thing, at least, in which all men are equal, namely, physical suffering. It is no greater hardship for a monarch to die than for one of the meanest of his slaves.

The conspiracy of kings against the people of Europe may, for the present, succeed by the aid of the bayonet. But the bayonet is no stable foundation for authority, and of all the varieties of government, despotism is the least permanent. It is in its nature a government of force or corruption. It reigns over the body, not the mind, and is equally opposed to the reason and instincts of men. This is exemplified in the history of all despotisms, in the East as in the West. They exhibit only a series of perpetual commotions and revolutions, arising either from the discontent of the people, the rapacity of the soldiers, the insurrections of rebellious vassals, the intrigues of courtiers, or the conflicts of different pretenders to the crown. From the period in which the Emperors of Rome became despotic, their history is, for the most part, one sickening series of bloody revolutions. Their reigns were almost always brief, and they generally perished by the dagger of the assassin, or the sword of a successful competitor. The people of Italy gradually lost all principle, all feeling of patriotism, in these perpetual struggles, and, finally, the Imperial Eagle was forced to take flight from the West to the East, before the irresistible might of a race of barbarians.

The history of the Eastern Empire furnishes, if possible, a still more striking exemplification of the fate of power, when altogether dependent on standing armies. It is one continued succession of despots, whose career presented some of the strangest examples of the vicissitudes of life ever exhibited in the great drama of the freaks of Fortune, and whose deaths almost uniformly sealed with their blood the record of their follies, weaknesses, and crimes. With here and there an exception, all perished by treachery, conspiracy, or popular indignation. None ever loved or trusted them, all feared them, and they feared all. They lived in perpetual terror and anxiety; they saw the sword of Damocles forever dangling by a hair over their heads, and while lording it over millions of slaves, were themselves the slaves of fear.

Should Europe be governed for a generation or two according to the maxims of Eastern despotism, the people will gradually sink into Oriental degradation. Europe will share the fate of Asia, and as that quarter of the globe yielded to the ascendency of the freer people of the other, so will that other be compelled to yield the sceptre to the still more free race of a new world. The discontents in Europe can only be

quelled by concessions, or by crushing the people to the earth and destroying the vital principle of manhood. They will become ignorant, debauched slaves, and slaves can never cope with freemen. But we cannot and will not anticipate this result. For the present the people of Europe may be overawed, or forced into a temporary quiet. But lethargy is not repose, nor inaction submission, and, in all probability, they will awake only to fall into convulsions. The gloomy apathy of despair will vanish at the first gleam of hope; they will flit from one extreme to the other, and what before seemed impossible, be found easy to accomplish. Liberty often sleeps, but never dies. We have as yet seen only the beginning of this great struggle between the one and the million. There is no last act in the great drama of the world, and the concatenation of cause and effect is eternal.

THE AGE OF HUMBUG-THE BOURBON
QUESTION.*

TRULY One would be led to suppose, on glancing at contemporary annals, and the chronicles of the times, that humbug was the order of the day, and that the public credulity kept pace with the march of civilization and the progress of science and the arts. We read, with a complaisant smile of commiseration, those melancholy accounts of delusion and folly, and human infirmity, which the records of the dark ages disclose, when knavish priests and cunning charlatans were accustomed to practise upon the credulity of an ignorant and degraded people-by a profitable merchandise in "holy relics”— vending, often at a ruinous price, to the credulous believer, a veritable tooth of the holy virgin, a thumb of the apostle Peter, or a great toe of St. Jude, of which "holy relics" perhaps a neighboring gibbet had been but recently rifled. Alas, poor human nature! is the exclamation which falls with peculiar unction from the lips of the enlightened and discriminating reader, as he lays aside the narrative. But "poor human nature," we verily believe, is, at bottom, pretty much the same everywhere; and that same enlightened and discriminating reader, who scornfully smiles at the credulity of the devotee of the dark ages, may perhaps be seen devouring with avidity the pages of some green-covered "monthly," devoted to the choicest of modern humbugs, wherein is demonstrated the astounding fact, that disembodied spirits have no better business in the other world, than to be perplexing the weakest brains in this, by rapping on floors, ceilings, and tables; or that the heir of the Bourbon crown has been recently discovered in the person of a half-breed St. Regis Indian. Alas, poor human nature!

Have we a Bourbon among us?-Putnam's Monthly, Feb., 1853. The Bourbon Question.Putnam for April, 1853. Letter of "St. Clair" (Gen. Cass), relative to the claims of Eleazer Williams.-N. Y. Herald, March 21, 1853. Reply of Mr. Hanson to "St. Clair."-N. Y. Herald, March 29, 1853.

Have we a Bourbon among us? was the somewhat singular question propounded and discussed in the February number of Putnam's Magazine, by a Rev. Mr. Hanson, of the Episcopal Church, under the countenance, if not the endorsement, of Dr. Hawks. And what if we have? would perhaps be a very pertinent inquiry. What does it matter? Whom does it concern? What business is it of ours? Cui bono? We have had a Bonaparte and a king of Spain among us. We have had one of the younger Bourbons-a genuine, bona fide, unquestionable Bourbon, being none other than Louis Philippe himself;-and society was not much agitated at the occurrence, and the world went on the same as usual. What, then, if it be true, that, after the lapse of more than half a century, the French Dauphin, whose death was satisfactorily proved at the time to the comprehension of every statesman and government in Europe, should turn up a living prince among the St. Regis Indians of North America? We are much inclined to the opinion, that the peace of the world would not be disturbed thereby, that the crown of Louis Napoleon would not be put in jeopardy, and that, altogether, the matter is of very little consequence. Not so, however, seem to think the Rev. Mr. Williams and the Rev. Mr. Hanson. The magnificent pretensions of the former are maintained by the latter, with a warmth and pertinacity worthy of a much better cause. And "Putnam's Monthly" has chosen to compromise its character, and degrade its reputation, by allowing itself to become the vehicle of imposing upon the public this transparent imposture, and this most stupid of all modern humbugs. At first glance we supposed the story a third-rate "moon hoax," got up between the shrewd inventor and the more shrewd publisher, for the laudable (as it might seem to them) purpose of increasing the circulation of that magazine, "consisting entirely of original articles, by eminent American writers." The design seemed to us not unworthy the genius of Barnum. But it seems also of a questionable morality, and a worse taste, and one not altogether consistent with the high-sounding pretensions of that periodical, which aspires, as it tells us, to unite "the characteristics of a popular magazine with the higher and graver qualities of a Quarterly Review," and aims "at the highest excellence in both departments." Mr. Putnam would do much better, we think, to stick to his New-York daguer reotypes and his "Uncle Tomitudes," to illustrate the lighter characteristics of a magazine, by eulogistic rhapsodies on the unparalleled success of Uncle Tom's Cabin, and the grave qualities of a Quarterly Review, by a wilderness of staring wood-cuts, representing scenes and buildings in the Empire City, all duly and properly labelled,-upon the same principle, we presume, that the ambitious painter labelled the figure he had drawn on a tavern sign, "This is a hoss," to the end that the meanest understanding, and the most untutored mind, might not err therein.

But revenons à nos moutons—let us come back to our Bourbon. We were remarking that the story appeared at first glance a clumsy and ill-contrived hoax. It is, however, persisted in, and with a seriousness that leaves no room to doubt of the sincerity of belief and credulity of the reverend gentlemen who had been made its dupes, and have given it much notoriety. In a letter published in the Herald, under the signature of St. Clair, written, as it now appears, by General Cass, who has known this pretended Bourbon for thirty years, the whole story is blown to the winds by a conclusive, and, it

seems to us, very obvious course of reasoning. Mr. Hanson replies, through the same paper, in a rather acrimonious tone, but without meeting the de cisive points at issue. In addition to this, we have, in a late "Monthly," another formidable document from the same source, in which Mr. Williams's pretensions to the crown of France are maintained on what Mr. Hanson calls "the proof" adduced in the case-"proof" the most incongruous, inconsistent, and absolutely absurd that could well be imagined, and the greater part of which would not be admitted as evidence by the most illiterate justice of the peace in the country, in the trial of a matter of five dollars. To sub. stantiate this assertion, it is necessary to make but few references, as we certainly do not intend to weary the reader with a review of the entire evidence and argument of Mr. Hanson.

Thus, it is pretended that the Dauphin did not die in the temple. His death, we believe, has generally been received as an admitted historical fact. Most historians, including Thiers and Alison, mention it. His sister, the Duchess D'Angoulême, then a prisoner in Paris, speaks of it in her memoirs; four surgeons attested it, two of whom recognized the body, and so reported to the convention; every court and cabinet in Europe acted upon it as an admitted fact in sustaining the pretensions of Louis XVIII. to the crown; and that monarch, it is well-known, dated back his reign, with the assent of the allied powers, to the period of the Dauphin's death. And yet Mr. Hanson, in reply to the assertion of this well-established historical fact, made by General Cass, says, “I have myself shown, I consider conclusively, that the fact is not and cannot be established. It is mere ignorance to assert that it is." Will Mr. Hanson tell us how the fact is established that Napoleon died at St. Helena, or that other fact, which has been made the subject of grave historic doubt, whether there ever was such a person as Napoleon? The Dauphin did not die in Paris, says Mr. Hanson, because Genet, in 1818, declared that to be his opinion. Genet was in America at the time of the child's death, and subsequently had no means of information, official or otherwise, that was not open to every intelligent Frenchman. The Dauphin did not die, because Louis XVIII. did not cause masses to be offered for his soul; and yet this same Louis XVIII. was placed on the throne as the next heir of Louis XVI., and dated back his reign to the time of the Dauphin's death. The Dauphin did not die in Paris, because Talleyrand was at Lake George in 1795, and De Joinville came to America in 1841, perhaps for the purpose of seeking Mr. Williams; and yet neither Talleyrand, nor De Joinville's father, Louis Philippe himself, could have better means of information than citizen Genet. Talleyrand succeeded in escaping from France, through the good services of Danton, in 1792, and went into exile. Louis Philippe deserted with Dumouriez about the same time, or a little before, and saved his life by burying himself in obscurity in different parts of Europe. Neither of them could have known anything about it, except mere vague rumor, nor does it appear that either of them ever countenanced the absurd idea that a scrofulous child had been secretly brought into the temple to personate the Dauphin and die in his stead, the Dauphin himself being secretly abducted.

The work of M. Beauchesne, lately published in Paris, gives a circum stantial and detailed account of the Dauphin's death. The narrative seems to be highly colored, dramatic, and decidedly French-sustaining to a biography

a similar relation to what Lamartine's Girondists bears to a history. The book was not necessary to corroborate the fact that the Dauphin actually died in the temple. Mr. Hanson, in his second article, reviews it with much adroitness and ingenuity of argument, and, with the shrewdness of a special pleader, laying hold of the minor incongruities of detail, and the slight discrepancies in the various accounts of the French officials, as stated by Beauchesne, draws the startling conclusion that the whole is false. Two men, his keepers from March 31, 1795, to the time of his death, June 8, of the same year, Lasne and Gomin, attest the fact of the Dauphin's death. Mr. Hanson has a very summary way of disposing of them, namely, that they lied. What inducement Lasne and Gomin had for falsehood in this matter we are not informed. M. Desault attended him from the 6th to the 30th May, but that eminent physician died suddenly on the 1st June, or the night previous, and it is between this period and the 5th June, when M. Pelletan was appointed his medical attendant, that Mr. Hanson thinks the Dauphin may have been abducted, and a scrofulous child introduced in the temple in his place. This of course could not have been done without the consent of his keepers, Lasne and Gomin, and of course it is necessary to establish the fact that Lasne and Gomin lied. Two eminent physicians, Pelletan and Dumangin, attended the child from the 5th June to the day of his death. Appointed a committee with two others, they recognized his body after death, and reported to the Convention that he had died from "the effect of a scrofulous disease of long standing." Mr. Hanson does not undertake to dispute the truth of this report, except so far as to say that the child whom these two eminent surgeons had attended, and conversed with, for several days, was not the Dauphin. The only reasons he assigns for this are, that the manifestations of disease described by them are not the same with those described some months before by a member of the Convention, and more recently by Desault.

The whole story of this abduction is too ridiculous and absurd for serious refutation. It could not have been, or, if it had been, could not have continued, a state secret at that period in France. There was no regular and organized government in France but the Convention. The Dictatorship of Robespierre had passed away; the Directory had not yet been established. If, in obedience to the decree of the Convention of 1794, the "Committee of Government" had sent the son of Louis out of the territories of the Republic, is it possible that the banishment could have remained a secret, and especially a secret known subsequently only to Louis Philippe, and a few subordinate agents?

But it is said that one Belanger was the man who secretly carried the Dauphin out of France, and that in 1848, on his death-bed, he confessed that he brought him to this country, and placed him among the Indians. Who was Belanger? For whom did he act? Was it on behalf of the Committee of Government, or in opposition to the Government, and as the adherent of the Bourbon family? He must have been employed by some one, have had some motive, or acted under some influence. If under the direction or with the connivance of the Committee of Government, it is morally impossible that this removal could have been a secret, which was subsequently communicated to Louis Philippe. If as a royalist, and the adherent of the Bourbons, why did Belanger not leave him with his uncles, Artois and Louis XVIII., and