He does not separate the interest of the State from that of the Prince. With regard to the right and the justice of the war, it is a subject that must be left to the powerful on earth to settle with their consciences. Nothing great would have been done, no durable monument would have embellished the history of nations, if one had never acted but according to the previous decision of a Court of Jusstice, and in following the principles of equity which regulate civil life.

One sees, by numerous examples, that posterity judges, in this respect, very differently from cotemporaries. The war undertaken by Louis XIV. for the succession of Spain, was looked upon, at that period, as an evident act of injustice, and fifty years had scarcely elapsed when Frederick wrote to Voltaire, that it would have been cowardice in Louis XIV. not to have accepted the will of Charles II. As much might,

perhaps, have

With regard to

been said of the war in 1740. the war of the French Revolution, if one admits that the Allies were the aggressors, one must, at least, agree that the final results have confounded the opinions of philosophers, who wished to avoid it, as contrary to the interests of certain states. It

was then the reign of those encyclopædists of France who dreamed of universal peace, and who called the soldier a mercenary executioner. They conceived they might secure the repose and happiness of nations, by giving to them institutions which did not permit them to make any but defensive wars but one has well perceived, since that time, what may be gained for humanity by the adoption of a similar system! The proposed suppression of permanent armies, or, at least, their fusion into a national militia, would lead directly to ruin those rich and pacific nations, which, losing, all habits of war, could no longer resist the enterprises of their neighbours; and, it is an ancient remark, that a people has never been formidable except when its military genius has been developed by civil wars.

When the nations are governed by Sovereigns who know how to respect their reciprocal rightswars, with regard to their object and the mode of carrying them on, may be compared to those duels, which, in truth, neither philosophy nor morality can justify, but which, subjected to the laws of honour, were adapted in their age to preserve society from still greater evils.

Nations of dissimilar interests and dispositions, cannot regulate their relations by that virtue of the sage, which does not even prevail in the legal state of civil existence. We may, therefore, assume, and the experience of all ages proves, that the idea of a perpetual peace belongs to those amusing dreams which mankind is not destined to see realized.

ON THE NAVIGATION OF THE DANUBE.

COPY OF A LETTER FROM MR. BACKHOUSE.

Foreign Office, May 5, 1836. “GENTLEMEN,—In acknowledging the receipt of your letter of the 27th ultimo, upon the subject of the obstructions offered by the Russian authorities to the free navigation of the Danube, I am directed by Viscount PALMERSTON to acquaint you, that his Lordship has called upon the law adviser of the Crown for his opinion as to the regulations promulgated by the Russian ukase of the 7th February, 1836; but, in the mean time, Lord PALMERSTON directs me to acquaint you, with respect to the latter part of your letter, that it is the opinion of his MAJESTY's Government that no toll is justly demanded by the Russian authorities at the mouth of the Danube, and that you have acted properly in directing your agents to refuse to pay it.

"To Messrs. G. Bell & Co., Fenchurch Street."

The interest, and we might almost say the commotion, excited amongst the commercial world by the posting of the above letter at Lloyd's, has been detailed and commented on by all the daily organs of the Press. The feeling which it has created has been at once decided and unanimous. It has been regarded at once as the most decided step that the British Government has yet taken,

and as an earnest of its intention to put a stop to the stealthy but unceasing aggressions of Russia on the territory and independence of all her neighbours. We sincerely trust that this intention will be more fortunate than good intentions generally are. We, however, see in this step of the British Government something more than an intention. We see in it a mode of procedure which we cannot help believing perfectly new in this country.

The import of the last paragraph of Mr. Backhouse's letter seems unaccountably to have escaped observation. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs officially communicates to a commercial House in the city of London, the approbation of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the instructions communicated by that House to their agents in the province of Moldavia, to resist certain acts of the Russian Government executed by Russian officers. This is certainly a most anomalous predicament for one Government to be placed in with regard to another. The Russian Ambassador in London must surely have acquiesced in the injustice of the demand; if he had not, the letter of the Under Secretary of State was a most