which would terrify ordinary men, appeared to them as necessary portions of their career, and did not wear an aspect of cruelty or of crime. We had intended to have narrated the circumstances which led to the commencement of the different wars in which Napoleon engaged, in order to show that he was forced into those wars by hostile powers. We would not have shrunk also from a close examination of various incidental transactions, which are usually regarded as stains on Napoleon's character. Our space, however, has compelled us to confine ourselves to the general conclusions which we have stated. To conclude, we would offer a few remarks on those personal qualities of Napoleon to which we have not already referred. He was temperate in his habits. He was inspired by courage. "The best document of his relation to his troops," Mr. Emerson observes, "is the order of the day on the morning of the battle of Austerlitz, in which Napoleon promises the troops that he will keep his person out of reach of fire. This declaration, which is the reverse of that ordinarily made by generals and sovereigns on the eve of a battle, sufficiently explains the devotion of the army to their leader." His scepticism has been pointed out as a proof of his frigidity of heart. Few men, however, who live either in courts or camps, have the fervour of devotion, or the might of principle. He had been long accustomed to the perfidy of hereditary rulers, and the adulation of parasites. He saw Romanism allied to despotism, and Protestant England united in the same cause. His scepticism was the result of his position, not the fault of the man. At the same time there were not wanting occasions when his mind rose above the impure element in which he was compelled to live, and recognized the spiritual relations which consecrate life, and the power whose altar is the soul. He was distinguished for his toleration, and for his horror of religious persecution. Whilst, like every wise ruler, he practically acknowledged the importance of religion in promoting national prosperity, he scorned the idea of persecuting those who did not belong to the dominant church. Even the Jews, oppressed in the other countries of continental Europe, found protection under his sway. Whatever may be said of Napoleon's belief, he discountenanced the immorality and levity which the Revolution had engendered. He had a fine sense of the noble and heroic qualities which others possessed. Although his acknowledgments of these may appear theatrical to the prosaic mind, yet these certainly flowed from a magnanimous nature, and contrast very much with the conduct of public men at that time. His biographies abound with instances of this kind. These account largely for the love which his soldiers bore him. Whilst he lavished their blood in the cause of freedom, he treated them like men; he appealed to something generous and true in them. The instances to which we allude, open to us the depths of his magnanimity and his greatness. As to Napoleon's general character, we may be permitted to adduce the testimonies of Bourrienne and Madame Junot, both of whom were on the most intimate terms with him, and both of whom had strong prejudices against him. Bourrienne observes: "His (Napoleon's) heart and his conduct were at variance, but his good dispositions gave way before what he considered his public duty. In spite of this sort of feeling, however, Bonaparte was neither rancorous nor vindictive. His character was not a cruel one. I certainly cannot justify the acts forced upon him by cruel necessity and the imperious law of war; but this I can say, that he has frequently been unjustly accused. None but those who are blinded by fury could have given him the name of Nero or Caligula. No part of his conduct justified such abuse. I think that I have stated his real faults with sufficient sincerity to be believed upon my word; and I can assert that Bonaparte, apart from politics, was feeling, kind, and accessible to pity: he was very fond of children, and a bad man has seldom such a disposition. In the habits of private life, he had (and the expression is not too strong) much benevolence, and great indulgence for human weakness.” To these views, we cannot have serious objection. We think, however, Napoleon's acceptance of the supreme power in France was justifiable, and called for; and, if so, the acts necessary to maintain it are no stains on his character. At the worst, the actions for which he is most severely blamed, were simply errors of judgment. We may add that during the continental wars, the most justified, from the personal qualities of Na- Tell us not that Napoleon left France circumscribed, impoverished. He left the fire of freedom burning in her heart; he gave her a life which could not be doomed to pine for ever beneath the fetters of oppression. Soon she arose, and shook herself free from the dominion of England; from the reign of the Bourbons. The Napoleon dynasty has resumed its sway. The once haughty nation, which refused to acknowledge the elder Republic and the Empire, finds in Napoleon III. her strong and faithful ally. * “Life of Napoleon Bonaparte," by Madame Junot. As we have stood in the old black chapel of the Invalides, as grim and sad as themselves, beside the tomb of Napoleon, we have been tempted to moralize, as if its echoes proclaimed the emptiness of human great But that tomb is the source of much of the strength and vitality of France. Whether, then, we examine the individual steps of Napoleon's career, or the vast results which have flowed from it, and are yet unfolding, can we blame France for her admiration of Napoleon Bonaparte? On the whole, considering what Napoleon did, both for France, and for the cause freedom throughout the world, the motives which actuated him, and his personal character generally, we think we have clearly of the French people. shown that he was worthy of the admiration T. U. Politics. CAN SCOTLAND REASONABLY COMPLAIN OF INJUSTICE FROM ENGLAND? NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-III. LORD JOHN RUSSELL, with his usual | the islanders were the most happy and prosfelicity of happy illustration, once remarked perous of all nations." We cling with all in the House of Commons, that "if a blind the tenacity of time-honoured patriots to foreigner were to visit this island, he would suppose, from the universal language of discontent, that we were of all people the most wretched and miserable; if, on the contrary, the individual had nothing but the organs of vision to guide him, supposing he could not read, he would naturally conclude that our glorious privilege of grumbling; it is one of our dearest liberties. Public institutions are the safety-valve of our ill humours, the scape-goat of our spleen. In England the tories fall foul on the whigs, the whigs and radicals are ever on the full war-cry to give battle in lusty strokes to their opponents. The land interest is ever crying out in the wailings of despair against their oppressors. The factories are always being ruined by the "laws' delay," with the horrid apparition of millions of cadaverous villagers, and skeleton frames of weavers and spinners. dually assumed a centralization. The less merges into the greater. Yorkshire or Cornwall, Kent or Hampshire, might complain of this upon the same ground as Scotland. which none but narrow minds fall into. For the sake of geographical distinction the name answers a purpose. The slight difference of custom, laws, &c., is daily becoming less obvious, as legislation is ever tending to sweep them all away. None but hotIn Ireland the Saxon tyrants work the headed youths, freshly imbued with Quixotic complete and certain ruin of that country notions, inspired by a Wallace or a Bruce, at least once every year-so, at least, the ever prate about the honour of Scotchmen patriots of the Emerald Isle tell us. But as modern men. The idea must be lowering when Scotland begins to complain and cry to a people, and partaking much of the out against the oppressors of the south, we nature of provincial vulgarism. Who thinks wonder at the phenomenon; it has cer- of distinguishing our prime minister, the tainly the advantage of novelty, which in- illustrious Macaulay, the great Jeffery, or duces us to examine and see if it is founded | Dr. Chalmers, as Scotchmen? They are as on a delusion or a reality. Scotland has much a part of our body politic, and soul had her troubles; but where is the nation politic too, as her Majesty Victoria or Colonel with historic annals so generous which has Sibthorp. England, like every other great not? The first national struggle and pub-nation, is a combination of states originally lic calamity of the Scotch, after the demise independent. In this island there were nearly of Elizabeth, was the goring of the bull as many kings as counties; but power gra- . episcopacy, driven by their own much-beloved, idolized, and divine-righted Stuarts. But the divine rights of man to worship his Maker in accordance with the dictates of his conscience, came pure and bright out of the contest, like silver from the refining pot. The next important troubles of Scotland were essentially home born; an overweening sympathy for a scion of a worthless royal family (mere sycophants and tools of the French court) led to an alarming revolution; and England was again invaded by the brawny sons of the mountains and moors. Seen by the aid of the magic glass of Scotland's Poet Laureat, Sir Walter Scott, they have a pleasing interest, and a romantic couleur de rose shading them. To our great grandfathers, they had a sterner aspect, a peril which we may now laugh at. Spectral visions of bloody battles of victory to be fought over again mingled with their fears. There existed in Scotland an intense hatred and plotting spirit against the ruling dynasty, who, with all their faults, had been the consolidators of English liberty. This fact is First. He says the building of the Glasthe main cause why in the last century gow Post Office is quite unworthy of the such an hostile feeling was manifested to- city; it is more like a haunted house in some wards Scotchmen: it was a national crochet, out-of-the-way part of the country. We can and such writers as Junius are the true compliment him on having so picturesque indicators of the popular feeling. The an object, suggesting such pleasant memories French revolution put a stop to all such in a dingy, commonplace centre of manu petty differences. Since then the two peo-facturing industry. But seriously, did it ples have so coalesced, that to define them as never occur to " Douglas" that this evil is not politically and socially distinct is a mistake peculiar to Glasgow; that many of our first If ever we had a remote idea that our northern friends were illused, it has been completely dispelled by the conclusive reasoning of "Douglas." If we grant, for the sake of argument, that he is correct in his assumption of facts, they are so unimportant, that the real question is not affected by them; a negative decision is quite compatible with his army of allegations; his silence upon subjects of real weight, is a tacit admission on the negative side of this question. His sample of grievances are of such a nature, that the most timid reader of the Controversialist may safely look them in the face without trembling for the peril of the consequences. The crimson blush of shame will not be suffused over the countenances of men anxious for the honour of England. But let us give them a fair consideration. rate towns are insufficiently provided, occa- | sheltering walls may be found his brave and sioned by the too parsimonious conduct of deserving countrymen. the post office authorities. Secondly. "That medical students have to pay a tax of £10 before they can exercise their calling in England." Is "Douglas" aware that the educational course of studies which such parties require is to be obtained much more economically in Scotland than England. The colleges where medical students are graduated are much less costly affairs than those on the south of the Tweed: a plain fact in proof of which is, that English parents send their sons to be educated in the north, in order that the more expensive system may be avoided; cheerfully paying the trifle of £10, in order to secure the extra advantage. Thirdly. Scotland has no officer who has power to substitute a good stamp for an accidentally spoiled one." Does "Douglas" live in these railway times, without being conscious of the facility of communications? Edinburgh is but an hour or two more distant from the metropolis than Manchester or Liverpool. And does this small difference of time produce the enormity of injustice? The obstacle in the way of commerce is nearly equal to the one as the other; and often, by the peculiar postal arrangements, no difference at all. Is "Douglas" positive of the fact (or is it only a supposition) that deeds are detained in London to an indefinite period from Scotland alone? We imagine this habit of delay is general, not partial. The lawyers near London are not a whit better off than the gentlemen in his office, except in the saving of distant travelling. The fact of Scotland being so distant from the metropolis is not a fault which can be laid to the English people. We congratulate our opponent on having found his official duties so suggestive of complaints. Fourthly. "Our naval and military charities are supported by Government for the benefit of English and Irish subjects." Here he has contrived a loophole of escape; for he mentions not exclusive benefit, which he evidently wishes to suppose. If he really has any doubt about the subject-which we amiably hope, for the sake of his veracity-he might easily lay this phantom low, by visiting or inquiring of those institutions. We can assure our worthy friend that they are national or British charities, and within their These are the "sample of grievances." "Douglas" says their justice must be acknowledged by every candid mind. We suppose he means they must be acknowledged as injustices; for if their justice is to be recognized, they cannot at the same time be grievances. The next charge is one of more gravity, and bears on the face a semblance of injustice: it is evidently a sore point, wounding the national vanity of our worthy friend, while admitting as a fair argument, and one that truly comes within the scope of the present question. The complaint is the illegality and absurdity of speaking and writing of the whole of the island as England. This rather belongs to the category of conventional phraseology than formal or official technicality-a custom of convenience rather than the studied ignoring of Scotland's existence, having no possible effect detrimental to the happiness or welfare of that people, but obviously the reverse; for England, being so far the superior in wealth, population, power, and prestige-her historic glories dating back ten centuries-has created in the minds of the world not only a name, a character, a force, but an embodied idea of magnificence and wealth far superior to Rome in the classic days of yore. Scotland since the union has been an integral part of England, not in the narrow sense of a geographical distinction, but in the broad and unlimited cosmopolite idea. A Scotchman abroad participates in all the benefits, and enjoys the privileges of that citizen character, as much as a Yorkshireman. It is impossible to change a name stamped as it is on universal society; nor is it worth the attempt, to gratify the ideal vanity of a section of that community; neither would it be just, on the ground that Ireland, which is now a portion of Great Britain, would have the same cause of complaint, with even more pretentious reasons, on account of her superior magnitude and resources. The English army contains more Irish than Scotch soldiers: the revenue of the empire is more augmented by Irish than Scotch receipts. The most energetic action of legislative enactments for generations would be utterly futile to change the national name, it is so engrafted upon the annals of time and thought. It can be blotted out only with the existence of the people. Suppose the name was confined to that more central province of the empire, it would lead to endless misnomers and inconveniences. It is absurd and treasonable to prate of the separate nationality of Scotland; its existence is purely imaginative: for the last 147 years, ever since the union, Scotland has had no more national existence than Urslen, or Wessex. Nationality comes from nation. And what is a nation? Not a race of men having the same laws, customs, and language (but slightly modified); under the same authority; enjoying the same privileges and advantages-or a larger race, to whom they are joined by these common bonds. The army of farm bailiffs and packmen from the north who spread themselves over the fertile plains of England, are evidently unimpressed with the notion of their adopted land's exclusive nationality. They say, fair play to all the sons of this island of liberty. The union brought reciprocal advantages to the two countries; but in "Douglas's" honest opinion, which of the two was the most benefited? Pause not, friend, with such palpable proofs to guide you. Did not the union enhance the value of Scotch products? Did it not improve the condition of her lairds, by doubling the value of their land? Did it not bring the luxuries of life more within the reach of her oatcake-eating free men? Did not the peasantry reap social and material fruits by the free intercourse with the wealthy and civilized south? Did not the opening of the rich colonies and conquests of England beyond the seas, to Scotch enterprize and trade, bring wealth to her merchants, and the blessings of comparative plenty to all? We cannot close this article without reverting to the presumed injustice of England, in preventing Scotland from having a fair share of representatives in Parliament. We would first ask, are the English people fairly represented in the legislative body? The injustice "Walter" complains of is not peculiarly Scotch, but a national one, requiring immediate and thorough reform. The whole of the boroughs of Scotland, exclusive of Glasgow, do not aggregate such a population as Manchester and Liverpool, returning but four members. The population of London nearly equals that of Scotland, with a representation but little above one-fourth of that people, while they represent more wealth and more intelligence. Is not this injustice to England? All we have now to say is, that if Scotland has any just complaints, let them be stated. At present we are bound, with such evidence as we have heard, to give a decisive negative to any reasonable shadow of injustice from England. AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-III. GRAY. misrepresentation. If truth and justice be with them they will surmount all opposition, and assert their title to be heard. Enthusiastically though calmly moving onward, with the uplifted front of conscious right, they will boldly urge their plea for justice. Such, we take it, is the position of the "National Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights." The Scottish people do consider themselves aggrieved that their existence as a nation is all but ignored, that their lawful rights are withheld, and that, by an unjustifiable and absorbing centralization, they are wrongfully excluded from a share in the trade and commerce which the Government of the united nations creates, especially from that arising from their own local administration. Scotland is by no means a country given |