emperor would no doubt have required that the journals of our rivals, like our own, should be subject to the controul of his censors.

Among various poetic denunciations against the First Consul, the Napoléone of Charles Nodier particularly excited attention. Instead of suspecting this ode to be the production of a young man of twenty, the police, who unfortunately were already judges of poetry, attributed it to several individuals highly distinguished in literature. But the real author did not suffer Cheniar, Lebrun, or Ginguené to be unjustly accused; and his avowal of the production cost him four years of captivity and persecution.

It was an imitation of the Napoléone, or rather the same idea represented in a meaner form, that Peltier inserted in his Journal de Londres. Charles Nodier's poem was intended to serve as a rallying hymn to the respectable men of both parties, who were alike inspired by hatred of Buonaparte, and whom Pichegru was to assemble under the banner of a constitutional prince of the house of Bourbon.

The Napoléone published by Peltier, had a more decided tone of republicanism. The threat of the poignard was unreservedly expressed, and accordingly the agent of the French government declared it to be an excitement to assassination. Mr. Peltier required all the eloquence of his able advocate ; and Mackintosh felt a due conviction of the importance of the cause he had to defend. He entered upon a few brief remarks, intended to palliate rather than to justify the motives of his client.

But he soon launched into considerations of the deepest political importance; and in order to contend with advantage against the head of a state, he associated the cause of liberty with the cause of an unfortunate exile, reduced to the necessity of seeking a subsistance from the profit of an obscure journal.

Sir James was well aware that the new chief of the French Republic had embraced liberty only for the purpose of destroying it. But while he plainly foresaw the future emperor in the consul, he could not venture openly to predict the dangers of Europe, without compromising the peace of which his country stood in need, in order to prepare for a new conflict. To express his ideas on this subject, he, therefore, introduced a sort of historical allegory, the hidden sense of which was sufficiently intelligible.

Adverting to the importance of the press in a free country, Sir James observed that the first. gazettes which appeared in England were printed by order of Queen Elizabeth, who may thus be said to have made one of the most ingenious political experiments,-one of the most striking anticipations of the future which history records. He expressed his conviction of the intimate connection of the English national character with the press, and even with the periodical press; and in support of his opinion he quoted Bacon's encomium of Elizabeth.

It may, perhaps, be said that Sir James Mackintosh too highly exalted the liberal spirit of a queen, who cut off the hand of a journalist, for havi ng

written against her. Charles II., a prince who is severely judged by English historians, shewed more tolerance than the daughter of the Tudors for offences of the press. Seeing a poor author, who was being conducted to the pillory, the king enquired what he had been guilty of, and was informed that he had been writing a pamphlet against the ministers. "What a fool!" replied the monarch; "why did he not write against me, and they would have let him alone!" I relate this well-known anecdote merely to shew the various ideas which have prevailed in England respecting the legislation of the press.

Shortly after the affair of Peltier, Sir James Mackintosh was appointed to an important judicial post in India; and there his eloquence was applied to another system of legislation. On his return to England, however, he did not again appear at the bar. He was elected a member of the house of commons, where he became distinguished for moderate opposition to the encroachments of power, and for vigorous logical elocution, which, though not brilliant, is always strictly conformable to parliamentary rules. He may be called the RoyerCollard of the English elective chamber. The other day I heard him support a motion for printing the old chronicles of Great Britain at the expence of government. Sir James is himself the author of a history, which is likely to form an era in the national literature of England. He is also a contributor to the Edinburgh Review; and his articles are distinguished for erudition and purity of style.

In the course of his travels, Sir James has acquired a vast store of varied information; and his brilliant conversation affords an admirable specimen of that universality of knowledge which, perhaps, an Englishman may attain more easily than the inhabitant of any other nation.

LETTER LIII.

TO M. AYLIES, ADVOCATE.

SINCE the death of Sir Samuel Romilly, Messrs. Brougham and Scarlett are the two most distinguished men at the English bar.

Sir Samuel Romilly, to whose memory the handsomest tribute of praise has been paid by one of the most eloquent members of our opposition, has left behind him no published speeches, except those which are to be found in the frequently incorrect reports of trials. Sir Samuel Romilly was descended from one of those French families, who emigrated to England at the time of the revocation of the edict of Nantes. France may justly regret the loss of so distinguished a man; and while we render homage to his talents and virtues, it is gratifying to reflect that some drops of French blood flowed in his veins. He entered upon his profession with no fortune; but with the laudable determination of acquiring one. His efforts were

soon crowned with success; and he had the satisfaction of seeing his family raised to independence. He was still young in years, and in talent, when he was introduced to the lady who afterwards became his wife; and with the noble confidence of a generous mind, he proposed that their union should be deferred until he could present to her the fruits which a few years of his professional exertions might produce. He soon after obtained wealth, fame, and happiness, three things which are so rarely united together. He lived in the enjoyment of his well deserved prosperity until the year 1820, when grief for the loss of his wife, to whom he was devotedly attached, produced aberration of mind, and he put an end to his existence.

Sir Samuel Romilly soon became a member of the house of commons, where he was one of the most distinguished ornaments of the opposition. He particularly directed his attention to the penal code, in which he succeeded in making several useful amendments. In 1789 he visited France, and was introduced to Mirabeau, who requested him to draw up an abstract of the English parliamentary regulations.

In 1806, when Fox succeeded to the ministry, Sir Samuel Romilly was appointed attorney-general; but he resigned his functions when his party were superseded in the favour of the monarch by Lord Castlereagh.

No Englishman has greater claims on the gratitude of foreigners than Romilly. He was the constant opposer of the alien bill; and if he did