and imbecility. The same is true in secular music. There is a great choice in pieces, in respect to character and influence. Pieces of the better sort may become a source of high enjoyment in hours of weariness or relaxation. But the indul gence of an exclusive passion for secular music is scarcely consistent with excellence in religious song. The importance of this consideration seems not to be sufficiently understood; especially in those Christian families where years of instruction and practice are devoted to the secular department, to the almost entire neglect of sacred music. We can not take leave of the subject of church music without offering a single suggestion to the educated classes of the community. If what we have said is true, it will readily be seen that much remains to be done which can not safely be entrusted either to thoughtless youth or to men of one idea. Other ap pliances than those of an artistical nature must be brought to bear upon the subject. A general knowledge of rhetoric, oratory and mental phi losophy, as well as a deep acquaintance with religious experience, will be found indispensable to success in that kind of training which is demanded. Zeal, susceptibility and enterprise are, to some extent, already enlisted in the cause-but there is need of more intelligence, religious principle and weight of character, to secure the right direction and the right issue. The work to be done can not be postponed ; for counteracting forces are now in action, that will not easily be impeded. The present is on the whole the most favorable period we have ever known for redeeming the character of religious music, and placing it upon a just basis. But the work will not be accomplished without an effort, and the favorable opportu nity may soon pass. We commend the subject, therefore, to the immediate and earnest attention of those friends of religion who have intelligence and taste to discern the imperfections of our church music, and ability to apply the remedy. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1848. SINCE the issue of our last number, events have transpired in Europe which will make the year of our Lord 1848 an era in history. The suppressed popular agitation in England and Ireland, which in ordinary times would absorb our interest, has been quite distanced in public regard by the mighty_movements on the continent. France, the Papal States, Naples, Sicily, Tuscany, Parma, Placentia, Modena, Lucca, Venice, Lombardy, Austria, Prussia, have been tossed on the billows of popular commotion or civil revolution. And in these States, as also in some others where the popular movement has been less violent or has been anticipated by concessions from the rulers-as in many of the smaller States of Germany and in the Netherlands-steps have been taken, within a few months, which, if they shall be rightly maintained, if there shall be no retrogression toward arbitrary rule, and no diversion toward popular anarchy, will accomplish more, for civil and religious freedom and the vast human interests dependent upon it, than has been accomplished in a previous centu We shall not af mpt within the brief limits of thin, ticle to survey the recent changes in all those countries. It will be better to con fine our attention to the late move- There, a monarch, every where teaching them that popular sympa. thy in their armies (to which the army is very liable, and will be more and more, in any country where there is any general diffusion of knowledge) may render the sole support on which they lean "a reed, aye, a spear." The monarchy being overturned, a temporary or provisional government was constituted by acclamation and general consent. That provi sional government proclaimed as their motto, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," similar in meaning to the famous phrase in our Declara tion of Independence; and ordered an election of a National Assembly of nine hundred members, for the formation of such a constitution, or ordinance of government, as it shall thereby appear the nation desiresan election ordered on the broadest basis of republican rights or privi leges-an election in which every man, of suitable age and unconvicted of crime, was invited to vote. Amid the growing dissatisfaction and agitation of the nation, in consequence of the great burdens imposed by his selfish plans, the unconstitutional restrictions on liberty, and the enormous bribery revealed in various departments of his government, he relied with confidence up. on his strong defences and numerous army; but was awakened from his fancied security by the sudden development of sympathy and alliance between the whole army and the of fended people. It was as though foundation of rock beneath his feet had suddenly changed into an engulphing sea. What then did all the fortifications, on which, for the selfish interests of family, he had the National Assembly. Suandered the resources of an over a That election has taken place. The elected members have met and organized themselves into a National Assembly. And to that Assembly as the embodied sovereignty of the people of France, the provisional or revolutionary government have given their account, and resigned their office-an office which they have exercised, through great exigencies and embarrassing difficul ties, usually with rare ability, and with remarkable success. We await with anxious interest the action of There are some living, who re taxed and straitened nation, avail member the receipt of the news of him, yea, Wi against without soldiers to man them; the first French Revolution, in the th soldiers to man them latter part of the last century; who himself? In a moment, in remember the hope, the joy, the age twinkling of an eye, the mon- anxiety, gradually changed into fear ple, and the commander of an ar- intelligence came from the scenes arch of thirtyfive millions of peo- and horror, as wave after wave of my of four hua became a diers, structive man; "red thousand solja veak as any other fact most potentously into all earthly monarchs, of anarchy and popular despotism, and at length military despotism and general European war, which that Revolution introduced. And all have read of these things. So that there is in some minds, very naturally, a predominance of fear, as to the results of the present movement. And, on the other hand, there are many, having a strong conviction of the preeminent beneficence of real republican government, confiding in the capacity of civilized and enlightened nations to maintain it, and remembering moreover the comparatively quiet process, and the good results, of the second revolution that of 1830-who have a predominance of hope, and feel at liberty greatly to rejoice, though they rejoice not without anxiety. We will therefore, in a cursory manner, survey the grounds of hope on the one hand, and of fear on the other, respecting the results of the present revolution in France. It may seem to some that any prediction regarding the future in France is hazardous. We might appear wiser, perhaps, should we take the safe course in respect to this subject adopted by most of our cotemporaries, and deal with what has been rather than with what will be. But we are not ambitious of that infallibility which consists in attempting nothing; and we will not avoid a question of great and anxious interest from the fear that the future will not sustain our positions. Yet we shall take no positions which do not seem well grounded. There are data bearing on the general question of results now proposed, which are well worthy of consideration. What reasons then are there to hope for good results? It is quite common to think of the present revolution in connexion with the terrible revolution of the last century. But it is certainly more reasonable to think of it in connexion with the revolution of 1830, the results of which, though insufficient, all acknowledge to be good. There is, surely, far more similarity between France in 1848 and France in 1830, than between VOL. VI. 55 France in 1848 and France in 1789. And what is hardly secondary in its bearing on the subject, there is far more similarity between the world in 1848 and the world in 1830, than between the world in 1848 and the world in 1789. It would seem that the fear and despair of those who think only or chiefly of the revolution of 1789, should be in a measure removed by the more reasonable employment of their thoughts on the revolution of 1830. But as the first revolution is associated in the minds of men, more or less, with the present revolution, it may be well to take advantage of that fact, by presenting the reasons for hope of good results now, in the form of a contrast, in some few points, between that revolution and this. 1. That which occurs first in order is, that the French people had not then, as they have now, such an instructive example of warning as the revolution of 1789 presents. So fearful a lesson as that can not be in vain to the friends of liberty. It must be constantly before their eyes; teaching them where both their danger and their safety lie. It stands like a lofty beacon on the reefs, whereon they were dashed beforethe rocks of popular excess and anarchy-bidding them beware of the danger. That lesson, as we have learned, is not in vain. Both the leaders and the people ponder it. The members of the late Provisional Government, and of the present Executive Committee of the National Assembly, gather wisdom from it. The leading member of that Government, Lamartine-the master spirit of the present movement, who, for sixty hours, sublimely rode, and ruled, and subdued that whirlwind of human passion-has often, in his speeches to the people, reminded them of the excesses of that first revolution, and of their terrible results. The very fact, then, from which some gather despair the fact of that first revolution, with its reign of terror, and subsequent military despotism-of itself, gives us ground of hope. 2. This revolution is strongly contrasted, thus far, with the first, in the temper and spirit of the people. Of the violence and sanguinary character of the first revolution, none need to be reminded. This, so far, has been remarkable, wonderful, (it would be in any country,) for the moderation, self-control and humanity of the people. That they, in their struggle to overthrow the throne of a perfidious and detested monarch-one who was put into power by the voice of the people and as the man of the people, a citizen king, and had proved false to his pledges respecting freedom, and had bent his policy and energy to render his dynasty absolute and independent of the nation-that the people, in their strug gle to overthrow his throne, and in the flush of their triumph, should have shed so little blood, destroyed so little property, and been so free; from the crimes and excesses to which such occasions prompt, is amazing, and augurs well for the future. One of the first movements of the Provisional or revolutionary Government was to proclaim that no man should suffer death for political offences-thus shutting up entirely, so far as such a law and example could do it, the way, which, in the first revolution, led to the atrocities of the guillotine; and thus, in the most effectual manner, exhorting the nation to a mild temper and gentle measures. Indeed, not only the leaders, but all the people, seemed to possess that republican spirit of human brotherhood, which is so well taught by that republican passage in the New Testament, God "hath made of one blood all men to dwell on the face of the earth." Fraternity was not only on their lips, but controlled their conduct, and seemed to be the inspiring spirit of the whole movement There may have been much of sentimentalism and romance in it; and it may be transitory. But we may hope otherwise. The remark of one of the people to another, who, in the heat of the contest, grieved at the death of his brother by one of the National Guard, declared that he must kill one of the Guard in return-the remark, Stop, if you should, you would only lose another brother," was worthy even of an apostle, and was said by observers to be characteristic of the general feeling. The spirit, then, in which the revolution has been carried on thus far, is in strong contrast with the spirit of the first revolution, and is very hopeful. 3. Another, and a very important difference between that revolution and this is, that now, on the one hand, the other nations of Europe are not disposed to interfere, as they did then; and on the other hand, France adopts a pacific policy, and is disposed to commend republicanism to other nations by her example of well ordered freedom, and not, as then, to promote it by incendiary and military propagandism. Any one who reads and reflects upon the history of those times, from the outbreak of that revolution in 1789 to the restoration of the Bour bons in 1815, can hardly avoid the conviction that the foreign interference was entirely wrong, and la mentably disastrous in its influences and results. If then France had been let alone (why should she not have been? who had a right to meddle with her? what right had the monarchies of Europe to dictate terms to her?) if France had then been let alone, in all probability the subsequent excesses and atroci. ties of the revolution would have been avoided, and the nation, gener. ally, would have become quiet un der the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, or perhaps of a republic. But France was not let alone. The monarchs of Europe with their counselors, jealous of any popular movement, jealous of anything recognizing and proclaiming the rights of the people, anxious to maintain universally in European countries the divine right of hereditary princes to govern or tyrannize as they please, over subjects who have no divine right except to obey-these monarchs, in an alliance, which, sooner or later, all joined, resolved to put down this enterprise of liberty in France; and, at the head of their arrayed armies, upon her borders, menaced her with war, unless she submitted to their dictation in her internal affairs-a dictation which forbade the establishment of eivil liberty. This was a step very disastrous to all Europe, but especially to France. It exasperated the revolutionists against all the royalists, as those who were allied with these foreign enemies and meddlers, as indeed many of them were, at home, and in other countries, whither not a few had fled, partly for the purpose of securing the military interposition of other European powers. It turned the revolution into a civil war, in which parties devoured one another in terrible succession. It greatly aggravated the chief source of embarrassment to the revolutionary government, viz. its financial difficulties, by preventing the return of social quiet, commercial confidence, and productive industry; by drawing off her strong men from useful labor, to military life and fields of slaughter; and by throwing on the already staggering nation the enormous financial burdens of a war with all Europe. Indeed, more than to any other cause, may the excesses and disasters of that revolution be traced to this foreign interferenceto this selfish attempt of the throned ones of Europe to put down civil freedom, to crush beneath the tread of their armed and allied legions every spark of the idea that kings and nobles do not rule by divine right, and that the many are not made for the few.* *As we have sometimes heard this fact of foreign interference questioned and denied, it may be well to quote briefly, from some authorities. No one will impute to Alison partiality to France, or an unfavorable disposition towards the allied powers. He says "The rise of this terrible spirit (the globe, excited the utmost alarm in all the democratic) destined to convulse the European monarchies. From it sprang the bloody wars of the French Revolution, undertaken to crush the evil, but which at first tended only to extend it, by ingrafting on the energy of democratic ambition the power of military conquest." -Vol. I, 157. "The error of the allied sovereigns, and it was one fraught with the most disastrous consequences, consisted in attacking France at the period of its highest excitation, and thereby converting revolutionary phrensy into patriotic resistance, without following it up with such vigor as to crush the spirit which was thus awakened. France was beginning to be divided by the progress of the Revolution, when foreign invasion united it. The catastrophe of the 10th of August was in some degree owing to the imprudent advance and ruinous retreat of the Prussian army; the friends of order at Paris were paralyzed by the danger of the national independence; the supporters of the throne, ashamed of a cause which seemed leagued with the public enemies. * * "The fault of the aristocracy consisted in leaving their country in the period of its greatest agitation, and their sovereign in his extremest peril, to invoke the hazardous aid of foreign powers. Such a proceeding is always both criminal and dangerous; criminal, because it is a base desertion of the first social duties; dan gerous, because success with such assistBy ance produces perils as great as defeat. striving to raise a crusade against French liberty, they put themselves in the predicament of having as much to fear from victory as defeat; the first endangered the national independence, the last threatened the power and possessions of their order.-Vol. I, 131. "The object of the alliance is twofold. The first object concerns the rights of the dispossessed princes, and the dangers of the propagation of revolutionary principles; the second, the maintenance of the fundamental principles of the French monarchy-Hardenburg, quoted by Alison, p. 177. Lamartine declares, that "the classes dispossessed united themselves with the |