heartfelt. Silence is reported to have been obtained with some difficulty. However, upon the King's repeated signs that he was about to speak, the cheers and cries were at length hushed, and in a loud and distinctly audible tone, Louis XVIII. pronounced the few following words :

“My children--your joy increases mine a hundred-fold. Today a child has been born unto us all.” (Here a tempest of applause interrupted him.) “This child,” added the King, as soon as he could be heard anew, “ will be one day a father to each one of you—he will love you as I love you, as all of mine love you!”

The Moniteur of the 30th September, registering the above incident, observes :-“It is impossible for us to describe the impression made by these words, but we do not hesitate to affirm that they will never be effaced from the memories of Frenchmen (!) and that, transmitted from age to age, they will find in the hearts of our remotest descendants an echo no less grateful than in our own (!)

Alas for human stability and human foresight! the words of Louis XVIII. were so perfectly “effaced from the memories of Frenchmen,” that, just ten years later, the infant whose entrance upon the scene of this world was the occasion of so many popular demonstrations, was driven forth from France with all his family to seek in foreign countries an asylum against that blind hatred whereof he had grown to be the object in his own. And yet, at the moment it uttered them, the words above quoted from the Moniteur seemed true, and the then reigning family of France appeared certain of an unclouded fortune. As with the King of Rome so with the Duc de Bordeaux, a stable dynasty seemed assured to the French nation, and for the second time within but nine years, they abandoned themselves to a feeling of entire confidence in futurity. Even as in 1811 the Senate declared to Napoleon " that a race of heroes sprung from him would reign over France," and that “the perpetuity of his subjects' welfare was insured," so the different courts of magistrates in 1820 protested to Louis XVIII, their belief in the definitive character of the political situation in the following terms :The race of Saint Louis will not perish. A child is born who

[ocr errors]

insures the destinies of France,

who insures the perpetuity of the monarchy"!! And at both these two first births of the heirs to sovereignty in France, we find absolute confidence the distinguishing characteristic of the public and of the reigning family. Louis XVIII. has no more doubts than had Bonaparte. Each believes firmly in the principle in virtue of which he reigns; and the victorious soldier who proudly affirms that “his son's great destinies will be accomplished,” is not more radically certain of his fortune, and counts not more implicitly upon the favours that are to be eternally reserved to his race, than does the veteran king, who, holding in his arms the infant but two days old, says, whilst exhibiting him to the crowd, “You and I shall always love him dearly”!! Under circumstances such as above considered delusion is pardonable; but it is, it must be confessed, more explicable in the two instances we have just recorded, than in those that follow, and the very existence of which would almost tend to prove that nothing, in reality, is to be counted on, and that the French apothegm is true,"Tout arrive."

Under the first Napoleon, as under the Bourbons of the elder branch, we find equally the dominant influence springing from the conviction of a providential order of things,—the "hand of Providence,"—the “ will of Providence,"—the "unmistakeable direction of Providence; " these are the ever-recurring sentences explicative of the strong faith expressed in the duration of what each several party regards as indispensable to the salvation of France. But with the Revolution of July this changes; there is no longer any pretext for adverting to the protection of Providence; a fact stands in lieu of what in both preceding cases is represented by a principle; the form of faith in the future is different, but the existence of the faith itself is as strongly indicated and expressed. The birth of the Comte de Paris, in August, 1838, is also, in many respects, not to be compared with the two preceding ones, or with the birth of the son of Napoleon III. Had he not been born, there was no failure of a direct heir, and the Duc d'Orléans had brothers enough, liberally educated, popular princes, to reign in his stead, should he die without heirs ; consequently, the Duc d'Orléans' son was not waited for and longed for by the adherents of the Government of July, as was the Duc de Bordeaux by all monarchists,—the King of Rome by nearly all Frenchmen,and the present Prince by all imperialists. Still, the same assurances were given by the so-called corps de l'état to the sovereign, of the future destinies of his grandson, as were given to the Emperor Napoleon on the birth of his son, and to Louis XVIII. on the birth of his nephew; and August, 1838, offers a complete parallel, as far as self-delusion goes, to September, 1820, and to March, 1811.

Our object in these few pages has been, not to prove that past examples predict for the de facto Imperial Prince a fate similar to that of his three predecessors (for we do not exactly believe this to be the case), but to remind our readers how remarkably analogous have been the circumstances under which all the four heirs to sovereignty in France have been born, and to show how wilfully blind must they be who do not recognise that fact,-how servile they who seek to represent the “circumstances” as having been dissimilar. We rather incline to believe that the son of Napoleon III. has a better chance of succeeding to the French throne than either of his three predecessors; nevertheless, it is absolutely impossible to deny that each of the three, when coming into the world, seemed to have as good a chance as himself; therefore, whilst commenting upon the instability of fortune thrice exemplified in the contemporary history of France, we cannot avoid blaming the courtier-like obsequiousness of the men who, upon every occasion, disguise truth to flatter the sovereign, and to serve their own fancied interests ; nor can we resist giving to Napoleon III. due praise for having, upon the last occasion, boldly announced the truth, and proclaimed that the successive heirs to sovereignty in France, born within the present century, and of whom not one has mounted the throne, were born in circumstances "analogousto those which attended the birth of his own son.



1855, 1856). 2. THE LAW OF CHARITIES, comprising the Charitable

Trusts Acts 1853 and 1855; with a Digest of Cases. By
Philip FRANCIS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Second Edition.

London: John Crockford. 1855. 3. THE ENDOWED CHARITIES; with some Suggestions

for further Legislation regarding them. By J. P. FEARON. London: Longman and Co. 1855.


T will be of little use to codify, simplify, purify, or in any

mode to reform the Laws of Great Britain and Ireland, if no precaution is taken against the invention of new statutes, which are bad in themselves, as not performing what they profess, or productive of bad consequences, as involving the necessity for burdening the Statute Book with Acts to repeal, wholly or in part, Acts to amend, Acts to extend, with all their combinations and complications.

If the fountain of bitter waters is not to be itself dammed up or turned away, whilst we are filtering and cleansing the contents of the ancient reservoir into which it has been flowing, and is now, alas ! copiously discharging itself, we may as well give up the nauseous task at once, and leave the past floods to be duly augmented with the present and future congenial currents. The legislation as to charitable trusts is an example of bad modern law-making, which it is well worth while to notice.

In the session of 1853 was passed the “ Act for the better Administration of Charitable Trusts."i As a natural legislative consequence, another“ Act to amend the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853,"? was found necessary in the year 1855; and the reader will presently see that an Act further to amend both of the former is yet essential-if, indeed, the laws relating to endowed

| 16 & 17 Vict. c. 137 (sixty-eight sections).
? 18 & 19 Vict. c. 124 (fifty sections).

charities are to be really rendered practically of that use of which they are susceptible.

The history of recent legislation on this question exhibits some of the worst features of modern law-making. It shows, in a forcible manner, how, from party exigencies, and through private and corporate interests, the most useful measures may be vexatiously impeded, the most honest purposes misrepresented, and how Acts of Parliament may, after being denuded of their most useful provisions, to the grievous detriment of the public, be introduced into the Statute Book.

It will not, we believe, be altogether useless briefly to trace out what our governing powers have done and left undone in legislating upon charities. We shall see that evils which have been exposed and admitted ad nauseam, remain yet in full force; and that the common-place sophistry and vulgar cries, which nearly fifty years ago were powerless to withstand the vigorous onslaughts of Brougham and the convincing arguments of Romilly, possess the vitality of an evil genius, and are still kept in store ready to be employed whenever it shall please vested interests and their Parliamentary representatives to evoke them.

We need not now review the preliminary steps which were taken at the beginning of the present century to awaken public attention to the facts that charitable trusts were being grossly abused, and that no adequate control was exercised over them, except, indeed, when the Court of Chancery interfered, and thereby impoverished the larger and totally extinguished the smaller endowments. It will be remembered, however, that Sir Samuel Romilly's Act to provide a summary remedy in cases of abuse of charitable trusts, was passed in 1812, and has doubtless proved a valuable enactment, so far as it was applicable; but it was and is totally inadequate for those more extensive purposes which Lord Brougham, a year or two later, clearly pointed out, and undertook effectually to carry out, after full inquiry had been made.? We may assume, then, that the series of efforts and investi

See his Letter to Sir Samuel Romilly, M.P., upon the Abuse of Charities, 1818; also vol. iii. of “The Speeches of Lord Brougham.”

« ForrigeFortsett »