outcast victim of merciless oppression sustained its little life amid the expiring agonies of her own!

But of what degree of "hoar antiquity" was that statute which, in the opinion of Lord Ellenborough, could not be repealed, in order to substitute one of a more moderate character, without causing a "dangerous innovation" upon the criminal law? It had no existence before the reign of William III., that is, it had been a part of the law little more than a century out of the ten centuries during which the monarchy of England has endured. The offence had been punishable as a simple larceny, until this statute made it a capital crime. We need scarcely add that such a statute was-like most other of our sanguinary laws for offences against property-the result of that calculating and inhuman cupidity which accounted not human blood, nor even the immortal destinies of a living soul, of the least value when put in competition with a little pelf. It was, in short, one of those laws which, in punishing a violation of the eighth commandment, was itself a violation of the sixth: for most assuredly the eternal decree,

"Thou shalt do no murder,"

was addressed to man in his collective, as well as his individual capacity, to princes and legislators, as well as to every human being subject to their dominion.

The Death of ARMAND CARREL.-July 29, 1836.

THE fate of Armand CARREL, the victim of a false law of honour, was indeed a melancholy one; but though cut off in the prime of life and in the vigour of his intellect, he did not die too soon for his own fame. His reputation as a political writer was great, and the unsullied integrity of his conduct, as a champion of the principles which he espoused, excited the admiration of his countrymen, even in an age full of contrary examples. But he did not engage in politics as a trade, or connect himself with party as an ambitious speculation. His opinions, whether right or wrong, were the result of an honest conviction, and the fidelity that gave lustre to his character, will hallow his tomb.

A republican in principle, M. CARREL is not to be confounded with the vulgar herd of democrats and liberals-a sordid and intolerant race, who cover the most selfish designs with the mask of patriotism, and court a base popularity for the purposes of a baser ambition. M. CARREL was a republican upon the Roman model. Ardent, high-minded, and of inflexible determination, he had sternly devoted himself to what he believed to be the cause of public virtue and of his country. He chose the course which he believed to be right, and, above being intimidated by danger, or seduced by corruption, he pursued it as one who always felt, thought, and acted, under the inspiration of a chivalrous sentiment.

We may say of this gifted but ill-fated man, as our poet BYRON has said of the young and heroic MARCEAU—

Brief, brave, and glorious, was his young career;

His mourners were two hosts-his friends and foes;

and, like MARCEAU, his fate was lamented, and his memory honoured, by friends and foes, because, like him,

He kept

The whiteness of his soul, and thus men o'er him wept.

M. THIERS, the former colleague of M. CARREL in editing the National, is now a Minister of France. No doubt to the latter the path was open to Court preferment, if he could have exchanged his principles for power and splendid fortune. He preferred the hostility of a corrupt and tyrannical Government to its favour. The noble spirit with which he stood forth on all occasions to maintain the freedom of the Press against its most implacable enemy, who will never forgive the service which that great engine of opinion did him, in elevating him to a throne, reflects imperishable honour upon the memory of the man by whose genius and intelligence that Press was raised in the estimation of the intellectual world. Opposed as we are to the political opinions which M. CARREL advocated, we but perform a mournful duty in repaying a portion of the debt of gratitude which the Free Press of every country owes to the exertions of its fearless and incorruptible champion. Who can wonder that the leaders of opposite parties followed, with

unaffected sorrow, the bier of such a man, and that CHATEAUBRIAND and BERANGER mingled their tears upon his urn!

But we cannot glance at the last sad ceremonial, without experiencing another regret than what arises from seeing the grave close prematurely upon departed virtue. When we say that M. CARREL was a Republican upon the Roman model, we must qualify that praise by observing, that piety was a distinguishing characteristic of the Roman patriot. The forum of public debate, and even the field of martial glory, was less sacred in his eyes, than the temples of the gods. In error he worshipped; but he worshipped with sincerity. The light which unassisted nature gave him he followed, for want of a better; and an humble dependence upon, and a profound veneration for, an overruling PROVIDENCE, was inseparably associated with the valour and the energies which gave Rome the dominion of the world. But, modern France! what shall we say of it, when we find that to be thought enlightened, it is necessary to cast off all regard for religion; and, to be supposed free, one must become emancipated from the influence of Christianity! We would fain believe, that what the injudicious friends of M. CARREL called, his "dying injunction," was but the expression of that delirium which clouded his intellect for some time, before it fled for ever. We would fain believe and hope that the words, no priest-no church," were the emanation of that disorder of the mind, whose bewildered fancies, he himself, in a lucid moment, spoke of as the ægri somnia. A triumph over Christianity would be a lamentable triumph for "young France." To dispose of the remains of man, as of those of "the beast that perisheth," will not raise either the intellectual or moral character of a civilized country. Nor will life have more enjoyment because religion is forbidden to suspend the lamp of immortality amid the gloom of the grave!

66

[We insert in this place some remarks-of an earlier date -on the exertions of ARMAND CARREL in defending the freedom of the Public Press.-ED.]

Aug. 27, 1834. The persecuted liberty of the Press in France has obtained a new triumph, by the heroic conduct of the Editor of the National -the able, eloquent, and indefatigable lover of his country and opponent

of despotism-ARMAND CARREL. There is no man in France to whom the regal persecutor of the Press-the ungrateful BOURBON-is so much indebted for the Crown he wears, as to this gentleman; who, many times since his elevation, has had to pass through the fiery ordeal of a State prosecution. If we are not mistaken, M. CARREL was foremost among those Editors, whose resistance to the violence of the gensd'armerie that came to the printingoffices, to enforce the absolute ordonnance of CHARLES X., brought on the crisis of the revolution-a revolution of which the "brave" ORLEANS faced none of the dangers; but of which he contrived to steal all the fruits, leaving the duped LAFAYETTE to lament, in the evening of his life, the octogenarian credulity which made him again intrust the destinies of France to the hands of a BOURBON-though promising "a monarchy surrounded with republican institutions."

What was the imputed crime of the Press in the case, which, through that old English institution of trial by Jury-the only protection against the centralising despotism of the Tuileries - has so signally triumphed ? It was the daring act of commenting upon the King's Speech as if it were the speech of his Ministers. But the French Charter, in imitation of that antiquated English Constitution, which some of our own Doctrinaires are so anxious to subvert, proclaims the political maxim that "the King can do no wrong"-which is, of course, grounded, as with us, upon the Constitutional principle that always supposes the King to act by the advice of his Ministers, who are responsible for all his acts. This principle, however, LOUIS PHILIP has set at nought. Ever since he found himself, as he believed, firmly seated upon a throne, he has acted, and continues to act, as his own Minister, or as the President of his own Cabinet. This may, some day or other, involve him, or some equally obstinate successor, if the monarchy should survive himself, in a very awkward responsibility; for a King who acts without the advice of his responsible Ministers in a representative government, disclaims the impunity which the Constitution throws round him.

M. CARREL, in his powerful address to the Jury, more than once invoked the principles of the English Constitution, and appealed to the great commentator on our laws, to explain the true meaning of regal inviolability; and to show that it did not extend to interdict strictures on the acts, and personal influence, of the King. This inviolability has been carried to a ridiculous length in France; and, speaking of such extravagant perversion of a good principle, M. CARREL said, “In England those who pretend to understand the Constitution, shrug up their shoulders when they hear of ours. In England, the principle contended for, dispenses the Crown from replying to a judicial accusation. There are parties in England who admit no more than that, as to Royal inviolability; but on its side, the regal power has the good sense to observe an absolute neutrality, and to keep within the limits of its prerogative. Here, the pyramid is reversed, the King is the chief of a system. It is the Crown seizing upon prerogatives which do not belong to it. Deplorable agitations have been the result of this."

Such is the consequence of the KING of the French making himself the centre and apex of a system: but that system cannot stand many such shocks as this, arising out of intemperate and foolish collision with the Press. Such prosecutions of the Press may one day produce a re-action as terrible and instructive, as the ordonnances of CHARLES X. If the "Citizen KING" be not as infatuated as some of his BOURBON predecessors, he will take warning by his past discomfitures. If he be not as destitute of reflection, as he is regardless of all political principle, he will avoid those conflicts of the Royal power with the great engine of opinion, in which defeat is so humiliating, and victory itself ruinous.

Military Flogging.-Coroner's Inquest.-Nov. 30, 1835.

We have repeatedly called for the abolition of the cruel and unnecessary punishment of military flogging. Public opinion has echoed our sentiments on the subject; but the united efforts of the Press, and the public, to relieve the character of the country from the stain, which this barbarous practice fastens upon it, and to secure the substitution of some mode of rational correction for a punishment which lacerates the body and brutalizes the mind, have hitherto been in vain. Humanity is still outraged, and civilization set at defiance, by the spectacles of military torture which a bigoted attachment to the nine-tailed cat and the halberds, presents. Why should military power be permitted to apply that instrument of man-degrading torture, and sometimes of death, to the back of the British soldier, which British mercy has indignantly struck from the hand of the owner of the black slave?

The public are already informed by the report of a Coroner's inquest, which appeared on Saturday in this and other Journals, that an unfortunate man, who had committed some offences against military subordination, has fallen a victim to the consequences of his punishment, which induced tetanus and deaththe words of the verdict returned by the Coroner's Jury being, that "Thomas Ramsay came to his death in consequence of lockedjaw, arising from the punishment received in pursuance of the sentence of a Court-martial." Thus, the sentence, though not intended to be such, has, by its fatal result, been in effect one of capital punishment with torture!