In conclusion, we would call attention to the articles of E. L. J. and "Irene," and the aspect which the debate assumes affirmatively, judging from these articles.

We assure E. L. J. that we are as far from believing that he or any man can adduce arguments to prove that war under any circumstances is unjustifiable, as we are from believing that he can justify Russia in her aggressive conduct, and fairly impeach our government.

de Titoff protests against all inquiry into the actual right of possession, and insists, in the Emperor's name, on the actual state of possession." If words mean anything, the Czar meant that the Turkish Cabinet should. make Russian dictation her guide, let the consequences be what they might. Here was the injustice of Russia, and here was the first step of aggression; and we may fairly challenge the power of E. L. J. to show it otherwise! With this conclusion, the claim of E. L. J.'s article, as a negative defence, at once falls to the ground.

"Irene" attempts to establish the same conclusion on a more reasonable basis, but with a success which must appear to all impartial minds limited indeed. That the possession of Constantinople by Russia could by any means advance the general security of the rest of Europe, is a gratuitous assertion on the part of "Irene," and appears to us as puerile and "silly" as it is opposed to historic facts. It were just as reasonable to speak of a wild beast safer loose than bound. The same motive which leads Russia to seek the possession of Constantinople, would lead her to seek the possession of Calcutta or Paris, however impracticable, perilous, or unjust the attempt would be.

E. L. J. assures us that he could establish the principle that all war is unjustifiable, and then, strange to say, proceeds to impeach our government ca the principle of non-intervention; and at the same time justifies the conduct of Russia in her interposition on behalf of the Greek church. "Admit this," says E. L. J.," as we must, and the right of Russia to interpose in behalf of the Greek communion becomes incontrovertible." Now, the fallacy of our opponent's position and entire strain of argument is evident; for, if all war is unjustifiable, how can Russian aggression be justified? E. L. J. would have us think that this war originated in the craft of Louis Napoleon, that he fostered it in order to enlist more firmly on his side the sympathies of his "volatile nation." Now this is a weak insinuation, and one Russia is an aggressive power, and cirwhich no person can for a moment admit, cumstances fully show that she has no reunless perfectly blinded to the entire policy spect for nationalities, the common laws of of Russia for many years past. The cupidity nations, or the principles of common justice. of Russia had cast its Gorgon eye upon Con- Where, then, "Irene," is the pledge of secustantinople and the destruction of the nation-rity as it regards the peace of the rest of ality of Turkey long ago, and only waited Europe, with the iron hand of Russian an opportunity, however plausible, to blind aggression in full power at Constantinople? the powers of Europe to her perfidy, so as to Is this not a chimera of thy fancy, "Irene"? pursue her base policy. Is it not a fact that the ambition of Russia

E. L. J. attempts to gloss the facts of the case concerning the "Holy places," so as to lead the reader to the conclusion that France, and not Russia, infringed the common right involved in the dispute between the Greek and Latin churches. This is a misrepresentation. France and Russia had their distinctive rights in the "Holy places," by the permission of the Sultan; and when the disturbances broke out there, Russia manifested her intention and imperiousness by dictating to the Sultan as to what he should do, to such an extent as to neutralize the Turkish independence. We refer E. L. J. to the passage and correspondence mentioned in a former part of this article-"M.

has long been the extension of her vast domain? Did not the accession of Finland give a keener edge to her insatiate ambition? Did she manifest any reluctance to accept part of Poland? What has been her policy ever since? Has it not been brought to light in the late crisis, that Constantinople, in the councils of Russia, was doomed to be her future victim? We say, then, upon the clearest data, that the possession of Turkey by Russia would endanger the best interests of all Europe. "Irene" proceeds to argue that the war was unjustifiable on the part of England because her “honour and interests" were not at stake! This appears to us a great fallacy, and leads us to entertain

strange ideas of what national "honour and interests" really are in "Irene's" political creed. We deny the right of one nation to stand by and see another attempt to destroy a feebler power, without its manifesting in the eyes of the world its righteous displeasure. It is as monstrous and unnatural as acquiescence in murder itself! It is base as the principle of that monster evil, slavery! Reason, conscience, and the purest sympathies of our common humanity, in alliance with the holiest of religions, rise up in startling opposition to the vile thought!

What meaneth our ambassador's presence at the Turkish court if it mean not that England regards the nationality of Turkey as distinct and sacred as her own, and would at all times, and under all circumstances, seek to consolidate their mutual interests? If it mean this much, then is the honour of England concerned, and for ever forfeited, if she use not the power which God has given her in the open defence of violated nationalities! There is a voice of deepest inspiration sounding from the wrecked nationalism of Poland of Hungary-of republican Italy! It speaks to thee, O England! Would that the wild agony of its cries had moved thee, as it must yet do, to righteous action and holy sympathy!

As it regards British interests in India, and their safety, with Russia in possession of Constantinople, we would ask "Irene," how came England in possession of part of India? Is not Russia in possession of the same means as those by which those possessions were obtained, and to a much greater extent? She who could promise Turkey 400,000 soldiers and a fleet of ships, " Irene" would have us imagine, possesses no power to threaten our Indian possessions with her encroachments; not even with the Black Sea entirely under her power, and all Asia, between Constantinople and India, incapable of anything like successful resistance. The impossibility of which " Irene" dreams would soon vanish before the resolution of Russian cupidity, did circumstances permit.

If, the difficulty of invasion does now exist on the part of Russia, even to the extent " Irene" imagines, where is the logic or the logician able to show that the subjugation of Turkey by Russia would secure either the peace of Europe or the safety of our eastern possessions? In our humble opinion, the conclusions of " Irene" amount to a positive absurdity,-conclusions which intimate the fallacy of his argumentation, and the ignis fatuus principles which constitute his politi

cal creed!

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-III.

ROLLA.

It is a distressing circumstance that we yet in the course of the war, have been rejected, have to ask the question, What is the present though they are such alone as that power, war for? why is it waged? This question without acknowledging the complete abanbecomes more difficult to answer as the war donment of her political position and rank, proceeds. The circumstances attending it could be expected to make. The longer the are changing from time to time. So meagre war goes on, the more inveterate will it and unsatisfactory were the original grounds become; and if it ever was a war justifiable of the war, that our most eminent states- on the part of this country, it may totally men long resisted the outcry of the people; change its character, while we may be comand, had it not been for the public clamour pelled to proceed with it. This shows at against Russia, there would have been no once that, from the very nature of the inwar at all; and we are here forcibly re-strument, war should only be a last resort, minded of the responsibility of journalism, in leading the country into a war which is now regretted. The original grounds for entering into war have, however, long ago disappeared. At the same time, as the process of change goes on, there does not, unfortunately, arise a proportionate probability of the war closing by means of negotiation. The proposals of Russia, made from the first, and again and again renewed

and that the duty of waging war may not immediately arise in the case of such proceedings as Russia adopted regarding Turkey.

Nothing can be drawn from the fact that the war is popular. This was the case with many of our former wars when they commenced, though waged in opposition to the freedom of nations. We would tax our American possessions;-our national pride was wounded by opposition to an unjust

demand. A war was the consequence, | doing substantial justice, to the christian which showed us defeated-a war which population. We will make no attempt to dislocated, and made at enmity for gene- rouse Hungary, Poland, and Italy. The rations, the Anglo-Saxon race. Our wars voice of liberty calls to us in vain. It with France in modern times arose from may fairly be inquired, Is the maintenance the intense hatred of the British people to of a tottering despotism a justifiable ground democracy. If it be answered that the for going to war? Even if it were, there character of the people has since changed, are duties still more sacred; even if we can we would say, Consider our Indian warfare, uphold Turkey, is that object worth the our wars at the Cape, and the recent war, with its many uncertainties? Is it the Chinese War. These wars have scarcely a primary obligation upon us to enter into a defender, although waged only a few years long and bloody war for the sake of that ago. They were defensible only on the profligate power, taxing the poor, and lavishground of opposing human liberty, oppressing ing the best blood of the land? We think the weak, and of territorial aggrandizement. not. True, it is said the safety of Great Looking to what we have done rather than Britain is involved. There cannot be a to our professions, we had no reason to blame greater mistake. The possession of Turkey Russia for seeking territorial advantages. would bring Russia no nearer India. The Neither had France-France, which suc- distance is immense. Our fleets would cumbs to the usurpation of the coup d'état, afford us an ample passage in time of war. and whose soldiers have learnt their valour The possession of Turkey might give Russia on the plains of Algeria. As a nation, we certain advantages, and, in course of time, have been most guilty in regard to our past Russia might invade our Indian possessions. wars. The governments but echoed in these Russia might do so as it is, if it were not wars the voice of the people. It is idle to for the barriers which prevent her. We are throw on governments the responsibility of not, however, justified in entering on a war the wars of our ambition, our treachery, our with reference to contingencies so remote. crime. We yet retain the territories so ill If that be a fair ground for war, we ought gotten. We would not part with a fraction to have opposed by force of arms the r French of our power, though won by the grossest conquest in Algeria; and, in fact, we ought injustice. We allowed Hungary and Poland to be prepared constantly for war. We have to be sacrificed, and Rome to be invaded. other duties to our population than this. To this hour we stand committed to a course Our real obligation, our real strength, is not of injustice; we even yet impose an adverse to interfere to the extent we do in contiestablishment on the Irish population;—and nental politics-not to be led into war on why? Because our people are wanting in vague suspicions, or in consequence of disa sense of justice;-they entertain the bitter- tant, contingent, and possibly false dangers. est hatred of the Catholic as a man. We Our experience should teach us this. We talk of defending liberty. It is mere talk. have been induced to enter into war often We are spending our blood and treasure in by an erroneous notion of our duty to meddle the cause of despotism; in aiding a despot- with the disputes of other nations, and we ism worse than any other that can possibly have gained no real strength. We have always be conceived; a despotism so gross, that the been losers. We have taxed ourselves beyond Greek population, who largely preponderate any other country to support rotten thrones. in number over the Turks, naturally look to It is even probable we shall be compelled Russia as the means of freeing them; a to pay the armies of continental despots as despotism which is fast decaying, and is the war proceeds. The statement may not doomed to perish. In the unhappy struggle be true that Austria demands reimbursewe are compelled to resist the efforts of ment of her expenses in the occupation of Greece to assert the freedom of the Hellenic the Principalities, but there is nothing more We would crush any attempt at in- likely than that John Bull, courageous in surrection in Turkey, although nothing war, but easily duped and led into war,would be more justifiable in the circum-led into it now, as before, as if he were an stances of the case. We refuse to demand utter fool,-will have to pay for foreign from Turkey any change of relations for armies from the produce of his manufac

race.

tories and farmyards, that the lazy Turk | humble Russia; that even if humbled, the may enjoy himself in the seraglios at Stam- prospect of peace would be distant; that we boul, or execrate the Frank as he passes never can get an adequate compensation for along the streets of Constantinople. If ever, our national expenditure in such a war; and then, there was a country which required they are glad when any opportunity of peace clear and decisive grounds for entering into is afforded: and thus, in effect, they confess war, it is our own: but we have again gone that the war was waged from the beginning into war on grounds so vague, so uncertain, on insufficient grounds. The character of and so changeable, as to render it obvious the war was known to the people at first. All that the lessons of experience have been this should have weighed with them to prethrown away, and that we are committing vent the nation entering into a war, whose the same error as at the commencement of consequences none could foresee- a war the century of entering into war on un- from which it was so doubtful if any good tangible grounds, without an adequate con- could be derived, and which would immeception of what it may prove to be-a war diately strain the national resources. Nothrowing back the tide of progress in our thing but the most extreme peril could country a war from which we can reap no justify a war of the kind referred to. The advantage-and a war which, like most small chances of success, and the interests others, will end by the contending nations of the empire, injured to an incalculable being in much the same position towards extent by a war, might reasonably have been each other as before it began. The very allowed to preponderate over the vague idea clearest grounds were especially required to of injury to us by Russian aggression. If justify the present war. It has already cost such considerations were not obvious to the us much both of blood and treasure. It nation before the commencement of the war, may rage on fields far off from the Crimea, they ought at least to have impelled the and blast with its savagery years distant acceptance of the offers of peace. It cannot from that passing away. Russia has strong be reasonably disputed, that whether Russia natural defences, mighty battlements, and a has been to blame or not, the question of vast fanatical population. There is no pro- our small natural connection with the bability of that nation yielding-no pro- matters in dispute, the uncertainty of such bability of success for years-no probability a war, and the many home interests affected of that nation being thoroughly humbled by it, must enter largely into any discussion no probability that, if humbled, peace would of whether the war is justifiable towards the be the result. Our wisest statesmen say population of this country. We think there truly, to humble Russia would, if possible, would be no fair obligation on us to underonly lead her to gather up and concentrate take a war for the emancipation of Poland, her forces for a deadlier blow. Some terri- Hungary, and Italy; the war, however, being tory we might acquire, but we must keep it begun, it might assume a nobler and more by the sword-keep it by means which heroic character, should it of necessity be would extend permanently the burden of our carried on, if we were to seek the restoration national responsibility. We may humble of the lost liberty of these countries. That Russia, still we should be without peace, question is not before us. and in every event without the smallest the war as it is- -a war to assist Austria in prospect, with reference to her resources, the keeping down Italy; to assist Austria and spirit of her population, and her proximity Prussia in retaining their portions of Poland; to the scene of action, of anything but a and to assist Turkey in repressing the liberbrief repose. One after another our states- ties of the population over whom she is a men are recoiling from the war. They usurper, and possibly in frightening Russia. would accept of peace on the most moderate The offers of peace repeatedly made by the terms, though little more than what Russia latter power might not be kept, yet surely was willing from the first to agree to. the stake at issue was not such as properly That those terms do not differ much, only to make the allied powers justified in throwshows the folly of the war altogether. They ing them away, and encountering the dread see distinctly that a feeble warfare will not alternative of war. do; that it may be impossible after all to

We must look at

We cannot admit that the diplomatic

correspondence is difficult to understand. | Russia then re-asserted her first claim. Even yet the Russian Emperor was willing to agree to the Vienna Note, with a clause to be adopted by the Conference to satisfy the Turkish scruples. The Turks that very week declared war, contrary to the advice of the allies. Hence we are dragged into a war. We must fight for Turkey, forsooth, because she chooses to reject the terms we think reasonable, and insists on war. Whether Russia was originally right or wrong, instead of assisting Turkey when she commenced war, our duty was to have turned on her, and demanded that she should stop it. The only kind of answer that can be given to the question, Is the war justifiable? is, that, ignoring the whole course of the negotiations, we seek to repel Russian aggression in the east of Europe. We have shown, however, that the war is not justifiable on that ground, and we submit that it was the duty of the government to have procured a peace on the terms of the Vienna Note, and that, refusing to do so, the war is unjustifiable.

Any idea of difficulty consists simply in this. The course of diplomacy presented every reasonable ground for peace;-why is it, then, that we are now at war? It is our opponents who require to answer this; and it is reasonable to expect, on such a subject, not half a dozen of hypotheses, but a clear and satisfactory reply. No party maintained the complete independence of Turkey. Her case was exceptional. She is an anti-European usurpation, opposed to the Christianity and the civilization of Europe. The Turks maintain by force authority over the Christian population, who are treated as if they belonged to an inferior race. Within the borders of Turkey are certain Holy Shrines. France insisted on certain obsolete claims on behalf of the Latin church. Russia then insisted on equal rights with France. Her claims were, in a large measure, acknowledged by the Four Powers at the Vienna Conference. Had it not been for the British minister at Constantinople, Prince Menschikoff's final note would have been accepted by the Sultan. This would have placed Turkey in no worse position than before. There was no discoverable difference between it and the Vienna Note of the Four Powers. The Turks, knowing they were sure of making any use of the blood and treasure of England, rejected Prince Menschikoff's proposal. The Russians then crossed the Pruth, which they were entitled to do, so far as former treaties were concerned, and which was declared not to be a casus belli. The Vienna Conference commenced. The Vienna Note was agreed to by the Four Powers, and was declared by them to be a reasonable settlement of the dispute. It was accepted by Russia. Turkey, however, after all refused to accede to the note, on a question of interpretation, without any tangible reason.

In conclusion, we ask if it be our duty to oppose Russian territorial aggrandizement?whether it was our clear duty to enter into the present war? Consider the evils which the war has caused, and will yet entail on us. Our duty rather was to develop our resources, to abolish our bad institutions, to unite all classes by education and equal laws, to organize more thoroughly our army and navy, and to give to the people the defence of the country. Instead of that, the empire is weakened, impoverished by an uncertain contest, inconsiderately entered on, in consequence of the vaguest grounds, waged with the narrowest views, and leading to no results substantially different from the state of things which marked its commencement. Edinburgh. T. U.

HABIT OF THINKING.-Thought engenders thought. Place one idea upon paper, and others will follow it, until you have written a page. You cannot fathom your mind. There is a well of thought there which has no bottom. The more you draw from it, the more clear and fruitful it will be. If you neglect to think yourself, and only use other people's thoughts, you will never know what you are capable of. At first your ideas may come out in lumps, homely and shapeless; but time and perseverance will arrange and polish them. Learn to think, and you will learn to write; the more you think, the better you will express your ideas.