moment of its separation, would naturally be that of the downfall of the system they had attempted to impose on mankind. But we are anticipating our brief analysis of the work before us:-- "After twenty-three years of blood and revolution," continues the author, "Louis was again seated on the throne of his forefathers, and the principles of monarchy seemed firmly established in Europe. But the principle of government was in reality no longer the old one, and the spirit of the relation in which the ruled stood to the rulers, although it had not yet been brought to light in visible forms, and specified limits, was materially changed. Mutual struggles of kings and their people against foreign aggression, and mutual sufferings in consequence of the division between the people and their rulers, the latter of whom owed esteem and acknowledgment for services rendered by the former, laid the foundation of a relation between them mutually more honourable. For centuries, indeed, the monarchs of Europe had not been identified and interwoven with their people; nor had they shared as now, the privations and humiliations, the domestic and public calamities, of the nations they governed; nor had they fought by their sides, and conquered by their efforts, as they had lately done in the late stormy period of the world." Mutual suffering had taught them to feel a community of interests they had not before recognised. Calamity brings all ranks to a level, and the monarch exiled from his throne, can sympathise with the peasant driven from his hovel.