on one side; he is pressed by the Ultramontanists on the other; and the relative force of these influences varies from hour to hour. Now he bullies the pope, and now he cajoles him-sends fresh troops to the support of his temporal power, and dictates pamphlets against its continuance. "The spiritual authority of the pope," said Voltaire, "always a little mingled with temporal authority, is destroyed and detested in half Christendom; and if in the other half he is regarded as a father, he has children who sometimes resist him with reason and success. The maxim of France is to regard him as a sacred but enterprising personage, whose feet must be kissed, but whose hands must be sometimes tied." Such, no doubt, is the view which the eldest son of the Church at this moment takes of his duty towards his holy father. He does his best to observe the rule of diplomatic etiquette in both its parts. What

He knew that, from the superiority of his troops, the chances of the game were in his favor, and he is a gambler who, to do him justice, does not throw the dice with a trembling hand. He had also moved armies on paper, and formed plans of battle, as of politics, diplomacy, and legislation, which were imitations of those of his uncle. The miraculous escape of Magenta, the bloody chaos of which he was a helpless spectator at Solferino, dispelled his delusion, and his mind turned wildly from the difficulties which surrounded him to a different scheme. He made overtures for peace to the emperor of Austria, and offered the restoration of Lombardy as the price of connivance on the Rhine. Safe out of his scrape and in the Tuileries again, he recovered heart, thought once more of the Orsinis and of his fame as a liberator, and passed the word to the Tuscans to break the Treaty of Villafranca. Then followed the natural consequences-ever injury or humiliation he inflicts on the the rising of Italy and the Dictatorship of Sardinia. Yet for these consequences, natural as they were, the sagacity of the emperor was not prepared. He saw, against all the traditions of French diplomacy, a powerful kingdom rising on the borders of France, and he knew neither how to suffer this result nor how to prevent it. He propounded a scheme for a federal Italy, with the pope at its head, which proved so immediately abortive that the world has forgotten that it was ever propounded. Since that time he has assumed an undecisive, ungenerous, half hostile attitude, condemning, thwarting, threatening, irritating, yet fearing to interpose; covering himself with odium and contempt by delaying the fall of Gaeta, yet allowing it to fall at last; countenancing the reactionary movement only to prolong confusion and waste blood, alienating the Italians by withdrawing his envoy from Turin, but not speaking the word that would have restrained Cavour. Is this policy inscrutably sagacious, or is it inscrutable alone? What should we, who think our diplomacy so blundering and inconsistent, have said to an English ministry which had thus converted into hatred the gratitude earned by a Magenta and Solferino?

What is the key to Louis Napoleon's present conduct in the matter of Rome? We are persuaded that it is mere perplexity-the perplexity of short-sighted selfishness, unable to make out which way its interest lies. On the one hand, he finds his position growing hourly more untenable. On the other hand, he cannot bear to withdraw the forces by which he still prevents the complete union of Italy, keeps the game open, and retains his hold on Italian affairs. He is pressed by the Liberal party and the English government

66

chief of Christendom is always preceded by the regulation kiss. The Byzantine rhetoric and the Byzantine adulation of M. de la Guerronière's pamphlet have been sufficiently noticed. Its "modest churches," its fertile plains watered by the Po," its reverent exposition of the providential dispensations of imperial goodness and wisdom, have received the due meed of literary and moral approbation. The unctuous hypocrisy which is its distinguishing feature has not been so clearly pointed out. The writer, while producing the handcuffs, kisses "with ardor" the consecrated feet. It is not quite so easy, however, to kiss the feet and tie the hands at the same time. Hypocrisy denotes fear and weakness; and this the eye of an Antonelli is quick to discern. While Louis Napoleon is pious, it is a sign that the priest party in France has power. While the priest party in France has power, the French troops will not be withdrawn. And till the French troops are withdrawn, Antonelli, like Francis II., will play his own game. When the support of France is gone, it will be time to give in an adhesion to the Italian nation. Nothing worse can come at last than a "spiritual" dominion in place of the patrimony, and a great ingathering of "souls" to Peter instead of pence.

England has certainly no reason to boast of any direct aid given to Italy. As a nation, she has spent no treasure and no blood. But we have the satisfaction of being assured by the chief of the Italian cause that the sympathy of a free people has not failed to afford support to those who were struggling to be free. That sympathy has been given in unbounded measure, and without misgiving or hesitation, so far as the cause of Italy was concerned. If England looked

evil genius of the Federation is likely to have his way. Unless Mr. Lincoln, continuing the incredible policy of Mr. Buchanan, should allow a second nation to form itself peaceably in North America, we seem sufficiently near a great and bloody struggle to be excused for reflecting how far it involves consequences important to ourselves.

on with divided feelings at Magenta and Solferino, it was because, not the cause of Italy alone, but that of the world also, was at issue in those fields, and if the interest of Italy was clear, that of the world was by no means so. There might be a doubt which of the two contending despotisms that of France or that of Austria-was the worst in itself; there could be no doubt which was the most formidable, the most actively retrograde, the most aggressive, the most menacing to the liberties of the world. Whether Italy herself will have gained in the long run by the intervention of France, is even now a question, the solution of which must depend upon the further question whether the Austrian tyranny would or would not have been broken up, without the appliance of external force, by bankruptcy and other internal causes of dissolution. But it is only too clear that the interests of the world have suffered by the exaltation of the French military power, the elation of the French soldiery, the strength which victory has added to the military despotism, and the decisive preponderance given to the warlike over the pacific and commercial element in the French nation. The time is probably not remote when all free nations will have reason to re-ble with the positions of the only advocates joice that England has husbanded her resources for the supreme exigencies of European freedom.

From The Saturday Review, 23 Feb. POINTS OF CONTRAST BETWEEN ENG

LISH AND AMERICAN POLITICS.

THE suddenness, the unexpectedness, and the overwhelming importance of the events which are occurring in America have naturally tempted Englishmen to speculate on their course and probable issue, rather than on the effects which in their ultimate result they will assuredly produce on English society. The only point on which we have hitherto had time to concentrate our interest has been what will be the next stage in this amazing history. We have asked ourselves, in turn, whether South Carolina would really secede?-whether her example would be followed by any other Cotton State ?-whether the Republican party would be cowed into offering any compromise?—whether any compromise could be invented which would preserve the border States to the Union? All these questions, except the last, have successively received the answer which, at first sight, seemed the least probable and was certainly the most unfortunate; and, even on the point which remains to be solved, the possibility of keeping Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee from withdrawing, -the latest news seems to show that the

If we turn our attention to the influence of the American rupture on England, the first thought which suggests itself is, that the quarrel has a material bearing on the question of parliamentary reform. That there is so close a connection between the two topics is not the fault of reflecting politicians in this country. They, at all events, have always denied that, except within certain limits, American experience had any value for English legislators. The shallow demagogues of the Birmingham and other kindred platforms must bear the blame of the inference, drawn nearly universally at the present moment, that, if the United States become involved in hopeless difficulties, it would be madness to lower the qualification for the suffrage in England. The conclusion may not be warrantable, but whose fault is that? It is equally warranta

of a Reform Bill who have forced the English public to give them a hearing. If it be of importance to point out that the United States can do without an army, it is an equally cogent observation that the want of an army is exposing what was but yesterday one of the greatest governments on earth to contempt, contumely, and ruin. If the comparison of English with American taxation has the slightest bearing on English politics, so has the obvious truth that, for want of an adequate establishment, the Americans of the Northern States are likely to have to make more sacrifices, personal and fiscal, than Englishmen have submitted to since the two countries separated. If it be argued that something like universal suffrage ought to be adopted in England because law, order, and property are respected in America, it is answer enough that the very quarrel which distracts the Union takes the form of a complaint, on one side, that the rights of property have been lawlessly violated, and on the other, that a minority is outraging the first principle of constitutional government by refusing to give way to a majority. The replies are not ours, but they are conclusive as to the emptiness of the arguments, which are not ours either. We can separate the cause of England from that of America. We can show that the shipwreck of one set of institutions, even were it more complete than it is, would prove nothing as to the

fate of the other. We could, perhaps, even review their hasty acquiescence in the deestablish that the miscarriage of an extended mand for an organic change, are likely to franchise in the United States has but a re- produce a clamor for organic change from stricted bearing on the extension of the fran- those Englishmen who unhappily think but chise in England. But were we to make little. We presume that as soon as want bethe attempt, we should probably convince gins to pinch the manufacturing operatives, nobody, for the simple reason that Mr. Bright has succeeded in persuading a great number of influential persons that the admission of working men into the constituencies is chiefly, if not solely, desirable on the ground that it has succeeded so admirably in America, and has proved a sovereign panacea against the war, taxation, and confusion which are the curses of old governments in Europe.

Mr. Bright will make their sufferings the pretext for instructing them as to their wrongs. That the British aristocracy will be shown to have caused or aggravated the scarcity may be taken for granted. That the institutions of the United States will be proved to have had no share in producing it may be equally assumed. The exact turn which the arguments will take is matter of interesting speculation.

Even if the Americans should succeed in It is but too probable that we must be preadjusting their differences, the rebuke to pared for a period of considerable, perhaps English agitators would be equally severe. of severe distress. When the causes of Even if the gulf close, the fact remains that such a calamity are perfectly plain, and apit once opened, and there is no more secur-parently beyond help, there is always a ity for those who have seen an abyss at their yearning among the suffering class for the feet. But should this unhappy quarrel come to bloodshed, its influence on England will be not simply moral or speculative, but direct, practical, and material. We cannot share in the confidence so freely expressed that the staple of English industry will remain long undisturbed by American convulsions. Knowing of what stock the Northern Americans come, it is hard to believe that they will resign half an empire without a struggle. What was India, for which three years since we made so mighty an effort, compared with those securities for national and material greatness which the men of the Northern States are threatened with losing? But, even if a Confederation of the Southern States succeed momentarily in forming itself (as it seems likely to do) through the utter bewilderment and perplexity of the North, nothing more would be gained, we are convinced, than a mere respite from battle. How can a Southern Union remain in peace with a country which will be one great receptacle of fugitive slaves? How can the North look on with indifference while the slave trade is revived

remedies which lie furthest away from ordinary experience. The factory hands who cannot get work because the negroes in America do not hoe sufficient cotton will long for admission to the franchise, just as the victim of a cancer flies to a quack medicine. It is imperative, with such a prospect before us, that we should all review our reasons for advocating or opposing a Reform Bill. It is possible that the silence of the country which has disheartened Lord John Russell may not always continue, and that there may one day be reason enough for altering the Constitution, if clamor be a reason. It is time that politicians even of the most moderate patriotism left off the affectation of talking of themselves as mere straws in the popular wind, and making up their minds in good earnest whether the reconstruction of Parliament be a measure in itself and on its own grounds desirable.

From The Spectator, 23 Feb. THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION.

On the 3d March, says the Independence and Mexico absorbed? In every event, the Belge, the Emperor Alexander will decree cotton on which so many of our millions de- the final emancipation of the serfs. The pend for sustenance will be produced in statement reads simple enough, but for ages smaller quantities or exported under greater no event has occurred so huge at once in difficulties. A short supply of cotton at its proportions and its consequences. The Liverpool must be the consequence; and a slavery of Russia differs materially from scarcity of cotton is in this country not any form of that great curse hitherto known merely a commercial, but a political event. among men, from the slavery which dried It implies low wages and slack work; and up the vitality of the Roman world as much doubtless, with low wages and slack work as from the slavery which is the disgrace of will recommence the era of Mr. Bright's North America. It was a purely Asiatic maleficent activity. It is a curious circum- institution, the logical complement of an stance that the very occurrences on the Asiatic theory of society, and Russia, in reother side of the Atlantic which have led al-nouncing it, renounces Asia, and enters Eumost all Englishmen who can think at all to rope not merely as a power-the Sultanut

was once a power-but as a nation, with European objects, and a European capacity for limitless development.

interest in oppressing the peasant for the sake of the proprietor. It was the strain to protect the land rental which vested the The modern system of serfage commenced landowner in Russia, as in Bengal it vests in 1599 with a decree of the usurper Boris the Zemindar, with such tremendous power. Godunoff. As he was a usurper, philosoph- The law, for example, intends that every ical historians suppose he intended to con- man who shares the produce of certain land ciliate the noblesse, but there is not the shall pay his share of rent in service and slightest evidence of any such intention. obedience. But there is no law enabling At that time the agricultural classes were the proprietor who permits his serf to emimarked by a spirit of restlessness which grate to follow him with a personal tax. All seemed to Russian statesmen dangerous and he can legally do, is to summon him back to unreasonable. Villages were always on the the estate, though, as the summons implies move. Every fifth or sixth year the com- to the serf of the cities utter ruin, it is ammune, which is, so to speak, the integer of ply sufficient to ensure obedience. In pracRussian society, would migrate to some new tice, partly through the operation of the law, locality, disappear perhaps in a night, with- partly through long-continued custom, and out warning or signal, to be heard of only chiefly through the steady bias of all officials after a march of a hundred miles. They towards the proprietor and against the serf, retained, in fact, say Western philosophers, the landowner has become absolute over inthe nomadic instincts of their ancestry. dividuals. He can order any man to be Nothing of the sort. They disliked unnec- beaten, without limit as to the number of essary work just as Western philosophers blows; he can, when hard pressed, evade dislike it, and in a country where land is the law prohibiting sale by letting the serf valueless it is easier to break up a virgin for ninety years; he can make life unensoil than to re-invigorate an old one. Ex- durable by petty exactions and incessant actly the same tendency at this moment work, by insults it is impossible to resent, puzzles British administrators in Burmah, and American politicians in the far South. The system, of course, is exceedingly unpleasant to any government advanced beyond the stage of Tartar Khans. It very nearly destroys the possibility of conscription, and completely paralyzes the fiscal authorities. It is, moreover, injurious to civilization. A race which contemplates migration as an ordinary incident of life will neither fence, nor drain, nor build, and has a trick of preferring stock breeding to cultivation. Influenced by all these motives, the councillors of Boris Godunoff resolved to prevent locomotion, and in a rough arbitrary way alone intelligible to Asiatics, they passed a Law of Settlement. In less civilized phrase, they bound the peasant to the soil, thus changing at once freemen into "ryots." As the soil, in their theory, belonged to the boyars, they ordered the peasant to pay three days' labor in the week for the privilege of working on the other three; and it is in the continued effort to realize this rental that the root of modern serfage must be sought. Gradually the class who held, though they did not own, the land, While the master is thus absolute over and who could directly influence the throne, the individual, he is powerless as against the drew all privileges to themselves. The right community, or against a general right. No of selecting conscripts gave them one weapon, proprietor in Russia claims a right to sell the right of enforcing obedience to orders children, or separate husband and wife, or necessary for cultivation, another; but to breed slaves for sale. He may perform isothis hour the power of the Russian slave- lated acts of tyranny, tending to those reholder is based rather on encroachment har- sults, but he performs them in the face of dened into right than on any positive law. the law and public opinion, and not with The throne neither felt nor pretended any their support. As to communities, he is

and demands it is difficult to evade. The actual conduct of the class is differently represented by different observers, but the evidence is heavy against the landowners. Most, if not all, of the favorable accounts have been written by foreigners. Russian writers usually admit that the system is oppressive, and the literature of the populace teems with stories of the grotesque and usually filthy tyranny of the noblesse. Uncle Tom's Cabin was circulated in Russia with a speed which in such a country could be produced only by the sympathy arising from similarity of condition. Above all, it is a certainty that the Russian peasant detested his position, that local insurrections were incessant, and that only hope-the hope now justified by the emperor-prevented them from becoming universal. Russian slavery in its best form destroys individual interest, and therefore general progress, renders a true middle class impossible, and poisons the national mind with discontent. In its worst forms it is better than negro slavery only in the absence of race hatred, and in the peculiarity we may now describe.

powerless both in theory and practice. The Russian, like every other Asiatic, considers that the land belongs to him and his commune. He may be compelled to pay rent, or give service, but his right is wholly unimpaired. Like other Asiatics, too, he will fight for this single right with the most ut-ever entertained. The peasantry, with that ter indifference to consequences. The same man who will bear insult and blows and taxation without a murmur, is a freeman the instant his land is menaced. A real assault on his village rights produces an insurrection as certainly as a cloud produces rain. His land has, therefore, been respected, and it is this remnant of citizenship, this last relic of property right, which has saved him from degradation, and which now forms the difficulty of emancipation.

The ablest nobles admitted that the death of the czar, even from natural causes, would be the signal for the universal massacre of the Order. They protested and implored, and suggested impossible compromises, but even in Moscow no dream of resistance was

strange self-control which is the first characteristic of Asiatics, waited in patience for the emperor's will. It has been uttered at last, and from the 3d March every Russian in the empire will be free. He may have rent to pay, though we doubt it; he may have a compensation fund to make up, though we disbelieve it; but he will be free of the stick, free of labor for another's advantage, free above all to remove himself to the cities, and there reap the advantage of his almost Parisian shiftiness and address.

The first is an increase in the political strength of Russia. The House of Romanoff, with all its despotic principles, has been for ages in fair accord with its people. The masses, while distrusting the Tchin," and detesting the aristocracy, have been steadfastly loyal to the throne. A mob obeys the direct order of the czar as submissively as his soldiery. "God and the czar" is the cry of the Russian peasant, and he does not always distinguish accurately between the two Beneficences. If this has been his habitual feeling, what will it be when the emperor has conceded the freedom his nobles would have withheld? Henceforward, the man who menaces the dynasty will be regarded in Russia as he would be in England

The House of Romanoff, though the largest serf-holder in the empire, has almost It is not, perhaps, necessary to examine from its accession been hostile to Russian very carefully the consequences of this great serfage. There is no need to account for deed. There are occasions in the history of the fact by supposing the czars either en-nations, as in the lives of individuals, when lightened beyond all other Russians, or the act to be done is too vast for human moved by any very recondite policy. Abso- foresight, when the single advice worth hearlute monarchs usually dislike the classes ing is to do right, and leave the consequences which can resist them, and the nobles have to the God you have obeyed. But there are been the resisting force of Russia. Abso- one or two results which, unless all history lute monarchs, on the other hand, are apt to is valueless, may safely be predicted from regard all their subjects as equal, to care as the revolution. much for the peasantry as the middle class. The Cæsar alone among Romans tried to alleviate slayery. Oriental kings in their fits of good government always hang a few satraps, and secure a decent tenure for the cultivators. The Russian house, moreover, has thirsted for generations for a high place in Europe, has keenly felt the loss of position involved in ruling over serfs. Indeed, this latter feeling may have been the strongest of all, for Nicholas, the only czar who ever attained a commanding position in Europe, was also the only one who never attempted any thing for the serfs. Other emperors have not done much, but they have done enough to indicate their tendencies, and make themselves recognized as the sole protectors of the peasantry. This feeling has been their strength, and when on his accession to the throne the emperor distinctly pledged himself to emancipation, it was his security. Within a fortnight of the issue of the first decree, ordering inquiry, it was known throughout the remotest villages of Russia. A glad and overpowering emotion ran through the land, and in an instant the power of the nobles as a corporation was destroyed. They might remonstrate, or even delay, but their power of resistance had disappeared. One wave of the emperor's finger, and the class would have been swept away. The old "constitutional check" in Russia, the right of assassination, was at an end.

as a dangerous, but still contemptible fool. That result alone strengthens the czars almost inconceivably. Add to this that serfage is the first cause of the poverty of the Russian fisc, that its abolition renders direct taxation on the masses possible, and must increase the customs receipts indefinitely, that half the abuses of the army have their root in serfage, and, finally, that the moral weight of Russia is crippled by her adherence to slavery, and we may gain some idea of the advantages which will repay the reigning house for the enormous sacrifice they have made.

The second result is, we imagine, the temporary extinction of the Russian aristocracy.