where he died, at the age of 76, in July, 1844. We well remember many years ago having one day met at Holland House a mild-looking old gentleman, with very courteous and dignified manners; on being presented to him, we became aware that we saw before us a man who had once been King of Naples and King of Spain, and who exhibited one of the most memorable examples of the inconstancy of that Fortune, which 'Promotes, degrades, delights in strife, And makes a lottery of life.' Joseph left one daughter (Zenaide), married to her cousin, Prince Charles Buonaparte, son of Lucien, and eight grandchildren. His daughter Charlotte, who had been engaged to marry the elder brother of the present Emperor of the French, died in 1839. La Reine Julie only survived her husband a few months. We shall conclude our epitome of these curious volumes with a few remarks upon the character of the Emperor Napoleon in respect to its greatness. We agree with Dr. Channing that 'a man who raised himself from obscurity to a throne, and 'changed the face of this world, . . . . has taken out of our 'hands the question whether he should be called great;' but that the highest order of greatness did not belong to him.' We think that notwithstanding his extraordinary genius and his wonderful exploits, a sound philosophy and a sound morality equally forbid his being placed amongst the most illustrious characters whose names adorn the age in which they flourished, and exalt the dignity of human nature.' His principal characteristic was an insatiable and selfish ambition, to the gratification of which he sacrificed without scruple or remorse the interests and the happiness of all mankind. The good which he did bears no proportion to the misery of which he was directly or indirectly the cause: havoc, desolation, and death marked his terrible career, and in the prosecution of his designs and objects he trampled upon every principle of justice and humanity. Yet there was nothing like cruelty in his disposition, and he was too enlightened not to entertain a decided preference for a wise and well-ordered administration, and for the prosperity and contentment of the nations he governed, so far as these were compatible with his restless schemes of conquest and domination. But it is difficult to discover at any period of his life instances of his having sacrificed or risked any purposes or interests of his own at the suggestion of honour and conscience, or for the vindication of right against wrong. His original propensities inclined him rather to good than to evil, and early 6 in his career, he regarded with disgust and indignation atrocities, at which he nevertheless connived, when he thought connivance in them would be useful to himself. Of this, his conduct upon the coup d'état of the 18th Fructidor furnishes a striking example. The Directory violated the independence of the legislative bodies, and with circumstances of enormous tyranny and cruelty, arrested and transported many of their best and most respectable members. Bonaparte (then the all powerful commander-in-chief of the army of Italy) hated and despised the Directors, and viewed their conduct with an abhorrence which in his familiar conversation he took no pains to conceal; but because it suited his purpose that they should render themselves odious and unpopular, and he did not think the time was arrived for putting himself in opposition to the government, he had the meanness and hypocrisy to associate himself by his public acts with their atrocious proceedings, and officially to approve of all that had been done. He refused to stretch forth a hand to save men whom he esteemed and pitied, and suffered them, without resistance or remonstrance, to be sent to perish in the pestilent swamps of Sinamary.+ We have said that Napoleon was not cruel, but he had no sympathy with his fellow creatures, and regarded them with such profound contempt, that he was indifferent to human suffering and reckless of human life. It was not from any pleasure in shedding blood, but in order to strike terror into the royalists, that he caused the Duc d'Enghien to be kidnapped and put to death. When the deed was done he recoiled from the odium to which he saw that it would expose him, endeavoured to shift it on his instruments, and to cast the blame upon their precipitate zeal, imitating the behaviour of Queen Elizabeth in respect to the execution of the Scottish Queen. Although he became a mighty monarch, he never was animated by the feelings and sentiments of a gentleman-he was never moved or restrained by any principle of honour, and he had a total and habitual disregard for truth; his treatment of the Royal Family of Spain was a tissue of unparalleled perfidy and deceit, and his admirers are so conscious of its infamy, that they have endeavoured (as in the case of the Duc d'Enghien) to throw the discredit of it upon Talleyrand and others, by whose counsel they pretend that he acted: but none can doubt that the nefarious scheme was planned in the recesses of a mind capacious of such things,' and that he was alone responsible for a deed so base * Sept. 1797. † See Barante, History of the Directory, vol. ii. book vi. and treacherous, as to stamp the memory of its perpetrator with indelible disgrace. If no other examples were forthcoming, his testamentary approval of the attempt to assassinate the Duke of Wellington is alone sufficient to deprive him of all claim to the praise of magnanimity. Really great men who have been enemies, have always esteemed and honoured each other, and it was reserved for Napoleon to reveal to the world the vindictive spite which rankled in his mind to the last against his great conqueror, by the bequest of a sum of money to his assassin. To a character tarnished with such defects, stained by so many crimes, and not elevated by any moral dignity, a career crowned by complete and enduring success must be considered an indispensable condition of the highest order of greatness, and not only was this wanting to Napoleon, but his decline was even more rapid than his rise; and he seems to have been raised to the pinnacle he reached, only To fall beneath misfortune's blow, With louder ruin to the gulph below.' If by consummate ability he was the artificer of his stupendous fortune, it was by the ungovernable excesses of his own pride and obstinacy that he brought down the ruin that overwhelmed him. We think then that Napoleon cannot be compared with the most conspicuous of the men who in various ages of the world have been accounted the greatest, and who were testators to posterity of immense benefits, or crowned with immortal fame; he is not to be ranked with Cæsar or Charlemagne-with Cromwell or Washington, all of whom played their respective (but very different) parts with not less preeminent glory, and with far more complete and more lasting success. The class of papers and documents to which the correspondence of King Joseph with his extraordinary brother belongs are by far the most authentic and instructive materials for the history of this eventful period. No less than 40,000 letters written or dictated by Napoleon Bonaparte are said to be in existence in the archives of the French Government and in private collections of papers. The present Emperor of the French has given orders that this vast mass of documents should be classified, and, as far as possible, published; and, if we may judge from the style and character of the letters now before us, the complete correspondence of the Emperor will be a striking monument of his genius, and an invaluable contribution to the history of his times. ART. II.-1. The North China Herald. 1853, 1854. Shanghai. 2. The China Mail. 1853, 1854. Hongkong. 3. The Books of the Taipingwang Dynasty. Shanghai: 1853. 4. The Visions of Hungsiutsiuen and the Origin of the Kwangsee Insurrection. By the late Rev. THEODORE HAMBERG of the Basle Evangelical Society. Hongkong: 1854. 5. Papers respecting the Civil War in China. Presented to the House of Lords by command of Her Majesty. 1853. 6. Captain Fishbourne's Impressions of China and the present Revolution: its Progress and Prospects. London: 1853. 7. The Chinese Missionary Gleaner. London: 1853, 1854. THE HE authentic information which has been received and published in Europe down to the present time with reference to the political disturbances of the last few years in the Chinese Empire is limited in amount, and attempts have been made to supply the deficiency from many incorrect or inadequate sources. These statements have chiefly reached the public through the translations of Chinese documents and the distorted medium of the Anglo-Chinese press. The publications now before us (most of which have been printed in China) will enable us to present our readers with a more connected narrative of these remarkable events; and to these sources of information we shall add some materials drawn from the reports of the Protestant missions in China, where more than eighty foreigners are now prosecuting their labours as Christian Ministers to the people of that vast empire. The political disturbances which have recently agitated various parts of the Chinese dominions, while they have some points in common, are distinct and unconnected in their leaders, in the claims asserted by them, in the objects they avow, and in their respective creeds. For the sake of convenience we shall divide the various disturbances into two distinct narratives. To begin, then, with what may be termed the lesser disturbances, although they are in point of date the most recent. Along the line of coast from the port of Canton to the mouth of the Yangtsze-Kiang, extending over eight hundred miles, there have been, within the last two years, three seditious risings among the natives; one at each of the three seaports of China most famous for native traffic, and for foreign trade and commerce. The ports we mean are Amoy in the province of Fuhkien, Canton in that of Kwantung, and Shanghai in Kiangsoo. Although this spirit of insubordination burst out in the month of May 1853, it had long been fermenting upon the eastern coast of the empire. In no other quarter indeed has the reigning government had to deal with more perpetual annoyances. Nor have foreigners anywhere met with insults of so aggravated a character as they continually have encountered along this coast. Perhaps this is not to be wondered at. The spirit of daring independence, adventure, and knavery has long been growing among this maritime population, born upon the sea-coast or on its rugged islands, bred up among fishermen, sailors, smugglers, and pirates, trafficking with foreigners or engaged in the opium trade; and of late, especially since 1840, when the power of England exposed the weakness of the native government, this tone of defiance has risen to a pitch beyond precedent. It will not escape observation that two of these seats of insurrection are ports opened by the Treaty of Nankin to foreign in tercourse. Of these maritime disturbances, the first broke out at Amoy, on May 18th 1853. This walled city, after a slight resistance, fell into the hands of the rioters, a gang composed almost exclusively of natives of the Fuhkien province, all professedly of the Triad Brotherhood' or the Small Dagger Society.' Shortly after the capture of Amoy, the Imperialists drove them within the city walls and besieged them. On the 11th of the following November, Amoy was retaken by the Mandarin troops. The unruly bands were expelled, and betook themselves to a piratical life on the sea-coast, or joined other bandit forces collecting about the shores of Canton to disturb the peace of that port and province. Ever since the recapture of Amoy, public security has increased there, trade has revived, confidence in the people from the west has been growing, and foreign intercourse is extending. At a distance of about 600 miles north of Amoy, a serious riot broke out in Shanghai on the morning of the 7th of September, 1853. The leaders of this sedition consisted of a club of Canton, Fuhkien, and Shanghai men; but the reins of government here were very shortly assumed by a Cantonese named Lew, at one time a sugar-broker in Shanghai, who henceforth figured under the title of 'great generalissimo having command of the cavalry and infantry throughout the empire, ' under the great Ming dynasty.' The main force under this chieftain consisted of Canton and Fuhkien men out of employ and bent on plunder, or of ruffians hitherto engaged in opium smuggling and piracy upon the sea-board. Several persons among them have also been recognised, who at one time had been table |