sacred monument of the antient valour of the Swiss, they were resolved, if unable to leave liberty to their posterity, to set them the example of a defence worthy of it. Aloys Reding, of Schwitz, who commanded the allies,-a hero and a sage, who in peaceable times had been the advocate of reforms and ameliorations, but who resented the offer of changes from an armed enemy,in this situation, thus addressed his troops :* "Brave comrades, dear fellow citizens, behold us at a decisive moment. Surrounded by enemies, abandoned by friends, there now remains for us only to ascertain whether we wish courageously to imitate the example set us by our ancestors at Morgarten. A death almost certain awaits us. If any one fears it, let him retire, and no reproach on our part shall follow him. Let us not impose on each other in this solemn hour. I had rather have a hundred men prepared for all events, on whom I can rely, than five hundred who, taking themselves to flight, will produce confusion, and, by their perfidious retreat, would sacrifice the heroes who were desirous of still defending themselves. As to myself, I promise not to abandon you even in the greatest peril. DEATH, AND NO RETREAT. If you share in my resolution, depute two men from each rank, and let them swear to me, in your name, that you will be faithful to your promises." The words of the hero were heard in the greatest silence, and with most religious attention; hardy warriors shed tears of tenderness; and when the address was closed, a thousand cries were heard: "We will share your lot, we will never abandon you." Two men came forth from each rank, to pledge fidelity in life and death to the chief. After having consecrated by unparalleled bravery the heights of Morgarten and other passes, victorious in every combat, and in every affair exhausted by their very triumphs, the more cool and reasonable turned their thoughts to capitulation. A suspension of arms for 24 hours was obtained, an assembly of the people was held, and the warriors quitted their heights to deliberate. Here again the superiority of the brave children of William Tell discovered itself. After various speeches, and after the hero Reding had recommended capitulation, the assembly being agitated like the waves of a tempestuous sea, a venerable old priest, deservedly held in the highest esteem, explained to them their situation. Stating the reasons for capitulating, thrice his voice was lost in murmurs, and thrice they invited him to continue his discourse. The councils of reason at length carried the decision by a great majority, while about a hundred resolutely voted for an useless sacrifice of human life. The capitulation was settled, and the Schwitzers The author assures us that the speech is authentic and correct. were were only required to submit to the new constitution: the rights of persons, property, and religion, were not to be violated; and the French troops were to be wholly withdrawn from the vicinity.-We ought perhaps, in justice, to state that the French General Schauenbourg, who was employed in the odious undertaking of invading these peaceful happy districts, shewed the inhabitants every mark of respect and consideration, took every opportunity of extolling their virtue and heroism, and cultivated the friendship of their brave commander, Reding. Thus, says the author, Europe was a witness to the valour of these mountaineers, admired their efforts, and commiserated their ill success! We lament to hear that they are still doomed to inquietude and contention. ART. IV. Principes du Droit Politique, &c. i. e. Principles of Ancien Avocat ou Imported by De THE partisans of the French Revolution have made the contract social their political gospel; and it has been considered by many as, in a great degree, the cause of the calamities and miseries which that event has brought on the world. A masterly criticism on that production, therefore, would have formed a valuable present to the public, and been an acceptable offering from a courtier of the new school to the chief ruler of France; whose fortune and whose power have swept from the soil of that country all the institutions and forms of liberty, which the disciples of Rousseau, at the expence of incalculable sacrifices, had for a time introduced. Yet, be the errors of that celebrated work ever so numerous, be its tendency ever so pernicious, be the ills which it has actually produced ever so many and flagrant; let senatorial anathemas. multiply, let declaimers pour forth their invectives, let power threaten, and let fashion sneer; still, the fire of genius and the fascinations of style, which illumine and grace the pages of the philosopher of Geneva, will render vain every effort to subject his works to an interdict. While a taste for letters or a relish for exquisite composition exists, Rousseau will not fail to have readers. It is true, indeed, that persons of even ordinary discrimina tion cannot fail to discover, in this work on the social contract, bons mots which mislead, sophisms which perplex, operose deductions which the understanding cannot follow, obscure media of reasoning, hardy assertions, wild paradoxes, and even glaring inconsistencies: but these are so blended with effusions of the finest sense, with sage remarks, with well weighed reflections, with qualifications which, if they do not sufficiently caution, the reader, form a shelter for the author; in short, the whole of this production is drawn up with so much art, that he must be a bold man, and a courageous writer, who will attempt completely to expose its imperfections and confute its errors. This is a province too high for angry ignorance, or rancorous superstition. Not merely the Genevese Lawyer and the Archbishop of Paris, but the first wits of his time, dreaded and smarted under his lash. It is not, therefore, some one taken by chance out of the endless list of advocates, that can overturn a main pillar which supports the fame of the author of Emile and Heloise. We respect the intentions of the writer of the volume before us, who denominates himself an advocate; and we should have been glad to see the task which he volunteered succesfully executed: but we differ nearly as widely from him, as we do from the celebrated person whom he has chosen to combat. In our judgment, he possesses not that acquaintance with his subject, nor those talents, nor that skill in composition, which are requisite for his undertaking. He has exposed some of the inconsistenctes which present themselves in the contrat social, and has shewn some address in pointing his adversary's own weapons against himself: but, on the whole, we think that the literary hero is little hurt by this formal, deliberate, and solemn attack. The errors of a genius like Rousseau, indeed, lead to more improvement when contemplated by a well informed mind, than the soundest and best reasonings of an author of the rank of his antagonist; and though we admit that, instructive as he is to persons who are above being misled, the young and inexperienced cannot be too much on their guard against him, yet we fear that the antidote is not to be found in the Principes du Droit Politique. We shall lay before our readers a few passages, to shew this author's sentiments and turn of mind: Philosophy, always palming its seditious declamations under the fair name of liberty, has for a long time denied to sovereigns the right of imprisoning an individual, without recourse being had to judicial forms. I regard this pretension as one of the first causes, nay, I may say, one of the immediate causes of the French revolution; and the epoch, in which sovereigns shall yield to it, will be that of the destruction of their empires.' So the existence of an habeas corpus act is inconsistent with that of a well regulated state! The Chief Consul has no objection to this doctrine, if the report be true that several individuals of our neighbouring metropolis have not merely been im prisoned prisoned without any legal proceedings, but even have been déportés à la Guione.-Having heard the author on the subject of personal freedom, let us attend to what he says on that of toleration : In all catholic states, the greatest fault of which a govern. ment can be guilty is that of admitting or tolerating other religions in it; this is to place together light and darkness, error and truth; it is to expose a tender mother to be torn in pieces by rebellious children; it is to confound that which is most holy with that which is most profane; it is to introduce into a state a source of conflicts, of opposite claims, and of all the ills which flow from such a source.' The author elsewhere asserts that the catholic system ought to be admitted every where, since it is a divine religion, universal in its essence, and besides which there is no true one. What will M. l'Ancien Avocat say to the concordat? Perusing the dreadful page of the horrors of anarchy, we feel inclined to advise subjects of arbitrary governments to hug their chains; yet, on the other side, when we cast our eyes over the bigoted declamations of the degraded partisans of despotism, we are almost tempted to withdraw censure from those who plunged into the gulf of a revolution. How grateful, then, should those feel, whose envied let it is to live under a system of moderate practical liberty; they ought more than ever to value their heritage; let them not abuse it on the one hand, nor let them remit a jealous vigilance in regard to it on the other! M. *** is liberal in his acknowlegements to Bonaparte, for having overturned the institutions which the disciples of Rousseau had established in France: but he tells him that there yet remains one boon for him to bestow, the gift of which will be still more glorious to himself, and more beneficial to the people of France than any other. He does not name this favour, however; and he thus seems to doubt the generosity of his hero: but he clearly means the restoration of the Bourbons to the throne.This work has been written some time; and the present courtiers of the Thuilleries, we imagine, would as soon talk direct treason as drop such a hint. Some of the author's invectives against the revolutionists and their measures are forcible and happy: I seem to hear (he says) all the cheats of France, enriched by the spoils of the unfortunate, crying out at this moment, all is well; and loudly inviting the return of moderation, public tranquillity, and respect for property.' He tells kings that the general good is their interest; that they should not attend to the corrupt flatterers who surround them, and who inspire them with a jealousy of each other that is un. worthy worthy of supreme majesty, and has made them run the most imminent risks in order to humble each other; that they should not suffer themselves to be drawn into those wars of interest, the sole oject of which is to pillage each other, at the expence of the blood of their subjects, and of provinces laid waste by fire and sword; and above all, that they should abjure the dark policy which has led them to favour the revolt of sub jects, while their genuine interests would have prescribed to them mutual assistance against such serious calamities. He also prophesies that, if the practice of weakening each other continues to be the policy of kings, it will end in their des struction: What (he asks) is this art of weakening a rival potentate, in order to reign with more extended power? It is that of plunging thousands of men in misery, of kindling in a state the flames of civil war, of causing the ruin of some and the proscription of others, of provoking massacres, pillage, conflagrations, and every kind of crime, of arming the son against the father and the brother against the sister, of scattering on all sides despair, and the horrors of death; in one word, it is the abominable talent of destroying the human species. Is that the object of the institution of kings? The art of reigning, at this day, is that of carrying trouble into other empires; a king cannot advance the good of his people, but by the sacrifice of another nation; he cannot support his crown, but by causing that of his neighbour to fall: what has been, in the course of the last twelve years, the consequence of this horrible policy? Twenty kings and sovereign princes have been precipitated from the throne, and forced to wander as exiles from country to country: states have been confounded; one knows no longer their names, their chiefs, nor their limits: Europe is become a chaos, in which the strong raises himself by the destruction of the weak, in order, in his turn, to be himself supplanted; the rights of birth and election have been extinguished; and thus have the coalitions of sovereigus laid waste the world: each poten tate, having no other object than that of seizing on the first states of which he can lay hold, be they those of an ally or a relation, or of any other person united to him by ties equally binding. Thus will sovereigns, if they do not scon return to better principles, consum mate the overthrow of the social universe. It seems as if they laboured to justify the opinion of them which was maintained by the philosopher of Geneva, by whom they are represented as the destroyers of humanity; and who says that political societies are flocks which have chiefs who devour them.' This is the declamation, not of Rousseau, but of M. l'Ancien Avecat; it is the remonstrance and warning of a friend, of an unqualified advocate for the old monarchy of France. Though republicans may make an unfair use of it, and though a discreet opponent of Rousseau would have conveyed the same counsels without laying himself and his cause so open to his adversaries, 2 |
