results are duly considered, he must be a blind partisan and a hopeless imbecile who cannot see that Napoleonism has been beneficial to Europe.

66

Against the statement of R. S., that "no one will assert that the actions of the first Napoleon were beneficial to Europe (p. 122), and of S. F. T. (on page 193), that "the mind of which these thoughts are the offspring must be disordered," we need but adduce the opinion of one who, as a tory in politics, and aristocratic and conservative in disposition, could not have been biassed on the side of the first Corsican Emperor of France, and whose testimony may therefore be the more readily accepted as sound. Napoleon's "system of government was false in the extreme," says Sir Walter Scott, in his closing paragraph of the Life of Bonaparte. "It comprehended the slavery of France, and aimed at the subjugation of the world; but to the former he did much to requite for the jewel of which he robbed them. He gave them a regular government, schools, institutions, courts of justice, and a code of laws. In Italy his rule was equally splendid and beneficial. The good effects which arose to other countries from his reign and character begin also to be felt, though unquestionably they are not of the kind which he intended to produce. His invasions, tending to reconcile the discords which existed in many states between the governors and governed, by teaching them to unite together against a common enemy, have gone far to loosen the feudal yoke, to enlighten the mind of both prince and people, and have led to many admirable results which will not be the less durably advantageous, that they have arisen, are arising, slowly and without contest."

If personal dislike to the man who long, with spy-glass in hand, enviously eyed from Boulogne the white cliffs of impregnable Albion, and died a prisoner in the wooden hut at Longwood in St. Helena; if personal prejudices against the man who exchanged the clubs in St. James's Street for the palaces of St. Cloud and Versailles, and after madcap adventures at Strasburg and Boulogne now gives hunting parties to European princes, statesmen, and generals in the forests of Fontainebleau, Compiegne and St. Germain's be laid aside, and the results of their policy be weighed as dispassionate and impartial historians will weigh them, then unquestionably the world will endorse the sentiment that NAPOLEONISM HAS BEEN BENEFICIAL TO EUROPE. M. H.

NEGATIVE REPLY.

"LILIPUT" (p. 191) of course lays no claim to be a giant in fight; his weapons are not Goliath-like in anything but their effectlessness. We must remove this little champion from the field before we tackle to the more arduous undertaking of attempting to trounce men so practised in “fence as M. H., which I presume stands for Magnus Homo, and S. I. R. E., who, being a capital Sire, has without doubt, along with the age, the wisdom of Nestor, and is distinguished, like Shakspere, judicio Pylium, &c.

66

Does "Liliput" really mean to say that Napoleonism is "a palpable proof of an overruling Providence in history, inimical to wrong"? (p. 189). Napoleonism! with its horrid coup d'état; Napoleonism! with its braggart lying and double-dyed diplomatic deception; Napoleonism! deserted by the best brains and hearts of old France; Napoleonism! with its treacherous smiles and outward friendship to freedom, and its real hatred and inward horror of it; Napoleonism! with its fuzzy Churchmanship and rampant infidelity, "a proof of an overruling Providence"! It is blasphemy even to speak in such terms, unless by Providence is meant "the prince of the powers of the air." Even Liliput's" reasoning powers can scarcely be so microscopically insignificant as to be unable to notice the terrible satire upon the lessons in history he has been writing. Dr. Cumming himself could not outstrip "Liliput" in his misapplication of the ideas meant when we use the phrase "God in history." Much more nearly correct in his estimate of Napoleonism was Douglas Jerrold, who once, when passing down an aisle in the Sydenham Palace, on observing a splendidly sculptured "Crucifixion" at the corner of the sidewalk, exclaimed to his companion, "I thought Christ was crucified between two thieves: I see only one; where is the other?" His companion, looking, saw that by the side of the sculpture there was placed a bust of Napoleon III., and in reply to the question said, "Gone to paradise, perhaps!" "Then," said Jerrold, with intenser emphasis, pointing to the bust-" then this is the unrepentant thief." We back Jerrold against a world of “ Liliputs."

This man, who relieves the monotony of European life by his continual intrigues, who wishes to repeat once again a magnificent but painfully expensive drama on the stage of Europe, this disturber of the peace of the world, this stately upstart, is the agent of Providence, to prove that it is inimical to wrong! Whence then comes the success of wickedness? Why is usurpation palaced and imperialized? It is really too gross an argument to impose on any sane person,-any one whose mind is not Liliputian.

Napoleonism is strong and popular, hence (p. 190) it is beneficial! Storms are strong, and tempests are potent; but they are not popular. But sin is both strong and popular; and if strength and popularity be proofs of beneficiality, sin can beat Napoleonism, though they are of the same kidney, immensely.

We thought that the lesson of the nullity of "the divine right of kings to reign" (p. 191) had been pretty effectively taught in the death of Charles I., and in the era of Cromwell, without a repetition from the essence of scoundrelism in a neighbouring land.

We must now rise to Mightier Heights of argument-those of M. H. It seems to be his opinion, that to destroy the treaties by which the balance of power in Europe had been settled, and then to invite the treaty-powers to reconstruct their treaties in Napoleon's favour (p. 37), is to act in a manner beneficial to Europe. So the burglar, after acquiring forcefully the property belonging to another, and proclaiming the convenient theory of Prudhon, "Property is

theft," becomes a public benefactor, by attending to the true and proper object of the science of political economy" the distribution of wealth." Napoleon has burst into a regal palace and seized a throne, and he invites a congress to sanction his claims; and hence he is a benefactor to Europe!

Napoleon has had the craft to see which power of Europe was strongest and most easily hoodwinked. He pitched upon England as his aider and abettor in his criminality. He called this help to him by an old honoured name-an alliance; and we, taken by words, touched the pitch, and, according to the proverb, became defiled. That is what is meant by Louis Napoleon's "preference of the alliance of France with England" (p. 37), which M. H. reports to his credit.

The Dano-German war seems to have broken out as if to put a negative by facts to the idea entertained by M. H. and others, that Napoleon is the heaven-descended State physician of Europe, capable of giving those "pestilent fellows," Pio Nono, Francis Joseph, Bismarck, and Mouravieff (p. 36), a purge to put them all down. To the strong negative of the new alliance between Russia, Prussia, and Austria, we need add no other argument in refutation of M. H.'s statement that " Napoleonism was a specific for European disorder." We may only illustrate its truth by the words Leipsic, Austerlitz, Moscow and Waterloo, Sebastopol and Solferino.

To"

a nation of shopkeepers," of course eternal gratitude must appear to be the only fitting reward of a man who could agree to a 'treaty of commerce." Will the gain made by that treaty ever compensate for the war-expense incurred by Britain, because of his usurper's restlessness upon his throne? May not a treaty, enforced on France only by the strong hand of Napoleon, be as rudely torn as those of Vienna were by the same man? We think that, until Napoleon gives some sure guarantee for his honesty, no influence he can ever use or give rise to will be ultimately beneficial to Europe. E. S. J.'s arguments on this topic are bulwarked in their strength by truth's own power.

Surely our S. I. R. E. was educated in the politest and most selfish nation in Europe. Like Thomas Wilson, I may say to him, that, "Ponderyng, expendyng, and revolutyng with myself your ingent affabilitie and ingenious capacitie for mundane affaires, I cannot but celebrate and extoll your magnifical dexteritie above all other; for how could you have adapted suche illustrate prerogative and dominicall superioritie, if the fecundity of your ingenie had not beene so fertile and wonderfull pregnaunt ?" ("Arte of Rhetoricke,' 1553.) I am lost in amazement at the splendid euphemism by which S. I. R. E. epitomizes the biography of Louis Napoleon in these brief terms: A succession of happy chances." The coup d'état a happy chance;" the banishment and exile of all the patriots and men of principle and intellect in France was a happy chance;" the Crimean war was a happy chance; the treaty with which it closed was a happy chance; the Italian war was a happy chance,"

was

66

66

66

66

66

as was also (and is) the occupation of Rome! What "a happy chance" has the Mexican expedition been! Is this "succession of happy chances" in any way explained by a recent mot d'esprit, attributed to the august personage who acts as the sire, but not the father of France ?- 'Don't, sire," said some one, "allow France to be driven into war." 66. Monsieur," was the reply, "France is never driven; she always drives." For the invention of that happy phrase S. I. R. E. deserves to be decorated with the ribbon of the Legionthe name is legion! Page 116 of this serial ought to become classic in France, for there the true phrase for usurpation, slaughter, hy. pocrisy, extravagance, tyranny, selfishness, criminal fear lacquered with jaundice, is given as a succession of happy chances." It has the perfect smack of a mot de Talleyrand, and its writer seems quite able to

"Duck with French nods and apish courtesy."

دو

A reign, which was "from first to last characterized by a sacrifice of everything to expediency (115), could scarcely have been supposed to be beneficial to Europe; but S. I. R. E. so defines Napoleonism, and yet affirms it is so; and M. H. speaks in its praise that it "promised to revive Italy, liberty, virtue, and glory." ́ Ah! how ill kept its promises have been! Has his text been taken from Timon of Athens ?" Promise me friendship, but perform none. If thou wilt not promise, the gods plague thee; for thou art a man! If thou dost perform, confound thee; for thou art a man!" We do, indeed, very much fear that, with regard to Italy, liberty, virtue, and glory-all magnificent names to conjure with,-we shall be obliged to say (how soon may it be?) as was said over a far greater and far better man, though saying that is not saying much, viz., "His promises were, as he then was, mighty; but his performance, as he now is, nothing."

R. S. has ably and fully shown that these promises have not even had the consistency of the shadow of moonshine, and that Napoleon has been the enemy alike of Italy, freedom, virtue, and glory.

I must now apologize for my taking part in this debate. The illness (temporary, I hope, and brief) of the person who would so ably have replied made it requisite to gain a substitute. On being applied to, I assented. I am afraid there has been little gain in substituting for the fine pen of E. S. J. the coarse quill of

OXONIENSIS.

66

Politics.

WAS SLAVERY THE REAL CAUSE OF THE
AMERICAN WAR?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-IV.

Ir is really very laughable to see the muddle our negative friends make of the matter, in hunting all over the known world for reasons for the American war. Not that they are short of reasons; by no means they "are as plentiful as blackberries;" but, unfortunately, one half of the reasons neutralize each other, and the other half are assumptions or falsehoods. Allow me first to say a word or two on the position of M. H.: how is he, or any one else, to find the 'cause, or causes," where he looks for them? It may be trite, but it seems necessary to say "causes go before events, not after them. How he came to imagine that things said or done years after an event took place can be reckoned causes, I cannot tell. If his paper had been called "consequences of the war," there would have been a semblance of pertinence in his reasoning. What, for instance, has the 100,000 men that are to be sent to Ireland, or the 700,000 (better authorities than M. H. say 200,000) slain in the contest, to do with the origin of the war? If M. H. wanted to have found the cause, there are two things he should have studied, of both of which he appears to be profoundly ignorant :

1. The growth of the slave power.

2. American politics before the war.

But there is a graver charge to be made against these effusions; he has raked up from the worst of the ribald press of New York the most atrocious falsehoods they could coin, and wishes to pass them off as the exponents of Northern opinion. The New York Herald is well known to be as much Southern as any paper published in Richmond, hating, opposing, and maligning everything free, whether in America or England. Gladly would that paper, and one or two others, have embroiled the world in war, if by so doing they could have saved slavery from Northern interference.

The English Standard, in February last, said, in speaking of the rams built by Mr. Laird for the Confederates, "that if they had escaped and avenged some of the slaughters in Southern towns by destroying a few of the fanatic Massachusetts or New York towns, Englishmen would be glad. Now if I, having read what the Standard and M. H. say, should represent them as a fair sample of English feeling on the American struggle, the statement would not only be false, but slanderous; I should not only then be bearing false witness against my neighbour," but helping to set

66