object for which the British minister was struggling; he wished to obtain for the ignorant masses of that country the glorious privilege of perusing the scriptures for themselves. I can only urge in reply, that though I am thoroughly sensible of the nature of that object, I cannot close my eyes to the danger of admitting that that motive was a sufficient one. If it was, on what ground shall we deny the right of the Emperor of Russia to interfere in behalf of those whose faith was so closely identified with his own. We may, of course, allege that the object for which Russia contended was a much lower one than that which influenced Britain. This could not be done without looking at the matter through a very distorted medium. While it is indisputable that we, as a nation, hold the sacred record in higher veneration than we do any of the so-called holy places, it does not follow that the Czar and his co-religionaries were necessitated to coincide with us in that opinion. Time has been, when these same places were believed by the people of Europe to be so sacred, as to be not only worthy of a contest as fierce as was ever waged, but also capable of conferring upon all who had the opportunity of visiting them a certain degree of sanctity, otherwise unattainable. Nay, this opinion-whether true or false is not the question-is still maintained by a large section of the christian world, entirely distinct from that to which the Emperor of Russia belongs. Who then shall say that, supposing that that Emperor and those attached to the Greek communion generally experience, as they unquestionably do, a similar degree of reverence for objects which they were in danger of having wrested from them, were not as much justified in endeavouring to obtain from the Sultan that degree of security which they deemed requisite under the circumstances, as was Lord John Russell in requiring protection for the Madiai? How any one can admit the justice in the one and deny it in the other case, is to me incomprehensible. So much for the charge of inconsistency, or, as B. S. phrases it, of insisting on one law for England and another for Russia. If the charge is applicable to any, it is assuredly to B. S. and those who indorse the opinions which he has thought proper to express on this question. The next objection to which I turn is that of B. S. and others, viz., that as we would not permit any power-such as the Popeto exercise the right of protecting the Roman Catholics in these islands, so neither should we allow the Czar to assert an analogous right in Turkey. But the cases are not parallel. The Romanists of Great Britain and Ireland are under a civilized and christian government. "Were it Hindoo or Buddhist," it has been well observed, "there might be some analogy;" but as it is, there is none. The Christians of the East dwell under a Mahometan and semi-barbarian government, and among a people who speak of and treat them, not as men, but as giaours, or dogs. It may be said by my opponents that this, however true at one time, is no longer the case. In the neighbourhood of the immediate seat of government I admit that a change for the better has taken place; but beyond this, acts of oppression and injustice prevail to an alarming extent. Habits of toleration and decrees of equality exist there only on parchment. Is a pasha in want of money, he at once turns to the christian merchant, and by imprisonment, the bastinado, or the torture, speedily extorts the sum required. Why, we venture to affirm that more acts of cruelty and oppression are still perpetrated in the Turkish empire than in all those countries of Europe which habitually inspire us with the strongest commiseration. Talk of the sufferings inflicted by a Bomba on his Neapolitans! Compared with those endured by the rayahs in Turkey, through the instrumentality of the authorities whose duty it was to have protected them, they are as nothing. In Asia Minor wholesale massacres of Christians have, without the slightest cause, taken place during the last ten years. Nay, even the domestic hearths of the Greek subjects of Turkey have been unable to secure their daughters from the grossest insults. Protection, under such circumstances, becomes absolutely imperative. Will any one venture to assert that anything of a similar kind is to be found in the relationship subsisting between the Roman Catholics of this country and the government under which they live? If not, why institute the comparison? Supposing, however, that the analogy was much stronger than any one will affirm it to be, it will afford no ground for condemning the Czar without, at the same time, condemning our own government. I appeal, in corroboration of this view of the matter, to the course of action pursued by Britain, in reference not only to Tuscany but also to Turkey. I have before me a series of documents, issued under the authority of both Houses of Parliament, from which it appears that the British government has interfered with the internal administration of the latter country to an extent which, with the knowledge of the complaints which have in this respect been raised against Russia, is certainly a little startling. We have, first, interposed, not only in behalf of those of the Sultan's subjects with whom, on the score of community of religion, we might reasonably be expected to sympathize, but we have also meddled in matters which only affected Mahometans. We have compelled the Sultan to enact laws which he finds it so difficult to enforce that he has, by attempting to put them into execution, more than once endangered the stability of his throne. We have extorted from him the celebrated Tanzimat, or reform in the general government of the country. We have, by threats, succeeded in getting a law established, securing the reception of Christian evidence on the same footing as that of Moslems. We have, moreover, obtained by the same means the repeal of a law which may fairly be regarded as a fundamental principle, inculcated in the Koran, viz., that all who, having expressed their adherence to Mahometanism, become converts to Christianity, shall be punished with death. "Her Majesty's government," said Lord Aberdeen, writing officially to Sir Stratford Canning, our ambassador at Constantinople, on the latter subject, "require the Porte to abandon, once for all, so revolting a principle. They have no wish to humble the Porte by imposing upon it an unreasonable obligation; but as a christian government, the protection of those who profess a common belief with themselves, from persecution and oppression on that account alone, by their Mahometan rulers, is a paramount duty with them, and one from which they cannot recede. Your excellency will, therefore, press upon the Turkish government, that if the Porte has any regard for the friendship of England-if it has any hope that, in the hour of peril, that that protection which has more than once saved it from destruction-it must renounce, absolutely and without equivocation, the barbarous practice which has called forth the present remonstrance. Her Majesty's government are so anxious," he adds, "for a good understanding with Turkey, that they wish to leave no expedient untried before they admit the conviction that all their interest has been misplaced, and that nothing remains for them but to look forward to, if not promote the arrival of, the day when the force of circumstances shall bring about a change which they will have vainly hoped to produce." How much liberty of action remained to the Porte after the reception of that document, a copy of which the ambassador was instructed to place in the hands of the Turkish authorities, it is not difficult to determine. Talk of the spirit of Russian domination! I defy any one to produce a document issued by Russia, the imperiousness of which surpasses that now quoted. What then? Simply this. If it was right, as our statesmen obviously believed it to be, for Britain to make such a claim upon Turkey, then surely it could not be far wrong for Russia to insist on a similar demand. A third objection, to which reference may be made, is that implied in the statement by "Rolla," that I have glossed the facts connected with the holy places, so as to lead to the belief that the war originated with France rather than with Russia. This he somewhat ignorantly characterizes as a "weak invention." I repudiate the charge. It is a mere statement of a fact which no man, whose eyes are not wilfully closed against the truth, can fail to perceive. At a very early stage of the proceedings, when affairs began to wear a somewhat complicated aspect, the Porte, after various equivocations, appointed a commission of ulemas, or doctors of the Mussulman law, to terminate the dispute. Their report confirmed several concessions which had been made to France. This, however, induced Russia to prefer a claim of a corresponding character, which, after a short time, was admitted, and sanctioned by a firman. This fact had no sooner transpired, than France, regarding it as inconsistent with the privileges she had acquired, sent M. de Lavalette to Constantinople to demand its revocation. He appeared there in a somewhat menacing attitude, having entered the Dardanelles, contrary to treaty, in a 90-gun war steamer, the Charlemagne. This was in 1852, showing most satisfactorily that his information. Any one can laugh at a difficulty, but it requires some degree of wisdom to solve it. I do not venture to affirm that B. S. lacks this wisdom, but most assuredly neither he nor his coadjutors have displayed it, in anything like a satis the first attempt to coerce the Sultan by physical force did proceed from France. It is to the proceedings which were at this period taking place that Colonel Rose alludes, in the passage quoted from the blue book, part 1, p. 47, where it is said, "M. de Lavalette protects his position by announcing the ex-factory attempt to reply to a query of so treme measures he would take should the Porte leave any engagement to him unfulfilled. He has more than once talked of the appearance, in that case, of a French fleet off Jaffa, and once he alluded to a French occupation of Jerusalem, when he said, 'We shall have all the sanctuaries."" If this does not convince our friend "Rolla" of the solidity of the ground on which I stood when making the affirmation of which he complains, he is more obtuse than I take him to be. My reply to "Maxwell" may be disposed of in a few words. "E. L. J. has quoted largely," he says, " from official communications to prove his position;" and adds "that this cannot properly be replied to, without entering into the conduct of the government on the matter." Who ever doubted it? But was not this the very question in dispute? To shrink from the discussion of it in the way that "Maxwell" did, indicated not a little of the spirit of him who "Fights and runs away, In hopes to fight another day," rather than of him who, feeling that his cause was a good one, 'struggled to the last." 66 The length to which this paper has already extended will, I regret, prevent me replying so fully as I could have wished to the arguments adduced by those who have undertaken to maintain that our government was justified in entering upon the war. All I can do is to offer a few general remarks on those statements which seem to call for special attention. It is hardly necessary for me to observe, that it must be evident to all who have perused the articles on the affirmative side of this question with any degree of care, that a considerable diversity of opinion prevails regarding the objects of the war. B. S. presumes to laugh at T. U., because he confessed he felt some difficulty in comprehending the nature of these objects. I must say, for my own part, I should have been much better pleased, had he been less sparing of his laughter and more liberal with we much moment. It could not, perhaps, be out his dominions, of that freedom of speech, without which man becomes little else than a machine, likely to engage in a war for freedom? Why, if "Rolla" had wished to pasquinade the two powers, he could not have adopted a more successful method than that of assigning such an object to the war. Is he blind to the fact, how much the governments of France and Britain have striven to obtain as their colleagues the bitterest foes to the nationalities and Europe's freedom? Another object of the war, according to "Rolla," was to vindicate the honour of England. "What means our ambassador's presence at the Turkish court," he inquires, "if it mean not that England regards the nationality of Turkey as distinct and sacred as her own?" This is a position so thoroughly astounding, that I am at a loss how to frame a reply to it. Does he mean, that because we have an ambassador in Turkey we are necessitated to uphold her in every dispute in which she may get embroiled? or is it only another mode of saying, that we are bound to support the independence of Turkey? On either supposition it is preeminently absurd. Our ambassador is, I apprehend, sent to Constantinople, as to every other place, simply to protect the interests of Britain and British subjects. The argument of "Rolla" would seem to imply, that because we have an ambassador at Naples, we are under the obligation of conforming to the wretched spirit of intolerance which characterizes the proceedings of its sovereign;-because we have an ambassador in the United States, therefore it is our duty to cultivate the spirit of liberty which obtains generally in that country; that, in short, in whatever country we happen to have a representative, so are we required to take as our model the tone of those among whom he resides. But, perhaps, as I have already remarked, "Rolla" means no more than that we should endeavour to support the independence of Turkey. This is an object, however, of such a vague and indefinite character, that it is difficult to grasp. What is that independence? Has it an actual existence? Judging from the mode in which it permits itself to be dictated to by the allies, Turkish independence is one of the grossest burlesques ever witnessed. What elements of integrity and independence are there in a country which has permitted itself within the last seventy years to lose the Crimea, the country round Odessa, Bessarabia, Greece, Egypt, and Algiers, to say nothing of the control over the Danubian Principalities? The country that was too weak or indolent to resist such a wholesale partition must be beyond doubt in the last stage of a galloping consumption, and is beyond all human aid. Its integrity and independence is a dream. If Britain is to spend millions of money for the maintenance of an object so Utopian, it is doing more for Turkey than it has yet done for the education, the sanitary treatment, and the moral training, of our own people. Well might a writer inquire, "What comfort will it be to us, after having expended our five hundred millions, and burdened ourselves and posterity for ages with an additional moiety of our national debt, to be told that the Mahometan delusion is guaranteed for another century?" 66 66 Another reason assigned in justification of the war is, that otherwise the safety of our Indian empire would have been at stake. The argument is adduced by Maxwell" and others, apparently with a full conviction of its validity. B. S., however, prefers to remain silent on the matter, honestly confessing that "it is not on this ground that he would attempt to justify the war." The admission is of some value, in so far as it evinces the fact that even the advocates of the war are not quite satisfied as to what are really its objects. The replies of T. U. and Irene on this point render it unnecessary for me to offer anything additional. Lastly, according to Maxwell," the British government were justified in entering upon the war, to secure the balance of power." What is meant by this expression? Does any one seriously contend that such a thing exists? Why, at the very moment that we were disputing with Russia about the aggressions we alleged she was making, we seized and have since added to our Indian possessions, one half of the kingdom of Burmah. If the balance of power were any other than a despicable sham, would this have been permitted by the other powers? The truth is, that the attempt to uphold such a balance for a year together, would be as wild an idea as it would be to expect that if all the property of Europe was equally divided to-day, it would continue so for a week. It is with nations as with men. Bequeath to a dozen men a thousand pounds each, and within twelve months you will find that, while that sum has been doubled or quadrupled by one, two, or three, it has all but passed out of the hands of the others. So is it with nations. Let them be equal in power to-day, and by industry, skill, and patience, a certain number of them will, ere long, outstrip the more indolent or extravagant. Gentlemen, my duty is accomplished. That I have failed to do that justice to it which its importance demanded I feel but too sensibly. My avocations are too constant and harassing to enable me to bestow that continued attention to it that I could have wished. Still, I trust I have so far succeeded in bring ing before you some grounds for hesitating to acknowledge the justice of the war, so far as nationally we are concerned. It is my firm conviction that, had this country at once resolved not to support Turkey, and told her so in plain language, the war would never have occurred. "If, on the other hand," to employ the words of Earl Grey, we had determined on an opposite course, and had made this known to Russia in proper time, that policy would equally have prevented a rupture." I may be told, as I have been by "Maxwell," that this view of the difficulty will meet but little sympathy from the readers of the British Controversialist. I have yet to learn, however, that that would in any way affect the stability of my position, or the truthfulness of the opinions I have enunciated. E. L. J. Social Economy. IS THE UNANIMITY REQUIRED IN JURIES CONDUCIVE TO THE ATTAINMENT OF JUSTICE? AFFIRMATIVE REPLY. Ir has always appeared to us, that the real object in calling in a jury to assist in the trial of any cause, whether civil or criminal, is to receive from it a decided and unequivocal answer as to whether, if it be a civil cause, justice rests with the plaintiff or the defendant; and if it be a criminal one, whether the prisoner is guilty or innocent of the crime laid to his charge? In appealing to a jury, and leaving with it the decision, we do not wish to have an enigmatical or doubtful verdict: whatever may be its opinion, let it have no doubtful meaning-let it declare fully for the one side or for the other. If this, then, be the true function of a jury, we ask, How can it possibly be attained, except by insisting upon a unanimous decision? 66 Morfhaich" says that the opinion of any twelve men, indiscriminately selected, will not be unanimous "in one case out of three." If this be really so, we should at once give up the argument, and coincide with the opinion that verdicts ought to be taken by vote; but we utterly disbelieve it, and we are fully persuaded that, on further consideration, "Morfhaich" will not persist in the assertion. The great bulk of the cases presented for trial in every criminal court in this kingdom consists of felonies, burglaries, and assaults. Now, nearly all these are mere questions of fact, and the evidence is generally so clear and convincing, that we venture to say that two-thirds of the whole of the cases are decided by the juries without leaving their box; proving thereby that the evidence is sufficient to establish the facts witnessed to, without doing any violence to the consciences of the jurors. And as to the more atrocious criminal cases, such as rapes and murders, these also are resolved into questions of fact; but generally, from the greater cunning and caution exercised by the criminals in their perpetration, direct evidence is not so easily procurable to establish the case against them, and sometimes the court is obliged to rely a good deal on circumstantial evidence, especially in cases of murder. But even as regards these more atrocious cases, there occur but very few trials indeed where the jurors have to rely solely upon circumstantial evidence in order to bring guilt home to the offender. There are generally some solitary |