own destroyer. New tastes, new energies, are awakened; and priestcraft having made a mistake, and thereby shaken the general credence in its infallibility, is no longer potent over the minds of the people. With the constant migration of armies does the commercial necessity arise. Every voyage is a voyage of discovery: every march adds to the stock of fresh information. The acquisition of new knowledge stimulates to inquiry into the old, and thus are intelligence and commerce, the basis of a civilized community, taking the place of ignorance and semibarbarity. These events, the most important effects of the Crusades, will not be denied: they are matters of fact too intelligible on the page of history to be questioned. It may be attempted to counterbalance the blessings they became to the world by a heavy set-off of temporary evils; but, if we bear in mind that these were the instruments by which elevation and advancement were secured that out of them sprung, by the most natural process, the social and political benefits we have been consideringwe cannot commit ourselves to the inconsistent supposition that they also formed an obstacle. Europe, especially Britain, owes much to the Crusades. Our forefathers erred, sinned, and were chastened for us; they "sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind"-learned wisdom from adversity, and courage from danger, for our advantage. But we have not sufficiently profited from the teachings of this great moral cyclopædia. Society is now passing through a discipline which will leave it all the better. Let us look willingly and hopefully at our entire series of experiences; thus, "Whate'er we see, Whate'er we feel, by agency direct • Or indirect, shall tend to feed and nurse NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-II. B. W. P. "THE present age" is a favourable theme to the origin of the Crusades; and it is imwith popular writers and speakers, and its portant that we should have clear and truthvarious phases are certainly worthy of careful ful ideas respecting that. C. W., Jun., thought and close discrimination. "A thou- with an attempt at generalization and phisand and one" voices assure us that it is an losophic research so common in these days, age of progress, and this we will not dispute, asserts that the Crusades arose "from a although we have a strong suspicion that general effort on the part of the human much which is taken for progress is mere mind to get into action," and that their motion-movement in a circle-a constant mission was "the emancipation of the change, without any real advance. It has human mind." These sentences are highbeen thus, we conceive, with the favourable sounding, but are they truth-telling? We opinion of the Crusades which is now so think not. The Crusades originated in the popular, though many persons regard it as a superstitions of the dark ages, and more proof of intellectual progress and the aug-particularly in the delusive belief of the sinmented strength of independent judgment. atoning efficacy of a visit to But the pleasing delusion vanishes when the light of history is cast upon it, and we find that the same opinion generally prevailed in the seventeenth century, became unpopular in the eighteenth, and revived in the nineteenth; so that which has been held as a product of the present is but a figment of the past. "The holy fields, To such a degree was the superstitious regard for the land of Palestine carried, while the truths there promulgated were forgotten, that its very dust was adored, and brought Bat a trace to preliminaries, and now to to Europe as a charm against demons! To the immediate subject of our inquiry-the prove that miracles had not ceased in his Crusades, or the religious wars for the re-time, St. Augustine tells a tale about the covery of the possession of the Holy Land, and their effects upon civilization. At the onset our thoughts naturally turn cure of a certain young man, who had some of the dust of the holy city suspended in a bag over his bed! If the hardships atten dant upon visiting Palestine, and the difficulty of obtaining more dust were the immediate causes of the Crusades, we fancy they present no indications of an effort, on the part of the human mind, "to rid itself of the many fetters which had impeded its development." We should like C. W., Jun., to inform us by what system of mental alchemy he has obtained the gold from these materials! Such, then, was the origin of the Crusades; such the source of that wild and furious stream, whose poisonous waters spread barrenness on its banks, and prevented the lowly verdure or the towering tree flourishing within its influence. Again, how unworthy the motives appealed to, to induce men to engage in these conflicts! The forgiveness of sin was promised to all, and a passport to heaven to such as might die on the battle-field. The promised result was valuable; the terms were easy, and therefore eagerly seized upon. "The moral fabric of Europe was convulsed; the relations and charities of life were broken; society appeared to be dissolved. The storm of public feeling was raised, and neither reason nor authority could guide its course. The prohibition of women from undertaking the journey was passed over in contemptuous silence. They separated themselves from their husbands where men wanted faith, or resolved to follow them with their helpless infants. Monks, not waiting for the permission of their superiors, threw aside their black mourning gowns, and issued from their cloisters full of the spirit of holy warriors. A stamp of virtue was fixed upon every one who embraced the cause; and many were urged to the semblance of religion by shame, reproach, and fashion. They who had been visited by criminal justice were permitted to expiate in the service of God their sins against the world. The pretence of debtors was admitted, that the calls of heaven were of greater obligation than any claims of man. Murderers, adulterers, robbers, and pirates, quitted their iniquitous pursuits, and declared that they would wash away their sins in the blood of the infidels. In short, thousands and millions of armed saints and sinners ranged themselves to fight the battles of the Lord. All nations were enveloped in the whirlwind of superstition." Such is the historic picture of the men who prepared to do battle for "the Prince of peace!" War, when employed in the holiest cause of self-defence, and carried on by disciplined troops, is ever cold and cruel; but, when instigated by revenge or aggression, and committed to the hands of a rude and savage rabble, it will perpetrate the blackest crimes against God and man, with unblushed impudence and unrelenting heart. It was thus with the Crusaders. Our time would fail to tell their cruel deeds, and our space prove insufficient to chronicle their wild excesses. Our readers, too, would sicken as they All these scenes the Crusades presented; and hell, we think, must have looked on with savage delight to observe that men with the symbol of the cross upon their shoulders could perpetrate, in the name of religion, deeds as foul as would have been done had the infernal gates opened to let forth upon earth a host of incarnate demons! But, according to Guizot, "the Crusades unfolded a Christian Europe!" Darkness, in future, may pass for light, and truth for error, or we must adjudge the author of this sentence as ignorant of the true character of the Crusades as of Christianity itself. The question now comes, Were the effects of the Crusades-thus conceived in error, fostered by superstition, and carried out by crime favourable to the civilization and moral elevation of the people? C. W., Jun., and many others, reply in the affirmative, although we were inclined to answer, à priori, in the negative, and subsequent research shows, we think, the truthfulness of such an opinion. We have carefully examined our friend's long string of authorities, in expectation of discovering some conclusive arguments in favour of the position that he has taken; but in this we have utterly failed. The list of writers quoted certainly presents a formidable front; but an array of names and opinions will not strike awe in a thoughtful mind, for he will regard mere authority in matters of belief as possessed of very little convincing power. The "holy" excursions are said to have "a moral unity amongst the nations broke forth." Where is the proof of the correctness of these assertions, and to which page of European history will our friends turn for illustration? We wait to learn. had a very beneficial effect upon the minds of the men who engaged in them, as they widened the range of their observation, and opened up fresh sources of knowledge. But, remembering the circumstances under which the crusaders went forth, the nature of the scenes which they witnessed, and knowing that it is only a "brute, unconscious gaze" that ignorance casts around it, we are not prepared to admit that any mental elevation proceeded from these exploits of moral depravity. If it had been otherwise, and the minds of the multitude had received the full benefit of foreign travel in oriental lands, how few of them would have returned to impart the improvement to others! It is an undisputed matter of history, that the corses of upwards of three millions of Europeans either fell in the battle-field, or their bones were left bleaching on the desert's sands. Yet it is still urged that those who did return brought with them most precious products. To this we would reply, in the words of another, "If it be still insisted that some benefits in domestic, civil, or scientific knowledge were necessarily communicated to Europe, either by the expeditions themselves, or, at least, owing to our long abode in the East, I ask what those benefits were? or how it happens that the literary and intellectual aspect of Europe exhibited no striking changes till other causes, wholly unconnected with the Crusades, were brought into action? I believe, then, that these expeditions were utterly sterile with respect to the arts, to learning, and to every moral ad-nated in the establishment of the freedom of cantage ** It is urged that the condition of the people was improved, and civil liberty promoted, by the Crusades. Much treasure, and blood more valuable, were wasted; but this affected all classes of the community alike: the prince and the peasant might move, but they preserved their relative distances. "The papal authority for a crusade acted as an act of temporary enfranchisement of every description of slaves; but such of them as returned from the holy wars resumed, of course, their old occupations; consequently, Europe gained nothing by the matter." But it is said that, by means of these Joint enterprises, the European nations became more connected with each other," and "Literary History of the Middle Ages." It will be asked with confidence, did not a great advance in civilization follow the Crusades? Not immediately, and not as a matter of consequence. It was not till the fifteenthand sixteenth centuries that any great movement took place, and this period embraces the following thought-awakening events:1st. The revival of classical learning, including the diffusion of a knowledge of the language and spirit of ancient authors. 2ndly. The invention of printing; before which it might be truly said of the people, "That knowledge to their eyes her ample page, Rich with the spoils of time, did ne'er unroll." 3rdly. The discovery of a passage to the East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope, which so deeply interested the public mind. 4thly. The discovery of America, which opened up a new world of unknown richness and extent to European enterprise. 5thly. The rise and progress of the Reformation, by which the whole surface of civilized society was moved, and the mind of every thoughtful man was agitated. The sharp disputings of the adherents of the rival systems developed the moral and mental faculties of mind. At length the Catholics, finding reason fail them, resorted to arms, and then began that fierce and protracted struggle, which termi thought in every Protestant land. It is, we conceive, to these events, and events like these, that the progress of modern Europe is to be traced, rather than to the excesses of the crusaders. But our space is well nigh spent, and we cannot do better than cite, in conclusion, the testimony of Mill, who says, "The spirit of crusading, composed as it was of superstition and military ardour, was hostile to the advancement of knowledge and liberty, and, consequently, no improvement in the civil condition of the kingdoms of the West would have been the legitimate issue of the principles of the holy wars. 24 * The Crusades retarded the march of civilization, thickened the clouds of ignorance and superstition, and encouraged intolerance, cruelty, and fierceness. Religion lost its mildness * and charity, and war its mitigating qualities of honour and courtesy. Such were the bitter fruits of the holy wars! Painful is a retrospect of the consequences, but interesting are the historical details of the heroic and fanatical achievements of our ancestors. Nature recoils with horror from their cruelties, and with shame from their habitual folly and senselessness. Comparing the object with the cost, the gain proposed with the certain peril, we call the attempt the extremest idea of madness, and wonder that the western world should for two hundred years pour forth its blood and treasure in chase of a phantom. • We feel no sorrow at the final doom of the Crusades, because in its origin the war was iniquitous and unjust." J. M. S. * Mill's "History of the Crusades." Politics. OUGHT NATIVE PRODUCE AND INDUSTRY TO BE PROTECTED BY LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS? NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-I. "It were to be wished that commerce were as free between all the nations in the world as between the several counties of England. So would all, by mutual communication, obtain more enjoyment. Those counties do not ruin each other by trade; neither would the nations. No nation was ecer ruined by trade, even seemingly the most disadvantageous."-DR. FRANKLIN. THE words we have just quoted were written by a philosopher, and not by a professed political economist: they are, however, alike worthy of either, for they embody at once a wise precept, and furnish a most apt illustration of its truthfulness. We should wish to treat the subject in the same philosophic light as Franklin did, viewing it upon its broadest basis, and illustrating it by the most simple truths and examples which it may be in our power to produce. We say, with Franklin, it is to be wished that commerce was as free between the nations of the world as between the counties of England. We shall endeavour to show why it should be so, and the evil consequences which have resulted, and which are resulting, from the existence of an opposite state of things. "There are," says Porter, in his " Progress of the Nation," "but few countries so circumstanced, with regard to their natural capabilities of soil and climate, as to be independent of all other countries for the supply of many of those productions which have become necessary to their comfort, if, indeed, they be not indispensable requisites to the well-being of their inhabitants." This is the highest modern English authority we can produce. We may also quote the next sentence, as it may be useful to us during the debate:-" England is, assuredly, not one of those countries, and foreign commerce is to its inhabitants a thing of social, if not of physical, necessity." We turn, next, to the greatest French authority, M. Say, and we find him declaring that a government which absolutely prohibits the importation of certain foreign goods establishes a monopoly in favour of those who produce such commodities at home AGAINST those who consume them; in other words, those at home who produce them, having the exclusive privilege of selling them, may elevate their price above the natural price; and the consumers at home, not being able to obtain them elsewhere, are obliged to purchase them at a higher price." Further, we find it asserted by Adam Smith, that "Taxes imposed with a view to prevent, or even to diminish, importation, are evidently as destructive of the revenue of the customs as of the freedom of trade." We have, therefore, some tangible ground upon which to enter into the inquiry. Now, as scarcely any country contains in itself all the natural productions for the physical necessities and enjoyments of its inhabitants, it may be fairly presumed that it was part of the design of Providence that commercial relations should spring up between neighbouring and distant nations, for the purpose of supplying the different wants of each. Any other hypothesis would imply that mankind were not intended to possess the full means of physical enjoyment, which is so contrary to the evidence of our own senses, as scarcely, we presume, to gain a moment's credence. Any legislative enactment, therefore, having a tendency to restrict this free interchange of commodities, must be directly at variance with the beneficent design of Providence, which was, no doubt, ordered as a means of promoting unity and concord, by showing to each nation how much it was dependent upon others for the advantages it enjoyed. The love of war, and other depraved passions of the human heart, have, however, set nations so much at variance with each other, that in many cases this design has been entirely lost sight of; while in other cases the debts entailed in the prosecution of such wars and disagreements have been so great as to render it almost incumbent upon such nations to create a monopoly of some sort in favour of themselves, in order to meet their great liabilities. In either case a wrong is committed. Again:The prohibitive restriction of importation creates a monopoly in favour of the producer, and hence against the consummer. This truth is obvious. Take an example in point. France is a warmer country than England, and can produce a greater quantity of silk in the raw state than England, and at a cheaper rate; England, however, has a more inexhaustible supply of iron than France, and has greater facilities for working it up by reason of its supply of coals and steam power. But England thinks proper to restrict the importation of silk from France by imposing a heavy duty; the consequence is, that just to the amount of the duty imposed is the English silk producer protected at the expense of the English consumer; because, had there been no duty, the consumer would have had his silk at the French cost of production, and not at the greater English cost. In the same way, if France imposed a duty upon the importation of English iron (we believe she has not yet been foolish enough to do so), would the purchasers of iron in France have to pay its artificial instead of its actual value, i. e., the cost of producing and shipping it. Both countries, therefore, suffer; first, by having their commercial transactions crippled by the restrictions imposed; and, next, by the consumer having to pay an artificial instead of the real value of the commodity he requires. Then there comes the plea that the revenue "must be raised." Of course it must, and a large proportion of it out of trade and manufactures. But is there only one way of raising a revenue, and is that way necessarily detrimental to that class who contribute most largely to it? Is a man a gainer in any form who escapes a direct impost, amounting, say, to thirty per cent. upon his income, but pays several indirect ones, amounting together, at the least, to fifty per cent.? This is what actually occurs to every one in a country where the revenue is raised upon importations of foreign commodities; or, in other words, where native industry is protected by legislative enactments. We contend, in the face of every argument we have yet seen adduced to the contrary, that the inhabitants of a country commercially free in every sense of the word would be better able, as a body, to pay any reasonable amount of taxation than they possibly can under a restrictive system, however devised, and that, in such case, the burden of the revenue would fall more equitably and justly. After these general observations let us look at the matter still more in detail. Unrestricted commerce has a tendency to promote manufactures, and cover the earth with industry. Restrictions, in whatever form they appear, deaden the commercial spirit, and confine trade to particular spots. This is not a principle of our own suggesting; it is a truth which has been recognised well nigh as far back as English history carries us. In Magna Charta there was inserted a clanse to the effect "that all merchants should have safe and sure conduct to come into England and to depart from it, and to buy and sell without the obstruction of evil tolls." Several acts of parliament were also subsequently passed confirming this privilege; and we have the authority of Lord Coke (referring to the clause in the charter and the acts of parliament following it), "That all monopolies concerning trade and traffic are against the liberty and freedom granted by the great charter, and divers other acts of parliament which are good com |