6 her the most trifling offence,--we should readily and frankly. make any adequate reparation or apology; but where there has confessedly been neither injury nor offence, it is puerile, it is ridiculous, to ask for a vague concession quelconque,' which though but a mean gratification to the vanity of the receiver, would be a serious disgrace to the power that should be so weak as to give it. We notice this point because the recent explosion in France, and what we still more wonder at and regret, the colour of the debates in her Chambers, prove a spirit of captious jealousy, which, for the future peace of the world, ought not to be indulged and encouraged. It is not safe in private life, and still less amongst nations, to accustom unreasonable and hot-tempered people to feel that they can obtain whatever they happen to wish for, by flying into a passion. England has shown-we trust, to the satisfaction of Europe-assuredly to the approbation of her own conscience-how well we can keep our temper under severe provocation; but for the future quiet of our lives, we must endeavour to convince our irascible neighbours that wanton provocations and appeals ab irato,' as M. de Valiny calls them, are not the modes by which anything can be obtained from us; and that honour as well as policy will be best consulted by civiller manners and a more friendly spirit-of both of which we have given, and trust we shall continue to give, a laudable example. But even if M. Thiers' proposition could be taken to mean a concession, not to France but, to Mehemet, we ask, first, what right has France to put herself forward to make personal terms for the Pacha? She professes that she has no secret alliance with him, nor indeed can she have any legitimate engagement, because she admits that he is not a substantive power, howeyer she may wish to make him one, with a view of unmaking him by-and-by; nor can the other Powers, with truth or in honour, admit that France has any more claim than each of themselves to affect any peculiar interest for the Pacha. But the higher and more substantial questions are, does the public safety admit that Mehemet should have better terms? and does his conduct deserve that he should have any terms at all? We will answer the last question first, and that by a decided negative-Mehemet Ali deserves no favour; and the sentence of destitution from the government of Egypt, lately pronounced by the Porte, was fully warranted by his incorrigible insubordination. Let us recollect, first, what he originally was-by what unjustifiable means he raised himself to be a vassal of the Porte-by what bloody services he distinguished himself in that character-that it is only recently that 6 that he has ventured to pretend to any other rank-that when such pretensions were formally advanced, they were formally and decidedly rejected by all the Powers-that England (acting at that time, we must presume, in concert with all her allies, including France) warned' him repeatedly and solemnly of the serious consequences, and still more pointedly of the evil consequences,'-and at length of the utter ruin'-that would result to himself' from pursuing his ambitious projects:-all that was disregarded-and the war in Syria was renewed, and thousands of lives have been lost, and frightful miseries inflicted on those unhappy but interesting countries, solely by the usurper's malignant obstinacy. Is political equity-are the rights of humanity to have no jurisdiction over such reiterated and impudent disregard of the duties of allegiance, the warnings of friendship, and the menaces of justice? The treaty of the 15th July dealt with this matter with great-with extreme leniency: it offered him, if the offer should be accepted within ten days, the hereditary possession of Egypt and the south of Syria, including the Pachalik of Acre for his life;-but if this too liberal proposition should not be so accepted, then it offered him, if accepted within ten further days, the hereditary government of Egypt, alone, without any portion of Syria: if the Pacha should refuse both these successive ultimatums' the Powers engaged themselves to make war upon him, and his ulterior fate was committed to the chances of the war which he should thus have obstinately provoked. He has provoked it; and the blood of England, gloriously shed, and the blood of his own countrymen, wantonly spilt at Beyrout, and Sidon, and Acre, cries for vengeance against the barbarous cause of so much mischief. But the bloodshed is not all, that may seem in some degree palliated by the courage displayed and the glory achieved, but the finances both of France and England have been enormously charged, and, we fear, seriously embarrassed, by his proceedings; and the peaceable people of both countries must pay for his ambition. There is not a poor cottage in the west nor in the east of Europe into which his flagrant injustice will not have intruded itself, in the shape of increased taxation, to meet the enormous expenses which he has caused. And now, we ask, does not the deplorable waste of all this blood and treasure demand some vengeance on *The French finance minister has laid before the Chambers an account of the expense incurred by M. Thiers' armaments, &c., amounting to 839,000,000 francs, or near 34,000,0007. sterling-an almost incredible sum; but it includes that absurd and dangerous scheme, which Louis Philippe took advantage of the national frenzy to passthe fortification of Paris, which seems to us as inconsistent with military spirit as it is with constitutional liberty, and will, we think, turn out to be the greatest blunder Louis Philippe has made. its guilty author? No man in Europe, except some Frenchman influenced with passion and party, will deny the abstract justice of deposing Mehemet Ali from a power he had so fatally abused, and that he has richly merited the sentence thus pronounced against him. But, on the other hand, it must be admitted that the complications of international jealousies and interests do too often require that rigid justice should be tempered by political expediency; and if the feelings of France (unreasonable as we may think them) can be calmed and conciliated, and if the peace of Europe can be preserved, by a concession to the extent of leaving to the guilty Pacha his status quo in Egypt, we shall be glad, in the general interests of humanity, if his immediate submission shall justify the Porte and the European Powers in consenting to such an arrangement. That is a concession-and indeed, as far as we can at present see, the only concession which can be now made consistently with the honour of the belligerent powers, and the future safety of the Levantine people. God grant that the peace of the world may be secured by a sacrifice reconcilable only with strict justice and sound policy by the great and transcendent importance of the object for which it is made! Even while we write these lines we learn that these generous terms have been offered to Mehemet Ali, and by him accepted, and that, therefore, the ostensible motive of any immediate rupture with our neighbours is happily removed; and we most devoutly hope that the agitation so mischievously excited in France may be allayed by the selfish prudence of the king, and the patriotism of the honestest and, we believe, the ablest ministry that he has ever yet called to his councils. But let not the lesson of the last few months be lost upon us. Let us not forget that we found, in the late crisis, neither good will nor even good manners,—not a friend-not an apologist,-no, not one-in any part or party of that country. The few-the very few-who were forced by their reason or their conscience to pronounce M. Thiers in the wrong, had never the moral courage of admitting England to be in the right. The Duke de Valmy, with all his good sense and talents, was obliged to consult the prejudices of his constituents by winding up his address with a denunciation of the ambition of England: and the Presse, the only newspaper that took the side of peace, was forced to propitiate its subscribers by vague tirades against the habile perfidie de l'Angleterre.' We had, it seems, so cleverly concealed our perfidy that the able writer in the Presse did not know where to find it; but, like a good Frenchman, he could admit no doubt at at all of its secret existence. All the rest of France was one wild cry against us,-radicals, republicans, royalists, juste milieu, parti prêtre, savans, soldiers, sailors, shopkeepers, every individual seemed to fear that his own patriotism would be suspected if he did not denounce and execrate England, and abjure in the most violent terms the English alliance. As an example of the degree to which this hatred is felt and avowed, we need only take the speech pronounced on the 3rd of December by M. Jaubert, once a Doctrinaire, a friend and follower of M. Guizot, and who, when the latter accepted the embassy to London, became a member of M. Thiers' cabinet. From such a man one would expect moderation both in ideas and language. Now, what says he? M. Berryer, the legitimist leader, had made a violent aud foolish speech, in which, intending to talk bitterly and contemptuously of the English nation, he called it, in the phrase of the old chronicles, l'Anglais- the EnglishM. Jaubert seized on the expression, and exclaimedI repeat it,the Englishman! I am happy to adopt from the honourable M. Berryer that expression of our ancient hatred against England.'-Speech, 3rd December. Again :- This English alliance, which has lasted ten years, and has been so highly applauded as conducive to the interests of philosophy, humanity, and society-well, I don't at all agree in these cosmopolite sentiments. In spite of my passage through the Doctrinaire school, I still feel, in their full force, those national sentiments with which I was inspired in the days of the Emperor !'-Ibid. Our causes of complaint against England have been accumulating for twenty-five years. At last comes this direct outrage; and we now find ourselves face to face with our ancient enemy! Ah, we have a long score to wipe off with her! For my part, I humbly confess that I am impatient for the day of vengeance,-Ibid. This from a man bred in the most rational and moderate school of French politics, and a member of the recent Cabinet, which professed, up to the moment it was turned out, that its main principle was the English alliance! Hear, also, the voice of a simple and generally somniferous bard, M. Casimir Delavigne, a special protégé of Louis Philippe's. who awakens from his elegiac dozings to sound a point of war against tyrannous, implacable, cruel, and perfidious England. He is describing the days of his youth spent at the town of Havre. ALORS j'étais enfant, et toutefois mon âme Bondissait dans mon sein d'un généreux courroux ; Je Je sentais de la haine y fermenter la flamme. J'aimais les noirs canons gardiens de ses abords; Que disaient nos marins, lui demandant raison Quand leurs deux poings fermés menaçaient l'horizon? On citait ses sermens de parjures suivis, -Delavigne, Messeniennes. And a favourable critic observes, upon this tirade, that M. Casimir Delavigne could not better prove his personal devotion and gratitude to the House of Orleans than in thus joining the public cry against the perfidy of England.' They forget that ALORS the House of Orleans was living under the hospitable protection of that same perfidious England;'-not in a cachot flottant, but in a good house at Twickenham; and that Louis Philippe was eagerly soliciting a command in the allied armies against the person whom he then styled the Corsican usurper'--but whose bones he is now canonising. The Presse, which we have quoted so frequently because it has been the most rational of the journals, and is besides supposed to be the organ of the king, formally announces the complete rupture of the English Alliance,' and congratulates France on the complete and unanimous abjuration which she has made of that false and mischievous vision. 6 This paroxysm of fury, having no real cause, and, now, not even an excuse, will probably subside: but let us not persuade ourselves that either of the two great parties that divide the French people can ever forgive us-the one our early recognition of Louis Philippe, and the other-WATERLOO! Nor can we say that we much regret this renunciation on the part of France, of what they call the English alliance,' though we do very much the temper and spirit in which it is made. We always thought the French alliance' an unsure and hollow trust, that is, in the special meaning that has been lately given to the term. Close intimacies, which are not based on some public engagement, and referable to some known standard, are the most dangerous and |