How glad the heart of Eve would be, Thou little shining creature, God saved thee from the Flood, With the Eagle of the mountain land, And the Tiger of the wood! The Squirrel," the "King-Fisher," the "Dormouse," the "Titmouse Nest," are each exquisite; the latter,-but, Look at it near, all knit together, Moss, willow-down, and many a feather; A very decent family! Now count them-one, two, three, four, five- Where you your little hand could not get. I'm glad you've seen it, for you never Still prettier and yet more tender is the wild Spring Crocus. It breathes the purest radicalism. The Spring Crocus is -An English flower That only groweth here and there. But in our meadows it is growing. I love the odorous hawthorn flower, Are very dear to me! The star-wort is a fairy flower, The violet is a thing to prize, The wild-pink on the craggy ledge, The waving sword-like water-sedge, And e'en the Robin-run-i'-the-hedge, Are precious in mine eyes. Yes, yes, I love them all, bright things! But then, such glorious flowers as these Are dearer still, I'll tell you why, There's joy in many a thousand eye, When first goes forth the welcome cry, Of "Lo! the Crocuses!" The little toiling children leave Their care, and here by thousands throng; And, through the shining meadow run, And gather them,-not one by one, But by grasped handfuls,-where are none To say that they do wrong. They run, they leap, they shout for joy; They bring their infant brethren here; This first joy of the year. Yes, joy in these abundant meadows, Pours out like to the earth's o'erflowing; And less that they are beautiful, Than that they are so plentiful, So free for every child to pull. I love to see them growing! Beautiful spirit of humanity! may thousands on thousands, old and young, listen to your gentle teachings! It is but fair to say that the publisher and artist have executed their respective departments as if desirous of doing due honour to these sweet inspirations of maternal love. The engraver almost deserved to have had his name on the title page, in company with that of Mary Howitt. May we, in conclusion, entreat that those inconsiderate, or prejudiced persons, who identify all that is vulgar, virulent, and atrocious, with the epithet Radical, will reflect that Dr. Bowring, the author of these juvenile lessons, breathing benevolence, purity, and the unfallacious virtues, bears that dishonoured name; and that Mrs. Howitt is the wedded partner of one of the boldest of our reformers, the avowed and open enemy of priestcraft in all its subtle forms, but especially as it is entrenched behind the corruptions of the Church of England Establishment. ON MARINE INSURANCE. It is a singular feature in civil polity that those measures which, in the infancy of human institutions, are necessary to the success of various undertakings, are found, after a certain stage, not only to be unnecessary, but in some cases to be absolutely pernicious. It becomes a question whether, in curing one evil, they have not created a greater. In this class we have no hesitation in ranking marine insurance. In order to a right understanding of the subject, it will be necessary to explain what marine insurance is. We cannot do this better than in the words of the preamble to the statute, 43 Eliz. c. 12, which recites that, By means of policies of insurance it cometh to pass, upon the loss or perishing of any ship, there followeth not the undoing of any man; but the loss lighteth rather easily upon many, than heavily upon few 3 and rather upon them that adventure not, than those that do adventure: whereby all merchants, especially of the younger sort, are allured to venture mere willingly and more freely." It is pretty clear, from the above description, that whoever may suffer by the loss or perishing of a vessel, with the merchandise on board, the shipowner and merchant are not of that number. The shipowner may, and indeed generally does, keep his ship insured to the full value, and the merchant generally insures to the full value of his goods. what was anticipated and intended. Strong and safe ships not being in request, were not built. Every shipbuilder knows full well before he proceeds to build a merchant vessel, that if he build a strong and safe one it is unsaleable— simply because there must, of necessity, be more material and labour in it than in a weak one, and consequently the price must be higher; and because he himself could build a weak and unsafe vessel, which would be perfectly saleable, (safety being, in fact, proscribed by the system,) at a half or a third of the price. A shipowner, too, or a person about to become one, knows fuil well, that there is no inducement for him to Now, although in the infancy of naval architecture, when the art was but very imperfectly understood, and when it might be alleged that the risk of foreign voyages was too great for any individual to take upon himself, it might then have been proper for the community to protect such individuals from loss, it is evident that the case is now completely altered. In the progress of time, the art of ship-building has become bet-purchase or contract for the building of a strong ter understood: and there is no doubt that searisk would be greatly diminished in consequence, were it not for marine insurance, which, it is pretty clear, has been the main instrument in prohibiting all improvements in marine architecture. and safe ship, because she must, of necessity, cost him more than a weak and unsafe one; and as he will get no abatement of the premium of insurance, in consequence of the additional strength and safety of the vessel, he has no interest in getting a safe one, but the reverse. He finds that he can earn as much freight with the merest sieve which can be made to float, as with the strongest and safest ship; and as he has less capital embarked in the one case than the other—even although, in consequence of the diminished risk to the strong ship, he did not insure it to the full value-his profits are, of course, greater. He, therefore, provides a cheap and unsafe ship accordingly, instead of a strong and safe one. But it may be said, Cannot he provide a strong and safe vessel, and as the sea-risk will be thereby greatly lessened, dispense with insurance altogether? Here, however, he finds that underwriters have taken most effectual measures against him. They reduce his ship, however strong and safe it may be, to the second class, or, in other words, put a mark of proscription on it, implying want of safety, in a limited number of years, generally about nine on an average of the whole shipping of the kingdom, equally with the most worthless. A book of classification is annually published by underwriters, said to be for their own use only, containing these marks of proscription; and upon applying for freight or charter for his vessel, he is immediately asked if his be a first or a second class vessel. If she has passed the fatal climacteric, although she should possess the strength of a rock, or a castle, it is quite in vain for him to allege her strength, safety, and su To carry marine insurance into effect, a class of persons is necessary, who, for certain sums paid to them as presents, called premiums of insurance, agree to bear the risk, and to pay for all losses of vessels and merchandise. These persons are technically called underwriters, from the circumstance of their subscribing, or underwriting a paper, bearing faith in law, called a policy of insurance, which sets forth the amount of premium or present paid to them, and the risk which they consent to bear. These parties quickly perceived that it was absolutely necessary for the success of their trade, that there should be frequent shipwrecks and damages to vessels and goods. They reasoned thus, If there be no losses or damages of and to vessels and merchandise at sea, there will be no sea insurances; hence it is necessary to the very existence of our trade that losses and damages to vessels and goods should take place. Again, if we countenance the building of strong and safe vessels, shipowners will provide them accordingly; and as premiums of insurance will, as a matter of course, rise or fall with the risk, if it be greatly diminished, merchants and shipowners will then take the risk of their own merchandise and vessels on themselves, and will thereby withdraw the business of insurance from us altogether. On the other hand, the more the searisk is increased, the higher the premiums of insurance will, of necessity, rise; and as it is a clear principle, that we must receive in premiums or presents more than we pay in losses-other-perior equipments. A merchant cares nothing wise we would become bankrupt-we will take steps to increase, instead of diminish, sea-risk. Accordingly, a system of classification of merchant vessels, having been adopted for the convenience of underwriters, it was soon seen that the most effectual way to increase sea-risk, and prevent strong and safe ships being built, would be to take away all inducement from a shipowner to get a strong and safe one, by classing it, however strong and safe it might be, after a certain age, with the most unsafe and worthless fabric which could be made to float. This system was accordingly adopted, and the effect proved to be about these things, and has the ready objection, I can get my goods carried at the same rate of freight, and at a lower premium of insurance, in a first class vessel. Nor will an underwriter make any abatement in his demand of premium on either ship or cargo, on account of additional strength and safety-merely because he does not wish strong and safe ships to be built, or to exist; and the shipowner finds that he cannot obtain employment for his safe ship. The books of classification, or rather of proscription, too, are sent to all parts of the world; so that let him go where he may, wherever British commerce has been carried, and winds blow, and oceans roll, he will find that these books have preceded him. Although, therefore, he might be inclined, in consequence of the additional safety of his ship, to take the risk on himself, and dispense with insurance, he cannot convince a freighter against the evidence of his pocket, that it would be to his advantage to send his goods by his ship, and of her additional safety. He therefore finds that a strong ship, instead of being an advantage, is a curse to him. He cannot sell her, because for the same reasons that she is unremunerative to him, she would be unremunerative to a purchaser; and he cannot keep her without great expense, loss, and deterioration. What then is he to do? His only alternative is to follow the example of others; that is, to withhold repairs and supplies from her, to keep her insured to the full value, and let her be lost. But it may be said, since the underwriters have to pay for all losses, would it not be for their advantage that vessels should be built stronger and safer, and they would have fewer losses to pay for? It has already been said that the premiums must exceed the losses, otherwise the underwriters would become bankrupt; and as all these premiums come eventually out of the pockets of the consumers, or in other words of the public, whatever hands they may pass through, it is a received maxim in marine insurance that high risks and high premiums, are preferable to low risks and low premiums. The loss of human life attendant on the speculation never enters for a moment into consideration. Such we conceive has been the practical effects of a system, which, originally intended, in the infancy of commerce, for the protection of those who embarked their capital for what was considered the public good, has come in the course of time to be an evil of immense magnitude. From it has proceeded the unsafe and dangerous condition of the whole mercantile marine of Britain. Hence every attempt to improve the structure or condition of the mercantile navy, has been directly opposed. It is stated in an article on the subject, in the Edinburgh Encyclopædia, that no attempts have been made to improve the mercantile marine of this country. This is not true. Various, strenuous, and persevering efforts have been made to improve it; but, owing to the above mentioned causes, hitherto without effect. It is to be hoped, however, that the day is not far distant, when a better order of things will arise. A British merchant vessel of the present day, is put together with less art, or attention to scientific principles, and regard to safety, than the rudest machine of ancient or modern times. Hence, when it is roughly handled by the winds and waves, or gets stranded, we find its component parts dislocated, separated, and spread along the beach. In a vessel of a thousand tons, the utmost defence that is placed between the crew, the passengers, the cargo, and destruction, even in its first voyage, and in its best and soundest state, is three inches of oak timber! so that a touch from a pointed bit of coral, a scratch of its own anchor, is sufficient at any time to drown, with all its contents, the proudest British merchantman that ever floated! Destroy by any means that fragile defence, and the Royal George is as much at the mercy of the waves, as was the Coracle of Caractacus, when the cow hide that covered its wicker work was destroyed. Can such a system be persevered in? From it proceeds interminable drownings, ships foundering at sea, wrecks, and abandonments, without number and without end. We are informed, but we do not vouch for it as a fact, that a vessel called the Lady Nelson, which was built by the late Admiral Shanks, as a model, and a model of which is in the Naval Museum at Somerset House, was bought up by a party, and sent out of this country, lest the advantages of additional safety shewn in its construction should become too apparent to be resisted, and should be generally adopted. In fine, we confess we do not very clearly see how the evil is to be remedied. It is clear that, if sea insurance could be effectually prohibited, all parties interested-merchants, shipowners, shipbuilders, and the public-would unite their interests most cordially and zealously to get strong and safe vessels; and they would be got accordingly. This is, in some degree, in practice, in the case of smacks belonging to Scotland, the owners of which do not insure them. There is proof, too, in the case of the Royal Navy, after an experience of twenty-four years, that there is no difficulty in making stronger and safer ships, and, in a great degree, preventing shipwrecks. The same means, if applied, would produce the same effect in the mercantile navy. But the prohibiting of marine insurance would be violently opposed by the parties interested, and would be very objectionable. It might be enacted that, no person should be allowed to insure either his vessel or goods to beyond a half or two-thirds of their marketable value. The less amount that proprietors were allowed to insure for, the greater would be their anxiety to get strong and safe ships, and they would be got accordingly. surveyors might be appointed under the control of the Board of Trade, to superintend and report on vessels while building, and before proceeding to sea, whose certificates of seaworthiness should be exhibited at the Custom-house, before vessels are permitted to set sail, which would afford a security to the public, both as regards the safety of those embarked, and the merchandise committed to their charge. The losses borne by the public in consequence of the system, we estimate at far above a million a-year, while we have reason to think it also causes the death of above two thousand British subjects annually. The ships lately foundered and wrecked with emigrants to Quebec, are clear proof of the effect, and part and parcel of the nefarious system. This subject calls loudly for public interference, and it is ardently to be hoped that the agitation of the matter will have the effect of awakening the attention of the community. Or A BIRD'S-EYE VIEW OF THE POLITICAL STATE OF EUROPE, AND THE PROGRESS OF THE MOVEMENT. BY O. P. Q. "La Revolution fera le tour du monde."-LOUIS PHILIP IN 1830. "Triste et affreux presage pour le monde, que de lui pronostiquer le passage de la mort."-LAURENTIE IN 1834.* MY DEAR TAIT, I HAVE three objects in view in writing this essay, and I feel no sort of hesitation in avowing them. First, I am desirous of shaking, of troubling, of disturbing the confidence, optimism, selfishness, quietism, ignorance, conceit, prejudices, and love of ease and repose, of those who think or desire, who hope or believe, that the revolution in Europe is making no progress, and that the people are preparing to submit to a new conspiracy against their liberties and their happiness. Second, I am anxious to enlighten, to inform those who, because justly disappointed and justly grieved, at many of the present results of the political movements of the last three years, are disposed to imagine that the revolution in Europe is at an end; that the liberal party is crushed; that the age of selfishness, avarice, gluttony, and animalism has begun; and that not only the past and the present, but that futurity likewise, are against the people. They wish it were otherwise, but they have ceased to hope. And, third, I am solicitous to impress upon those who, ardently attached to the cause of the people, and willing to spend and be spent in their service, are too much disposed to look for an earlier realization of their hopes, and a more speedy accomplishment of their wishes and their prayers, than the past history of governments and of society justify them in indulging, or authorize them in expecting. The Carlists, the Legitimists, the Miguelites, the Tories, the Whigs, the men of the "Justemilieu," the Doctrinaires, and the Orleanists, belong to the first category. For them the title of this essay may, perhaps, alone be sufficient; and it is not improbable that they may refuse to have their slumbers disturbed, or their peace interrupted, by the accents of truth, or the warnings of experience. The enlightened Liberals of France, Great Britain, Germany, Poland, Italy, and the Peninsula, but who are not Republicans either in heart or practice, belong to the second category. They wish well to liberty,--but they are rich, they are magistrates, they are landed proprietors, they are large manufacturers. They hate oppression, and they would arm against any flagrant act of despotism and intolerance. They hailed with enthusiasm the Revolutions of France, Poland, and Belgium; and they hope to see established by peaceable, orderly, Parliamentary means, limited monarchies, representative governments, De la Revolution en Europe. Par. M. Laurentie. Dentu, Palais Royal. 1 vol. 8vo. VOL. 1.-NO, VII, and an improved state of social order and social life-but they fear that the kings will be stronger than the people; they fear that what they call the faults of the Radicals, and the errors of the Republicans, will fortify the absolute and despotic cause; and already they are preparing, not to vote for Tory or for Royalist candidates, but to prefer Campbell to Aytoun, Lefebvre to Garnier Pages, and Chateaubriand to Marrast,—or, in other words, property, and wealth, even with a little less of liberty, and a little more of repose, to continued agitation, and continued exertions for the benefit of the millions. The third category is composed of British Radicals, of French Republicans, of German Liberals, of Polish Democrats, of Spanish Constitutionalists, of Swiss Federalists, and of "Young Italy ;" and I will add,—for it is a fact,—of the finest spirits, of the most valiant soldiers, of the most educated citizens, and the most generous, noble, and enlightened portion of the population of the Continent. The first category hate the revolution in Europe-the second love, but fear, its progress—the third love and glory in it; but, unfortunately, are often too precipitate in their movements, and not unfrequently are too speedily discouraged. In the first category I have placed Whigs and Tories, Royalists and " Juste-Milieu," together; because the Whigs and the "Juste-Milieu" are quite as much opposed to the progress of the Revolution as are Lord Winchelsea and the Marquis de Dreux Brézé, and desire quite as ardently the destruction of that democracy, which yet saved the revolution of 1789 from annihilation, and which has for it a glorious and a certain futurity. The first class we are bound to make unhappy, by pointing out to them the progress of the revolution. The second we are bound to enlighten and encourage, by showing them the fact, so consoling and so true, that the revolution is progressing. The third we are bound to restrain, and to direct their exertions to practicable good; discouraging their impatience on the one hand, but yet exciting a zeal to be wisely directed on the other. I can scarcely hope to succeed in all these objects; and yet my apprehension of failure must not discourage my efforts. Let us look at the whole question without fear and without anxiety. The revolution in Europe is progressing; and we have reason to rejoice and take man beings, yet we must give him credit for sincerity, and admit him to be honest. How came it, then, that a popular revolt at Paris, which occupied but three days,-which, when begun, had no other object than the overthrowing of the ordinances of July, and the subversion of the Polignac administration,-but which, in consequence of the ignorance of the Court, the helplessness of the Ministry, the cowardice of the Royalists, and the timidity of the eldest branch of the House of Bourbon, became not a revolt, but a revolution ;-how came it to pass, that the Duke of Wellington hastened to acknowledge the fact of this revolution,-hastened to admit its validity,-hastened to censure Charles X. and the Polignac Cabinet,—and hastened to announce to England that, as Louis Philip had expressed his desire to cultivate a good understanding with Great Britain, he had counselled the King his master, to continue with France his ancient relations? Was the newly-elected monarch a personal friend of the Duke of Wellington? Certainly not. Were their avowed principles and political views and opinions the same? Directly the reverse. During the Restoration, the palace of the Duke of Orleans had ever been the ren LOOK AT FRANCE!-The Emperors of Russia and Austria, the Kings of Prussia, Holland, Sweden, and Denmark, the Princes of the German Confederation, and the petty monarchs of Italy, have not dared to attack her revolution. Compare this fact with a twenty years' European war against France, for the events of 1789, and the years which succeeded,—and then admit the progress of the Revolution. And let no one imagine that the characters of the sovereigns of these countries have been changed-that their aversion to liberty is diminished-or their ignorance of the wants of man and the rights of human beings removed. Quite the contrary of all this; but the monarchs of this old Europe dread a contest in which they must be worsted,-postpone a battle in which they must be defeated,and gain time, in growling out their dissatisfaction, their submission, and at last even their acquiescence. No sooner did the fact of a revolution at Paris reach St. Petersburgh, Vienna, and Berlin, in 1830, than an alliance was formed by those Courts against the progress of that revolution; and yet it has progressed ever since. It was agreed in the first moments of alarm and horror, between the governments of Prussia, Austria, and Russia, to oppose force by force-dezvous of those who were on public, and even to put a million of soldiers on foot against France to cross the Rhine-to surround this country by Austrian troops in Savoy, Piedmont, and Switzerland,-to form a cordon of Prussian troops from Basle to Carlsruhe, and from Carlsrhue to Treves; and to enter the Ardennes, the Pas de Calais, and the Moselle, with a Russian army of 400,000 men; and thus bind France hand and foot, and divide, destroy, and counterrevolutionize the country. If the Duke of Wellington, in August, 1830, had encouraged these projects, had refused to recognise even the fact of the Revolution at Paris of the preceding month, and had counselled the ambassadors of the Northern Courts to follow out their projects, there would have been no necessity on his part to have supplied a soldier-representatives of Heaven,-and that to resist sent out a ship of war-or demanded a pound sterling more for military or naval expenditure. The fact that the Duke of Wellington did not encourage these counter-revolutionary measures on the part of the Northern Cabinets, was an evidence which could not be disputed of the progress of the revolution, The Duke of Wellington was the same man, the same officer, the same commandant, who had not only fought with bravery and skill against the revolution of the 18th century, but who so fought with all his education, his principles, his convictions, and his wishes on the side of his courage and his talents. The Duke of Wellington was not less certain than he was in 1814 and 1815, that the treaties to which he was then a distinct party, contained the best, and indeed the only basis of a true settlement of Europe,-and although we, the people, lament his ignorance, deplore his prejudices, and weep over the evils which the policy then adopted has entailed on so many countries, and on so many millions of hu on personal grounds, the avowed enemies of the Duke of Wellington and of his political friends and supporters. Why, then, did the Duke of Wellington hasten to acknowledge the revolt of Paris, and to recognise in it a French revolution? Was Louis Philip, in the eyes of the Tories, of whom the Duke was the chief, less of an usurper of the crown of France than was Napoleon? Was the principle of popular sovereignty in 1830, less dangerous and less subversive in the eyes of the Duke, than it had been when Napoleon placed the crown on his own head, and when the people shouted Hallelujah? Was the Duke less satisfied than he had been in former periods of his life, that "legitimate governments" are those which are alone durable,-that kings are the them is to resist God? By no means. All his intimacies, all his correspondences, all his friendships, all his public as well as private associations, proved, that not only the kings of Europe regarded him as their champion, but that they were prepared to follow, in all respects, his directions and inspirations. If, in 1830, the Duke of Wellington had required Russia, Austria, and Prussia to furnish him with a million of soldiers in six months, or even double that number, they would have been stationed in battle array before the period named, to have obeyed his decisions. I repeat, then, the question: How came it to pass, that, with the destinies of Europe in his handsknowing the forces he could command—aware of the dispositions of the Northern Cabinets to obey any impulse he should give them-how came it to pass that the revolt of Paris was unattacked, and that it was even recognised by his Grace as a French Revolution? There is but one answer to this question; and that is, That the revolution was progressing. The Duke of Wellington |