or less fruitful than others. What reason is there to think that the marriages contracted by the peers, who were alive in 1828, were more fruitful than those contracted by the peers who were

alive in 1800 or in 1750?

We will add another passage from Mr Sadler's pamphlet on this subject. We attributed the extinction of peerages partly to the fact that those honours are for the most part limited to heirs male.

This is a discovery indeed! Peeresses," eminently prolific," do not, as Macbeth conjured his spouse, "bring forth men-children only;" they actually produce daughters as well as sons!! Why, does not the Reviewer see, that so long as the rule of nature, which proportions the sexes so accurately to each other, continues to exist, a tendency to a diminution in one sex proves, as certainly as the demonstration of any mathematical problem, a tendency to a diminution in both; but to talk of "eminently prolific" peeresses, and still maintain that the rapid extinction in peerages is owing to their not bearing male children exclusively, is arrant nonsense.'

Now, if there be any proposition on the face of the earth which we should not have expected to hear characterised as arrant nonsense, it is this,-that an honour limited to males alone is more likely to become extinct than an honour which, like the crown of England, descends indifferently to sons and daughters. We have heard, nay, we actually know families, in which, much as Mr Sadler may marvel at it, there are daughters and no sons. Nay, we know many such families. We are as much inclined as Mr Sadler to trace the benevolent and wise arrangements of Providence in the physical world, when once we are satisfied as to the facts on which we proceed. And we have always considered it as an arrangement deserving of the highest admiration, that though in families the number of males and females differs widely, yet in great collections of human beings the disparity almost disappears. The chance undoubtedly is, that in a thousand marriages the number of daughters will not very much exceed the number of sons. But the chance also is, that several of those marriages will produce daughters, and daughters only. In every generation of the peerage there are several such cases. When a peer whose title is limited to male heirs, dies, leaving only daughters, his peerage must expire, unless he have not only a collateral heir, but a collateral heir descended through an uninterrupted line of males from the first possessor of the honour. If the deceased peer was the first nobleman of his family, then, by the supposition, his peerage will become extinct. If he was the second, it will become extinct, unless he leaves a brother or a brother's son. If the second peer had a brother, the first peer must have had at least two sons; and this is more than the

average number of sons to a marriage in England. When, therefore, it is considered how many peerages are in the first and second generation, it will not appear strange that extinctions should frequently take place. There are peerages which descend to females as well as males. But, in such cases, if a peer dies, leaving only daughters, the very fecundity of the marriage is a cause of the extinction of the peerage. If there were only one daughter, the honour would descend. If there are several, it falls into abeyance.

But it is needless to multiply words in a case so clear; and indeed it is needless to say any thing more about Mr Sadler's book. We have, if we do not deceive ourselves, completely exposed the calculations on which his theory rests; and we do not think that we should either amuse our readers or serve the cause of science if we were to rebut in succession a series of futile charges brought in the most angry spirit against ourselves ;ignorant imputations of ignorance, and unfair complaints of unfairness, conveyed in long, dreary declamations, so prolix that we cannot find space to quote them, and so confused that we cannot venture to abridge them.

There is much indeed in this foolish pamphlet to laugh at, from the motto in the first page down to some wisdom about cows in the last. One part of it indeed is solemn enough, we mean a certain jeu d'esprit of Mr Sadler's touching a tract of Dr Arbuthnot's. This is indeed 'very tragical mirth,' as Peter Quince's playbill has it; and we would not advise any person who reads for amusement to venture on it as long as he can procure a volume of the Statutes at Large. This, however, to do Mr Sadler justice, is an exception. His witticisms, and his tables of figures, constitute the only parts of his work which can be perused with perfect gravity. His blunders are diverting, his excuses exquisitely comic. But his anger is the most grotesque exhibition that we ever saw. He foams at the mouth with the love of truth, and vindicates the Divine benevolence with a most edifying heartiness of hatred. On this subject we will give him one word of parting advice. If he raves in this way to ease his mind, or because he thinks that he does himself credit by it, or from a sense of religious duty, far be it from us to interfere. His peace, his reputation, and his religion, are his own concern; and he, like the nobleman to whom his treatise is dedicated, has a right to do what he will with his own. But if he has adopted his abusive style from a notion that it would hurt our feelings, we must inform him that he is altogether mistaken; and that he would do well in future to give us his arguments, if he has any, and to keep his anger for those who fear it,

ART. XIII.-The Duke of Wellington without Whigs, &c. 8vo. London: 1830.

HE last time that we called the attention of our readers to T the state of the country, and of its government, we had the painful duty to perform of mingling our complaints with those of all the people, that a ministry plainly incapable, as it was then constituted, to administer the public affairs, persisted in retaining a power they could not wield with credit to themselves or advantage to the state, but which they would not even share with abler and more popular statesmen. The voice of the people, much aided no doubt by the acts of self-destruction which the Ministers repeatedly attempted at the meeting of the new Parlia ment, have now occasioned their entire removal from office. They have been succeeded by a Ministry formed on different principles, but not wholly adverse to those held by the ablest of their predecessors, and acted upon by them, much to their own honour and the public benefit, in more than one remarkable instance. It becomes our duty now, therefore, to remind our readers of the circumstances attending that change, in order to estimate how far it will be one of men, or of measures, or partly of each. But, first of all, it is a less gracious, though not an unnecessary task, to recite the grievous practical errors which hastened the overthrow of a government proclaimed everlasting by its adherents, within a few days of its falling to pieces by its own weakness; and to which the author of the tract before us, and other politicians equally sage, promised immortality, upon the plain ground that there was an almost physical impossibility of calling into office the most prominent members of the Cabinet now, in spite of that absolute impossibility, actually formed, and governing the country with an unparalleled concurrence of royal, aristocratic, and popular favour. We say this, though a painful, is yet a necessary duty. It is painful to dwell on the errors, and the worse misconduct of those who have paid the forfeit of their offences by the loss of official existence. But when adversaries succeed to power, much goodnature and much false delicacy usually prevents, and, by preventing an honest and fearless exposure of the past, screens from all censure conduct highly blame-worthy; and deprives the country of the wholesome fruits of experience after it has paid the full price of it. When we add, that a partial, at least a less sweeping change, would perhaps have satisfied our wishes, we need say no more to show that any thing rather than a factious

spirit dictates the remarks we are about to offer, and the recapi tulation of facts which we feel it necessary to enter upon.

The ambitious but short-sighted conduct of the Duke of Wellington, in keeping aloof from all junction with the men whose principles he was acting upon, and whose unbought, disinterested, and most cordial support he had so often received, contrary to every view of their personal and party policy, was consummated by his dissolving the Parliament, and appealing to the country, in the forlorn state in which he and his colleagues had been exhibited during the last session. The results of the general election were fatal to whatever remained of strength in his Cabinet; and all men foresaw that a change must needs be made, either by his at length consenting to share his power with those in whom the country and the parliament reposed confidence, or by his being driven entirely from office, with his adherents. This was what all might well foresee without any peculiar gifts. But what no soothsayer could have foretold, was the extraordinary series of blunders by which the Duke's fall was precipitated. It may very safely be affirmed, that the whole history of administrations in ordinary times, and civilized, indeed regular governments, will be in vain ransacked for any parallel to this list of practical mistakes. Never was the proverbial connexion between coming destruction and judicial blindness so aptly, so amply illustrated. No ministry in the exuberant fulness of strength and of popu→ larity, respected in the country, and all-powerful in Parliament, durst with impunity have attempted any one of the six or seven acts which the late Government tried in ten or twelve days. Except the ministry of Prince Polignac, no public men ever yet exhibited such a strange defiance of common sense and public opinion.

1. First of all came the King's Speech-an extraordinary document truly-framed in the genuine spirit of the Holy Alliance, and fraught with all its principles of interference. After a cold statement, without any comment or epithet whatever, that the dynasty of France had been changed, it breathed a spirit of favour towards the King of Holland, and of enmity to the people of the Netherlands, not to be mistaken. It even announced the design as already formed to interfere in the domestic affairs of Belgium; and no explanation since given, or rather attempted, can obviate the inference that such an interposition, however guarded, or however confined in the first instance to remonstrance and mediation, must have eventually endangered the peace of England, of Europe, and of the world.

2. The Speech was silent upon the great question of parliamentary reform. Not a word was whispered upon a topic universally engrossing the attention of the country. But the

Duke of Wellington supplied this blank by a most ominous interpretation or commentary. He stood forth, unprovoked, unasked, as the avowed, ostentatious, gratuitous champion of non-reform. He professed to see no improvement of which our system was susceptible. He declared, that had he to form a constitution anew, he could not hope to attain at once the extreme pitch of perfection which ages had bestowed on the British model of government; and he pronounced the form, the working, and the conduct of our Parliament to be absolutely beyond all power of amendment. So astounding a sentiment was perhaps never uttered in a public assembly of rational beings. Any thing more widely differing from the opinions of the country, more affronting to its feelings, or indeed more glaringly wide of the facts seen, and heard, and known, and felt of all men, was assuredly never yet spoken. That which comes most near it was perhaps the famous resolution of the House of Commons, that a pound-note was equal in value to twenty shillings, at the time when a law was found necessary to prohibit men from selling it for fourteen and fifteen. But the declaration of 1830 very far surpassed that of 1811 in offensiveness to the sentiments of the people. The subject of it was one which every man in the country thoroughly understood; the intention of it outraged the strongest feelings; the tenor of it was almost as violent an outrage upon known and admitted facts.

3. The disappointment of the whole people of the metropolis, in their just and loyal desire to receive among them a monarch greatly and deservedly beloved, excited a mixed sensation of indignation and derision-indignation at the proceeding itself, and derision at the manner and the motive of it. Because an alderman thought fit to pay his court to the Minister by writing him that he had the authority of several anonymous letters!-God save the mark!-to show that the latter would be insulted, the Cabinet gravely deliberated, and recommended their popular Master not to go, instead of desiring their unpopular colleague to remain at home! They affected, indeed, to say they had other reasons; but this was flatly contradicted by their conduct; for they sent, it seems, some official person with their letter to the Guildhall, desiring him not to deliver it if he found that the alderman's communication was a fabrication ;—thus clearly admitting that they had adopted their sage resolution on no other authority than the alderman's letter, and that even as to it, they had deliberated in the dark. It is only fair to the Duke of Wellington to add, that he was not originally a party to this inconceivable folly. He said, with his wonted decision and manliness, he should remain at home and let the King go.