French empire, with the addition of Belgium. From this new holy alliance between three great despotic empires to cause to arise a war to the death against the Democratic party, and against the Liberal and Constitutional party; to extinguish beneath the army's tread what the absolutist powers call the revolutionary flame, that is to say, whatever lights the human spirit on the way of progress, and if England resists, to crush her; such is the plan, (who can doubt it longer?)

such is the sacrilegious plan, of which the

sack of Paris is the commencement, and for the accomplishment of which Louis Bonaparte has delivered France into the hands of French Cossacks:

"On the reality of this plan, and on the abominable complicity which binds to the fortune of the Emperor Nicholas the ambition of Louis Bonaparte, I may be able very shortly to publish some proofs, which I am now in course of collecting. We can then judge of the important influence which Russian gold exercises in the humiliation and misfortunes of France."

Soon blood began to flow in the streets of Paris. Hundreds were slaughtered while quietly sitting in their houses on the Boulevards. The press was restricted, and a guard placed in every office, and the news went out to the world, that in a single night republican France was changed into a military despotism.

In England and America, the tidings were received with regret, while bonfires were built in Rome, and public rejoicings were held in Vienna.

The election of a president for ten years was given to the people, and, under the influence of fear, they have decided to be slaves. The vote stood as foi lows:

Upon which the president uses the following extraordinary language:

"France has comprehended that I departed from legality to return to right. Upwards of seven million votes have absolved me. My object was to save France, and perhaps Europe, from years of trouble and anarchy. I understood all the grandeur of my mission. I do not deceive myself as to its difficulties; but, with the counsel and support of all right-minded men, the devotedness of the army, and the protection which I shall to-morrow beseech Heaven to grant me, I hope to secure the destinies of France, by founding institutions responding to the democratic instincts of the nation, and the desire of a strong and respected government; to create a system which reconstitutes authority without wounding the feelings of equality, in closing any path of improvement; and to lay the foundation of an edifice capable of supporting a wise and beneficent liberty."

The Catholic religion has been restored to the Pantheon, the hands of the priests have been strengthened, and the wheel of progress, to all human appearance, has turned backward in France a quarter of a century.1

1 The state of society may be gathered from the following paragraphs, taken from late Paris papers:

"A deputation, consisting of some of the principal editors of the moderate press, were received by the president of the republic in a private interview, which they had requested for the purpose of representing the

grievances to which they were exposed by the rigorous censorship under which the newspapers have been placed since the revolution of the 2d of December. The gentleman who headed the deputation spoke for fully half an hour, and concluded his speech by expressing a hope that the president would give some moderate

My conviction is, founded upon what knowledge I have of French history, and what I saw of the French people while in that country, that a liberal monarchy

"a throne," as Lafayette said, "surrounded by liberal institutions"- would be better for France than a republican form of government. Under existing circumstances, a republic must be a military despotism; and law must be enforced and order preserved only at the point of the bayonet. A wise and liberal king, who could command the respect and secure the affection of his people, would be preferable to one who, though called by a less formidable title, would secure no respect and demand no affection. There are several reasons why France is not prepared for a republican government, and why such a government cannot exist; and,

1. She lacks a system of general, popular education. A republic is the highest style of human government,

latitude to the papers to comment upon passing events. Louis Napoleon listened with great composure and patience; but his only answer was the following: 'Gentlemen, the press has already destroyed two dynasties. I may fall like the others; but I shall take care that it shall not be by the press.' And with this he bowed them out.

"The Marquise d'Osmond, a Legitinnist lady, gives brilliant réunions at her hotel on the Boulevard de Madeleine; and her guests would talk politics. The minister of the interior apprised madame that such subjects were disagreeable to the government. But madame would give soirées, and guests would talk of what interested France and the world. The minister of the interior insisted that politics must be dropped. Madame then invited only ladies; but only ladies' would talk politics rather than scandal and the courteous minister of the

interior was compelled, by high authority, to request madame to name what chateau she would prefer for a country residence, with a postscript stating that she must not return to Paris without express presidential permission.

"M. Thiers wrote a letter to the minister of the interior for leave to return to France, offering to abstain from politics. The minister went to Louis Napoleon with the letter, and desired to know what answer he was to send. Louis Napoleon said, ‘Give me the fourth volume of The History of the Revolution, by Thiers.' The book was given, and Louis Napoleon pointed to a passage which he had marked, in which Thiers reproaches the emperor for not having expelled from France, as a measure of security, several of his political adversaries. Copy the passage,' said Louis Napoleon, and send it to M. Thiers, as the answer to his application.” ”

and, next to a theocracy, which we never can expect to see until human nature is greatly changed, is most desirable. But a republic is not made in a single hour. There are materials which cannot be made into democrats, and which, under a democratic government, would prove worthless. It is no compliment to say that a savage would make a good republican. We have a great and successful republic; but it does not follow that all other nations are ready to follow our example. The training of our Union has been peculiar, and the people have been schooled into habits and principles which fit them for democracy. The imperfect education of the French people; the lack of a general system of education; the few who can read the name on the ballot which they cast into the box,- are sure evidences that they would make indifferent republicans. The idea of self-government among a people who have no school-houses is an absurdity. It may exist as a theory, but never as a fact. While a few in France are learned and eloquent, the mass of the people are left without the advantages of a common education, and the number who can read and write is comparatively small. Under such circumstances, liberty will not be appreciated, and a free government will be productive of more evil than good. Men must be restrained, if not by reason and education, by sword and bayonet. Thus the revolution which drove Louis XVI. from his throne to the guillotine resulted in the establishment of an empire of force, which was sustained only by continual violations of the evident and primary principles of civil liberty. The revolution which sent Louis Philippe into exile is tending to the same result, and every future revolution and convulsion will only add new horrors to the history of that blood-drunken and impulsive nation.

2. France is destitute of a pure religion. No republic ever lived long without a pure and exalted faith. The old republics which orators and poets tell about fell because they were destitute of a living principle, which is essential to the very idea of self-government. France has no such religion. Forty-two thousand priests many of them Jesuits—are crushing the life and spirit of freedom; and a free, liberal government, with such an encumbrance, is an impossibility. The nearer you get to Rome, the more dense is the darkness, and the more abject the slavery. In that whole city, with its multitude of crosses, and cathedrals, and public buildings, there is only one newspaper; and that so insignificant and badly printed, that no man in England, France, or America would read it. The false church rules France; and the priests are at the foundation of this new outburst of despotism. They cannot live and flourish in a republic. Their empire must be over a nation of slaves; and their constant effort will be, must be, to degrade the government and enslave the people. The government of a nation always corresponds with the prevailing system of religion. Episcopacy cannot prevail in a democracy; Congregationalism cannot succeed in a monarchy. There is a direct antagonism between them; and if either of them should come to pass, it would be a paradox as yet unknown.

Hence, to make France a republic, you must uproot Romanism, and overturn the dominion of the Papal tyrant. However the priests may act in energy, they always tend to a subjugation of the people, to the limitation of human rights, and the overthrow of political equality. No isolated case can refute this general fact; and a single case of patriotism in a priest may not change this general charge, the verity of which is