righteous judgment, whose tones were so terrible that their echo vibrates with

thrilling import to this day. "Am I my brother's keeper?" Yes; and were it not so, conscience would lose her function, and judgment be deprived of her faculty. Many warm hearts, that now beat with yearning solicitude on behalf of a brother's welfare, would then be untroubled, bewildered minds calmed, and anxious thoughts dissipated. But as it is, when man looks around, and sees calamity, misery, and suffering on every side, with the consciousness of his power to relieve, and the promptings of his nature full of sympathy, then does he realize that he is his brother's keeper; nor can he shun the condition it involves the responsibility for his welfare-nor throw off the duties that condition charges him to fulfil. Thus, while there is a law of harmony throughout all nature, it is only the perverted mind that cannot or will not trace it. It requires no logic to prove instinctive duties, much less rhetoric to enforce them; for every man feels that there is a higher allegiance than that due to a sovereign, a holier service than even that of devotion to fatherland, and sterner duties than law or governments can claim. The lofty principle implanted in every man's breast teaches him that humanity is not a dogma for schoolmen simply, to be discussed, argued, and laid aside, but a living element, whose influence must permeate society; and it is here that we would rather converge than generalize. If it be true that man cannot divest himself of those functions which are the law of his being, and that to him is committed the responsibility and guardianship of his brother's weal; it must also be true that man loses none of those rights when he forms societies, corporations, and nations: nor is it imparting a new element to the subject to say, that if man owns duty as man to man, none the less do men to men as corporated nations. So, if man in his individual capacity is bound to succour the helpless, and to extend his aid to

the oppressed, so must nations also have the same charge. It is little to the purpose to talk of political expediency, and that what is morally right may be politically wrong: we are taking higher ground; we claim for man and nations the exercise of their prerogatives. A people or a nation which is downtrodden must ever demand sympathy and aid; for no crime they can commit can justify the enslavement of an entire people. It may be right to punish a nation for the wrongs it commits; it is with impressions such as these that, when we are asked whether the British "Government ought to render substantial aid to the Poles in their efforts to regain independence," we have no hesitancy in stating it as our solemn conviction that England (though we love her well) forgets her high mission when she refuses to succour a sister nation in distress. It is a humiliating thought, that a country which has been ruled by an Elizabeth and a Cromwell -with reminiscences of Cressy and Agincourt, with all the associations of liberty purchased by blood-should in s later age sycophantly bow down at the footstool of despotism, and be ready to lick the dust of an imperial robe-that will bear insult and obloquy from an overgrown and bombastic people, whom our fathers nurtured, and yet proffer no aid, or exhibit no sympathy by material effort to free from the oppressors' yoke an heroic people, and liberate from fettered servitude a country whose only crime has been that she has loved herself, her sons, and liberty.-D. S.

Here

When treaties are solemnly made, they should not be recklessly broken; and it is the duty of the various parties thereto to see that their neighbours scrupulously keep such treaties. we have a sacred treaty-on the strict observance of which hangs the few remaining privileges of a brave but much wronged people-shamefully violated; and that, too, notwithstanding the remonstrances of three of the leading and several of the smaller European powers. The Poles have not revolted

without cause, but have actually been goaded to insurrection by the very severe and unjust measures resorted to by Russia; and, besides, they are fighting for freedom, the privileges of which they have for a long time ceased to enjoy. We think it high time to check the aggressive practices of Russia, and to "nip in the bud "the arrogant designs of the Czar, especially as we are likely to be sooner or later dragged into war, and that in less advantageous times. We hope that, for once, Poland may “find mercy in her woe;" that she will be succoured from many quarters; and that, in the glorious struggle, Britain may lead the van."-DUNDREARY.

แ

The treatment which the Poles have received at the hands of the Russian Government has been of a most cruel and revolting character; and England, as a Christian and civilized country, ought to render all the aid in her power to enable the Poles to regain and to maintain their independence. We justly consider that a nation like Poland, who are almost daily gaining victories over their opponents, are in every way capable of maintaining their national independence. England ought, therefore, to assist them in their glorious cause of "liberty and freedom."-W. P. W. B.

NEGATIVE,

Much as we sympathize with the Poles in their present attempt to regain their freedom, and great as is our detestation of the conduct of Russia, we cannot see that it is the duty of England to interfere by force of arms. If we go

to war to assist the weak and the downtrodden in one country, we may be justly called upon to do it in others. If our Government were to adopt such a policy as that, we should be continually at war, at least, until every tyrant was swept from the face of the earth. But, nevertheless, it is our duty, as lovers of freedom, as those who experience the blessings resulting from good government, to protest, and to continue protesting, against the wicked acts of Russia; to show her, in the kindest manner possible, the evils which arise from

the exercise of cruelty and oppression; and to seek, by well-timed mediation, a peaceful settlement of the present difficulties.-I. X. O.

It is my conviction that we ought, decidedly, not to render substantial aid to the Poles. We can show them that, in their struggle for independence, they have our entire sympathy; and, by means of negotiations with Russia, we can perhaps be of some assistance to them: but if we have recourse to the so-called "last argument of kings," Prussia will probably side with Russia, and the result will be another European war. Had England learned long ago to meddle less in the affairs of other countries, our national debt would not now amount to the enormous sum of £800,000,000. On the other hand, we invariably find that if an oppressed people are in earnest in their strivings after freedom, and if they are worthy to possess it, they sooner or later achieve it for themselves. "For freedom's battle, once begun, Bequeath'd by bleeding sire to son, Though baffled oft, is ever won." H. F. S.

Let it not be for one moment supposed that it is from any want of sympathy with the glorious efforts of the Poles to establish their independence that we take the negative of this question. No man with the love of anything like liberty in his heart could be guilty of such treachery to freedom, as to look with indifference on the events of the last six months or so in Poland. We have all, in a manner, identified ourselves with the movement; every success of the Poles brings gladness and a sort of pride to us all, and every one of their reverses fills us with sorrow and indignation; and it is but natural that it should be so. As far as our individual support and moral aid can go, we are obliged to give it; but as a nation, what are we to do? Can we in this case depart from the policy of non-intervention that has been our guide through the maze of foreign politics in similar cases? We answer, almost with grief, that we cannot. It is very doubtful whether, were we to do so,

we should not do more harm than good; for it would plunge us at once into another great European war, and we know well what that means; and, moreover, the ultimate success of the Polish insurrection would be as doubtful as before. We must as a nation be guided in our foreign policy by considerations of the probable results that may arise, and the general expediency of our position; and, as a general rule, we must hold fast by the principle of non-intervention

except in cases of urgent necessity." The Poles must be left to work out their own salvation for themselves, and must learn the duty of self-reliance. For us to don the red cap of liberty, and take up arms on behalf of all oppressed nationalities, would certainly be agreeable to the dreams of the cosmopolitan sentimentalist; but to men of common sense would seem absurd and hostile to our prosperity, nay, our very existence as a nation. Though the political horizon may be overcast with dark clouds of despotism and oppression, and the sun of liberty be in many cases hidden, yet let us not fear; it cannot be so for ever; the sun will break through them all, and in the appointed time the same warm and genial beams that illuminate our land will visit "all nations that on earth do dwell."-J. G. J.

The independence of Poland is an impossibility. It might be converted into a nation, and kept as such by the tutelage of the ambassadors of various powers; but a free nation it will never be. To send aid for such an attempt would be a waste of men and money. It is only the Polish subjects of Russia who have risen; the insurrection has not produced any perceptible effect in Galicia or Russian Poland. The Poles, therefore, whatever their past wrongs, are now rebels against the Russian Government. Are we to encourage, by substantial aid, insurrection and civil war among the subjects of a power with whom we are on friendly terms? Admit that they have been goaded into rebellion by the tyranny of underlings, and the enforcement of the conscription act;

that they desire again to be free;—are we to interfere and enforce their demand at the cannon's mouth? There have been and are now persons who clamour loudly for the repeal of the union with Ireland; they have at various times raised insurrections to accomplish their object. They believed themselves to be the most ill-used people under the sun. What should we have thought to have seen a Russian fleet, with arms, ammunition, and several regiments of Cossacks, sent over to assist the insurgents? The French sent aid for the cause at Fishguard and Killala. They also afforded substantial aid to our American colonists in their revolt. What was the consequence? War was immediately declared against France, and prosecuted with rigour. The insurgent Poles are Russian subjects. Every de facto government has a right to govern its subjects according to its own discretion. It may be right enough for peoples to choose their own government: but they must be able to establish and maintain it ere it can be internationally recognized. A war with Russia would be the result of our substantial aid. Are we prepared for this? We cannot justify it as we did the former one, for here is no de facto government, as in the case of Turkey, to require our services as its allies. A war with Russia would necessitate a war with Prussia and Austria; both are too interested in the struggle to remain neutral. France would help England. Rhenish Prussia would be seized; and, if the conclusion were successful, retained by that power. French influence would preponderate through Germany. If defeated, Russian influence would preponderate in Austria and Prussia. In either case a grasping and unscrupulous power would be aggrandized at our expense. We should bear the brunt of the war, and come out of it with diminished influence, and the object still unattained; for though we may defeat and conquer Russia, Austria, and Prussia, it does not follow that we can establish a free and independent Poland.-R. S.

The Government of this country is not by any means justified in espousing the cause of the Poles. To do so, they must be compelled to make war with Russia, which, under the present circumstances, would be an act of great injustice. The Poles have no fault to find, save that they have been conquered in war, and their country made an integral part of that of their conquerors. The popular feeling, not only in England, but in France, is strongly in favour of what they believe to be an oppressed kingdom, trampled on by a mightier; but the Government, notwithstanding this, ought not to be a representative of every mania with which the people are affected. At present it is not unlikely that Ireland may rebel. Why should not France and Russia interfere and assist her? Their pretence would be as good as ours in aiding Poland. It would be an act of gross injustice to help the subject to mutiny against the Sovereign in either case; and the idea of England, who has ever been noted for her impartiality and forbearance, being guilty of such an act, is simply preposterous.-MARWOOD H.

The division of the world into countries and dynasties, generally of equal power, if not of equal extent, assists in producing our opinion that England and other nations should be neutral with regard to the present tumultuous state of Poland. The dispute originated between themselves, and the settlement of it will have no material effect on other countries. Besides, it is one of the chief duties of a Government to preserve, as far as it would be consistent with the position and prosperity of the country, its people in a state of peace. War is a curse to the country it visits. Its very name is enough to create alarm throughout the land. What Government, then, is so mad as to plunge its country into this fathomless dungeon before it is absolutely necessary? The death of thousands, the ruin of thousands of families, and the poverty of the nation itself, are trifles in com

He

parison with the good the war is to preserve. The tide of destruction is rolling throughout Poland, devastating the country in every direction. Surely this is awful enough, without letting loose England's strength and wealth to be engulfed in this whirlpool of blood. The end for which Poland is ruining herself would be effected by the same means, increased to tenfold extent, which she is employing herself. The end could be partially, if not wholly, obtained in a peaceful way. England has seen the Czar, and has formed an opinion of him, both as a man and an emperor, which places him high in her estimation, and which reports from all quarters strengthen and confirm. has published his intention towards Poland. It is universally allowed, by all unconnected with the country, as kind and liberal. The sanguine hopes that a few unimportant victories inspired, made the Poles demand a greater concession-complete independence. Sudden changes, we know, are frequently accompanied with pernicious effects. No doubt the Czar and his Government consider that a fall grant of the Polish demands would be similarly attended, both to themselves and the Russians. Such terms as the Czar has offered embrace all that is necessary for the happiness and prosperity of the Poles. We cannot but think, then, that the Poles are pursuing a will-o'the-wisp, under the bewitching name of independence. They show a ruinous obstinacy in rejecting these liberal conditions. Had the Czar been a tyrannical master, ruling them with that sway which their position might induce him to adopt, there would, perhaps, be reason for rising in bodies, and ende avoaring to obtain a change of government; but throughout he has shown himself to be no tyrant, and has made most liberal and sufficient conditions. These are some of the reasons which induce us to think that England should not afford substantial aid to the Poles. -BN.

QUESTIONS REQUIRING ANSWERS.

386. Could any of your numerous correspondents inform me who are at present the editors of the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews ?-MARWOOD H,

387. I should be glad to receive a full explanation of the expression, "caviare to the general."-H. F. L.

388. In the close of his "History," Macaulay speaks of a Gloucester election, but the result is left untold; can any of your readers supply the information?-GUIDO.

389. Thanks to Norval for his reply to question 360. With respect to inquiry 369, he writes, "S. S. should specify some instances of offensive conduct." Can both Houses of Parliament expel members on any account? If they can, in the case of a peer, does the expulsion continue in force during his life? In the case of one of the Commons, does the expulsion render a future return of the same member nugatory? Perhaps Norval will kindly state under what circumstances the Houses can exercise the power of expulsion.-S. S.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

351. Isocrates (436-338 B. C)the "father of eloquence" and the 66 common master of orators," as Cicero calls him, and him whom Milton mentions in his sonnet to the Lady Margaret Ley as "the old man eloquent," in a quotation now become a commonplace though himself the most able teacher of oratory, and the one who made a fortune by the instructions he gave, was of so timid a disposition, that he was wholly unable to address a public meeting. This is the oldest authentic instance of incompetence to speak in public, coupled with the capacity to write well-unless we except Moses, the Jewish lawgiver, who was "not eloquent," but "slow of speech, and of a slow tongue" (Exod. iv. 10).-R. M. A.

384. Guy, Earl of Warwick.-This

famous personage holds a place midway between the real and ideal. The only thing we can be certain of respecting him is, that he has served as a peg whereon to hang many a legend by writers of various countries. Ellis has suggested that Egil, an Icelandic warrior, who became the hero of many odes composed on the occasion of the battle of Brunanburgh, may have been transformed by some Norman monk into Guy. "This," observes Price, "is but conjecture." As a hero of romance— though evidently referable to an AngloNorman origin-Guy can scarcely be traced with certainty to a more remote date than the early part of the 14th century. Chaucer mentions him in the "Rime of Sir Thopas," and Percy gives two old English Poems on him in the Reliques." See Knight's Cyclopædia, Biography, "Warwick."-Lydgate was a monk of the Benedictine Abbey of Bury, of whom very little is known. He was born about 1375, educated at Oxford, ordained sub-deacon in 1389, deacon, 1393, priest, 1397. He travelled in France and Italy, and returned a complete master of the language and literature of both countries. He studied chiefly Dante, Boccacio, and Alain Chartier; and became so distinguished a proficient in polite learning, that he opened a school in his monastery for teaching the sons of the nobility. He was a most voluminous writer, as many as 251 pieces being ascribed to him, the largest of which, "The Siege of Troy," he undertook at the command of Henry V. He possessed great versatility, and, whether grave or gay, nothing came amiss to his pen. A pension for life was granted him by Henry VI., in 1440. The date of his death is uncertain, probably 1460 or 1461. See Johnson's "Lives of the Poets," Knight's "Cyclopædia of Biography," "Bibliotheca Anglo-Poetica," Ritson's Bibliographia Poetica."-Robert de Brunne, or, more properly speaking,

66