the Constitution, or augured its destruction? The following is his reply.

Generally speaking, novelties of any sort have a great deal to struggle against, before they can be amalgamated with the habits, and endeared to the feelings of a nation. Even where no doubts are entertained of the utility of a change, it is always difficult, and sometimes impossible, to induce communities to approve of it. It disturbs in a thousand little ways the previous routine of their lives; it imposes upon them new duties; and, as in the case before us, it may exact from them sacrifices which they are unwilling to make. The necessity of suppressing the "factious" forced the government to muster large armies by means of a conscription. In many provinces this measure was resisted, and in all it was the subject of bitter complaints with families, who sometimes saw their only stay snatched from them by the arm of the laws. The agitations prevailing in the country, and the losses which were occasioned in some provinces by the actual presence, or the incursions of the "factious," rendered it difficult for great numbers of persons to pay in their contributions to the state; and they were harassed by proceedings for enforcing them. It was frequently stated in Cortes, that the annual amount of the contributions levied on the people, since the restoration of the Constitution, was considerably below that which was paid during the despotism. I am not prepared to confirm or dispute this assertion: but from all that I saw or heard up to this time in Spain, I was convinced that the people generally did not believe this allegation, and that the great majority of them were desirous of nothing so much as of peace. If any tradesman, or a peasant labouring in the fields, were asked whether he was a Constitutionalist, the answer was, "All that I want is peace." Exceptions to this observation might have been met with in places where party spirit ran high, and divided towns and villages into different sects. But where the passions were not excited, "Peace-Peace!" was the desire of all.

As to the clergy, it was notorious that the great majority of the secular as well as the regular degrees were at heart hostile to the constitution, however they might have found it necessary to disguise their feelings. The friars naturally detested the new system, because it swore imperishable hatred against them; the bishops, canons, and parochial clergy were exasperated, because the Cortes had reduced the tithes to one-half of their former amount; and had appropriated to the state different sorts of funds which had long been subservient to the splendour of the church. If there were those who wished to annihilate the church and clergy together, they would have found it a difficult task. The Spanish people are wedded to their religion, or at least to its ceremonies. They have had no writers amongst them such as Voltaire and Rousseau, who by a fashionable wit, or the eloquence of a rash imagination, might have rendered the doctrines of impeity and immorality attractive. Even if, unhappily, such writers had existed in Spain, the people were never sufficiently educated to read and comprehend their works. Hence they were in a very different situation from that in which the French were found

at the commencement of their Revolution. That is to say, the Spaniards were not absolutely demoralized, and any attempt to extirpate or banish the clergy, as a body, would have inevitably rebounded on the heads of its contrivers.

It can be scarcely necessary to add, that the grandees, with very few exceptions, were as much opposed to the new system as the clergy. It wounded their pride to the quick, because it levelled them in point of rank with the lowest of the people: it gave them no privilege in lieu of this degradation; it subjected them to the performance of the duties of common constables, to service in the militia, and to enormous taxation; for their estates, already encumbered by their own or their ancestors' necessities, were charged according to their nominal value. To this it may seem an answer, that many of the nobility have taken offices under the Constitution, and have materially assisted its progress. This is true to a certain extent; but it is equally true, that several were voluntary exiles both from the country and the system; as to the rest, their sincerity has been doubted, with the exception, perhaps, of the Duke del Parque, the Duke of Frias, and the Marquis of Santa Cruz, who seem to understand and appreciate the blessings of liberty. Even these three noblemen would, perhaps, witness without displeasure the establishment of a chamber of peers.

Looking, therefore, to the Peninsula alone, it would appear that the mass of the people were indifferent with respect to the Constitution; and two very powerful classes were sincerely adverse to it. Every day new enemies to the system rose from the bosom of the country; and in point of fact it was upheld only by the army, by those enjoying public employments, and those desirous to obtain them.

In addition to these things, the four principal Powers of the continent had openly declared their hostility against the Constitution of Spain. The ministers of three of those Powers were already withdrawn, and their relations with the court of Madrid suspended. The minister of the fourth was indeed still lingering in the capital: a curious instance of undisguised double-dealing on the part of France, and of conscious weakness on that of the Spanish Government. Was it possible, then, that under these formidable disadvantages the Constitution could march on to its consolidation?' pp. 160-62.

Certainly not. But what connexion had these external disadvantages with the merits or demerits of the Constitution? The declared hostility of the Four Great Powers was not against the Constitution simply, but against the military rebellion,'-against the revolution. And, in the estimation of the French Ministry, it is plain that the modifications' about which so much has been said, were, even as a point of honour, a matter of inferior consideration-as well they might be. M. de Chateaubriand distinctly stated to Sir Charles Stuart, that this was not the real ground on which the war was decided on. His pretext was, that while the agents of Spain admitted the

defects of their constitution, and expressed a readiness to concur in the operation of a change, their societies were actively endeavouring to organize revolt in France.

In short, he added, the enormity of the evils resulting from war, was not to be compared with the consequences which must result from the success of intrigues which the French minister had no means of preventing during the continuance of peace. This language of the French minister,' (adds Mr. Quin,) was perhaps somewhat exaggerated as to the intrigues imputed to the Spanish government and legislature for the purpose of producing revolt in France. It is not probable, from what I could learn, that either the government or Cortes, or any of their principal members, had any connexion with those intrigues.'

But if this was the temper of the French ministry, then it was clearly not the theoretical imperfections in the Spanish constitution, that necessitated or occasioned the French invasion, and thus prevented the experiment from being fairly tried, how far the constitution could march on to its consolidation.' If James the Second, instead of running away, had been able to call a foreign army to his aid, there would have been disadvantages scarcely less formidable in the way of the consolidation of English liberty. The majority of the clergy would here, as in Spain, have stood by the absolute king; and had Churchill but played the part of Ballasteros, all would have been lost. And yet, Spain is a century or two behind what England was in 1688.

Mr. Quin's chief authorities, both for the facts and the arguments relating to this question, are Sir W. A'Court's despatches. A newspaper could not have better authority: history will require something further. Sir William, it is true, talked a great deal about modifications, but that proves nothing: he is an old diplomatist.

If we cannot, however, allow the Writer all the merit which he claims on the score of political impartiality, we may safely recommend his volume as containing much acceptable and entertaining information. He gives the following account of the ex-ministers.

At the head of the new ministry is Evaristo San Miguel. He was chief of the staff in the army of the Isla, and performed his duties in a blameless manner. After this he became one of the principal members of the party of Freemasons, to which he owes his elevation. It may be here observed that this party was originally formed in Cadiz in the year 1812, and in the beginning they adopted the same system of toleration and philanthropy which is held by all the Freemasons of Europe. In 1814, upon the return of Ferdinand,

and the re-establishment of the monstrous tribunal of the Inquisition, they were persecuted with peculiar malignity. But their internal organization serving them with the means of active secret communi❤ cation, they formed the design of restoring liberty, and they exerted themselves strenuously to accomplish that object. The unsuccessful conspiracies of Lacy and of Portier were planned and supported by this association. At last they were fortunate in the famous revolution of the Isla. All the operations of the army which proclaimed the Constitution were arranged in the Lodges, and every thing done through the medium of freemasonry.

"San Miguel is a young man who has acquired scarcely any political knowledge, and has not the slightest tact for diplomacy, extremely irritable, and impatient of censure, however gentle the form in which it may be conveyed. In distributing the various offices attached to his department, he has been charged with great partiality—a charge, indeed, to which every minister is liable, because he very naturally has the greatest confidence in those private friends with whose cha racters and abilities he is best acquainted. It is further charged against him, that he has not originated one single measure which indicates a profound and happy genius, since he has been invested with office. He gets through the routine business with sufficient industry, but there is about him no attribute of a statesman. He was one of the editors of the journal called the Espectador, immediately before his elevation to office; and it is understood that he continues to sup port, as well as to control, that paper by his writings.

Lopez Banos, the minister of war, was one of the generals who commanded in the army of the Isla. He evinced, however, some delay in joining the Constutional party. He is considered a good soldier, but not skilled in what may be called the scientific division of his department.

Gasco, the Minister of the Interior, is considered to be a man of a firm and decided character. He is of active habits, and attached to liberty. He was an advocate, a profession comparatively obscure in Spain, because the Courts are not founded on a public basis; besides Gasco never acquired any eminence as a lawyer. It is believed that he has a sincere love for his country. He listens with affability to the advices which are occasionally given to him, but his great defect is, that he is not " up to the age."

The minister of Grace and Justice, Navarro, is the declared enemy of all the usurpations and abuses of the court of Rome. He is well versed in the canon laws, of an intelligent mind, but rather backward in that general reading which is necessary to a man who would express himself in Cortes in a lucid and impressive manner. He is of an austere, upamiable character, and rather a logician than

a statesman.

Probity is a rare quality in the Spanish cabinet. It is affirmed, however, that the finance minister, Egea, is scrupulously honest. He works hard, is sufficiently acquainted with the routine of his office, has good intentions, but little resolution. He considers the modern science of political economy as a mere farce.

Not so the ultra marine minister, Vadillo, who is well grounded in political economy, a man of literature and knowledge. He was an advocate at Cadiz. He is blamed as too docile, and incapable of firm resolution. He has written some excellent works on the neces sity of a free trade, for which he is a zealous partisan. He is considered a man of moderation and virtue.

The man who has perhaps acquired most weight in the ministry, after San Miguel, is Capaz, the minister of marine. When he was in Peru, he surrendered to Lord Cochrane the fine frigate of war the Maria Isabel, in a manner far from being honourable to his courage. It must, however, be observed, that most of the operations of this minister have been commented upon in violent, which is not always just, language. He is a decided enemy to South American independence, and to his representations is chiefly to be imputed the unfortunate policy which infects this, as well as the former governments, of sending out expeditions to the American continent. Report, perhaps calumny, says that these expeditions are not unproductive of gain to himself and his friends. Such is the preponderance which he has acquired in the state, that there are not a few of his party who desire his fall, that they may have at least a chance of succeeding him.

The treasurer-general, Yandiola, has no seat in the cabinet, but he is intimately connected with the present ministers, and generally consulted by them on all financial questions. He is rather a young man, forward, well educated; but though his manners are elegant and engaging, he has not been able to conciliate public opinion, which from the beginning has been adverse to him.

• Besides the ministers, the leading men of Cortes, Augustin and Canga Arguelles, Galiano, Isturitz, and a great majority of that body are of the party called Freemasons. It must be understood that in Spain the Society of Freemasons is chiefly of a political character. The members composing it are persons who co-operated for the restoration of the constitution in 1820; hence they were so closely con. nected with the troops, who assisted them with such effect on that occasion, that they naturally adopted principles which every day tended more and more to subject the country to the rule of a stratocrasy.

The ministry of Martinez de la Rosa, and the party which supported it, was understood to be of a character rather aristocratical. They were called Anilleros (men who wear rings), and they con sisted of the higher classes of the nobility. It is believed that an opinion prevailed very generally amongst them in favour of certain modifications in the constitution, the principal of which was the establishment of a chamber of peers. Some hopes had been given, it is said, to the courts of Russia and France, that the modifications which this party contemplated might be effected without the aid of foreign intervention. But those expectations were effectually frus trated by the events of the 7th July, and from that period, it is added, the two powers just mentioned determined on compelling Spain by force of arms to alter her constitution..