The National Register.
London, England, 1817-01-27 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

pinetts, and the freedonrof France. But the only dif-
ference between the Republic and the Empire was,.
that during the continuance of the hitter, the vices of
the numerous tyrants who sprung from the revolution
were concentrated iu one person. Napoleon grasped
Oleic collected power, and exercised it with equal ardour,
with more than equal efficacy. He was a sworn enemy
to liberty both at home mid abroad. His legislative
assemblies were all of his own appointment, not a mem-
ber of' them was ever elected by the people. No law
could originate with them, they received with sordid
submission the capricious decrees of the tyrant, and re-
gistered them without discussion. Their debates (it'
the expression be allowed) were never public, unless
when they were to sustain the otlium of imposing a
new tax, of authenticating a new scheme of finance,
of adding to the horrors of the conscription, or unless
when an adulatory and puerile addre,s was to be pre-
sented to the throne. IVith all this, can it ever he
tiirgotten that N rot EON assumed to himself' the dis-
posal in marriage of all the daughters of' France, and
that be bestowed their hands as he would a title upon
his menial favourites? To prove his respect fir the
freedom and independence of other countries, he timed
his military career from the burning sands of Africa to
the frozen desarts of the North. He erected a throne
for one of his brothers in Holland—he placed another
on the throne of Spain—he stripped the Swiss of the
tights which were consecrated as their property by the
blootl of TELL—he degraded the fitir and fertile Italy
into an appendage to his crown, and he posited the
frontiers of his empire to the waters of the Rhine. It
is now no longer doubted, that to these presumptuous
and unjustifiable appropriations of fiircign territory, he
had meditated and actually prepared to attempt tabling
these our native islands. Thus he not only denied
liberty to France, but endeavoured to banish it from
every portion of Europe that lay within his reach. If
this statement, therefhre, be founded upon truth, and
we believe that it cannot be questioned, it is demon-
strated that the war did not annihilate the freedom of
France, for freedom did not exist there.

But it is said, the French people arc better judges on
this s ►bject than we can possibly be, and a great num-
ber of them, who lament the overthrow of Buonaparte,
are hostile to the present Government, which they stig-
matize as despotic. We grant that the existing go-
vernment is despotic in one sense, it has evinced as yet
no disposition to indulge its subjects with the enjoy-
ment of that species of liberty, upon which alone they
set any value. As to civil freedom, that is now for the
first time in their possession. Their legislative assem-
bly is chosen from among themselves. With this hotly
laws may and do originate—from them must come the
annual supply of taxes—their discussions are in public,
and there is among them a firm and an organized oppo-
sition. This may not perhaps constitute a perfect
system of political liberty; but we put it to any rational
man, if this be not capable of ripening in the progress of
time, a constitution consolidated by experience, and
gradually adapted to the genius of the people ; at
least is it not preferable to the rule of a single Ty-
rant?

But the truth is, the Buonamrtists neither compre-
hend or esteem civil franchises ;—one great franchise
they hate lost under the Bourbons—namely, that of
overrunning and plundering Europe. This military
license is what they mean by liberty ; this is the god
of their idolatry, and while it is prostrate from its pedes-
tal, they never will be a contented nation. Arc we
then to be accused of extinguishing freedom in France,.
because we do not meekly gratify their thirst Jim marti-
al achievements ? Surely under such circumstances they
cannot be contemplated as a body of citizens—they are
a nation of veteran soldiers, and they only want arms
anti a leader, to plunge the world again in the miseries
of war. Louis XVIII. was not restored to the
throne, merely because he was the legal successor
of Lamas XVII. but because his return to France
was inseparably connected with the revival of order, of
morality and reason in that country. His rights were
undenied, and his personal integrity was the only gua-
rantee from which Europe couldexpectsolid and durable
tranquillity. It is not the deposition of the tirelock, or the
sheathing of the sword, which can be called a peace ;
the wish to remain in flioulship must emanate from the
heart and be reciprocal. We ask, could this have been
hoped from Buonaparte ?
The question, theref we, now comes to this, was the
war
.justiliable? We shall not say that our existence us
a nation would have emsed, if the war had not been
undertaken and successful; but will any man assert,
that we could have slumbered with honour under our
fig-trees, while the rights of the rest of mankind were
trampled on, and memwed with total destruction? Un-
doubtedly as a great and liberal thuion, we could not,
and our exertions have proved, that the cause oflibertv
was safely entrusted to the arms of a free people. if
then the war have entailed upon us those calamities
which are its usual concomitants, let us not repine ;
we may regret perhaps that there was any r ecessity for
such prolonged hostilities, but let us not in our attic-
has lose every noble idea—let us not act such a fret-
ful and unworthy part as to tear down all our laurels,
and tarnish them with sullen and unmanly tears !