Chapter IV: Appendix: Great Precedence Question 287 (3)

Soon after the breaking-out of the French Revolution, in 1848, the Count d’Orsay called at the office of the _Lady’s Newspaper_, in the Strand, and besought the proprietor, Mr. Landells, to engrave in that journal a portrait which he (the Count) had sketched of Louis Napoleon. The proprietor hesitated, when the Count told him it was the Prince’s intention to go over to France; and he added, emphatically, “the English people do not understand him; but, take my word for it, if he once goes over to France, _the French people will never get rid of him_.” This prediction has been strictly verified: the assertion was equally correct, that the English people did not understand the Emperor.

Mr. B. Ferrey, in a communication to _Notes and Queries_, 3rd S., remarks:--“For a considerable time, Napoleon was held up to ridicule by the Press of England; yet there were some who then foretold his coming greatness, while the multitude charged him with folly and rashness. Mr. William Brockedon, author of _Passes of the Alps_, who was well acquainted with the Prince’s habits, used to say, at the period when the Prince, amidst much derision, was aspiring to become the President of the French Republic,--‘Mark my words, that man is not the fool people take him for: he only waits an opportunity to show himself one of the most able men in Europe;’ justifying this prediction by relating a discussion he had heard at a public meeting, between the Prince and some civil engineers, respecting a projected railway across the Isthmus of Panama, in which the former displayed great ability, showing an amount of scientific knowledge which amazed everybody present; not only stating his case with clearness, but combating all objections in a most masterly way.”

The newspapers of London, with one “base exception,” condemned the French choice; and after Louis Napoleon had taken the first step towards the establishment of his rule, the journalists foretold his speedy failure: the “base exception,” the _Morning Post_, predicted the reverse, and maintained Louis Napoleon to be the only man capable of rescuing France from the throes of revolution. We happen to know that for another journal of very extensive circulation, chiefly among the influential classes, a leading article of similar tone and confidence to that of the _Morning Post_, was written by the Editor, but omitted by desire of the Proprietor, and an article of opposite tone substituted: the advocacy would have been too bold a step for the time.

The career of Louis Napoleon has been well described as a _great revival_ in the fortunes of France, the accomplishment of which has been the result of a far-seeing estimate of the French character; thus sketched by a master hand:

“Louis Bonaparte seems to have had the key of the mystery. It
may be that, as in the human subject, one part of the system
acts upon another, so that a disorder of the brain may affect
other seemingly unconnected organs, so political discontent,
even though without any just cause, may deaden the enterprise
of a people. How else could it be that France, with a citizen
King, a philosophical Minister, and the alliance of a nation of
shopkeepers, could not be made to feel that her greatness must
henceforth be dependent on her mercantile enterprise? While she
saw not only England and America, but the German States, making
long strides to the attainment of wealth, she lagged behind, and
encouraged among the rising generation the delusion that business
was unworthy of a warlike and gifted people. That this generation
has thoroughly unlearnt the doctrines which were fashionable in
its youth, is certainly among the achievements of Napoleon III.
If we look back to the days of Louis Philippe, when, though even
Germany had its railways and its electric telegraph, we jolted
out of Paris in the diligence and saw the old semaphores at work,
we shall be able to appreciate the change which ten years of
Imperialism have made.”--_Times_, Jan. 29, 1862.

_French Coup d’Etat Predictions._

The late Baron Alderson, in a letter to Mrs. Opie, written just after the intelligence of the _Coup d’Etat_ had arrived, hazards rather a curious speculation with regard to the probable issue of this unexpected crisis. He was just on the point of starting for Paris when the news reached him, and put an end to the expedition:

“I was going there [he writes to Mrs. Opie], but of course do not dream of it now. They seem in a bad way. A nation so unfit for freedom--if that be freedom which requires those who love it to be _first_ wise and good--does not exist. The Celts seem to me to be ‘a bad lot.’ I suppose it will end in Louis Napoleon’s becoming dictator, and then (not unlikely), being shot by an assassin, and the game will begin over again then. The fear is, that the Prætorian guards will make him go to war for their own profit. It is a fearful crisis, I think: and the best that can happen will be for him to be made King or Emperor, and hold his ground in spite of conscience, oaths, and faith which he pledged to the Republic.”

_Statesmanship of Lord Melbourne._

Sir Bulwer Lytton, in an eloquent lecture upon the historical and intellectual associations of Hertfordshire, pays this willing tribute to the character of Viscount Melbourne; referring to “the fair park of Brocket, which our posterity will find historical as the favourite residence of one who, if not among the greatest Ministers who have swayed this country, was one of the most accomplished and honourable men who ever attained to the summit of constitutional ambition. And it is a striking anecdote of Lord Melbourne, that he once said in my own hearing--‘He rejoiced to have been Prime Minister, for he had thus learnt that men were much better, much more swayed by conscience and honour, than he had before supposed;’ a saying honourable to the Minister, and honourable still more to the public virtue of Englishmen.”

Lord Melbourne was proverbially a good-natured man; but in his preferences he acted with a sense of duty more stringent than might have been expected. It appears that Lord John Russell had applied to Lord Melbourne for some provision for one of the sons of the poet Moore; and here is the Premier’s very judicious reply:--

“MY DEAR JOHN;--I return you Moore’s letter. I shall be ready
to do what you like about it when we have the means. I think
whatever is done should be done for Moore himself. This is more
distinct, direct, and intelligible. Making a small provision for
young men is hardly justifiable; and it is of all things the most
prejudicial to themselves. They think what they have much larger
than it really is; and they make no exertion. The young should
never hear any language but this: ‘You have your own way to make,
and it depends upon your own exertions whether you starve or
not.’--Believe me, &c.

“MELBOURNE.”

_Ungraceful Observance._

Mr. Torrens M‘Cullagh, in his _Life of Sir James Graham_, relates the following instance of want of graciousness in this unpopular statesman. In 1837, on the death of King William, Lord John Russell came to the bar of the House of Commons charged with a Message from the Queen. Hats were immediately ordered off, and even the Speaker announced from the chair that members must be uncovered. Every one present complied with the injunction except Sir James Graham, who continued to wear his hat until the first words of the Message were pronounced. His doing so was the subject of some unpleasant remarks in the newspapers; and at the meeting of the House next day he rose to explain that in not taking off his hat until the word _Regina_ was uttered he but followed the old and established custom--a custom which he deemed better than that observed by everybody else in the House. The Speaker then said that Sir James Graham was quite right, that he was strictly within rule in not uncovering until the initiatory word of the Message was delivered. If Sir James Graham had the letter of the law on his side, still there was a stiffness in his conduct which, considering that the message came from a young Queen, and was her first message to her faithful Commons, was not over attractive.

_The Partition of Poland._

Some twenty years before the dismemberment of Poland, this disgraceful act was foretold by Lord Chesterfield, in Letter CCCIV., dated Dec. 25, 1753, commencing with “The first squabble in Europe that I foresee, will be about the crown of Poland.” The leading data of the fall of Poland will show how far this prediction was realized. Poland was dismembered by the Emperor of Germany, the Empress of Russia, and the King of Prussia, who seized the most valuable territories in 1772.

At the bottom of the Convention signed on the 17th Feb., 1772, we read this declaration of the Empress Queen Maria-Theresa of Austria, dated the 4th March, 1772: “Placet, since so many learned personages will that it should be so; but long after my death it will be seen what will be the result of having thus trampled under foot all that has been hitherto held to be just and sacred.”

The royal and imperial spoliators, on various pretexts, poured their armies into the country in 1792. The brave Poles, under Poniatowski and Kosciusko, several times contended against superior armies, but in the end were defeated. Then followed the battle of Warsaw, Oct. 13, 1794; and Suwarrow’s butchery of 30,000 Poles, of all ages and conditions, in cold blood. We can scarcely believe such wholesale atrocities to have been perpetrated upon European soil within seventy years of the time we are writing. Poland was finally partitioned and its political existence annihilated in 1795. The transaction, in its earlier stage, is detailed in the _Annual Register_ for 1771, 1772, and 1773, supposed to have been written by Edmund Burke. Professor Smythe says, diffidently:--“After all, the situation of Poland was such as almost to afford an exception (perhaps a single exception) in the history of mankind to those general rules of justice that are so essential to the great community of nations. I speak with great hesitation, and you must consider the point yourselves; I do not profess to have thoroughly considered it myself.”--(_Lectures on Modern History._) Sir James Mackintosh contributed to the _Edinburgh Review_ a valuable paper on Poland.

_The Invasion of England._[2]

In contemplating the possibility of an Invasion, we have some right to count upon the changes which modern civilization has introduced into the methods of warfare. It is not improbable that, if it entered into the French Emperor’s plans to invade England, he would make the attempt upon several points at once. The campaign which he sketched out for the use of the allied generals in the Crimea, and which they rejected as impracticable, was based upon this principle. His forces were to be distributed at various points on the circumference of a circle, of which the enemy was to occupy the centre. The enemy was to have all the advantage of concentration; he and his allies were to have all the weakness of division. It is a mode of fighting which is rather at variance with the old Napoleonic ideas, and which would require an overwhelming force to give it effect. As in military numeration the rule of addition is somewhat at fault,--two and two do not always make four, and 200,000 men cannot be computed as ten times stronger than 20,000--we may rest assured that for the successful invasion of England, whether the attack be made by a single armament or by several, a tremendous force must be necessary; and preparations, which will prevent us from being taken altogether by surprise, must be some time in progress.

We shall have a little time to prepare. There is no necessity for our arming to the teeth, and standing to our guns, as if the Philistines were upon us; for there is no need to play the fire-engines before the fire breaks out; but, on the other hand, if we delay our defences on the plea of saving our money till the danger actually comes, when we shall be able to spend it without stint, “it is as if, for a security against fire, you laid by your money at interest, to be expended in making engines and organizing a proper fire brigade as soon as the conflagration commences.” Sir John Burgoyne adds, by way of practical illustration, that 10,000 additional British infantry would have taken Sebastopol before the month of December, 1854, and saved all the sufferings of the winter campaign; “but not all the boasted wealth of England could supply the British infantry required.”--(_Military Opinions._)

Suppose the descent to have taken place where it was least expected. Sir John Burgoyne attributes to the invading force the power of landing with marvellous rapidity. People imagine that because, after long training on a particular beach, Napoleon could embark 100,000 soldiers in a space of time measured by minutes, the process of debarkation on an unknown shore must be proportionately rapid. Perhaps no nation can do these things more quickly than our French friends, but they sometimes exaggerate. On landing in the Crimea, where there was no resistance, they indeed succeeded in throwing 6000 men on shore in about twenty-two minutes; and at the end of nearly seven hours (namely a little before two o’clock) Marshal St. Arnaud sent word to Lord Raglan that the disembarkation was complete. But observe that here were seven hours required to land 23,600 men without opposition, and the fact was that the whole of these French troops had really not landed in the time specified. The Special Correspondent of the _Times_ stated that the French were not more advanced than ourselves in the disembarkation, which was carried on long after sunset. More than this, Sir John Burgoyne asks us to consider what would have been the effect of following St. Arnaud’s proposal to land at the mouth of the Katcha. He raises before us a vision of boats closely packed, and rowing on shore in the proper order at the rate of about two miles an hour. From the first they are exposed to the fire of artillery, and for the last 600 yards to a fire of musketry which they are unable to return. Even a small force could, in such circumstances, have punished the allies severely, although ultimately they might have been unable to prevent a landing. If so, it really seems to us that the invasion of our island, though perfectly possible, is not likely to be the simple stepping on shore which some of our military men seem to regard as within the bounds of possibility.--_Times review of Sir John Burgoyne’s “Military Opinions.”_

_What a Militia can do._

Lord Macaulay, in his epitome of the arguments that were used in the year 1697, against the maintenance of a standing army in England, says, illustratively:--

“Some people, indeed, talked as if a militia could achieve nothing great. But that base doctrine was refuted by all ancient and modern history. What was the Lacedæmonian phalanx in the best days of Lacedæmon? What was the Roman Legion in the best days of Rome? What were the armies that conquered at Cressy, at Poictiers, at Agincourt, at Halidon, or at Flodden? What was that mighty array which Elizabeth reviewed at Tilbury?[3] In the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries Englishmen who did not live by the trade of war had made war with success and glory. Were the English of the 17th century so degenerate that they could not be trusted to play the men for their own homesteads and parish churches?”

Gibbon, the historian, who at one part of his life was a captain in the Hampshire regiment of militia, remained ever after sensible of a benefit from it, which he testifies as follows:

“It made me an Englishman, and a soldier. In this powerful
service I imbibed the rudiments of the language and science of
tactics, which opened a new field of study and observation.
The discipline and evolutions of a modern battalion gave me a
clearer notion of the phalanx and the legion; and the captain of
the Hampshire grenadiers, (the reader may smile,) has not been
useless to the historian of the Roman Empire.”--_Miscellaneous
Works_, vol. i. p. 136.

_White-Boys._

These ferocious rioters in the south of Ireland, early in the reign of George III., were known by the above name, because, as a mark among themselves in their attacks, they frequently wore a shirt over their clothes. Lord Chesterfield writes in 1765, to the Bishop of Waterford:--“I see that you are in fear again from your White-Boys, and have destroyed a good many of them; but I believe that if the military force had killed half as many landlords it would have contributed more effectually to restore quiet. The poor people in Ireland are used worse than negroes by their lords and masters, and their deputies of deputies of deputies.”

_Naval Heroes._

The register of the church of Burnham Thorpe contains the entry of Lord Nelson’s birth; with a note by his father recording the investiture of Nelson with the order of the Bath, his rear-admiralship, and creation as Lord Nelson of the Nile, and of Burnham Thorpe. It is somewhat remarkable that three great contemporaneous admirals were all born in one small village of Norfolk--the village of Cockthorpe, which hardly contains more than six houses. The admirals are Sir Cloudesley Shovel, Sir Christopher Minors, and Sir James Narborough; it is also remarkable that this small village and the village of Burnham Thorpe should have produced four such great men.--_Proc. Norfolk and Norwich Archæological Society._

_How Russia is bound to Germany._

In his last Will, Peter the Great said that Russia must endeavour to increase her influence in Germany “by means of marriages, dowries, and annuities;” and that the value of the advice has been properly appreciated by his successors, the _Morgen Post_, in 1863, thus shows:--

“Prussia was bound to Russia by means of the marriage of
Nicholas I. with Alexandra, the daughter of Frederic William
III., and it may with truth be said that for a quarter of a
century the King of Prussia obeyed the behests of his imperious
son-in-law. Würtemberg is bound to Russia by three ties. The
first wife of William I. was Catherine of Russia; the Crown
Princess of Würtemberg is Olga Nicolajevna; and one of the King’s
nieces is the Grand Duchess Helen, widow of the Grand Duke
Michael. The Grand Duke of Oldenburg is a member of the Russian
dynasty. The Grand Duchess Helen Paulovna (one of the sisters of
the Emperor Nicholas) was married to the hereditary Grand Duke
of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. Prince George of Mecklenburg-Strelitz
married the Grand Duchess Catherine Michaelovna in 1851. The
mother of the present Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar was Maria
Paulovna, another sister of the Emperor Nicholas. The Grand Duke
Constantine, at present Stattholder in Poland, is married to a
Princess of the House of Saxe-Altenburg. The late Grand Duke
Constantine, the uncle of the last-mentioned Prince, was married
to Anna Theodorovna, a Princess of Saxe-Coburg. The wife of the
Emperor Alexander II. is a scion of the Grand Ducal House of
Hesse-Darmstadt. Prince Frederick, the heir-presumptive to the
throne of Hesse-Cassel, was married to Alexandra, the daughter of
the late Emperor Nicholas. The wife of the Grand Duke Michael,
who is now Stattholder in the Caucasus, is Olga Theodorovna of
Baden-Baden. The first wife of Duke Adolphus of Nassau was the
Grand Duchess Elizabeth Michaelovna. The Dowager-Queen of the
Netherlands, the mother of King William III., is a Princess
of the House of Russia. The Russian dynasty is connected with
Bavaria by means of the Leuchtenbergs, and with Hanover by
means of Queen Maria Alexandrine, who is the sister of the
above-mentioned Grand Duchess Constantine.”

_Count Cavour’s Estimate of Napoleon III._

Of the character and policy of Louis Napoleon, Cavour was accustomed to speak with much freedom. No one had better opportunities than Cavour of sounding their depths. He was the only living man who had ventured to grapple with him face to face, and who had used him for his purpose. The estimate he had formed of his capacity was not a high one; but he fully admitted his fertility of resource, his physical and moral courage, and his knowledge of the people he governs. “He has no definite policy,” he remarked to an English friend. “He has a number of political ideas floating in his mind, none of them matured. They would seem to be convictions founded upon instinct. He will not steadily pursue any single idea if a serious object presents itself, but will give way and take up another. This is the _mot d’énigme_ to his policy. It is by steadily keeping this in view that I have succeeded in thwarting his designs, or in inducing him to adopt a measure. The only principle--if principle it can be called--which connects together these various ideas is the establishment of his dynasty, and the conviction that the best way to secure it is by feeding the national vanity of the French people. He found France, after the fall of the Orleanist and Republican Governments, holding but a second place among the great Powers; he has raised her to the very first. Look at his wars, look at his foreign policy; he has never gone one step beyond what was absolutely necessary to obtain this one object. The principle ostentatiously put forward in the first instance has been forgotten or discarded as soon as his immediate end has been accomplished. It was so in the war with Russia; it has been so in the war with Austria. In the Crimea he was satisfied with the success of his army in the capture of Sebastopol, which took from the English troops the glory they had earned by their devotion and courage, and to which they would have added had the war continued. In the struggle with Austria, he was astounded by the greatness of the victories of Magenta and Solferino. The military glory of France had been satiated, and he thought no more of the liberty of Italy, of that free and united nation which he was to have called into existence from the Alps to the Adriatic.

“It is this uncertain policy guided by dynastic and selfish considerations, which makes him so dangerous to you, and which renders it necessary that you should ever be on your guard. Not that he is hostile to England, or that he has any definite design against her. On the contrary, he has much affection for your country. He is a man of generous impulses, and has strong feelings of gratitude towards those who have served and befriended him. At the bottom of his heart he is greatly attached to Italy. His earliest recollections are bound up with her. He is to this day a _carbonaro_ in his desire for Italian freedom and hatred of Austria. He has not forgotten the kindness and hospitality shown to him when an exile in England. He admires your institutions and the character of the English people. But all this is as nothing when compared with the maintenance of his dynasty, the establishment of which he looks upon almost in the light of a religious obligation. If the moment came when he thought a sacrifice necessary to sustain it, however great that sacrifice might be, however painful or repugnant to his feelings, he would make it. No one has had better opportunities of knowing him than I have. He has talked to me with the greatest openness of his future plans. But he has invariably assured me at the same time that his first object was to maintain peace and good understanding with England. I believe,” he solemnly added, “that, from policy, as well as from affection, such are his views; and that only in a moment of the utmost emergency, when he was convinced that his influence in France depended upon it, would he depart from them. But that moment may come, and you would be madmen if you were not prepared for it.”--_Quarterly Review_, No. 222.

_The Mutiny at the Nore._

In 1797, when Capt. William Linder had the _Thetis_, and was returning to England, having on board the “Prussian subsidy,” amounting to nearly half a million sterling, he was taken prisoner by the mutineer William Parker, and detained, with his vessel and valuable cargo, for a week at the Nore. The rebel, little suspecting the prize he had within his grasp, credited the assertion of Capt. Linder that the aid would shortly arrive, and that he was to be the medium of its transmission to this country. By this _ruse_, and a promise of assistance by which Parker decided that he would take the grand fleet into Brest, he obtained a pass (it is believed the only one given) from William Parker, and arrived safely with his immense treasure at the Tower, where he immediately landed his golden cargo, and forthwith proceeded to the Admiralty,--also giving information to the minister, Mr. Pitt, of his fortunate escape, which, had it been otherwise, would certainly have turned the tide of success of Old England at that time. Mr. Pitt generously offered him a commission; but Capt. Linder having a fine vessel of his own, and a noble and independent spirit, which he retained to the last, respectfully declined; nor could he be induced in after years to solicit for any recompense or popularity. He died in 1862, May 21, at the age of eighty-seven.--_Athenæum._

_Catholic Emancipation and Sir Robert Peel._

It having been stated, in a leading article of a journal, April 14, 1862, that the Liberal party forced upon the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel that concession to the cause of Catholic emancipation “which Sir Robert Peel declares he entirely disapproved to the latest day of his life,” drew from the present Sir Robert Peel the following corrective reply:

“I do not know upon what authority that statement is made, but, so far from disapproving the measure, Sir Robert Peel has distinctly stated that in passing Catholic Emancipation he acted on a deep conviction that the measure was not only conducive to the general welfare, but imperatively necessary to avert from the Church, and from the interest of institutions connected with the Church, an imminent and increasing danger.”

_The House of Coburg._

Some fifty years ago, a young prince of a then obscure German House was serving under the Emperor Alexander in the great war against Napoleon. He was brave, handsome, clever, and, as events have proved, possessed of prudence beyond the ordinary lot of princes or private men. In 1814 he accompanied the Allied Sovereigns to England, and there his accomplishments attracted the attention and engaged the affection of the heiress to the English throne, the Princess Charlotte of Wales. They were married, and though an untimely death was destined soon to sever the union, yet from that time the star of the successful young officer and of the House of Coburg has been in the ascendant. From the vantage-ground of a near connexion with the British Royal Family they have been able to advance to a position in Europe almost beyond the dreams of German ambition. The Coburgs have spread far and wide, and filled the lands with their race.

They have created a new Royal House in England. The Queen is a daughter of Leopold’s sister; her children are the children of Leopold’s nephew. The Coburgs reign in Portugal; they are connected with the royal though fallen House of Orleans, and more or less closely related to the principal families of their own country. Prince Leopold himself has for thirty years governed one of the most important of the minor States of Europe, and his eldest son is wedded to an Archduchess of the Imperial House of Austria. Jealousy and detraction have followed these remarkable successes, but the Coburgs can afford to smile when their rivals sneer, for they have the solid rewards of skill, prudence, and that adaptability to all countries and positions which has distinguished the more able members of their family. It may be added, as the last memorable events in their annals, that two of them have successively had the refusal of the Crown of Greece.

The talents of the Coburgs have been conspicuous. King Leopold, the late Prince Consort, and the present Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, have been men much above the ordinary standard. They have had great opportunities, and they have known how to use them. Neither the Prince Consort nor the King of Portugal could, without offence, have taken a share in the politics of England and Portugal unless they had been gifted with much prudence and circumspection. No one who studies their history will believe that they and their kinsmen have merely had greatness thrust upon them. But, on the other hand, it cannot be doubted that they owe all to the excellent start which Prince Leopold’s good fortune gave their House. Had it not been for the elevation of the young soldier to the highest station in England, the Coburgs, instead of planting dynasties everywhere, might have been no more than any other of the five-and-thirty German reigning families, or the multitude of Princely and Serene, but mediatized personages who are scattered through the land. But when Leopold became an English prince, and his sister was the mother of the heiress presumptive to the British throne, the path to greatness was open to the enterprise of the family. How much one success leads to another in princely life has been shown in their history, and we have adverted to it because, if report speak true, another family, which, a few years since, was of hardly more account in Europe, is at this moment entering on a similar career.--_Times._

_A Few Years of the World’s Changes._

Little more than a dozen years have elapsed since there were witnessed in Europe events so stirring that they constitute one of the most remarkable epochs in the history of the world. Since then France has undergone three revolutions--the fall of the constitutional monarchy, the stormy interlude of a democratic republic, and the restoration of a military empire. The old rulers of Lombardy, of Tuscany, and of Naples have disappeared, and the map of the world has been altered in order to admit of the introduction of the kingdom of Italy. Austria, long the haughtiest representative of the principle of absolute monarchy, has commenced the experiment of constitutional government, and Russia has laid the foundation of a new political and social existence in recognising the value of free labour, and abolishing the institution of serfdom. China has opened her ports to our merchants and her capital to our ambassadors. We ourselves have twice gone through the calamities of war in the siege of Sebastopol and the suppression of the Indian revolt, and we have been twice reminded this evening that the great republic which boasted a superb exemption from the perils and the evils which beset ancient states and monarchical forms of government, has been violently rent in twain, and whatever may be the issue of that struggle in which we see at present only a lavish expenditure of blood and treasure, still there is no dispassionate bystander who can believe that the union can ever be restored, and no far-sighted politician who can suppose that the curse of slavery can long survive that separation of which it is the most ostensible, though not the only, nor perhaps the most powerful cause. Such important events, all leading to effects so vast and so permanent in their relation to the advancement of the human race, have probably never before occurred within so short a space of time.--_Speech of Sir E. Bulwer Lytton._

We may supplement the above by the following strange passage in the career of Louis Napoleon, three-and-twenty years since:

A correspondent of _The Reader_ writes:--“It was at Vimereux,
the site of the old camp of Boulogne, that Charles Louis
Bonaparte, now Emperor of the French, landed on his famous
adventure of the 5th of August, 1840. I was in Boulogne when
he reached that town, at about 5.30 a.m., with about sixty
followers. In proceeding to the beach to bathe, I was startled
by the appearance of a rabble, some of whom were clothed as
English footmen and grooms, and some as French soldiers. In
the midst of this somewhat boozy battalion the then pretender,
now the Emperor of the French, marched, closely encircled by
adherents. I followed him and them to the barracks; and never
did I see a more careworn or crestfallen set of conspirators.
In all fifty-six persons, eight horses, and two carriages had
embarked at Margate aboard the steamer, which was now cruising
in the offing of Boulogne after landing its human freight. When
the enterprise at the barracks failed, the present Emperor of the
French, with eleven of his adherents, got into a boat with a view
to escape; but they allowed the oars to be taken from them by
one Guillaume Tutelet, a bather. The boat subsequently capsized,
and the present Emperor of the French swam for the steamer, the
City of Edinburgh, which was at some distance. In this attempt he
failed, and was forced to cling to a buoy till he was picked up
and placed in safety by the English captain. But he did not long
remain thus, for the Lieutenant du Port collected his force, and
boarded the steamer, bringing her, with his prisoner, close to
the Quai la Douane.”

_Noteworthy Pensions._

The finance accounts for 1862 give, as usual, a rather serious list of Pensions charged upon the Consolidated Fund, and therefore not otherwise stated than in these accounts.

“Among the larger entries are five ex-Chancellors of England
receiving 5000_l._ a year each, two ex-Chancellors of Ireland
with 3692_l._, four retired English judges with 3500_l._, two
Irish with 2400_l._, and five County Court judges dividing
4600_l._ between them. But these are pensions earned by personal
service; perhaps not so much can be said of some others. The
Earl of Ellenborough has a compensation annuity of 7700_l._ as
chief clerk of the Court of Queen’s Bench; the Rev. T. Thurlow,
4028_l._ as clerk of the hanaper, in addition to 7352_l._ as
patentee of bankrupts. Viscount Avonmore receives 4199_l._ as
late registrar of the Irish Court of Chancery; the Earl of Roden
2698_l._ as late auditor-general of the Irish Exchequer. But
these pensions will come to an end; even that cannot be said of
some others. There is above 23,000_l._ a year paid in perpetual
pensions, payable as long at least as there shall be an Earl
Amherst or Nelson, a Lord Rodney, a Viscount Exmouth, an heir
of William Penn, or of the Duke of Schomberg, and so forth. Of
the limited number of first-class pensions of 2000_l._ a year
to statesmen who have been in high office, and who claim the
pensions, only two are now payable--viz., to Lord Glenelg and Mr.
Disraeli; Sir G. Grey’s is suspended, he being again in office.
Several pensions ceased in the course of the year; among them
that to the family of George Canning, and that to the door-keeper
of the Irish House of Lords; but the housekeeper still lives to
receive her annual compensation for loss of emoluments by the
Union.”

FOOTNOTES:

[2] This paper relates to the Invasion Tactics, as illustrated by Sir John Burgoyne: the Paper at page 21-24 refers to the project of Napoleon I.

[3] We have now learned from Mr. Motley’s researches to estimate more correctly the worth of the army at Tilbury. “There were,” he says (_History of the United Netherlands_, vol. ii. p. 515 et seq.), “patriotism, loyalty, courage, and enthusiasm in abundance;” but “there were no fortresses, no regular army, no population trained to any weapon.” “On the 5th of August no army had been assembled--not even the bodyguard of the Queen--and Leicester, with 4000 men, unprovided with a barrel of beer or a loaf of bread, was about commencing his entrenched camp at Tilbury. On the 6th of August the Armada was in Calais Roads, expecting Alexander Farnese to lead his troops upon London.” Good fortune and gallant sailors saved us from this calamity; but the undisciplined mob which was assembled under an incompetent commander on shore would have done little to avert it; and we have in this case a sufficient proof of the difficulty of improvising an army in an interval of “diplomatic correspondence.”--_Quarterly Review_, No. 223.

Progress of Civilization.

_How the Earth was peopled._

The record of the actual _origines_ of the human race, as communicated by God Himself, tells us that one spot was selected, for the purpose in question, by Creative Power; and that to one aboriginal pair was consigned the office and destiny of replenishing the earth. The same record, moreover, informs us, that, when the _earth was corrupt before God_, through the wickedness of their posterity, the whole race was destroyed, save the family of one man; and that, of the three sons of that one man _was the whole earth overspread_. And, lastly, we have this account confirmed to us by the testimony of an inspired servant of God, who has declared, that _He hath made, of one blood, all nations of men, for to dwell on the face of the earth_.

Now, according to this account, Noah may be considered, for the purposes of ethnological inquiry, as the sole forefather of the existing race of man. Of antediluvian men, all, except Noah, are entirely out of the question. Of the remarkable physical varieties of complexion, stature, or temperament, among the races before the Flood (if any such varieties existed), we are profoundly ignorant. We do read, it is true, that there were _giants_ in those days; but the meaning of this term seems very doubtful. It is most generally understood to indicate a gigantic scale of iniquity, licentiousness, and violence, rather than of corporeal bulk and might. At all events, Noah himself, and his three sons, were the only males spared from the general destruction: and the mother of these three sons, together with their three respective wives, the only females; eight persons in all. And, so far as race or family are concerned, the sons are clearly identified with their father. It is, indeed, just possible that all these four females may have been of so many different tribes or races. But this surmise is wholly gratuitous, and very far from probable. And, even were it admitted, it could not affect any argument respecting the origin of the present inhabitants of the earth, without assuming the falsehood of that part of the sacred narrative which traces them all, Noah and his _whole_ family included, to one and the same common parentage.

Since the days of the patriarch upwards of 4000 years have elapsed, and we now find the earth inhabited by at least eight hundred millions of souls. And, so it is, that these vast multitudes exhibit, _within certain limits_, almost every imaginable variety of form, of constitution, and of stature.--_English Review_, No. 2.

Nevertheless, the Unity of the Human Race is a much-vexed question among ethnologists. Mr. Dunn is convinced of the original unity of the human species, and, after adducing the best ethnological evidence attainable, he earnestly appeals to the philologists to help him. Admiral Fitzroy reduces mankind to one, or, at least, to three types; and these three varieties he reverently ascribes to the three sons of Noah, with the help of the hypothesis that they may have been the sons of different mothers. On the other hand, Mr. Craufurd, President of the Ethnological Society, admits of no compromise with orthodoxy, maintaining that the hypothesis of the unity of our race is without foundation. There are, he says, some forty races of men, which to pack into the five pigeon-holes of Cuvier and Blumenbach, or the seven of Prichard, would produce confusion instead of order. The supposition of a single race peopling all countries by migration he holds to be “monstrous,” and contradictory to the fact that some of them to this day do not know how to use or construct a canoe. Migration, he contends, is the achievement of races possessed of resources in food and means of transport. It is to little purpose that Admiral Fitzroy dwells on the capacities of rafts, double canoes, and ocean currents. Mr. Craufurd is incredulous as ever, and fights for his forty Adams with unchecked vivacity, kicking a tremendous hole in the “frail canoe,” and leaving the ocean currents to deal with it _more oceanico_.

_Revelations of Geology._

Geology attests that man was the last of created beings in this planet. If her _data_ be consistent and true, and worthy of scientific consideration, she affords conclusive evidence that, as we are told in Scripture, he cannot have occupied the earth longer than 6000 years. (_Hitchcock_, _Religion of Geology_.)

Sir Isaac Newton’s sagacious intellect had arrived at a similar conclusion from different premisses, and long before the geologist had made his researches and discoveries. “He appeared,” said one who conversed with him, not long before his death, and has carefully recorded what he justly styles “a remarkable and curious conversation,” “to be very clearly of opinion, that the inhabitants of this world were of short date; and alleged as one reason for that opinion, that all arts--as letters, ships, printing, the needle, &c.--were discovered within the memory of history, which could not have happened if the world had been eternal; and that there were visible marks of ruin upon it, which could not have been effected by a flood only.”--_Brewster’s Life of Newton._

_The Stone Age._

Admiral Fitzroy adduces the following striking facts strongly bearing on the great geological inquiry of “Flint Tools,” and “Implements in the Drift.”

Tierra del Fuego, with its innumerable islands and rocky islets, like mountain ranges half sunk in ocean, combines every variety of aspect--storm-beaten rocky summits, several thousand feet above the sea--glaciers so extensive that the eye cannot trace their limits--densely wooded hillsides--grand cascades and sheltered sandy coves,--altogether such a combination of Swiss, Norwegian, and Greenland scenery as can hardly be realized or believed to exist near Cape Horn. Yet, even there--by lake-like waters, though so near the wildest of oceans--thousands of savages exist, and migrate in bark canoes!

In 1830 four of those aborigines were brought to England. In 1833 three of them were restored to their native places (one having died). They had then acquired enough of our language to talk about common things. From their information and our own sight are the following facts:--The natives of Tierra del Fuego use stone tools, flint knives, arrow and spear heads of flint or volcanic glass, for cutting bark for canoes, flesh, blubber, sinews, and spears, knocking shell-fish off rocks, breaking large shells, killing guanacoes (in time of deep snow), and for weapons. In every sheltered cove where wigwams are placed, heaps of refuse--shells and stones, offal and bones--are invariably found. Often they appear very old, being covered deeply with wind-driven sand, or water-washed soil, on which there is a growth of vegetation. These are like the “kitchen middens” of the so-called “stone age” in Scandinavia.

No human bones would be found in them (unless dogs had dragged some there), because the dead bodies are sunk in deep water with large stones, or burnt. These heaps are from six to ten feet high, and from ten or twenty to more than fifty yards in length. All savages in the present day use stone tools, not only in Tierra del Fuego, but in Australia, Polynesia, Northernmost America, and Arctic Asia. In any former ages of the world, wherever savages spread, as radiating from some centre, similar habits and means of existence must have been prevalent; therefore casual discovery of such traces of human migration, buried in or under masses of water-moved detritus, may seem scarcely sufficient to define a so-called “stone age.”

_What are Celtes?_

Celtes are certain ancient instruments, of a wedge-like form, of which several have been discovered in different parts of Great Britain. Antiquaries have generally attributed them to the Celtæ, but, not agreeing as to their use, distinguish them by the above unmeaning appellation. Mr. Whitaker, however, is of opinion that they were British battle-axes, and in this he has been generally followed. Such is the statement in the eighth or last edition of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_.

The Welsh etymologists, Owen and Spurrell, furnish an ancient Cambro-British word _celt_, a flint-stone. M. Worsae (_Primeval Antiq._, p. 26) confines the term to those instruments of bronze which have a hollow socket to receive a wooden handle; the other forms being called paalstabs on the Continent. In the “Latin Vulgate,” our translators have rendered “an iron pen” in the book of Job, chap. xix. v. 24, there translated _celte_.

But the origin and application are variously explained among antiquarian writers. The Abbé Cochet states, in a letter to the French journals, 1863, that hatchets are found almost all over Europe. They are common in France, and are generally found in groups. Some of them have been analysed, and found to be composed of fourteen parts of tin and eighty-six of copper. The bronze is the same as that of an antique poniard brought from Egypt and analysed by Vauquelin, from which it would appear that the composition of ancient Gallic bronze came from Egypt. Archæologists generally attribute hatchets of this kind to the Celts and Gauls, and give them the general name of Celtic.

In opposition to this statement, it is, however, maintained that “the word is not derived from its use by the Celts or Kelts, but from the Latin word ‘celtis,’ which means chisel, or hatchet.” Dr. Smith (_Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities_) obtains the term from “celtes, an old Latin word for a chisel, probably derived from cælo, to engrave.” Mr. Wright (in _The Celt, Roman, and Saxon_) says that Hearne first applied the word to such implements in _bronze_, believing them to be “Roman _celtes_, or chisels;” and that “subsequent writers, ascribing these instruments to the Britons, have retained the name, forgetting its origin, and have applied it indiscriminately not only to other implements of bronze but even to the analogous instruments of stone.” Mr. Wright objects to the term, “as too generally implying that things to which it is applied are Celtic;” and it is now generally allowed that there is no connexion between this word and the name of the nation (Celtæ).--(Abridged from _Notes and Queries_, No. 203). Fosbroke (_Encyclopædia of Antiquities_, p. 286) has an excellent column of authorities upon the subject, which is still hotly contested. An admirable paper was read to the Archæological Institute, in 1849, by Mr. James Yates, illustrating “The Use of Bronze Celts in Military Operations,” with several woodcuts.--See the _Archæological Journal_, December, 1849, Pages 363-392. See also “Notes on Bronze Weapons,” by A. W. Franks, F.S.A., _Archæologia_, vol. xxxvi., pp. 326-331: and Papers by Mr. John Evans, F.S.A.; _Archæologia_, vol. xxxviii. p. 280; also, vol. xxxix. p. 57. The subject is of immediate interest in illustration of “The Antiquity of Man.”

_Roman Civilization of Britain._

If the commencement of the Roman rule in England was, say, fifty years before the birth of Christ (or 1910 years ago) and each generation lasted on the average thirty years--rather a high rate of vitality probably in the Early and Middle Ages--we find that about sixty-four generations have gone to dust since then. The archæological information obtained of late years shows that at the time of the Roman invasion there was a larger amount of civilization in Ancient Britain than has been generally supposed: that in addition to the knowledge of the old inhabitants in agriculture, in the training and rearing of horses, cows, and other domestic animals, they were able to work in mines, had skill in the construction of war-chariots and other carriages, and in the manufacture of metals; and there is evidence that cheese and other British manufactures and materials were exported to certain parts of the Continent, probably in British vessels. The ancient coinage of this period is well worthy of attention. To what country may the style of art be traced? To what people do we owe the mysterious circle of Stonehenge? Mr. Fergusson and others say to the Buddhists rather than to the Druids.

In connexion with the Ancient British period, it would seem that probably 2000 years before the Roman times there had been in Great Britain a certain degree of civilization, which from various causes declined in extent. If Stonehenge may be considered as of the same antiquity as similar remains in various parts of the East--which are reckoned by good authorities to be 4000 years old--we had in this country a degree of civilization which was contemporary with the prosperous period of the Egyptian empire; and, in times more immediately preceding the Roman occupation, we know that Britain was the grand source of Druidical illumination (whatever relation that may have had to a true civilization) to the whole of Continental Europe.

That the Ancient Britons, even after they were conquered by the Romans, had still a strength considered dangerous, is shown by the fact that upwards of forty barbarian legions which had followed the Roman standards were settled chiefly upon the northern and eastern coasts; and it is supposed that a force of about 19,200 Roman foot and 1700 horse was required to secure peace, and the carrying out of certain laws in the island. It is calculated by some writers that a revenue of not less than 2,000,000_l._ a year was raised by the conquerors of Britain from the land-tax, pasture-tax, and customs, besides legacy duties, and those levied on the sale of slaves, auctions of goods, &c.; and it may be remarked that these customs were levied by the Roman governors in lieu of direct tribute, to which, it seems, the spirit of the Britons would not submit.--_The Builder_, 1860.

_Roman Roads and British Railways._

We have no means of estimating the cost of a mile of Roman road by any audited account of expenses, and it is not easy to make a comparison of labour. Its cost is vaguely calculated as insignificant by the side of that of our leviathan railways. The following is stated to be the average cost of a mile of railway:

Land 6000_l._
Earthwork 5000_l._
Tunnelling 3000_l._
Masonry 3000_l._
Viaduct and large Bridges 3000_l._
Permanent Iron Road 5000_l._
Stations 4000_l._
Law expenses, Engineering, Surveying, &c. 3000_l._
----------
32,000_l._

If this be multiplied by 5000, which was the aggregate length of British railways in 1851 (now it is nearly 12,000), and we have the almost fabulous amount of 160 millions, a sum fully equal to ten times the revenue of all the Roman provinces in the time of Augustus.

In estimating the value of a Roman road, we have to deduct 7800_l._ a mile for land and law: every mile of railway cost 6000_l._ for land, whereas the Roman road-makers cut through the country without asking the price, and dispensed with all juries for assessing damages. Next, we must deduct 4000_l._ for stations; the Roman _mutationes_ were but hovels where horses were changed; and lastly, is to be deducted 5000_l._ for iron, before we come to the materials the Romans were enabled to use; in other words, the materials of the Roman road and labour would not be more than half the cost of our railways, from the mere fact of certain expenses being absent, which they could not understand; but, although inferior to the Britons of the nineteenth century in the art of spending money, if judged by the present state of the science, they could not be despicable engineers--their levels were chosen on different principles, but their lines of roads passed through the same countries, and generally in the same direction, as our railways. A diagram taken from an article of the _Quarterly Review_, exhibiting a general view of the direction of the principal Roman roads in England, shows that on comparing one or two of our principal lines, we shall find that the Great Western, _e.g._, supplies the place, with a little deviation near Reading, of the Roman iter from London to Bath and Bristol; the Liverpool and Manchester, and on to Leeds and York, replace the northern Watling-street; the Eastern Counties follows a Roman way, and so of the rest.