of his family, mistrusted him, because they knew he was inclined to do what was not in his power.

The situation of Louis XVIII. is so far parallel.:

The promises which Charles made when he was restored, were not made with that deliberation and prudence, which was requisite, and could not be kept. A charter, a constitution, or the rules by which a country is to be governed, must be practicable. That of England was not so in all its parts; and we shall show, in the following work, that the constitutional charter of France is not at present practicable in all its parts.

The situation of Louis XVIII, and of Charles II. are again so far parallel.

The nation felt, that it had ill-treated the father, and could never believe that it was forgiven by the Those who are injured may forgive, but those who do the injury, never can be brought to believe that they are forgiven*.

son.

The people of Paris now, notwithstanding the daily and unbounded beneficence of the royal family, can never be persuaded that they are forgiven by them. The duchess d'Angouleme, in particular, is suspected of nourishing an inward desire of revenge.Where will injustice stop? That princess, so cruelly persecuted in her youth, imprisoned with her family, who were all torn from her one by one, to suffer the most inhuman insults and death. That

In France, we believe, that Louis forgives those who injured his family; but we are persuaded, that many do not believe that they are forgiven. This is not indeed very wonderful, for even persons, who

are in no manner parties to the affair, cannot rid themselves of feelings of anger, when they read the horrible details. The manner in which Louis XVI. was treated, was so much worse, and his personal character so much better, than that of Charles I. that the French must feel their injustice more than the English did, and consequently be more difficult to be convinced that they are forgiven.

Louis XVI. had not violated any charter, for he had none to violate, previous to the constitution of

princess, who for years, languished in a solitary dungeon, with the most cruel reflections on the past, with no hopes for the future in this world, has contracted a sort of dignified melancholy, which will accompany her to the grave. This might well be accounted for, by all who can feel, as arising from past scenes, the remembrance of which nothing ever can efface. The Parisians think it disdain. They know they have offended beyond forgiveness towards that princess, and all her unaffected goodness and charity, are unable to convince them, that they are forgiven. Lady Morgan takes care to give to her melancholy dignity, this same uncharitable, unjust, and popular explanation, when she saw her pass along the Bouleyards, on the marriage-day of the Duc de Berri.

1789, and after its formation, he had most scrupulously adhered to every article*. His conduct on the whole was mild when in power, and submissive when in adversity, with a degree of firmness, at the same time, that makes it astonishing how men could be found to persecute or insult him, much less to put him and his innocent family to death. Charles I. had violated the charter, by an adherence ́to which he could only legally hold the throne. He was so far from yielding, like the mild Louis, that he went to war with his parliament; yet, notwithstanding, the parliament and the people felt they

The king constantly carried the constitutional charter in his pocket, and never took any step, with regard to which there was any doubt, without first consulting it. His trial before the convention, which was an outrage to all decency and justice, showed how much he was belied, when they said he violated the constitution. As to king Charles, his most zealous advocates admitted, that he violated the coronation oath, but the violence and injustice of his enemies made his faults be forgotten. The brightest star disappears, when the sun shines, and so it was with the faults of the unfortunate Charles. He erred, and that greatly; but the rebels who murdered him became so criminal, and were so hated, that the bulk of the nation silently wished to see his death revenged. The nation disclaimed the act, and has always been ashamed of it, though it was the act of a faction, supported by an army of rebels, that held good men in awe.

had

gone too far.

They did not forgive themselves for what they had done, and therefore they could not believe, that the son of their murdered sovereign could forgive them.

So far once more is there a parallel.

Charles II. had made promises when he was restored, but his head was still full of legitimacy and divine rights; he still lusted after power, as the Jews in the wilderness did after the flesh-pots of Egypt; and there are some reasons for fearing that Louis XVIII. does the same.

So far still there is a parallel.

Charles II. had no children. The crown was to go to his brother at his death; and that brother, afterwards James II. was supposed to be still more attached to the ancient form of government and royal prerogatives than the king himself. In the language of the present day, he was an ultra royalist; and here, we are sorry to say, the parellel is complete; or, if it is not, we are misinformed, and, at least, nine tenths of France is in an error on the subject*.

* King Charles, walking out one morning, accompanied only by two noblemen, met the duke of York coming from hunting, at Hounslow, attended by a company of light dragoons. The duke descended from his carriage, and, joining his brother, remonstrated

There remains but one other circumstance attendant on the two cases, which require to be compared. The English had not, properly speaking, a bill of rights in Charles's time. They had neglected, at the restoration, to make the arrangement with their monarch complete. The French have a charter; but it is incomplete, and in some places

with him for not being guarded. "Ah, James, (replied the witty monarch), there is no need of that nobody in the kingdom will

kill me, to put you upon the throne."

When the duke of York remonstrated with king Charles, one day,

for not being more peremptory and severe, the king replied gravely

"I am too old, James, to go on my travels again; when you come to the throne, you may be peremptory and severe, if you think proper." These words were half prophetic. James was peremptory and severe when he ascended the throne, and he soon went again on his travels, never to return.

The opinion in France is, that the king's brother is something like the duke of York in his way of thinking, and the king like Charles II. Perhaps it is not so. M. de Cazes told an Englishman who waited upon him on some business, that the king and the whole family were as completely of one mind as possible. "Since you say so, Monseigneur, I believe it to be so, (said the Englishman), but it is a pity that some method is not taken to let the public know the truth. This conversation was in last September, at the time that the open revolt against the king was publicly and generally the subject of conversation.