could form in so short a stay is good for little, nothing can be more problematical than the future prospects of the new government of France. That the Bourbon family will keep their place, unless they are exposed to the hazards of a new war, or commit some enormous indiscretion at home, seemed to be the growing opinion of the most intelligent persons. But there appeared to be very little conjecture, and very little hope, with respect to the probable fate of what they call their constitution. In the king's cabinet, it was said, there were almost as many systems as there were ministers; some of them, and these the most trusted, urging the king to bring back by degrees all the old institutions of every description, at the head of whom is the chancellor; others, such as Talleyrand, making a struggle, out of some regard to appearances of personal consistency, for as much of the improvements gained by the revolution as can be retained. The Abbé Montesquieu is described as a mere creature of the court, but liking to make his speeches at the bar of the assembly. The friends of the court say, that Talleyrand attempted at first to surround the king with his own dependants, and to make his majesty a cypher in the administration; on the other hand, Talleyrand's account to a friend of mine was, that the king had the vanity to suppose himself capable of doing a great deal of business, in consequence of which it was in fact done by unfit persons. These stories are not inconsistent.

In the lower assembly, there is nothing like party separation or connexion. A remarkable symptom of this nature, however, showed itself in the senate, during the discussion of the law by which a censure of the press has been established; all the imperial marshals acting together, against the measure of government. I was

informed, also, that the young Duc de Broglie is an eager constitutionalist, and that he has always shown a predilection for popular principles, as much as that disposition could be made known during the reign of Napoleon.

The discussion of that law excited a very lively interest in Paris, among all men of education and reflection; I was there at that time, and it appeared to me that its vast importance was duly appreciated and felt. I am afraid, however, that there is not in the country, or in the provincial cities, any degree of steady political feeling, connecting the middling classes of the people with their inferiors in a sentiment of common interest. The lower people in general, though more strongly in some districts than others, regret Bonaparte, and the loss of military glory, and that rapid military promotion which provided for their sons, and held out to all of them pros pects of ambition. The middling classes, who felt the conscription as a tyranny of the cruellest description, rejoice at the removal of their late ruler, but have no feeling of attachment either to royalty in itself, or to the Bourbons, who were literally forgotten. The priests are said to be very zealous in labouring to recall or create feelings of that sort, but hitherto without success. The populace of Paris are understood to be more disinclined to the present royal family, than those of any other part of France; they gave rather an unexpected proof of other attachments, upon the Duke of Orleans taking possession of the Palais Royal, for he was hailed with acclamations, and several voices in the crowd spoke to him of his father, and said he was always the friend of the people. Among the people of rank at Paris, the sentiment that is uppermost at present is, that they are relieved from a tyranny which, though not sanguinary,

pursued them through every interest and almost every incident of domestic life, with incessant interference and vexation.

The only sure and permanent prognostic of civil liberty, that I could hear of in France, is the prodigious subdivision of land, and the unprecedented multitude of persons directly possessed of that property. An estimate, which seemed to come from authority, made it as high as three millions of persons. So great a proportion of this must be held upon revolutionary titles, or upon titles founded in the new law of succession, that one should hope that so much at least of the benefits earned by the revolution, as consists in this equitable law, and in the salutary transfer of vast domains to the people, must be secured for ever, and fortified against the designs of the court by an insuperable bulwark of such interests and such numbers. The court have had the folly, however, to issue secret commissions to the bishops, for a return of the lands held by the church in 1791, and of the present proprietors by whom any of them are possessed such a measure never can lead to any consequences, but against the court itself. The fact is not much known in France, but there is no doubt of it.

This immense multiplication of landed proprietors has led to a great extension of cultivation, in point of surface, and probably in many parts has made the cultivation much inferior in skill and efficacy to what it was before.

There are complaints, I observe, in all the statistical reports, of the unnecessary increase of vineyards, and of the diminution of the woods. I was assured, however, by a very intelligent and well-informed man, M. De Candolle, Professor of Botany at Montpellier, whom I was introduced to at Geneva, that of late years there has

been a very great progress in the increase and management of artificial meadows. He told me, at the same time, that such was the subdivision of lands in the south of France, that the footman you hire is commonly the owner of an estate. I am ashamed to have allowed my travelling garrulity to run on to such a length. But I was anxious to tell you something of what I had picked up on some of the points that are most interesting to you. I shall have much more to say, if I have the pleasure of meeting you before Christmas, which I do not yet despair of, though this unexpected meeting of parliament comes very much in my way.

With best and kindest regards to Mrs. and Miss Stewart, I am ever, my dear Sir,

Most affectionately yours,

FRA. HORNER.

LETTER CCXXIV. TO J. A. MURRAY, ESQ.

My dear Murray,

Lincoln's Inn, 24th Nov. 1814.

I am very much obliged to you for sending me Lord Meadowbank's thoughts on the introduction of civil juries into Scotland. I shall read with avidity every thing that relates to that most interesting subject.

Kennedy must have misunderstood Mr. Adam, I think, when he collected from him that I leant in favour of a vote upon the jury, rather than insist upon an unanimous verdict. I am convinced that all the advantages of a jury cannot be secured, particularly the conclusive and satisfactory decision of matters of fact, without having what we call unanimity in the verdict; which is not a real concurrence of all, (of course, it cannot be in the nature of things,) but a contrivance, which holds out to the public the show of such concurrence, and is attended

with this advantage, that it makes every juryman sure of being heard who has reasons to allege for his peculiar opinion. But if the prejudice be as strong against such a structure of the jury, as people who know Scotland represent it to be, one must yield to the force of that obstacle, and the framers of the present Bill will do wisely not to press any particular innovation against the prevailing sentiment of the country; though they will show their ability for such legislation still more conspicuously, if, while they yield to public opinion in the first instance, they make their new institution with some contrivances for gradually improving that opinion itself, and for imperceptibly accommodating the machinery of the institution to such future improvement of the public sentiments. The oath of secrecy proposed is but a clumsy expedient, and will hardly be effectual. An idea occurred to me, which I mentioned to Mr. Adam, to fix by the statute a definite number, (nine for instance, of a jury of twelve, or twelve of fifteen,) whose agreement at least shall be required for a verdict; to receive the verdict, when that or a larger number are agreed, as the verdict of that definite number only; and when so many cannot agree, to instruct the jury to return their verdict, without saying any thing of their division, as a verdict unfavourable to the party who undertook the affirmative of the issue. In this way, a verdict in such matters would come to be habitually considered as the decision of that definite number of sworn men upon the issue joined; and when the popular notion of the thing was thus fixed, it might not be impracticable to cut off the supernumerary jurors. This will appear a crude proposal; I wish you would give it some consideration. I have sometimes conjectured, historically, that it was by some progress of this sort we got our una