ART. V.-The Private Life of an Eastern King. By a Member of the Household of his late Majesty, Nussir-u-Deen, King of Oude. London, 1855.

The

"THE age of conquests is passed," said Louis Napoleon; and the European world, delirious with fear lest he should be the conqueror, exulted in the sentiment. It was quoted by statesmen with a glad smile, as a proof that their much vaunted" balance of power" was not yet to be disturbed. The states of Europe were still to occupy their position of armed and fettered neutrals. It was welcomed by the dreamers as heralding in that era of peace and plenty, which they have so often prophesied, and postponed—and it was accepted by thinkers as a proof that the speaker felt himself strong enough to do without immediate war. acclamations continued. Two years after, the whole strength of France and England was stretched to prevent the boldest attempt at conquest recorded in history. The great fact gave the lie to the pungent aphorism. The age of conquests has not passed, nor is it passing; it proceeds, with greater or less rapidity, in every corner of the earth. Russia stands pledged to a deliberate scheme, involving the conquest of the old world. America stands pledged to principles which involve the conquest of the new. England, while repudiating conquest, goes on conquering, annexes a new territory in every half decade, and annihilates some barbarian tribe in every two years. It is true, the last named power believes herself free of any such design. She does not, however, draw back her hand; and the only consequence of her prudery is, that her conquests are without system, made often at the wrong moment, and generally three times as costly as they need have been. She destroys the dynasty of Runjeet, and leaves the seeds of rebellion, because she will not "conquer." She annexes Pegu, and makes a virtue of abstaining from the "conquest " of the remainder of the kingdom. In short, despite Manchester men and able editors, cotton manufacturers and philanthropic dreamers, she is as much pledged to advance as the Romanoffs or the States. Meanwhile, these conquering nations, these races whose lust of territorial aggrandisement excites the horror of Quakers and of Manchester orators, advance in every other direction at an equally rapid rate. England is incomparably richer, more educated, more virtuous, than she was in the dreary reigns of the first Georges, who repudiated any thing so energetic as annexation. Russia, in thirty years,

has added 30 per cent. to her population, and, the lies of the hour being overlooked-50 per cent. to the physical comfort of her millions. Her policy overshadows Europe. Her diplomacy excites a dread such as Englishmen once felt for the Spaniard and the Jesuit. Her arms have proved equal to those of two of the mightiest nations of the world. Of the United States it is useless even to speak. The child is growing into a giant. While she doubles her country, she quadruples her means of employing it. There are more Dollars, more Railways, more Coin, more Telegraphs, more People, more Missions, and more Education in the States, than there were thirty years ago. Let us turn to the nonconquering States. . The Oriental Empires have ceased to conquer, and are ceasing to exist. Every where around is the sound of the crumbling of rotten thrones. How stands the mighty and paternal Government of China? With treason at the gates of Pekin, outside barbarians proffering arrogant assistance, the King of the North stealing her fairest provinces, the valley of her most magnificent river. Japan has yielded to the demand of a single squadron of one of the conquering nations. The King of Siam has admitted the Consul, who will give place only to the Resident. The Shah of Persia quails at the threat of a single Englishman. Day by day the dominion of Russia advances further over the Nomad tribes, and Empire-seats of Central Asia. How is it with Spain? Is she happier, richer, nobler, than when engaged in her career of conquest? Is Espartero greater than Alva, or as good as Las Casas. Is O'Donnell the equal of Cortez or Gonsalves? Are the gang of repudiatory Editors who surround Isabella, greater than the grave and stately men of thought, who were the eyes and hands of Philip and Charles the Fifth? Is Spain turned into a Paradise by her long cessation from the career of conquest? Has she more men or manufactures, Railways, Telegraphs, Exports, Imports, or aught that the soul of Manchester rejoices in? Has she even the things in which wiser men take pleasure, books or pictures, achievements in literature or art? Has she so many rivals to Calderon and Cervantes, to Velasquez and Murillo? If we turn to Italy, the picture becomes even more striking. But one section of that land has woke from the dream of ages, and entered the race of modern civilization. The first effort of that one was to conquer Italy, an effort not abandoned at Novara; its second to assist in resisting the conquest of Constantinople. France and the Scandinavian Powers are the only ones in which the cessation of conquest is not apparently accompa

nied by a downward tendency, and they are not really exceptions to the rule. France has not given up, though she has for the moment suspended conquest. She has not surrendered Algeria, or given up the design of making the Rhine her boundary. As for Scandinavia, her energies are absorbed in one long struggle to resist the inevitable march of one of the conquering powers. Slowly and quietly she recedes, but recede she does. Sweden dares not declare war. Denmark takes a Russian Prince as successor to the throne of Christian.

If then, throughout the world, progress and conquest are in fact united, is it not just possible that they may also be united of right? Is there not some faint probability, that conquest may be right as well as inevitable, and that the Manchester school are committing not only a blunder but a crime, in resisting it? And first, is not conquest on the part of a progressive nation inevitable?

As far as the conquests over mere savages are concerned, this will, we suppose, be admitted without much argument. As a nation becomes richer, its population is certain to encrease. The development of new trades affords place for new households, and in countries where a healthy morality prevails, population encreases somewhat faster than commerce. These mouths must be fed it is all very well to tell them that they must starve at home. They won't do it, and there is no human force extant competent to make them. They emigrate to lands which wait only cultivation to give them the comforts denied by the old world. Unfortunately, these lands are frequently scoured by savage races who use them as the beasts of prey use the jungle. As a matter of course, they regard the settlers as intruders. The settlers, on the other hand, look on them as thieves and murderers, or if excessively philanthropic, as men who must " retire into the interior." The savages object to either process, recur to their only argument, and whether Seminoles or Sioux, Gualches, or Australians, disappear. The white man needed room, and, under whatever disguise, he took it, and maintained it by superior force. We say nothing of the right or wrong of such a proceeding, we speak simply of the fact, and of its inevitable character. The question, however, must be widened out. Is there any necessity why a progressive nation should be also a conquering one? Why should it not live and permit its neighbours to live in peace? We reply, the necessity exists, unless the nation follows the policy of Japan. If it retires into itself, refuses all communication with the outer world, and ignores all human action, except its own, it may live till some wave of barbarism coerces it once

more into conquest. The Romans of the Empire actually did do this. There was Rome. Outside was the universe. They wanted no connection with it; they ceased to conquer, and for a few years lived on in a luxurious peace. The pig can deny itself to every body but the butcher. The butcher came at last, and Rome woke to find that the age of conquest had not passed away, but that she was herself the conquered. Under any other conditions, conquest is as certain as the demonstration of a mathematical problem. The progressive nation, like a healthy child, gradually grows strong. Like the same child, as she reaches to man's estate, she comes into contact with other beings like herself, forms friendships, enmities and alliances. Ultimately every nation finds it indispensable to consolidate and render definite her business relations with other nations. Soon, either from folly or malice, or the inevitable clash of opposing interests, the growing nation finds or fancies itself injured. It feels that its development perhaps is cramped by inferior intellects, that the good it could achieve is prevented, that the principles in which it has earnest faith are derided. Or it finds simply that its trade is injured, that it is robbed of advantages honestly earned. It demands reparation, and frequently does not obtain it. We all know that even good men cannot be trusted in their own suits, that men really desirous of doing right, actually cannot see, in opposition to their own interest, where the right really lies. How much less probable is it that a nation will thus concede rights to which it believes its title well assured? The demand is refused. The injured nation must submit or fight. She arms, her internal energy gives her the victory, and she, in fact, makes a conquest. The suit is won, the expenses must be paid, or the victor is still injured. Money or territory is accepted as compensation, and a conquest is effected. It matters nothing that the defeated nation is not subjugated. That is simply the moderation of the victor, or the result of policy. Where land is wanted, it is immediately taken. Even England has already demanded a few Colonies.

Holding then conquest to be inevitable to a progressing people, either from want of room, or from the natural circumstance of strength being exerted to inflict punishment for injury received, is deliberate conquest ever justifiable? Is it ever a right thing to set forward an army with the distinct intention of putting one nation under the rule of another? We hold, as thousands hold, if they dared but avow their belief, that it is; and we so hold, because we believe that every nation, like every individual, has, or ought to have, a conscience and a responsí

bility. It is bound by a law higher than any international law to put an end to oppression and to victorious crime, and to human suffering, whenever and wherever it discovers it. The man who stands by and looks quietly on at a murder, having power to prevent it, is a murderer. The nation which looks quietly on, while thousands are murdered, shares in the guilt, and will share in the retribution. Indeed, in extreme cases, as they are called, this is openly acknowledged. Who objected to Lord John Russell's threat to compel the Duke of Tuscany to liberate the Madini? Who doubts our right to coerce barbarians into a respect for the persons of British travellers? The right here acknowledged in extreme cases exists in all. We are bound, having the power, to prevent human suffering, and being so bound, we must occasionally, in the discharge of our duty, resort to force. That force again will occasionally lead to conquest. There are races on earth who so nearly occupy the position held by maniacs among men, that it is indispensable for their own security to put them, metaphorically, in irons. Reasoning is useless, menaces are not understood, even the scourge is only operative for the moment-we must put them in confinement, keep their dangerous strength in order, place their propensities where they can effect no harm. But if we do this, we are bound to see that they obtain every comfort we can assure them, that their property is well administered, and themselves subjected to the regimen best calculated to effect a return to reason. To effect this great object, we must assume the complete and effectual control, in other words, we must, when speaking of nations, annex.

We are fully aware of the extreme consequences to which this theory may develope itself. 'Who," says some horrified member of the Peace Society, "who makes you judge in your own case? Granting even your right in certain cases, to whom are you responsible for a blunder?" We answer, to God alone. On earth the sane man alone can judge of his right to confine the insane. If, through cupidity or lust of power, he confines one not properly insane, he sins, and will undergo the retribution. The possibility of such a crime does not lessen the right of sane mankind to confine madmen. But what proof have we that he is mad, or what is the degree of oppression which justifies interference? We reply, the proof of insanity in nations rests, as in individuals, with the conscience of the sane, assisted by the advice of those specially skilled in such complaints. And as for the degree of oppression, any degree which can be considered equal or superior to the amount of human suffering which will be caused by the effort to

R