We have now reviewed and compared the two ages in their moral, intellectual, and physical aspects, and find that, though civilization has greatly improved and extended its influence all over England, the inhabitants, instead of degenerating, have been immensely improved in every way. For this reason, therefore, do we maintain that civilization does not necessitate demoralization.

Up to this point we have said little or nothing of the mollifying influence of civilization on national character. After a few remarks on this subject we will close our present article. It is well known that the public mind of England has softened while it has ripened. We need only look into a book of the seventeenth century to see that the soul of man is more humane than it was then. The discipline of workshops, of schools, and of private families, though not more efficient than that of the present day, was infinitely harsher. Masters, well born and bred, were in the habit of thrashing their servants. Pedagogues knew no other means of imparting knowledge than by the lash. Husbands and fathers were not ashamed of beating their wives and families. Nor was this severity confined to private domestic circles. The implacability of hostile factions was almost beyond conception. Whigs murmured because Stafford was suffered to die without seeing his bowels burned before his own face. Tories reviled and insulted Russell as his coach conveyed him from the Tower to the scaffold. As little mercy was shown to people of an humbler rank. If an offender was put into the pillory, it was fortunate for him if he escaped with his life from the shower of brick-ends and stones which the mob assembled round never failed to hurl at his person. If an unfortunate wretch was tied to a cart-tail, hundreds followed and exhorted the hangman to give it to the fellow well, and make him howl. Gentlemen used to make parties of pleasure to Bridewell for the purpose of seeing the women whipped, whose employment was to beat hemp, and who for some petty offence, we suppose, were to be punished. Fights, compared to which those that we sometimes hear of in the present day would be a refined spectacle, formed a great attraction to all. Multitudes assembled to see gladiators hack each other to pieces, and nothing produced such a burst of applause as when one succeeded in cutting off the finger, or in poking out the eye, of the other. How different is it now! How much more refined and lenient are the people of the present day! Sights which attracted and immensely delighted the subjects of King James II., disgust and pierce the hearts of those over whom Victoria rules. In the present age cruelty is revolting, though dealt on the back of dumb animals, and seldom fails to be severely punished; two hundred years ago it was the source from which both high and low derived no small portion of their pleasure and relaxation. Surely this is a beneficial change, and one that speaks much for civilization in a high degree.

We expect our opponents will revel in the apparent cause of the fall of empires of old, and the apparent sad effect civilization had on 1864.

I

the inhabitants of Rome and Greece; but though we have not anticipated their arguments in this article, we shall be ready and able, we trust, to prove that civilization, in the strict meaning of the word, was not the cause of the downfall of these and other nations. We are anxious to see what our opponents are able to advance in support of their opinion, for we are fully persuaded that we have on our side all that proof requires. ELPISTICOS.

History.

HAS NAPOLEONISM BEEN BENEFICIAL TO EUROPE?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-II.

IN the consideration of a question so vast in its extent, and so complicated in its bearings, as the one that forms the subject of the present discussion, every one will admit that we shall find more difficulty in efficiently investigating its merits than in dealing with an abstract, positive question, admitting, from its nature, of but two decided issues- -a certain negative, or a certain affirmative. As, for example, "Was Napoleon the First a virtuous hero, or was he a scoundrel?"-in discussing which we should have before us a clear task, viz., to show from this line of conduct, or through this series of events, that he was good, or he was vicious. But in dealing with a question so extensive, and involving issues of such magnitude, as the one before us, we are sure to find great difficulty in drawing correct inferences and arriving at just conclusions. Still we may, by a careful, patient, and intelligent investigation of the subject, arrive at certain and convincing proofs that Napoleonism has not only raised France from a state of chaotic confusion in manners, in politics, in commerce, and, worse than all, in religion, to a position second to but one empire in Europe; that it has not only emancipated France from the weak and vacillating rule of the Bourbon dynasty, crushed for ever the tyranny and insolence of the nobility and landed proprietors, and, as a natural consequence, raised the social position of the down-trodden millions of France, elevated the dignity of honest labour into its proper and legitimate sphere, but that it has likewise benefited Europe generally. If we consider the state of France prior to and contemporary with the birth of Napoleon the First, from about the year 1750 to the famous 18th Brumaire, year 8 of the Republic (9th November, 1799), when, after having succeeded in accomplishing the overthrow of the "Directory," he caused himself to be declared First Consul,—we shall find, with one or two notable exceptions, that the nations of Europe vied one with another in an unholy effort to trample under foot all liberty,

all independence, every effort of the people to assert their rights, in contradistinction to what Governments affirmed to be the "divine right of kings;" if we remember that in unhappy France the embers of a mighty revolution were smouldering unheeded and unobserved, whilst, in the lull that preceded the storm, a whole nation, following the example of its rulers, gave itself up to every species of debauchery and licentiousness, which its literature stooped to gild and paint with the semblance of pleasure, whilst its priesthood connived at its garbled iniquity, its unbounded licentiousness, its fearless and unmasked villany and corruption, whilst amidst a social chaos no nation ever knew before, with its institutions crumbling, and the whole fabric of its laws, military forces and organizations, and the whole French constitution, toppling, tumbling, and crushing about its ears; amidst violated virtue and rampant vice, amidst broad and licensed infamy and unblushing atheism, whose combined influence must (had it not been providentially stayed in its course) have overflowed Europe with ills and anarchies, bloodshed and revolution, before which the mind halts in a mere attempt to estimate their results. Napoleon the First appears on the stage of the world's history, and wields with no feeble or faltering hand the destinies of a vast nation, in whose ears rang the grievances and misgovernments of Louis XVI., the Assemblies, the Convention, the Directory, and the Consulate. Need we be surprised that so consummate a soldier, and so energetic a statesman, as the petit corporal, had succeeded in grasping the supreme power; that he held it with a mighty grasp; and finding a vast army at the disposal of his personal desires, himself ambitious in the highest degree, and France at his heels panting for glory, Napoleon-mean, selfish, unscrupulous, after a series of magnificent victories in the fields of battle and of diplomacy, "in council prudent, as in action brave," after some defeats, perhaps more glorious than his victories, with half Europe at his feet, fancying himself invincible, as he was ambitious-fell? and taught Europe this lesson,--that peoples have a right to choose their rulers; that that nation is not worthy the name, which endures the petty tyranny of effeminate rulers, whilst men can be found to govern it; but that, to secure happiness and prosperity for nations as for individuals, a wise ruler will divert their attention from the pursuit of the phantom, glory, to the nobler and more elevating paths attendant on commerce and material prosperity.

Napoleon fell, and like a bright hallucination disappeared, died at St. Helena. His memory lives in the revivification of France, in the awakening of Italy to freedom and greatness, in having set Europe thinking that there is yet some end in the life of nations other than the acquisition of new territory, the domination of the few, the living death of the many, the aggrandizement of a man or a nation at the expense of the happiness and welfare of millions. Napoleon's reign was from first to last characterized by a sacrifice of everything to expediency. He overran Europe, made kings and

unmade them, himself a mighty example of what concentration, energy, and unscrupulousness can achieve. Evil is, that good may be. Napoleon's wars, his terrible sacrifices of human life, endeared him to his people, and left Europe indebted to him; for wherever he conquered, there he planted the seeds of a vigorous and healthy government. Before his scythe ages of corruptions were numbered with the things of the past. In whatever country he placed his triumphant standard, he raised on the ruins of rotten constitutions a noble monument to commemorate his victory, by instructing the people in the arts of good government, and by causing just laws to be administered to rich and poor alike.

It was left for his nephew and successor, Napoleon III., to become as successful and as memorable a diplomatist as his great uncle was a general. Educated in the school of adversity, he has by a succession of happy chances made himself the most powerful autocrat in Europe; has diverted the course of political negotiation from our capital to his own; and, in fine, has made the destinies of the world revolve round Paris instead of London.

Possessed of the power to become a disturber of the peace of Europe, he is disposed to pursue a conciliatory course, and has always shown himself the steady friend of England. Of this there is little doubt, that he is the man for France. He has inaugurated a policy of free trade in France, that already has been of great benefit to both France and this country, and is a measure that will doubtless do more to maintain amicable relations between the two countries than centuries of friendly visits between their respective monarchs, or whole miles of treaties and diplomatic despatches; a measure which has enabled this country to bear with comparative immunity the otherwise dreadful effects of the civil war in the United States of America, and one which will undoubtedly not only mutually enrich and benefit the two countries principally concerned, but tend to promote peace and distribute prosperity over the whole of Europe. War and commerce are diametrically opposed to each other. Where the people of a country are deeply and extensively engaged in commerce, they will not let Governments or monarchs go to war.

Wherever commerce exists, its influence promotes all that tends to render mankind happy and contented. Wherever the civilizing influence of commerce is felt, arts and sciences, literature, and the belles lettres flourish, and wealth and happiness, wise and useful legislation, attended by liberal and merciful administration of the laws, are invariably found. Divine Providence has widely distributed the blessings the earth affords, man's enterprise has brought them together from the ends of the earth, but man, through a series of years, has, by unwise custom-house duties, prevented twothirds of the human race from fully enjoying the benefits of commerce. Louis Napoleon has, in opposition to past practice in France, given to this country a moderate rate for exports and imports; we have done the same for France; other nations must,

seeing the benefits to be derived from untrammelled commerce, follow the glorious examples of France and England, abolish protection and high tariffs; and then, when a thoroughly commercial spirit spreads through Europe, war and its concomitant evils must inevitably give way to peace and prosperity, quietude and happiness; tyranny and anarchy, to representative institutions and wise government. Louis Napoleon, the interpreter of the Napoleonic policy, has, by taking this action in the matter of free trade, not only conferred a great boon on the millions of England and France, but instituted a reform which must ultimately spread over Europe. The advantages of its spread and extension I have already alluded to: by contributing to bring about such desiderata Napoleonism has benefited Europe. S. I. R. E.

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-II.

NAPOLEONISM is the "idea," the principle or principles which guide the actions of Napoleon, and we have to consider whether the cherishing or carrying out of these ideas has been, or is likely to be, beneficial to Europe. We use the word cherishing advisedly, for the mere knowledge that a man is cherishing designs against you, which you are sure he can never accomplish, is enough to cause you to look upon him with distrust. Napoleonism may be synonymized by another word-aggrandizement. The idea belonged to the uncle; it has descended to the nephew, who feels pledged to carry out his great kinsman's one idea, and it may be said to be the characteristic of the French people. Glory is the aspiration of every Frenchman; and it was because the great Napoleon did so much to satisfy this craving that he was so popular. In just such proportion as the present Emperor follows in the path of his uncle will he be acceptable to the French.

Aggrandizement is the one thing which constitutes Napoleonism, and it has not been beneficial to Europe; for,

1. Europe has been in a state of anxiety and restlessness ever since the coup d'état of December, 1852. This cannot have been beneficial to it. Each nation has felt that the man who could act in such a daring and unscrupulous manner was not to be trusted, even if he were master of his own actions-which, despot though he is, is very far from being the case. However well-intentioned the Emperor may be, he is not capable of doing as he wills. He was elected to his present position by the people, through the instrumentality of the army. The former think, and the latter know, that they were the cause of the Emperor's elevation, and therefore naturally expect that he will strive to please them. If he do not, they know that those who made can unmake him. There has been no collision between the parties as yet, because Napoleon is wise enough to take his soundings carefully and frequently, as he knows he would inevitably be wrecked upon the quicksands of military or popular revolution. He may govern with an iron hand, but it must be cased in velvet, and nothing must be done to disturb or irritate,