Grotius gives similar scope to his two-fold division of justiceone of which he calls-Justitia Expiatrix and the Latin of the other I forget at this moment--but this explanation of them is similar to what I have explained above.

This two-fold division of justice has given rise to two different sects of writers in modern times. The writers on jurisprudence treat of commutative justice and of the punishments which we incur by violating the rights of our neighbours. The casuists have for their province the treatment of that subject which relates to what we are in duty bound to do, to our neighbours. They sometimes encroach however on each other's province; the writers on jurisprudence dilating on distributive justice-whilst casuists meddle often with commutative justice. Grotius, Puffendorf, Pothier, Jeremy Bentham are all writers on jurisprudence whereof the first three often encroach on the province of casuistry. By speaking of the two-fold 'division of justice, I do not mean that Smith divides justice into two parts-he mentions four different meanings of justice.

Answer Seventh.-According to Epicurus virtue consists in prudence; in taking good care of our own happiness. According to him bodily pain and pleasure are the ultimate objects of human attention. But the pain and pleasure of the present moment can never can be very great and therefore our chief pleasure arises from a proper constitution of the mind. He explains the four cardinal virtues prudence, fortitude, temperance, justice as deriving their authority from utility, from being necessary to our happiness.

It is evidently inconsistent with Smith's theory, inasmuch as we ourselves and not the impartial spectator, is the judge of our own happiness. Virtue according to Smith does not consist, in the sympathy of others with our happiness, but in our feeling that happiness. Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno all three make virtue consist in propriety, though they differ much in their opinion of the standard of propriety, but Epicurus discards propriety at once. Plato made virtue consist in the subjection of the irascible and concupiscible passions to the domion of reason, Aristotle made it consist in the habit of acting according to the right nature of things in avoiding both extremes. Zeno, in proper selection and rejection of the objects presented before us; in all these we see, that propriety is the quality of virtue but in the Epicurean system-personal happiness or misery makes all the distinction between virtue and vice.

MOHENDRO LAUL SHOME,

Hindu College, First Class.

History.

Morning Paper.

Answer First.--The monastic institutions of the Middle Ages of Europe have been found to be beneficial to the cause of civilization and good government in more than one respect. It was, by the instrumentality of these institutions that what vestige of Roman civilization lingered in Europe after the downfall of the Western Empire, found a footing in the disturbed and confused chaos of the dark ages. Had it not been for these institutions, the literature, arts, and sciences, would have been for a long time things without names in Europe. It was only in the retirements of the monasteries-that men trained up for the orders and therefore the only individuals who ever learnt anything of letters, found not only the opportunity, but the inclination to pursue their inquiries in abstract subject. None else had either the inclination or opportunity to pursue these studies. All the other men were engaged either in committing or in repelling agressions. The security of life and person without which no body can devote himself to literature and science was also found no where else except in the monasteries. Mr. Macaulay in one of the finest passages in his writings compares the church to the Ark of Noah. As in the time of the universal deluge, this was the only receptacle for the seeds of the future creation; so in the general deluge of the barbarians, which overwhelmed civilization, the monastic institutions alone contained the seeds of the future regeneration. The monks moreover were the only advisers whose counsel was worth attending to, in those dark and disturbed times. In matters of difficulty and perplexity, when we are pulled in different directions, by different motives, when the path of duty was clearly discernable, the monks were the only advisers who had knowledge and judgment enough to direct men in the road of rectitude. The science of casuistry was deeply studied by them and was far more efficacious in those gloomy times than now. was the influence of the monks to which England is indebted for the abolition of slavery and the dominion of race over race.

It

Dr. Arnold in his Lectures on Modern History has clearly demonstrated that the supremacy arrogated by the Pope could not have been an unmixed evil in the Dark Ages-though it became so in after times. The Pope was the universal tutor of Europe in the Middle Ages when nobody out of the orders knew how to write his name. It was necessary that in ages when might was right every where; whenthe voice of justice was scarcely

heard that there should be somebody capable of awing men into a sense of justice. It was the fear of the Pope, which prevented monarchs and noblemen from tyrannizing over their subjects and vassals. It was the power of the Pope which first humbled the tyrant John. It was the fear of ex-communication which restrained the hands of many villains beyond the control of the civil authority. It was in more refined times then that the authority of the Pope became an unmixed evil.

Answer Second. The Plantegenet Kings of England, were foreigners whose home was in the continent. The English race were considered as a conquered people and treated as slaves. The conquerors spent a greater part of their time in the continent; the revenues drawn from England were enjoyed there. Hence it is evident that had the Plantegenet Kings been able to bring France altogether under their subjection, Paris or Rouen would have been the seat of their government. England would have become an appendage to the crown of France. The English would have remained for ever a servile race-a race of boors and serfs. The English language "the language of Burke and Milton" would have become a provincial dialect without a grammar, without a literature. The discoveries of Newton and Bacon would have perhaps remained unknown to this day. No Englishman could have enjoyed a share in the government of his country unless he became a French in sentiments and manners. The civil and ecclesiastical functions of the state would have been in the hands of foreigners. The English depressed in heart and head by long subjection to foreign tyranny would have become what the Bengalese is now. He would have been obliged to see with pain and anguish of soul the resources of his country in the hands of foreigners, without having the power to help it. He would have been obliged, in short to feel the most degraded position of a thrall to a foreign master.

The event which rescued England from such a fate was, the seizure of the continental dominions of John by Philip of France. Driven from their continental strongholds the Normans were cooped up within the narrow confines of the isle together with English. Neighbourhood and the necessity of mutual assistance obliged them to mix more closely with the English. By the interchange of mutual good offices, by intermarriage-by frequent communications, the two races became blended into one and thus was formed a new race doomed to exercise a high influence in the destiny of the world. Thus then, the weakness of the English king and the energy of the French-was strangely enough the cause of the salvation of England. Macaulay remarks that the energy and the wisdom of the Plantegenets who preceded John was baueful to England-but the weakness of the

last was her salvation. France on the contrary was all along governed by a race of weak kings-and Philip was the first king who for a long time, swayed the sceptre with a strong hand. Thus by a strange combination of circumstances England was saved from an inglorious vassalage. Had John possessed the energy of any of his Norman predecessors or Philip been as weak as their contemporaries in France, the doom of England would have been inevitable.

Answer Third.-At the time that Edward III. held the sceptre of England the incorporation of the races which dwelt on the English soil had been complete. The king was an English king. England was his home. His conquest in France was therefore the conquest of the English over the French. According to Mr. Macaulay, the tendency of the conquests of the Plantegenets of the 12th century was to make England a province of France; but the tendency of the conquests of Edward was to make France a province of England. The victories of Poictiors and Cressy were the victories obtained by the united English people obtained over their ancient enemies-whereas in the 12th century -the victories of the Plantegenets were the victories of one continental prince over another. Still, it is the opinion of Macaulay, that the conquests of Edward III. and Henry V., were not for the good of Europe in general or of England in particular. It would have been a great detriment to the progress of the English nation, had they stretched their empire over France or Europe at large. Such large empires are not well adapted to the development of human energies. England, says Mr. Macaulay, enjoys a far more enviable position- -as the pattern of a free State, and the civilizer of the world than if she had early in the Middle Ages obtained a dominion as extensive as that of Rome and been stinted in her future progress.

Answer Fourth.-Macaulay thinks that when in the reign of Henry VI., the English were deprived of all their continental dominions, by the conquests of Charles VII. in France; too many noblemen who formerly derived a part of their revenues from France were cooped up, within the narrow boundaries of the English isles. The habit of luxury which they had acquired continuing the same, whilst their means of enjoyment were stinted; they fought with each other for extending their possessions in England. Rapine, injustice and violence followed and the nobles arranged themselves against each other, with the hope of enriching themselves at the expense of their enemies. Thus says Mr. Macaulay, the party of the Yorkists survived the marriage of Henry VII. with Elizabeth, and set up a series of imposters one after another-the party of the Lancastrians clung round a line of bastards. In the course of these civil wars such a

number of noblemen were slain that in the end-the lands in England were sufficient to maintain in opulence the few that remained. Slavery was fast disappearing from England during all this time. We lose almost all trace of during the reigns

of the next race of kings. Those who were mere serfs or menial slaves, became about this time tenants and copyholders of those farms which they were formerly obliged to cultivate for others. The abolition of slavery was one of the great social changes which in Europe-had the greatest influence on the progress of civilization.

Answer Fifth.-According to Macaulay, the English aristocracy was the most democratical of any nation in Europe. In England, all the children of a nobleman except the first became commoners and even the eldest as long as his father lived was no more than a commoner. On the other hand, every commoner has the prospect of becoming a nobleman, if he could signalize himself so as to deserve the public gratitude. In England the aristocracy had few distinguishing privileges except that of sitting in the house of Lords and being judged by them. Even this latter is only the consequence of the law, which provides that every man was to be judged by his peers. So that English noblemen have none of that contempt for their untitled fellow countrymen which they have in other countries. In England-the offices of government are open to all alike without distinction of their hereditary rank. In France on the contrary none but noblemen could fill the highest offices under government. Indeed so little superiority is attached to nobility in England that many commoners voluntarily refuse the honor of being elevated to the highest ranks of the nobility. Pitt-the peer-maker not only refused to accept a peerage but in his last will, forbade his sons to accept of that distinction under penalty of being disinherited. When Walpole offered a peerage to Pulteney, instead of an office, it was indignantly refused.

"Good blood indeed" says Macaulay "is in the highest estimation in England but between good blood and the privileges of the nobility there is no natural connection; escutchians as large and pedigrees as long may be found out of the House of Lords as in it." The honour of knighthood was open to every body who could amass by industry and prudence a sufficient fortune or signalize himself honorably in the service of the country. Moreover there were frequent intermarriages between the two orders, so that it would not be difficult for any gentleman to trace his connection with some Lord or Lords. The House of Commons, where the Russels and the Seymours are obliged to sit in the same benches with tradesmen and farmers, cements the connection between the two orders more closely. "The knight of the