that when the master gave a dinner to his friends, the servant, knowing there would be enough, and to spare, for all, invited his friends also. Lockhart always kept a good table, and a capital stock of liquor, especially Jamaica rum, and by degrees I grew not so frightened to visit him.

After Wilson and he, and Sym and I, had resolved on supporting Blackwood, it occasioned us to be oftener together; but Lockhart contrived to keep my mind in the utmost perplexity for years, on all things that related to that magazine. Being often curious to know, when the tremendous articles appeared, who were the authors, and being sure I could draw nothing out of either Wilson or Sym, I always repaired to Lockhart to ask him, awaiting his reply with fixed eyes, and a beating heart. Then with his cigar in his mouth, his one leg flung carelessly over the other, and without the symptom of a smile on his face, or one twinkle of mischief in his dark grey eye, he would father the articles on his brother, Captain Lockhart, or Peter Robertson, or Sheriff Cay, or James Wilson, or that queer fat body, Dr. Scott; and sometimes on James and John Ballantyne, and Sam Anderson, and poor Baxter. Then away I flew with the wonderful news to my other associates; and if any remained incredulous, I swore the facts down through them; so that before I left Edinburgh I was accounted the greatest liar that was in it, except one. I remember once, at a festival of the Dilletanti Society, that Lockhart was sitting next me, and charming my ear with some story of authorship. I have forgot what it was, but think it was about somebody reviewing his own book. On which I said, the incident was such a capital one, that I would give a crown bowl of punch to ascertain if it were true.

"What? said Bridges, "did any body ever hear the like of that? I hope you are not suspecting your young friend of telling you a falsehood?"

"Haud your tongue, Davie, for ye ken naething about it," said I. "Could ye believe it, man, that that callant never tould me the truth a' his days but aince, an' that was merely by chance, and without the least intention on his part?" These blunt accusations diverted Lockhart greatly, and only encouraged him to farther tricks.

'I soon found out that the coterie of my literary associates had made it up to act on O'Doherty's principle, never to deny a thing that they had not written, and never to acknowledge one that they had. On which I determined that in future I would sign my name or designation to every thing I published, that I might be answerable to the world only for my own. offences. But as soon as the rascals perceived this, they signed my name as fast as I did. They then contrived the incomparable "Noctes Ambrosianæ," for the sole purpose of putting all the sentiments into the shepherd's mouth, which they durst not avowedly say themselves, and those too often applying to my best friends. The generality of mankind have always used me ill till I came to London.

The thing that most endeared Lockhart to me at that early period was some humourous poetry, which he published anonymously in Blackwood's Magazine, and which I still regard as the best of the same description in the kingdom. He at length married, on the same day with myself, into the house of my great friend and patron, and thenceforward I regarded him as belonging to the same family with me, I a step-son, and he a legitimate young brother.'-vol. i. pp. cxxxix-cxli.

A pretty well engraved portrait of the "Ettrick Shepherd," in

his sixtieth year, is prefixed to the volume, which is also illustrated by one of Cruikshank's humorous sketches. It is moreover very elegantly printed, and bound in a neat cover lettered in gold at the back, and sells at the same price as the "Life of Lord Byron."

ART. V.--England and France; or a Cure for the Ministerial Gallomania. 8vo, pp. 286. London: Murray. 1832.

If any proof were wanted of the selfish, illiberal, and mischievous tendency of Tory principles, we should have found an abundance of it in the volume now before us. There is scarcely any thing base in the conduct of any European government, which the author of these pages does not endeavour to defend. He approves so highly of the famous ordinances which hurled Charles X. from the throne of France, that he gives us in his small publication two copies of them, one in French the other in English. He of course desires to see the Bourbons restored to that throne. He takes Don Miguel by the right hand, as the most legitimate, the most excellent, and the most beloved of kings. The ruler of Holland, that bigotted and calculating Dutchman, who was destined by nature for a pedlar, though raised by accident to a throne, is the very god of this writer's idolatry. Returning home from the continent, after an absence of two years, he finds here nothing but revolution and the impending ruin of every thing that was valuable in our constitution. He has come surcharged with bile against every thing of a popular character, and especially against the new state of things in France, and the great object of his work is to show the impolicy of any kind of treaty, convention, or compact, which should change into mutual friendship, or even restrain the natural hatred that for centuries has existed between that country and England! He manifestly hopes that in seeking to attain this object, he may be able, aside as it were, to assist the cause of the conservatives here, as the anti-reformers call themselves; but the flag which he has unfurled, and under which he seems to think he may gather an imposing number of the people, has written upon it in letters of blood, " War-eternal war with France!"

We trust that Christianity and knowledge have made sufficient progress among the people of England, to induce them to treat with the most perfect indifference, this wicked appeal which has just been made to their worst passions. Is it possible that any man who has not sacrificed his mind to the exaggerated and unnatural views of a bad political party, can seriously accept for the rule of his conduct a proposition which declares, that "England and France have been enemies for many centuries, and therefore they never can be, and, if they could, they never ought to be, friends?" But this is the proposition which the author of this work advocates with all the power of his abilities-and they are not inconsiderable. This is the political maxim in which he thinks

all wisdom is embodied. He does not disguise it in diplomatic phraseology, or attempt to soften it by any arts of style. He lays it down in just so many words, and openly calls upon the country to adopt it, and for ever to abide by it.

'An hereditary enmity between two nations! It is a barbarous idea, it is cruel, it is anti-Christian. No doubt-but is it true? That is the only consideration of the statesman.' This is language worthy of Machiavel. If statesmen were indeed always to look exclusively at nations as they are, and never attempt to eradicate false ideas and unqualified vices from the principles of action by which great communities are influenced, it were much better that the whole race of such meddlers should be swept from the earth. They would be among the worst enemies of mankind. What! are we never to arrive at a degree of civilization which shall teach us, that nations may rival each other in the arts of peace, be equally rich, equally skilled in the sciences and pursuits which dignify and embellish life, without wasting their blood, and treasure, and happiness in savage contests for supremacy?

It may be true enough that many of the leading men of France desire at this moment, as much as Louis XIV. or Napoleon himself did, to see their country the monopolist of all commerce, the ruler of India, the mistress of our colonies, and queen of the ocean. It is perfectly natural that they should wish, as all good patriots must wish, to see their country the first in the scale of empire. But if they reflect at all, as we presume they do, upon the probabilities of things, they must be convinced that such hopes are mere phantoms of the imagination, and that a new contest undertaken for the purpose of giving them reality, would be not merely useless, but ruinous to the prosperity and liberty of France. At least, if they do not entertain these reflections, it becomes us to make them, and it is with us a positive duty to act upon them to the very last moment. If there be a bad spirit in France, with reference to this country, it is for us to avail ourselves of all the means within our reach to subdue it by the tender of our friendship, by the expression of our desire to cultivate a good understanding with her, and not by fresh enmity and opposition to her legitimate aspirations, to irritate that evil disposition and madden it into frenzy. Upon us devolves the duty of the stronger-generosity, patience, love of peace our example has an extensive effect upon the world at large, and sure we are, that they are no lovers of peace, no friends to liberty, no contributors to the welfare of mankind, who would throw any obstacles in the way of that intimate alliance, which Lord Grey and Prince Talleyrand are understood to be engaged in bringing about between the two countries.

The present era is one of great change, for which it will be distinguished in history as much as the age which witnessed the revival of letters. It will, we have every reason to hope, be an era of amelioration, as well as of change. All decided alterations

that in the social or political existence of nations have yet taken place, have been for the better. It is the tendency of mankind, by their accumulation of the results of knowledge, which form experience, to go on perpetually improving. We may not all see at the moment, the good consequences that are necessarily to arise out of the periodical conflicts, which are carried on between those who look for improvements and those who think that none are required. Such conflicts never occur by chance; they cannot arise, or, if they do, they cannot be long maintained, unless there be an indispensable necessity for them. Their appearance is a symptom that, from whatever cause, the depression of the higher, or the elevation of the lower, orders, the equilibrium of the community has been disturbed, and restored it must be, according to a standard taken from the new circumstances, from whatever quarter the alteration may meet with resistance.

And among the great changes to which we look forward, as the offspring of the present state of fermentation in which all Europe may be said to be involved, we dwell upon none, except our domestic reforms, with greater complacency than the prospect now before us, of the cessation of that ancient enmity between France and England, which this narrow-minded writer desires to perpetuate. It would, assuredly, be a noble termination to the multiplied labours of Prince Talleyrand's protracted life, if he can succeed in inducing, not his government only, but his countrymen, to enter with sincerity and zeal into a league of inviolable friendship with the people of this kingdom. It would be a spectacle worthy of that regenerated age of which we hope to witness the commencement at no distant period, to behold two such nations as these, both equally renowned in war, lay down their arms and proclaim centuries of peace to the world. Of this at all events we are certain, that it is the duty of all good men to use whatever share of influence they can command in public or in private, to bring about a consummation so devoutly to be wished; and that the principles of a contrary tendency, so abundantly disclosed in this production, deserve to be stigmatized as equally hostile to the laws of morality, and to the real interests of the two most important nations upon earth.

Having from the very outset openly announced his principles, the author does not hesitate to insinuate a reproach against the Duke of Wellington, for having without delay recognized the throne of Louis-Philippe. That act he calls an error, which saved us from a renewal of the tremendous war of 1793. He then indulges himself in a repetition of the foolish calumny, that the late revolution in France was the work of the Duke of Orleans; and he insists, sage statesman! that because this was the fact, the Duke of Wellington ought to have known it, and ought, if he had known it, to have refused to recognize the new king! Supposing for a moment that the revolution was brought about in the manner here represented, yet having been so far successful, was it in the power

of a British minister to arrest its further progress with or without going to war? We leave the author to answer this question: but before he does answer it, we request him to turn over a few pages of the history of the revolution of 1789, which we fear he has read to very little advantage.

It must be admitted, that the several ministries which have. managed the affairs of France since July, 1830, have committed great mistakes. We are not their advocates, nor do we desire to see their errors palliated. We hope that those errors will teach them to proceed with more caution. But it would be ungenerous to deny that they have had great difficulties to contend with. There is no doubt that much of that spirit of domination which raised Napoleon to the throne, and kept him there until he overthrew his own splendid creations, still prevails very extensively in France; and that the theatrical movements of armies to Belgium and Ancona have been so many compliances with that unhappy disposition. We all remember how very near they were to the despatch of a similar expedition to Warsaw, which, if it had taken place, would certainly have involved Europe in war. Unquestionably these are very awkward facts, and it is easy for a political pamphleteer to turn them to the discredit of the present British cabinet. But no evil has come out of them yet, and this we impute to the consummate ability which presides in the governments of the two countries. We believe they perfectly well understand each other, that they are both resolved on peace, but that they apprehend it to be necessary to humour the discontented men of France a little, until the new throne, or presidency, whatever it is to be, shall be more firmly established. Allowance must be made for these difficulties, if we be really anxious for peace.

This writer tells us, that there is no chance of a commercial treaty between the two countries, and he mentions as a reason for his assertion, that the French government refused to allow any modification on the article of iron, though we could supply it to the French much cheaper than they can produce it themselves. And what was, according to this authority, the true cause of the refusal? The greater part of the ministers, with the king at their head, are all proprietors of wood, and wood is used in the shape of charcoal in the smelting of iron! Assuming this unworthy selfishness to be the true motive, does not the English reader see that it is founded in mere ignorance? If the French could have British iron for half the price which they pay for their own, is it not probable that they would use double or treble the quantity which they now use; and that as iron cannot be applied to any purpose without the assistance of fire, the consumption of charcoal would be in-` creased, instead of being lessened, by the introduction of the English material? It is impossible that such ignorance, or rather such miscalculation, which is every where the worst enemy that the free trade system has to struggle with, can much longer prevail in so