e writer of the Remarks in the Last Week of October appears to think
that the present government in France contains many of the elements
which, when properly arranged, are known to form the best practical
governments,--and that the system, whatever may become its particular
form, is no longer likely to be an obstacle to negotiation. If its form
now be no obstacle to such negotiation, I do not know why it was ever
so. Suppose that this government promised greater permanency than any of
the former, (a point on which I can form no judgment,) still a link is
wanting to couple the permanence of the government with the permanence
of the peace. On this not one word is said: nor can there be, in my
opinion. This deficiency is made up by strengthening the first ringlet
of the chain, that ought to be, but that is not, stretched to connect
the two propositions. All seems to be done, if we can make out that the
last French edition of Regicide is like to prove stable.

As a prognostic of this stability, it is said to be accepted by the
people. Here again I join issue with the fraternizers, and positively
deny the fact. Some submission or other has been obtained, by some means
or other, to every government that hitherto has been set up. And the
same submission would, by the same means, be obtained for any other
project that the wit or folly of man could possibly devise. The
Constitution of 1790 was universally received. The Constitution which
followed it, under the name of a Convention, was universally submitted
to. The Constitution of 1793 was universally accepted. Unluckily, this
year's Constitution, which was formed, and its genethliacon sung by the
noble author while it was yet in embryo, or was but just come bloody
from the womb, is the only one which in its very formation has been
generally resisted by a very great and powerful party in many parts of
the kingdom, and particularly in the capital. It never had a popular
choice even in show: those who arbitrarily erected the new building out
of the old materials of their own Convention were obliged to send for an
army to support their work: like brave gladiators, they fought it out
in the streets of Paris, and even massacred each other in their house of
assembly, in the most edifying manner, and for the entertainment and
instruction of their Excellencies the foreign ambassadors, who had a box
in this constitutional amphitheatre of a free people.

At length, after a terrible strugg