THE WASTE OF WAR.

GIVE me the gold that war has cost,
Before this peace-expanding day;
The wasted skill, the labour lost-
The mental treasure thrown away;
And I will buy each rood of soil

In every yet discovered land ;-
Where hunters roam, where peasants toil,
Where many-peopled cities stand.
I'll clothe each shivering wretch on earth,
In needful; nay, in brave attire ;
Vesture befitting banquet mirth,

Which kings might envy and admire. In every vale, on every plain,

A school shall glad the gazer's sight; Where every poor man's child may gain Pure knowledge, free as air and light. I'll build asylums for the poor,

By age or ailment made forlorn; And none shall thrust them from the door, Or sting with looks and words of scorn. I'll link each alien hemisphere;

Help honest men to conquer wrong; Art, Science, Labour, nerve and cheer; Reward the poet for his song.

In every crowded town shall rise

Halls academic, amply graced ;Where Ignorance may soon be wise,

And Coarseness learn both art and taste. To every province shall belong

Collegiate structures, and not fewFill'd with a truth-exploring throng, And teachers of the good and true.

In every free and peopled clime

A vast Walhalla hall shall stand;

A marble edifice sublime,

For the illustrious of the land;

A Pantheon for the truly great,
The wise, beneficent, and just;
A place of wide and lofty state

To honour or to hold their dust.
A temple to attract and teach
Shall lift its spire on every hill,
Where pious men shall feel and preach
Peace, mercy, tolerance, good-will;
Music of bells on Sabbath days,

Round the whole earth shall gladly rise; And one great Christian song of praise Stream sweetly upward to the skies!

PEACE AND WAR.

THE warrior waves his standard high,
His falchion flashes in the fray;
He madly shouts his battle-cry,
And glories in a well-fought day.
But Famine's at the city gate,

And Rapine prowls without the walls,
The country round lies desolate,

While Havoc's blighting footstep falls.
By ruined hearths-by homes defiled—
In scenes that Nature's visage mar,
We feel the storm of passions wild,
And pluck the bitter fruit of war.
The cobweb hangs on sword or belt,
The charger draws the gliding plough ;
The cannon in the furnace melt,

And change to gentle purpose now.

The threshers swing their ponderous flails;
The craftsmen toil with cheerful might,
The ocean swarms with merchant sails,
And busy mills look gay by night.

The happy land becomes renowned,

As knowledge, arts and wealth increase,

And thus, with Plenty smiling round,
We cull the blessed fruits of peace.

-From Bentley's Miscellany for June, by Mr. Stonehouse.

1 10

Janson, Mr. William

1

1 0

John Jackson

050

1

0 0

Knight, Misses Ann

and

S. Pickard

James Chadwick

050

026

0 10 0

Lucas, Mr. Edmund (2 years) 2

0 0

C. Beverley

J. Taylor.

1 10

Morgan, Mrs. (quarterly)

026

Neatby, Mr. Joseph

York.

Buckingham, J. S., Esq.

De Sellon, Countess (25 fracs) 1

1

Edwards, Mrs. Ann. Ellis, Wynn, Esq. Garratt, Mr. William Good, Rev. Alexander Gregory, Mr. Charles Hickson, Mr. James Hoath, Mr. James

1 0 0 Woollaston, Mr.

AUXILIARIES.

Alton, by Mr. A. C. Crowley.

1

0 0

Tapp, Mr. Joseph

1 10

The Right Hon. the Lord Mayor

Mr. G. P. Bainbridge

James Meek, Jun., Esq.

3211

0 10 0

0 10 0

Thomson, Mr. Adam

Mr. R. Burdekin.

0 10 6

10

Thomas Monkhouse

0 10 6

Vegetarian, A

0 50

0 10 6

F. Hansell Small Contributions

Of Messrs. Joseph Walker, William Walker, and George Tatham, Executors of the late Thomas Walker, of Leeds, free from Duty £50 00

TRACT TRANSLATION FUND.

0 10 0

050

0 50

063

LEGACY.

Manchester, by Mr. W. Satterthwaite.
Thomas Barnes, Esq.

FORM OF A BEQUEST TO THE SOCIETY.

I give unto the Treasurer or Treasurers for the time being of" The Society for the Promotion of Permanent and Universal Peace," established in London in the year 1816, the sum of Pounds

Sterling, to be raised and Paid for the purposes of the said Society, out of such part only of my Personal Estate as shall not consist of Chattels real, or money secured on Mortgage of Lands or Tenements, or in any other manner affecting Lands or Tenements; and for which the receipt of such Treasurer or Treasurers shall be a sufficient Discharge.

. 5 0 0

LOUIS KOSSUTH AND THE PEACE PARTY.

THE friends of Peace have been placed in some difficulty by the appearance in England of this remarkable man. On the one hand, some would deter them from the expression of any sympathy with him, and with the cause of suffering freedom represented in his person, while others would tempt them to put their own principles in abeyance, lest they should damp the enthusiasm, with which they think he ought to be greeted, by all lovers of liberty. In our humble judgment it is not necessary to go to either extreme. It seems to us a matter of simple and inevitable logical sequence, that the friends of Peace, whatever in other respects may be their political sentiments, should be opposed with the whole strength of their convictions, to that heartless iron despotism, which rests for its very existence on the brute force of standing armies. And we esteem it, we confess, perfectly compatible with the most sound-hearted loyalty to the principles we hold, to hail with gratitude and joy, the escape from the relentless grasp of tyranny, of a man who has struggled, though in the latter part of his career by means which we believe were utterly erroneous, for the right, against falsehood, perjury and violence. Most unquestionably there can be no peace, while Governments like those of Eastern Europe, casting open contempt upon all ideas of right, lay the entire foundation of their rule on an appeal to the soldier's bayonet. It is therefore utterly impossible that any consistent friend of Peace can do otherwise than look with unqualified abhorrence, upon that hideous military domination which prevails in Russia and Austria, which aims to crush all liberty of thought, all aspirations of progress, all the onward developments of humanity, beneath the rampant hoof of the war-demon.

On the other hand, it seems to us no less clear, that the friends of freedom who make their appeal to the sword, adopt the very best way they could devise, if they were to search through the whole compass of the possible combinations of human affairs, to strengthen and prolong the reign of that brute force, which is the great antagonist of their cause. The effect of their last effort of this kind, was to add two millions of men to the standing armies of Europe, and to add incomparably more to their prestige in the estimation of multitudes. therefore feel that it would have been a most serious dereliction of duty on our part, if we had shrunk from pointing out the conspicuous and most affecting illustration of the suicidal folly of this policy afforded by the melancholy issue of the recent conflict in Hungary.

We

In reference again to the question, as to what England ought to do on behalf of Hungary, we believe there is a course open to us, which shall perfectly reconcile our love of peace with our love of freedom. The doctrine of non-intervention, as held by the friends of Peace, is grossly caricatured when it is represented as consisting in a selfish isolation of ourselves from all sympathy with other nations, and a heartless indiffe

rence to their sufferings and aspirations. On the contrary, we say, the whole weight of our moral influence may be cast into the scale in favour of right and liberty, without provoking a murmur from the friends of Peace. And we must be permitted to say, that those are the men who hold low, sordid, and material views, who affirm that at this period of the world's history, a nation's influence is to be estimated only by the number of its bayonets, or the calibre of its cannon, and who sneer at the power of public opinion, unless we back that opinion by assuming an attitude of armed menace. We answer these gentlemen in the eloquent language of Lord Palmerston in 1849:-"It is quite true, it may be said, what are opinions against armies? Sir, my answer is, opinions are stronger than armies. Opinions, if they are founded in truth. and justice, will, in the end, prevail against the bayonets of infantry, the fire of artillery, and the charges of cavalry."

It must be admitted, indeed, that the force of opinion will greatly depend upon the character of him who utters it, being free from the imputation of similar charges to those he brings against others. And herein, unhappily, consists the moral weakness of England's remonstrance in favour of the oppressed. It was not without a feeling of bitter degradation that we saw recently an extract from a dispatch of Prince Schwarzenburgh to Lord Palmerston, in reply to a respectful hope expressed by his Lordship, that the Austrian government would not drive matters to extremity against the Hungarians, in which the Prince points to our proceedings in Cephalonia and Ireland as a justification of their severities. "Whenever a revolt breaks out," says he, "within the vast limits of the British empire, the English Government knows how to maintain the authority of the law, even at the price of torrents of blood." This may be "cool and measured insolence," but it is at least extremely natural, and it is, unfortunately, deplorably true. We would most gladly join in the emphatic reprobation hurled within the last few weeks by the people of this country against the crimes and cruelties of Austria in reference to Hungary and Italy. But our voice is choked by the remembrance of our own quite recent doings in the Ionian islands, on the coast of Borneo, in Affghanistan, and in South Africa. We venture to assert that none of the atrocities committed by the miserable government of Vienna can exceed, in deliberate treachery and wanton injustice, the conduct of England towards the Affghans and Kaffirs. Not even the butcheries of Haynau have been more inhuman and cold-blooded than those perpetrated by Sir James Brooke and the officers of the British navy upon the wretched Dyaks, for whose slaughter they afterwards received bloodmoney at the rate of £10. per head. Most heartily, therefore, do we concur in the pertinent and forcible language expressed by Mr. Cobden at Southampton, and which some of the journals, with their wonted dishonesty, have been trying to pervert out of its obvious meaning into an exhortation for an armed intervention on behalf of Hungary :-"Well, then, I say that were public opinion so far enlightened that news

papers would not dare to falsify it by taking side with Russia, it would not require many words from an English Foreign Minister to make that opinion have weight with foreign despots. But if we wish our opinion to have weight, we must come into court with clean hands. My efforts have been to make us understand our duty with regard to interference in foreign countries. I am almost afraid to look back for the last twenty years and see what has been our conduct. There was our most wicked interference in the affairs of Portugal, where we boldly carried off the leaders of the people in order to subserve the interests of the Court; and then there were our proceedings in Greece and in the affairs of Holstein. I cannot find, then, that we have clean hands, and therefore my advice to the English and American people-and I think there have been some symptoms of the latter people falling into the trap-my advice to them is that they should promptly adopt the principle of non-intervention. When Lord Grey came into office, non-intervention was to be the motto of the Whigs, and yet, I believe that from the passing of the Reform Bill there has been more intervention than in the time of the Tories. Let us, then, get to the sound principle, and then I believe that the word "Stop," applied to Russia, would be as conclusive as if we spoke with the voice of a thousand cannon."

THE KAFFIR WAR.

THERE are several things connected with the Kaffir War, on which all men are agreed. All agree that it is a disastrous and disgraceful conflict, from which, even on the ordinary selfish principles which govern men's estimate of such things, neither honour nor advantage is to be gained. All agree that it is the result of our own heinous mal-government. All agree that unless there is some change in the system of policy now pursued, there is no rational prospect of its coming to a close for months, if not years to come; and all agree that the bill of costs which will be presented to the English people for the war, will be one of the most unsatisfactory that ever tried the patience and patriotism of John Bull. But when the question is asked, What is to be done? there are two answers, which in spirit and tendency are wide as the poles apart. The one is that given by the Colonial Office, by such of the colonists as are enraged at the losses they have suffered from the Kaffirs, by all military men from the necessary instinct of their education, and by many of our public writers, from their utter and contemptuous disbelief in all high principles of national morality. The substance of this counsel is, "put them down, crush them, if necessary annihilate them." The first thing that one is struck with in reference to this remedy is, its avowed disregard of the merits of the point in dispute between us and the Kaffirs. Those who advocate it say boldly that they do not stop to enquire, who is in the wrong or who in the right. Indeed most of them admit, with charming candour, that we are in the wrong. The Examiner says, that "the Governor has been acting on some African law of nations unknown to them, which was more than Kaffir flesh and blood could endure." The Morning Chronicle declares, that "if his Excellency had set his wits to work to render the first approach of civilization still more odious to a tribe of warlike barbarians than it was likely under any circumstances to be, he could not have devised a more suitable system of administration than that which he established in Kaffraria." The Times assures us, "that to the mischievous meddling of Lord Grey, the outbreak of the Kaffirs is solely attributable." And we dare-say, all these great authorities would not hesitate to avow, with the greatest nonchalance, that our career in South Africa has been one of incessant aggression upon the lands of the Kaffir, inflicting upon them privations and sufferings of the most terrible kind. What then? "Our country, right or wrong!"

They may have been robbed of their lands, they may have been plundered of their cattle, they may have been driven into deserts which afford no pasturage for their herds, they may have seen their children perish from famine, their chiefs may have been treated with every species of opprobrium, indignity and contempt. Be that as it may, " they must be put down with a strong and energetic hand." As for justice-ha! ha ha! who ever thought that a great nation like England is to enquire into the justice of her course, when she is arrayed against a set of barbarians. "No, no! down with them. First, crush them into submission, and then perhaps we may talk about justice." Notwithstanding however, the hard, scoffing, triumphant tone, which these oracles assume, we venture still humbly to say, that if there be " a God that ruleth in the kingdom of men," if truth and righteousness have any application whatever to the conduct of states-if we are not prepared to make practical atheism the profession of our national faith, the principle which is here laid down is not a wise or a safe one, by which to guide the policy of a great people. Utterly and contemptuously to ignore the right and wrong of a dispute between ourselves and another nation, even though they be a nation of savages, and to drown all appeals for justice in brutal and blustering vociferations of "Down with them," is not, (unless the whole history of the world have been writ wrong,) the way to contribute to national safety, any more than to national honour.

We do not offer these remarks to the gentlemen above alluded to. They are little likely to consult our pages; and if they did, we should as soon think of casting pearls before swine, as of talking to the writers in our public journals of the duty of forbearance and mercy-of the subduing power of conciliation and kindness, and other principles which constitute the germ and essence of practical Christianity. They systematically sneer at these things as the mere drivellings of wellmeaning and imbecile visionaries. We can easily picture the grim sardonic smile, which the very term "practical Christianity," as thus applied to national affairs, would provoke on the lips of these sarcastic sages

"One of those smiles by selfish worldlings worn,

To grace a lie, or laugh a truth to scorn."

But we trust, notwithstanding, that there are not a few in these realms, who will not suffer themselves to be fleered out of their faith in the divine efficacy of the gospel, as the means of reclaiming and elevating humanity. We only wish they would give utterance to it with a somewhat bolder front. One chief reason why the parties we have referred to assume such an air of triumphant insolence in sweeping aside all Christian ideas, when brought into the region of practical politics, is the humble, apologetic, deprecatory tone adopted by Christians themselves in their advocacy. There are many good men who would rather stifle their most cherished convictions of what is right, than run the risk of being laughed at in the Times.

"Strange that men's zeal, that very fiery particle,
Should let itself be put out by an article."

But surely that is not the way to gain ascendancy for our principles. No, we must act by them, as if we really believed them. We must assume the daring of earnest men. We must proclaim them from the house-top. We must convince the scoffers of all grades that we duly appreciate their value, that we know perfectly well that in comparison with the unquenchable vitality of the great truths we possess, "As the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of fools."

But, to pass from this part of the subject, there is another objection to the "crushing policy," which those who put it forward are more likely to understand, and that is, that no one can see what is to be its ultimate issue. "There is but one

course before us," says the Times, "The Kaffirs must be subdued and brought to complete and permanent submission. The most economic mode of proceeding will be to employ a force sufficient to bring about this result in one campaign." But what then? Suppose this result were brought about. Suppose them driven out of Kaffir-land as the same writer counsels. Suppose all their chiefs are compelled to surrender or to fly. In one word, suppose they are completely conquered, how are they to be kept so? Why! if we are to believe the successive Governors at the Cape, they have been already "brought into complete submission," by the prowess of the British arms, four or five times. What is proposed to be done now that was not done then. Immense tracts of territory were taken from them then. Their villages were burnt, their cattle were stolen, their warriors were slaughtered, their chiefs were deposed, their women and children driven forth into the wilderness to perish of famine then. What more can be done on that system than has already been tried, unless you mean utterly to exterminate them? Does this writer in the Times imagine that the violence and spoliation, which in times past have only produced a deep sense of injury and a smouldering desire for revenge, will now suddenly reconcile the Kaffirs to our rule? The reply will probably be :-"Having put them down by a stern example of severity, we must keep them down with a strong hand." But how is this to be done? It is clear that the further we drive them back and the more of their territory we seize, the more we expose ourselves to attack, by enlarging our frontier. "I calculate," says Sir W. Molesworth, in his speech in April last, "that on the frontier of our empire in South Africa, as extended by Sir H. Smith, there is a line of 1000 miles, exposed to the attacks of savages of the same blood as the Kaffirs, and as fierce, warlike, and energetic. * * As yet we have fought only with the Kaffirs along a line of 200 miles; but the same causes which gave birth to wars with the Kaffirs are coming into operation along the whole line of this frontier of 1000 miles, and are likely, in course of time, to embroil us with all the native tribes I have mentioned. I dare not attempt to calculate what it would cost us to defend this frontier with regular troops, in the same manner as we have defended the north-eastern frontier of the Cape of Good Hope. To defend these 200 miles, we have spent of late years, not less than £600,000 annually. From these data, honourable gentlemen calculate what the defence of 1000 miles would cost." Here is a nice prospect then before the gentlemen of "the strong hand." If it be true, that "to the mind of a savage, no motive to moderation is conceivable except fear," and if we are to govern in South Africa on this mild and Christian principle, we may indeed well prepare ourselves, as one of the speakers at the London Tavern Meeting said, to have our income tax soon doubled.

may

There is, however, another method of treatment, which some in this country are not afraid or ashamed to urge on the attention of the government, as the best remedy against the recurrence of these ignoble disasters, and that is to deal with the Kaffirs as human beings who have as distinct a sense of right and wrong as we have, who can as keenly appreciate the one and as sternly resent the other, who are capable of feeling love, gratitude and admiration, as well as fear, and who may be raised, into civilized and orderly communities, as our own British and Saxon forefathers were raised from as savage a condition by the gradual improvement of their social state-by the just administration of law-by the introduction among them of the arts of peace--by association with a more enlightened people, treating them not as "wolves," but as men-by examples of rigid adherence to truth and justice in our own conduct--and above all, by the mighty and sanctifying power of Christianity, not only preached but practised among them, so as to convince them, as Sir Andries Stockenstrom says, "that a Christian is a

better man than a heathen, and does not merely call himself better, and that British laws when faithfully administered are better than Kaffir laws." When Lord Glenelg was in office, an attempt was made under his auspices to act on such a system. It was abundantly sneered at, at home, balked and frustrated in every way by those among the colonists whose license of injustice and robbery it was meant to curb, and most grudgingly and reluctantly administered by the officials. And yet in the face of all this, it did succeed to a considerable extent. "If we now find the Kaffirs a formidable and restless enemy,' says the Times, in commenting on the Meeting at the London Tavern, "it is mainly because we, in deference to the friends of Peace and of the aboriginal races, relaxed that rude and harsh but effective system, by which their inroads were repelled and their depredations prevented." This assertion is made in the teeth of all evidence. Why, there were three or four distinct Kaffir wars, provoked by "that rude and harsh but effective system," before the other was attempted to be put in operation, while there was no war at all during the period when the latter was in operation. "In spite of much virulent and insidious opposition," remarks a gentleman who long resided at the Cape, and in a high official capacity," this reform gave extensive and daily increasing satisfaction, and the evidence is positive and complete, as adduced on the most unsuspecting authority, that it produced a material improvement in the habits of the Kaffirs. It was based on the principle of recognising the rights of coloured people." But we cannot do better than let Mr. Chamerovzow speak on this point, who has written a very able and spirited letter to the Times, from which we subjoin the following extracts. After referring to a large number of passages in the blue books, which prove that the Glenelg system had not failed, he proceeds

"These extend over a period of six years, commencing in 1838, and ending in 1844. But, previously to Sir George Napier's arrival on the Kaffir frontier, in April of the year 1838, the Glenelg system had been in operation, even under Sir Benjamin D'Urban's own administration, from the 13th of October, 1836, or very shortly after. It differed from the D'Urban system, in that it was not based upon martial law and the cat-o'-nine tails, upon commandoes and armed patrols, with power to punish without reference to guilt; and in that it preserved the authority of the chiefs without in the least diminishing our influence over them. It may have been a "soothing system;" it had its defects, no doubt, and many and glaring were they; but it must be borne in mind that it was never established in its integrity, and that it had to encounter the prejudices and the opposition of parties who were powerful in office, and were wedded to the opposite policy. It has never been maintained that it succeeded in putting an entire stop to Kaffir depredations, still less that it satisfied the colonists of the eastern districts, whose idle and malicious rumours, false charges, and unfounded clamour were so completely exposed and triumphantly refuted by the Secretary to Government and the Attorney-General at the Cape in 1845 (blue-book, February 1847, p. 9 to 19), in language as eloquent as it was forcible. What is asserted is simply that, under all the disadvantages of its administration, in spite of its defects in many particulars, and notwithstanding the extraordinary difficulties attendant upon its introduction under singularly unfavourable auspices, it was not only successful, but far more so than could have been anticipated: Even so late as 1844, Sir Peregrine Maitland, who was no admirer of it, found it difficult to substitute a bettermodified, as it had been, by Sir George Napier and himself—and durst not recommend a return to the former, but attempted a middle course, which subsequently had a disastrous issue in the sanguinary and expensive war of 1846 and 1847. And why? Because he re-introduced the most vexatious features of the D'Urban system-coercion and military law, with fort-building and other warlike demonstrations on the frontier. Yet it is notorious-that is, if the blue-books contain a truthful version of opinions purporting to come from competent men-it is notorious that, above all things, it was urged by the frontier officials, themselves military officers, that nothing would be more surely disastrous than such demonstrations. Even Sir Harry Smith himself (then only Colonel

Smith), addressing Sir Benjamin D'Urban, on the 12th of July, 1836, with reference to "the most salutary and efficacious system to be adopted towards the border tribes, closes his letter with this remarkable passage :-"All depends upon the main-spring, the chief magistrate, the superintendent of police, and the non-interference of the military. The latter is the thing, of all others, to reanimate every feeling of animosity and hostility in the minds of the Kafirs." (Return, Kaffir War, No. 503, July 12, 1837, p. 265.)

"With regard to the D'Urban system, it would be no difficult matter for me to point out passages where those who administered condemned it. It was condemned by the judges at Cape Town on account of its inherent vice (martial law), without which it could not be administered, and with which it was pregnant with mischief and disaster. It was condemned by Lieutenant Governor Hare, Mr. Stretch, Colonel Somerset, and other frontier officials, by the reports they sent in of Kaffir depredations during the time it was in force. But, above all, it was condemned by Lord John Russell, on the 15th of April last, in the course of the debate on Mr. Adderley's motion for a commission of inquiry. On that occasion, on moving his amendment for the appointment of a select committee, his Lordship, while supporting the policy which had been pursued by Sir Harry Smith, as being that sanctioned by Government and by the high authority of Sir Benjamin D'Urban, nevertheless acknowledged that it "had caused the great military movements of 1834-5, 1846-7, 1850-1, and all the expenses entailed by them." If the Glenelg system was a failure, it failed in more senses than one, for it certainly failed in bringing on the disastrous wars which have been, and will have to be, paid for out of the British Exchequer."

THE HERALD OF PEACE, LONDON, DECEMBER 1ST, 1851.

THE OBVERSE SIDE OF MILITARY GLORY. THOSE who have watched the earliest perceptions of children, know how deeply they are captivated by objects that have a brilliant and dazzling surface. Whatever is indued in splendid colours, or sends forth a sparkling and lustrous light, rivets their gaze with an irresistible fascination, while smiles and exclamations of wonder, and clapping of little hands, reveal the uncontrollable ecstacy of their delight. Theirs is a purely sensuous pleasure. They have no question to ask as to the value, or the utility, or the safety, of what thus enchants their eye. It may be the tawdry tinsel that gilds a harlequin's dress. It may be the shining polish of some keen-edged instrument, or the glittering and perilous brilliancy of some explosive preparation, that might blast and consume them in a moment. It does not signify. Bewitched by the outward effulgence, which dazes their vision, their instinct is to follow after it, to touch it, to gaze at it, with unsated admiration and delight.

In this, as in so many other respects, men are but children of a larger growth." Iow, for instance, can we account for the intoxicating influence of military glory, to mislead entire communities of men, in despite of their reason and conscience, except on the assumption that humanity is still in its childhood? No one will pretend that the mere animal courage, which a soldier partakes in common with a bull-dog, is a high or ennobling quality. No one will deliberately maintain that the character of a hero, whose main ambition is to have his own name blazoned for a few years of unblessed notoriety, for the gaping bewilderment of the world, is invested with much moral dignity. No one will gravely affirm that the showy material pageantry, the sounds of martial music, and the gleam of polished armour, and the waving of gorgeous banners, and the display of brilliant uniforms, and the prancing of finelycaparisoned horses, and all the other glittering tinsel which constitute "the pride, pomp and circumstance" of war, are things which ought to transport into rapture any human being

who has attained to the maturity of his reason. No one in his sober senses will undertake to say, that a field of battle, or a sacked city, filled with heaps of blackened and putrefying corpses, polluting the air with pestilence, is a really glorious spectacle. Will any body even assert that the sight of civilized and Christian nations, covered with humiliation and shame, exhausted and distressed by our means, and for our aggrandisement their resources drained, their commerce ruined, their highest authorities subdued and degraded-is one over which a man of true nobleness and generosity of soul would gloat and exult? And yet these are really the materials out of which military glory is formed.

But there is an obverse side of this counterfeit and immoral 'glory," even for those who have most selfishly revelled in its baleful blaze. We fear it must be admitted that our French neighbours, more than any people in modern history, have suffered themselves to be dazzled by this delusive light. When they saw the flaming banners of Napoleon heralding him onward to an unbroken succession of victories, and waving in triumph over every capital on the continent of Europe; when they saw ancient dynasties overthrown, and driven into exile before the face of the invader; when they saw kings bending at his feet to beg back their crowns, and peoples crushed to the dust beneath his usurping sway; when they saw dignities insulted, nationalities destroyed, cities plundered of their most treasured ornaments, and humanity itself humiliated before that insolent and imperious will, we fear they thought little of the gross immorality of these conquests, or the enormous amount of misery by which they were purchased. They thought only of the glory which accrued to France. But a bitter retribution was in store for them. We say this in no spirit of insulting exultation or gratified revenge. Any other people in Europe, at that era of the world's history, would have been no less prepared to follow in the wake of so dazzling an apparition, had he appeared among them. But we advert to the humiliation that succeeded that brief national delirium, on account of its universal significance and warning. It has been recently painted in faithful colours, but in a spirit of the truest patriotism, by one of the most loyal and illustrious of M. de Lamartine, in his History of the Restoration of the Monarchy in France. When the citizens of Paris saw 250,000 foreign troops march into their beautiful capital, with drums beating and colours flying; when they saw Austrian and Prussian regiments tramp in triumph along the Boulevards; when they saw the half-barbarian Cossacks of Tartary encamp in the Champs Elyseés; when they saw their own government prostrate at the feet of the Emperor of Russia; when they saw the future destinies of their country decided by the dictation of foreign despots, while the whole country looked on in impotent stupor and amazement, then it was that they saw-THE obverse side of Military GLORY.

her sons.

But this was not all. When that splendid imposture with which Napoleon had so long beguiled the national spirit had once exploded, and they had leisure to withdraw their eyes from the startling and stupendous drama, which he had been enacting before the face of Europe for the glory of France, and to examine at what a cost it had been sustained, and how it fared with them in the meanwhile at home, the sight that met their gaze was dismal in the last degree. We cannot present this picture to our readers in a more impressive form, than by citing the following proclamation, issued by the Municipal Council of Paris, after the entrance of the allied armies into that city. It is the eloquent cry of agony and resentment long pent up by fear, escaping at length from the heart of a nation, enthralled by the spell of military glory, no less than oppressed by the iron weight of a military despotism :"INHABITANTS OF PARIS !-Your magistrates would be traitors towards you and our country, if, by vile personal considerations, they any longer repressed the voice of their conscience. It cries