He was a violater of all law. He seized upon independent neutral states, such as Leghorn, Parma, and Modena, and compelled tribute from them. He robbed Italy of her treasures of art - usurped the throne of France for ambition's sake alone, and respected no will or right but his own. He deliberately injured his country. True, he rebuilt Paris with stolen treasures: true, he adorned it - but look at his con scriptions at the bloodshed of millions in his battles at his espionage at his enslavement of the press. He was as wickedly ambitious a man as ever lived. Why was he not content as Emperor of France? To be that was enough—but he aimed at being Emperor of the world, and thus showed an ambition without a parallel. Mark further his vanity and egotism. His selfishness almost surpasses belief; he did as all for himself thought of none else. He regarded himself as the greatest of men something unconquerable and almost divine. -This overweening vanity is well seen in his remark to the King of Holland; "Recollect that your first duty is towards ME, your second towards France." Napoleon exhibited further a great want of human symathy and affection: proof of which is to be found in many remarkable instances, — but chiefly in his treatment of his wife and of his mother. Much, however, may be said in defence of Napoleon on many grounds: I. He was called to action at a time of terror and revolution: and was placed in circumstances of cruelty and selfishness which could not fail to demoralise him. II. He was called upon to rule while too young to govern. III. He was bred to a military life, the worst possible school of morality. IV. At his time the immoralities of politicians and warriors were not only not reprobated, but admired and applauded. Falsehood was called statecraft — and the atrocities of war were denominated glories. See CHANNING.-CHARACTER OF BUONAPARTE. BROUGHAM'S STATESMEN OF THE REIGN OF LORD JEFFREY'S ESSAYS, vol. ii. p. 90. et seq. QUESTION: Was the Execution of Charles the First justifiable? THE point that first arises here is, Whether Death is ever a justifiable punishment? for if it be not, then whatever Charles may have done, the destruction of him was wrong. The tendency of modern feeling is, perhaps, against the infliction of Death at all; but we must not judge by modern feeling. The theory and practice of the period when Charles suffered were unhesitatingly in favour of Capital Punishment. The act, therefore, judged by the light of the age when it was performed, is in itself unobjectionable, and its propriety or impropriety depends not at all upon abstract considerations. The question we have principally to try is whether the conduct of Charles was worthy of death, according to the morality of the time. The supporters of the affirmative may say: That Charles, by making war upon his people committed an act of aggression on the public life, which was fully as heinous as an attempt at individual murder. The assertors of the negative may reply: That Charles was driven by opposition and by evil counsel into the course he took; and that when he commenced the war he did so in the firm and conscientious belief that he was doing right: in which case the wicked motive that animates the malicious murderer is by no means chargeable upon him. The justifiability of King Charles's execution may further be considered as it is affected by considerations of policy. It may be urged on the one side, That the liberty - well-being — indeed existence of the people of England depended upon the execution of Charles. Whilst he was in power, the British people were subject to arbitrary and unconstitutional tyranny were taxed in their pocketscoerced in their religion-threatened in their lives. There was no hope that he would amend, if he were restored, for he showed no remorse and promised no reform. He might have been kept in captivity - but this would have plunged England into continual civil war for his sake. To destroy him was to give a death blow to his party, and to give England its only chance of peace and order. - On the other side it may be maintained, That subsequent events entirely prove the impolicy of the act. So far from destroying the royalist party, it strengthened their ranks by attaching to it all who pitied the tragical end of Charles a party ever increasing, during the Protectorate of Cromwell; and strong enough after Cromwell's death to bring back a far worse king, in the person of Charles the Second. It may be fairly questioned whether the licentiousness of the Second Charles did not entail upon the English people a far greater amount of evil, than would have resulted from the continued tyranny of Charles the First. A very important question bearing on this matter is, as to the right of the destroyers of Charles. On the one side it may be said — Who made them his judges? By what right, constitutional or moral, did they arraign and destroy him? And on the other it may be replied,— That tyranny always justifies rebellion, and aggression always confers the right of retaliation. The emergency of self-preservation was, it may be said, the right under which Charles's judges tried and punished him. See LORD JEFFREY'S ESSAYS, vol. ii. p. 21. MACAULAY'S CRITICAL ESSAYS, vol. i. pp. STATESMEN OF THE COMMONWEALTH, in “LARD- LADY WILLOUGHBY'S DIARY OF THE TIME S |