are cross-legged, a position supposed, for some time, peculiar to the effigies of actual crusaders, but known now to have been employed to represent not only persons who went to Palestine as soldiers or pilgrims, but those who had vowed to go, or even those who had merely contributed funds to carry on the holy war."

Mr. Godwin then gives a minute account of each of these figures, and of the conjectures as to who were the celebrated personages meant to be com

memorated by them. Then follows the curious statement and the appropriate reflections so happily expressed, which we now copy.

"Gough mentions, as a circumstance communicated to him on good authority, that a Hertfordshire Baronet made application to the society of Benchers, for some of these cross-legged knights,' to adorn a parochial chapel newly erected by him; but that they, discovering as much good sense as regard the remnants of ancient times, refused compliance. At the present moment the absurdity of the application, (now apparent to all, but seemingly then refused without any expression of surprise) induces involuntarily a smile; and this anecdote is therefore interesting, as affording one example among many, of the vast change in public opinion relative to the works of our forefathers, which has taken place so happily, and so universally within a few years. The remnants of the past have proved, and will prove, stepping-stones for the future. While telling us by intelligible signs what things have been, they appeal to our pride, forbid us to recede, and eloquently point out the way for an approach to excellence.'

ART. XV.-Sequel of the Policy of England towards Spain, in Answer to the Earl of Carnarvon's Work, entitled “ Portugal and Gallicia," to which is prefixed an Answer to An Article in the Quarterly Review, No. CXV. London: Ridgway. 1837.

THIS publication is the Sequel to one of which we some months back said that it contained a searching examination and a powerful refutation" of the Carlist doctrines and party statements which disfigured, according to our judgment, Lord Carnarvon's otherwise elegant and delightful work. The best account that can be given in a small space of the Pamphlet is found in the Advertisement prefixed to it by the author himself. He says-"The form in which the following pages appear, requires a few lines of explanation. It was stated in the Pamphlet entitled " Policy of England," &c. that the author had been induced to reply to Lord Carnarvon, because Lord Carnarvon's reputation and character gave weight to the errors into which he had fallen; and, upon like grounds, no notice was taken of certain attacks that appeared in the Tory Journals, nor of some unmannerly Pamphlets, in which the facts and arguments contained in the "Policy," &c, were impugned. The author entered the lists with Lord Carnarvon, and waited impatiently for his Lordship to take up the gauntlet that had been thrown down. His Lordship, however, gave no signs of life, and a respectable Review having published an attack upon the Pamphlet, the author determined upon answering it. The Reply was actually in the Press when a second edition of Lord Carnarvon's work was announced, which there was reason to believe was to be accompanied by some strictures upon the Pamphlet, and it was judged expedient to await its appearance.

"The author might possibly have thought otherwise if he had been aware that so great a length of time would have taken place between its announcement and its publication; a delay of which the cause can be surmised, as well as the reason why the work appeared at the particular moment it did; and certainly those reasons are not to be looked for in that absence of party spirit to which his Lordship lays claim. The author now publishes his Reply to the Article in the Quarterly Review: for, although a portion of the general observations which that reply contains may be