But, if it be asked: what does "I" mean; and if the same person were to point to himself and say-" this is I,'"- this would convey quite a wrong meaning, unless the enquirer, before putting the question, had originated within himself the notion" I," for it would lead him to suppose, and to call that other person "I."-This is a strange paradox, but a true one; that a person would be considered mad, unless he applied to himself a particular name, which, if any other person were to apply to him, he would be considered mad.

Neither are we to suppose that this word "I" is a generic word, equally applicable to us all, like the word "man;" for, if it were, then we should all be able to call each other "I," just as we can all call each other with propriety," man."

Further, the consideration of this question, by conducting us to inquiries of a higher interest, and of a real significance, enables us to get rid of most or all of the absurd and unsatisfactory speculations connected with that unreal substance which nobody knows any thing about called "mind." If mind exists at all, it exists as much when man is born, as it ever does afterwards, therefore, in the developement of mind, no new form of humanity is evolved. But no man is born "I"; yet, after a time, every man becomes "I." Here, then, is a new form of humanity displayed -and, therefore, the great question, is, what is the genesis of this new form of man ?— What are the facts of its origin? How does it come into manifestation? Leave "mind" alone ye metaphysicians! and answer us that.

IV. It is obvious that the new form of humanity, called "I," is evolved out of the act of consciousness, and this brings us to the second problem of our inquiry: how is the act itself of consciousness evolved? A severe

scrutiny of the act of consciousness showed us, that this act, or in other words, that our observation of our own phenomena, is to a certain extent, a displacement or suspension of them; that these phenomena (our sensations, passions, and other modifications) are naturally of a monopolising tendency-that is to say, they tend to keep us unconscious to engross us with themselves,—while, on the contrary, consciousness or our observation of them, is of a contrary tendency, and operates to render us unsentient, unpassionate, &c. We found, from considering facts, that consciousness, on the one hand, and all our natural modifications on the other, existed in an inverse ratio to one another that wherever the natural modification is plus, the consciousness of it is minus, and vice versa. We thus found that the great law regulating the relationship between the conscious man (the "I") and the natural man was the law of antagonism

and thus consciousness was found to be an act of antagonism; or (in order to render our deduction more distinct) we shall rather say was found to be evolved out of an act of antagonism put forth against the modifications of the natural man.

But out of what is this act of antagonism evolved? What are its grounds? Let us consider what it is put forth against? All man's natural modifications are derivative-and this act is put forth against all these natural modifications-there is not one of them which is not more or less impaired by its presence. It cannot, therefore, be itself derivative, for if it were, it would be an acting against itself, which is absurd. Being, therefore, an act which opposes all that is derivative in man, it cannot be itself derivative, but must be underivedthat is, must be an absolutely original, primary, and free act. This act of antagonism, therefore, is an act of

freedom,-or, we shall rather say, is evolved out of freedom. Its ground and origin is freedom. But what are the explanatory grounds of freedom? We have but to ascertain what is the great law of bondage throughout the universe, and, in its opposite, we shall find the law or grounds of freedom. The law of bondage throughout the universe, is the law of cause and effect. In the violation, then, of this law, true freedom must consist. In virtue of what, then, do we violate this law of bondage or causality? In virtue of our human will, which refuses to submit to the modifications which it would impose upon us. Human will thus forms the ground of freedom, and deeper than this we cannot sink. We sum up our deduction thus: The "I" is evolved out of the act of consciousness-the act of consciousness is evolved out of an act of antagonism put forth against all the derivative modifications of our being: This act of antagonism is evolved out of freedom; and freedom is evolved out of will; and thus we make will the lowest foundation-stone of humanity.

Thus have we resolved, though we fear very imperfectly, the great pro

blem-How does Consciousness come into operation? the law of antagonism, established by facts, between the natural and the conscious man, being the principle upon which the whole solution rests.

V. In discussing the consequences of the act of consciousness, we endeavoured to show how this act at once displaces our sensations, and, in the vacant room, places the reality called "I," which, but for this active displacement of the sensations, would have had no sort of existence. We showed that the complex phenomenon in which this displacing and placing is embodied, is perception. The "I," therefore, is a consequence of the act of consciousness; and a brighter phase of it is presented when the state which the act of consciousness encounters and displaces is a passion instead of being a sensation. We showed that morality originates in the antagonism here put forth. But we have already expressed ourselves as succinctly and clearly as we are able on these points; and, therefore, we now desist from adding any more touches to this very imperfect Outline of the Philosophy of Human Consciousness.

FRANCE has arrived at another crisis. It is one of no ordinary importance; and the results which will spring from it involve nothing short of the peace or war of the whole world. When we make use of this language, we do so advisedly. It is not for the purpose of rounding a period, or of exciting attention. If the Conservative cause in France shall now be defeated, and if Louis Philippe shall be reduced to accept for ministers men imposed upon him by a majority of the Chamber of Deputies, who will then be not his ministers, but the ministers of a faction: from that moment there is not only an end to the Charta and to the Royalty of France, and not only will that country then practically be come a republic-but from that hour all the friends of propagandism, war, revolution, anarchy, and mob government, will be let loose-and Europe must be up and defend herself, from the aggressions, insults, bad faith, encroachments, and violence of modern French democrats. We propose, in this article, to establish by indisputable facts the truth of these assertions facts which we have selected from a mass of materials, and to which we could add at pleasure; and facts which will open the eyes of the most unconcerned to the present dangerous and alarming condition not only of France, but of the whole of Europe. The geographical position of France, the character of her people, the general adoption of her language on the Continent, the diffusion of her modern

VOL. XLV. NO. CCLXXXII.

vile literature, the nature of her political institutions, and of the profitless experiments she has been making in the science of government for the last half century, as well as the influence she exerts over the leaders of the democratic parties of all countries, give an importance to her movements, and a weight to her decisions, which cannot be too constantly felt or too frequently referred to. We invite, then, the best attention of our thinking readers to the following view of the state of France with reference to her elections — such elections having been resorted to by the King of the French as the only and last means for preserving the remains of a monarchy which can date its origin from Pharamond and Clodion, Childeric and Clovis. The defeat of Louis Philippe is the defeat of the French monarchy, and its defeat is nothing short of war to the hilt against all the monarchical institutions of Europe. We approach, then, this subject with natural anxiety and just alarm; we shall exaggerate nothing

but we shall not conceal any facts which are calculated to present, in its true light, the present situation of the country whose decisions and destinies must have so powerful an operation over the futurity of the whole of Europe.

For the right understanding of this momentous question, it is necessary to take a rapid review of the events of the last nine years. We shall be as brief as these events will admit-but it is essential to present a resumé,

2 E

We shall begin with the overthrow of the Martignac Ministry, and with the appointment of the Polignac Cabinet. In 1829, the French Chamber of Deputies began that struggle which is still going on against the prerogatives of the monarch. The present ambassador to the court of St James's, General Sebastiani, was one of the foremost in the opposition then raised against the right conferred by the Charta of Louis XVIII. on the government, of being exclusively entitled to propose laws to the Chambers. Besides this, the communal and departmental laws presented in that session by the Viscount de Martignac, were so wholly changed by the commission appointed to examine them, that, had they passed in their altered form, there would have been some thousands of little republics established in the very heart, and over the whole surface, of the kingdom of France. "We march in the midst of anarchy!" cried the eloquent and admirable Martignac-but he could not go on. The Chamber of Deputies required the monarchy to yield. The monarchy refused. The bill was with drawn. A new ministry was named. Prince Polignac and his friends were called on to raise the standard of resistance to the encroachments of democracy, and to the threats of the Extreme Gauche that they would ride their horses rough-shod through the palaces of kings." The selection of the Polignac administration was intended to demonstrate, not that Charles X. preferred the priests or the Jesuits, as some writers have absurdly imagined, but simply that the crown was well informed as to the character of the opposition which had been got up, as to the objects proposed by the men of the Gauche, and that, being so informed, it had come deliberately and firmly to the resolution to resist. The Polignac Cabinet was not intended by the King, the royal family, or the court, as a cabinet of attack, but simply as one of resistance. None had the least notion of making the Ordinances of July 1830, when that cabinet was named,-nor, indeed, till long after those associations were formed for refusing the payment of taxes, which were nothing short of open, proclaimed rebellion against e Crown, the Chambers, and the harta. The demands made by the

er of Deputies, in 1829, were

unjust, inasmuch as they were antimonarchical; and that at the very time when the Charta, so often appealed to by all parties, established a monarchical form of government in the country. Such laws as they required would have vested one hundred thousand small communal republics in the French monarchy, by erecting communal assemblies, in which the affairs of the state were to be brought constantly under the discussion of the mobocracy. These demands originated in a jealousy, if not in a hatred, of the rights and prerogatives of the Throne, as guaranteed by the Charta; and it is only necessary to refer to the journals and pamphlets of that period to be convinced, that the deputies, journalists, and public teachers of the Opposition, levelled all their attacks against the Throne, the King, the monarchy. When the National was prosecuted, on the 10th March, 1830, for its celebrated article, written by Thiers, "Le Roi regne, et ne gouverne pas," it was so prosecuted because the article was anti-monarchical. It is not true that Prince Polignac either hated or feared the press. It is not true that Prince Polignac prosecuted the French journals either for attacks on himself or on his coadjutors ;-the prosecutions instituted were only against journals, and journalists who put forth all the energy of their talent and eloquence to excite the people to hate and to oppose the rights and prerogatives of the Crown. Thus, then, the character of the resistance of Prince Polignac, up to the period of the signing the fatal Ordinances, which led to the rising of the Parisians and the events of July,-was a resistance to the anti-monarchical dispositions, tendencies, and acts of the Chamber of Deputies, press, and political associations. We will not admit, for it is not true, that either Charles X. or the Prince de Polignac had any idea of curtailing or attacking the liberties enjoyed by the French people, under the Charta of 1814, when the Polignac Cabinet was formed. To resist encroachmentto defend the monarchy-to erect barriers against the assaults of democracy-were the only objects proposed;-and these objects were not only praiseworthy but indispensable, if merely the semblance of a French

monarchy was to be preserved in that country.

It is a favourite opinion with some writers, that the opposition to the monarchy of Charles X. was founded, not on any dislike on the part of the Chambers, the press, or the associations, to monarchical institutions, but to the alleged "foreign origin" of the government of 1814. As this error has been widely spread, and as its belief by any of our readers would prevent them from rightly understanding the real character of the continuous opposition of the Gauche to the monarchy, from 1829 to the very hour in which these observations are written; we propose to show the fallacy of this statement. It is said that the origin of all the opposition to Louis XVIII. and Charles X., is to be found in the fact, that they were brought back to France by "foreign bayonets." Now, if this were the case, the anniversary of such an event would necessarily be a day of sadness or of silence. No voice would be heard to rejoice in its return, and it would be allowed to pass over without notice, even if expressions of regret should not escape from both magistrates and people. But was this really the case? Quite the contrary. Let us look at the facts of history and turn to the official record of France-the Moniteur. And, in order that we may escape from the charge of selecting a period of public history when the people were most favourably disposed towards the Crown and the government, we will turn to the accounts of the proceedings which took place on the 12th April, 1830, the sixteenth anniversary of the return of the Count d'Artois (Charles X.) into the capital. Let it be remembered that, on 12th April, 1830, the country was in a state of unparalleled agitation—that the address of the 221 had veen voted-that the King had prorogued the session to 1st September, preparatory to a dissolution,and that from one end of the kingdom to the other the Gauche was plotting against the government and the monarchy. Yet, on this sixteenth anniversary of the return of the Count d'Artois (Charles X.) to Paris, we read the following account of the proceedings of the representatives of the various civil and military orders

in the state and the country, all congratulating the King and the nation on that very return.

The first president of the Court of Cassation, Count Portalis, accompanied by all the judges and officers of the highest tribunal of the country, said,

"Sixteen years ago, this very day, your Majesty appeared in the midst of us. Weary of pursuing, from revolution to revolution, after vain phantoms of liberty, France, after having been obliged to submit to the yoke of despotism in order to crush the efforts and disorders of

anarchy, was reduced to the necessity of fighting for her invaded territory.

May you, sire, it is the wish of our love, during a long series of years, receive the tribute of the gratitude of the country for the great benefits secured to it by your return."

Baron Seguier, the president of the Royal Court (and the president still), accompanied by the judges, the bar, and the officers, approached the foot of the throne, in April 1830!! and said to Charles X.,

"Le lien resserrè entre votre majestè et la patrie est indestructible; il garantit la grandeur de vos enfans, et la fidelité des notres.

"Sire, vous aimez à être aimé ; ce fût le meilleur moyen du vainqueur de la Ligue. Votre royal penchant de famille sera comblé outre mesure par nos cœurs reconnaissans et devoués."

And lest it should be said that this was only the language of courtiers ; turn to the speech of Count de Chalrol, now so popular with even the Gauche, and hear what he said, as prefect of the department of the Seine, representing, on this 16th anniversary of the return of the Bourbons, the whole population of Paris.

"As organ of the faithful inhabitants of your good city of Paris, we come, on the return of this joyous day, to pray you to accept the homage of the love, respect, and devotedness of all its population.'

"

And finally," The Society for the Protection of Agriculture" came with its offering of grateful recollection on the 16th anniversary of the entry of the Bourbons" with foreign bayonets ;" and no language could be more loyal or respectful. The King replied,

"The souvenirs which you recall to my mind produce, I assure you, the liveliest satisfaction; rendered, as they are,