human mind, so long will Nature teach us how to express them: and when there are no such passions, feelings, and emotions, we shall not want the instruction. Nay does not the actor himself copy his art from Nature? Surely then if the great original remains, we need not be very anxious about the imitation.

TWELFTH SPEAKER.- Sir, Although I admit that I am no great admirer of the Stage as we behold it in the present day, I yet think there are some sound arguments in its favour as an abstract amusement.

The Stage has been objected to because it is abused. Now, with some of the speakers who have gone before me, I cannot think this fair. It should be looked at in the abstract:- and if its design and object were candidly examined, I feel sure that we must admit that the Stage might be made one of the noblest moral teachers we could possess. It seems to me that it might be made our purest moral school.

We should not forget the debt we owe to the Stage. It elevated Grecian society — it purified Roman morals-it taught our ignorant people religion through its "mysteries" and "moralities" and through Shakspere it presented the world with the noblest volume of truth and wisdom that uninspired man ever wrote.

I

Sir, I would further defend the Stage upon the ground that light amusements, of the nature which the Drama provides, are necessary for the relief and diversion of men's minds. The most trifling -and indeed in themselves most ridiculous amusements have been resorted to, by the greatest men, for mere relaxation. A celebrated king of Greece rode on hobby-horses with his children—a renowned English earl used to play at marbles with his sons - and the naturalist Buffon used to jump over the stools and chairs in his study. This will show that the mind must and will be unbent; and now, I ask, what amusement is there that will compare with the Drama? I will here leave the subject, as I think it has now been fully discussed.

OPENER (in reply). — I shall not trespass long upon your time in reply. My opinions on this subject have undergone no change, but have been entirely confirmed by the debate which has taken place.

Whilst I readily admit that the Stage has been, and might be again, a useful moral teacher, I am still prepared to maintain that the Stage as it is, is most objectionable and immoral in its tendencies.

Immoral productions-immoral actors-immoral adjuncts- and immoral auditors form the undeniable concomitants of the Drama of the day.

False feelings, false conclusions, and false principles, are abundantly generated by it. It is the cause of dissipation - late hours and other evils which have been pointed out, and therefore I unhesitatingly condemn it.

Only one of the arguments employed to defend the Stage seems to me to have any weight in it. It is the argument that we ought to look abstractedly at the theatre, and not argue against it because it is abused. I do not wonder that our opponents are anxious for an abstract view of this matter: for that is the only way in which their case looks at all respectable. But, Sir, are we not justified in refusing to decide the question in this manner? It is now clear that the Stage tends towards abuse, and therefore it must be judged through its abuses.

The last speaker urged that the Stage is defensible on the ground that trifling amusements are necessary for the diversion of men's minds. I quite agree with him, Sir, that the Stage is a frivolous amusement; but I do not agree with him that therefore it is a fit recreation. The gentleman quoted some examples to prove his pointbut what were they? Why, that the great men to whom he referred actually did not choose the Stage at all, but other and more innocent amusements, for their relaxation! So much for that.

The gentleman further said that the Stage is

a moral school. That word "school," Sir, was the most unlucky word he could have chosen. We have had to condemn its lessons we have had to condemn its teachers now, let us look for a moment at its scholars. If you want to find them, go to the box-lobbies of any metropolitan theatre, and you will see as dissipated, as rakish, and as morally unclean a set of pupils as ever existed in the world. If you want to see them further, try the nearest Cider-cellars or Pandemoniums, after the performances are over,—and there you will find them carrying into practice the high lessons they have learned.

But, Sir, I must conclude: for I fear that I have already taken up too much of your time. I simply commit the question to your fair decision.

See EDINBURGH REVIEW, vol. xiv. p. 148.

MACAULAY'S ESSAYS, vol. ii. p. 264 et seq.

QUESTION VI.

Have the Crusades been beneficial to Mankind?

FIRST SPEAKER. Sir, It will be generally admitted, I think, that it is scarcely possible to select a subject for discussion more calculated to awaken interest and thought, than that which has been just read from the chair. It is now universally felt that the Crusades form the startingpoint, and first page, of modern European History; and the perusal and careful study of that page cannot fail to make us see and judge more wisely the rest of the volume. It will be not merely an amusing, but an instructive task, to carry ourselves back into the early ages of civilisation, and trace the development and growth of those great principles which have since proved so important to the world. I have only to solicit the kind patience of the meeting whilst the task is performed.

To decide whether these vast and extraordinary enterprises have been of service to the world, we must see what the world was when they were undertaken, and then what it was after they were

over.