smallest corners of the field it ranges over, it fail of coinciding with the line of rigid rectitude, no sooner is the aberration pointed out, than (inasmuch as there is no medium between truth and falsehood) its pretensions to the appellation of a truism are gone, and whoever looks upon it must recognise it to be false and erroneous,—and if, as here, political conduct be the theme, so far as the error extends and fails of being detected, pernicious. In a work of such extreme importance with a view to practice, and which throughout keeps practice so closely and immediately and professedly in view, a single error may be attended with the most fatal consequences. The more extensive the propositions, the more consummate will be the knowledge, the more exquisite the skill, indispensably requisite to confine them in all points within the pale of truth. The most consummate ability in the whole nation could not have been too much for the task-one may venture to say, it would not have been equal to it. that, in the sanctioning of each proposition, the most consummate ability should happen to be vested in the heads of the sorry majority in whose hands the plenitude of power happened on that same occasion to be vested, is an event against which the chances are almost as infinity to one.

But

Here, then, is a radical and all-pervading error- -the attempting to give to a work on such a subject the sanction of government; especially of such a government-a government composed of members so numerous, so unequal in talent, as well as discordant in inclinations and affections. Had it been the work of a single hand, and that a private one, and in that character given to the world, every good effect would have been produced by it that could be produced by it when published as the work of government, without any of the bad effects which in case of the smallest error must result from it when given as the work of government.

The revolution, which threw the government into the hands of the penners and adopters of this declaration, having been the effect of insurrection, the grand object evidently is to justify the cause. But by justifying it, they invite it; in justifying past insurrection, they plant and cultivate a propensity to perpetual insurrection in time future; they sow the seeds of anarchy broadcast; in justifying the demolition of existing authorities, they undermine all future ones, their own consequently in the number. Shallow and reckless vanity!-They imitate in their conduct the

author of that fabled law, according to which the assassination of the prince upon the throne gave to the assassin a title to succeed him. "People behold your rights! If a single article of them be violated, insurrection is not your right only, but the most sacred of your duties." Such is the constant language, for such is the professed object of this source and model of all laws—this self-consecrated oracle of all nations.

The more abstract—that is, the more extensive-the proposition is, the more liable is it to involve a fallacy. Of fallacies, one of the most natural modifications is that which is called begging the question—the abuse of making the abstract proposition resorted to for proof, a lever for introducing, in the company of other propositions that are nothing to the purpose, the very proposition which is admitted to stand in need of proof.

Is the provision in question fit in point of expediency to be passed into a law for the government of the French nation ? That, mutatis mutandis, would have been the question put in England: that was the proper question to have been put in relation to each provision it was proposed should enter into the composition of the body of French laws.

Instead of that, as often as the utility of a provision appeared (by reason of the wideness of its extent, for instance) of a doubtful nature, the way taken to clear the doubt was to assert it to be a provision fit to be made law for all men—for all Frenchmen and for all Englishmen, for example, into the bargain. This medium of proof was the more alluring, inasmuch as to the advantage of removing opposition, was added the pleasure, the sort of titillation so exquisite to the nerve of vanity in a French heart -the satisfaction, to use a homely, but not the less apposite proverb, of teaching grandmothers to suck eggs. Hark! ye citizens of the other side of the water! Can you tell us what rights you have belonging to you? No, that you can't. It's we that understand rights: not our own only, but yours into the bargain; while you, poor simple souls! know nothing about the matter.

Hasty generalisation, the great stumbling block of intellectual vanity!-hasty generalisation, the rock that even genius itself is so apt to split upon !-hasty generalisation, the bane of prudence and of science !

In the British Houses of Parliament, more especially in the most efficient house for business, there prevails a well-known jealousy of, and repugnance to, the voting of abstract propositions.

A jealousy of

This jealousy is not less general than reasonable. abstract propositions is an aversion to whatever is beside the purpose an aversion to impertinence.

The great enemies of public peace are the selfish and dissocial passions :-necessary as they are the one to the very .existence of each individual, the other to his security. On the part of these affections, a deficiency in point of strength is never to be apprehended: all that is to be apprehended in respect of them, is to be apprehended on the side of their excess. Society is held together only by the sacrifices that men can be induced to make of the gratifications they demand: to obtain these sacrifices is the great difficulty, the great task of government. What has been the object, the perpetual and palpable object, of this declaration of pretended rights? To add as much force as possible to these passions, already but too strong,-to burst the cords that hold them in,—to say to the selfish passions, there— everywhere is your prey!-to the angry passions, thereeverywhere-is your enemy.

Such is the morality of this celebrated manifesto, rendered famous by the same qualities that gave celebrity to the incendiary of the Ephesian temple.

The logic of it is of a piece with its morality :-a perpetual vein of nonsense, flowing from a perpetual abuse of words-words having a variety of meanings, where words with single meanings were equally at hand-the same words used in a variety of meanings in the same page,—words used in meanings not their own, where proper words were equally at hand,-words and propositions of the most unbounded signification, turned loose without any of those exceptions or modifications which are so necessary on every occasion to reduce their import within the compass, not only of right reason, but even of the design in hand, of whatever nature it may be :—the same inaccuracy, the same inattention in the penning of this cluster of truths on which the fate of nations was to hang, as if it had been an oriental tale, or an allegory for a magazine :-stale epigrams, instead of necessary distinctions,-figurative expressions preferred to simple ones, sentimental conceits, as trite as they are unmeaning, preferred to apt and precise expressions, frippery ornament preferred to the majestic simplicity of good sound sense,—and the acts of the senate loaded and disfigured by the tinsel of the playhouse.

In a play or a novel, an improper word is but a word, and the impropriety, whether noticed or not, is attended with no consequences. In a body of laws-especially of laws given as constitutional and fundamental ones-an improper word may be a national calamity, and civil war may be the consequence of it. Out of one foolish word may start a thousand daggers.

Imputations like these may appear general and declamatory— and rightly so, if they stood alone, but they will be justified even to satiety by the details that follow. Scarcely an article, which, in rummaging it, will not be found a true Pandora's box.

In running over the several articles, I shall on the occasion of each article point out, in the first place, the errors it contains in theory; and then, in the second place, the mischiefs it is pregnant with in practice.

The criticism is verbal: true, but what else can it be? Words words without a meaning, or with a meaning too flatly false to be maintained by anybody, are the stuff it is made of. Look to the letter, you find nonsense; look beyond the letter, you find nothing.

(From A Critical Examination of the Declaration of

Rights.)

MADAME D'ARBLAY

[Frances Burney (Madame d'Arblay) was the daughter of Dr. Charles Burney, a musician of some note, and was born in London in 1752. Her education was neglected, and she was left to develop herself by her own acuteness of observation-for which the society in her father's house gave her ample opportunities—and by reading, of which she was passionately fond, but which did not begin early, and was carried on without guidance. Even in her childhood her imagination was busy upon the construction of stories; but these were written without the knowledge of, and with no encouragement from, her relations. In 1778 she managed to publish, under a strict anonymity, her first novel, Evelina, or the History of a Young Lady's Entrance into the World. It obtained a rapid popularity, and earned praises from those whose praise was most valuable; and the secret of authorship soon leaking out, Frances Burney, at the age of twenty-seven, found herself suddenly famous, and was surrounded by the flattering attention of such men as Johnson, Burke, Reynolds, Sheridan, and Windham. In 1782 she published her second novel, Cecilia, or the Memoirs of an Heiress, which raised her fame still higher. Having formed a friendship for Mrs. Delany, she was by her means brought into the service of the Queen as keeper of the robes, and remained in that service for five miserable years, during which her pen was idle and her health seriously injured. She retired in 1791, and, residing in the society of the French refugees at Mickleham, she married the French General d'Arblay, with whom she afterwards spent many years in France. In 1796 she published her third novel, Camilla, or a Picture of Youth. Its success was far less than that of its predecessors, and the Wanderer, which followed in 1814, is a book which, fortunately for her reputation, is forgotten. She published the Memoirs of her father in 1832, and died in 1840. Her Diaries and Letters, which are full of liveliness and interest, were published in 1842.]

MEN who are now in middle life could hear accounts of the success of Frances Burney's novels from the lips of those to whom that success was a personal experience, and who could recall the time when they were seized with avidity, were the subject of conversation in every literary circle, and were accepted by society as a faithful mirror of its own humours. They are now read only by the curious, and they fail to attract any of that ardent admiration which a comparatively limited, but thoroughly appreciative audience