shining through a narrower or wider circle of an example conformed to the Divine pattern of the gospel, the self-multiplying power of goodness in all its forms and manifestations, we have no tolerance for any low estimate or depreciating regard of what has been accomplished under the least favorable circumstances, or in the least promising fields of missionary labor.

But would not the same expenditure of money and effort have borne surer and richer fruits at home, among the destitute of our cities, or among the unchristianized denizens of our frontier settlements? This question would have some pertinence, could it be proved that foreign missions have been prejudicial to the claims of domestic charity. But, in point of fact, while the Pagans were left out of thought, only the paltriest provision was made for the spiritual wants of our own fellow-citizens. The home missionary enterprise was simultaneous with the foreign; and the very sects, and the very individuals, who have been most liberal and zealous in the support of the latter, have been the most earnest and self-denying in sustaining the former. Charity languishes not on account of the multitude, but of the fewness, of its objects. The heart that opens towards one good cause is closed against none. The liberal hand, that casts its contribution into one treasury of God, relaxes its grasp whenever solicited in God's name. And, were there no other argument in behalf of foreign missions, we would plead for them on the score of the new spiritual life they have infused into the churches that sustain them. To take the world for their field enlarges and exalts their sympathies, ennobles and enriches their devotional feelings, brings them into closer communion of spirit with the world's Redeemer, and perfects their consciousness of kindred with the Universal Father.

Nor can we, so long as sects divide the Christian world, sympathize with the objection to foreign missions under a sectarian name, expressed by a contemporary journal in a notice of the book now under review. The broad field of Paganism proffers an arena for a far more peaceful, tolerant, and loving rivalry, than can be maintained in Christendom. There is room there for an amicable division like that between Abraham and Lot, when the whole land was before them; and, as they occupy severally their scattered stations over the

vast domain, they can say, without a shadow of insincerity, "Let there be no strife between us and you; for we be brethren." Numerous organizations can collect larger funds, and manage them more judiciously, than could a great central association, the responsibility of which was claimed by no single denomination. Nor can we find in the history of missions any beyond the slightest record of mutual jealousy or animosity, or of any less Christian form of competition, than that by which the different sects have endeavored to "provoke one another to love and to good works."

We have entire confidence in the ultimate success of the missionary enterprise. Christianity triumphantly surmounted, ages ago, far greater obstacles than now lie in the way of its progress. Its whole empire has been wrested from the grasp of Paganism, as degraded, as inveterate, as stubborn, as the forms with which it now contends. Because we believe it the truth of God, revealed for man, and adapted in its form of communication to the nature, faculties, and wants of man, we doubt not that man under every mode of culture, may be brought to the intelligent reception of its truths, the practice of its duties, and the enjoyment of its hopes. We receive as from divine inspiration the predictions of the Hebrew seers and of the Christian apostle, which foretell the entire regeneration of the human family, and cannot but believe that man will yet rewrite in history the brightest pages of prophecy.

ART. III. De l'Esprit Public en Hongrie, depuis la Revolution Française. Par A. DEGERANDO. Paris. 1848. 8vo.

DURING the past year, the attention of the civilized world has been directed with lively interest towards the progress of the war in Hungary. The spectacle of a gallant people fighting single-handed for their independence against fearful odds, the gigantic powers of Russia and Austria, the ancient champions of despotism, being strenuously exerted for months in what appeared to be a vain attempt to crush them, was enough to awaken the warmest sympathies of the lovers of

freedom all over the globe. The accounts which reached us from the distant scene of conflict were various and conflicting, but on the whole so favorable to the cause of the insurgents, that when the news at last arrived of their final and entire discomfiture, it excited as much disappointment as regret. It was evident that the preceding accounts of astonishing victories gained by the Hungarians over vastly superior forces had been grossly exaggerated, even if they had not been entire fabrications. The theatre of the struggle was near the eastern confines of civilized Europe, and all the intelligence which came to us from that distant region had been filtered through German and French newspapers, and colored by the various hopes and purposes of those who disseminated the reports with the intent of affecting public opinion by them, and of gaining sympathy and aid for one or the other of the contending parties. As we have rejoiced over victories which had never been gained save in the excited imaginations of those who reported them, it is worth while to look a little more closely into the nature and causes of the war, and to ascertain if the motives and aims of the belligerents have not been as much misrepresented as their actions. The Hungarian question is an intricate and difficult one; but as the decision of it is likely to have an important influence upon the politics of Europe for a long period to come, an attempt to render it more intelligible may be useful and interesting even on this side of the Atlantic. We depend for information chiefly on M. Degerando's book, and on a series of excellent articles contributed by E. de Langsdorff and H. Desprez to the Revue des deux Mondes.

Though the war in Hungary began as early as September, 1848, a Declaration of Independence was not adopted by the Hungarian Diet till the middle of April, 1849. In the intervening months, though much blood was shed and the contest was waged with great exasperation on both sides, it had the aspect of a civil war between different portions of the same empire, the weight of imperial authority being thrown alternately on either side, according as the vicissitudes of the conflict caused the one or the other party to adopt a position which was more favorable to the interests of the emperor. Thus, Jellachich and his army were at first denounced by the imperialists as rebels; and after the Sclavonic rebellion in

Bohemia had been crushed by the bombardment of Prague, the Austrian marshal Hrabowski commenced a campaign against the favorers of that rebellion in Croatia and Sclavonia also, while the Hungarians, acting on the side of the imperialists, menaced the same countries with invasion from the north. But the Austrian cabinet soon found that Jellachich was less to be dreaded than Kossuth, and that the Sclavonians were disposed to be more loyal subjects than the Magyars. By a sudden shift of policy, therefore, the Croats were taken into favor, and their redoubtable Ban at the head of his army was commissioned by the emperor to put down the insurrection in Hungary. Still the Hungarians did not declare their independence of Austria till the young emperor proclaimed a new and very liberal constitution for all his subjects, of whatever race, language, or province, in March, 1849. In this instrument it was formally declared, that "all tribes have an equality of rights, and each tribe has an inviolable right to preserve and foster its nationality and language." The Hungarians proper, or the Magyars, had no sooner heard these words, than foreseeing how popular they would be with the Sclavonians, the Wallachians, and the Saxons, to whom they secured emancipation from the sovereign sway and masterdom which the Magyars had exercised over them for centuries, than they forthwith declared their own independence of Austria for the sole purpose of retaining these races in their former state of subjection and dependThe declaration which they issued, consequently, was not so much a declaration of their own independence, (already amply secured by the concessions of the emperor a year before, concessions which made the connection of Hungary with Austria merely nominal,) as a protest against the independence of Croatia and Sclavonia. Its object was not to justify the rebellion of Hungary against Austria, but to accuse Croatia of rebelling against Hungary, and to criminate the emperor for favoring that rebellion. The Magyars assumed the position, therefore, of a nation striving to impose or to continue the yoke upon the necks of their own dependents, instead of laboring to throw off a yoke from their own shoulders. It suited the haughty and imperious spirit of this aristocratic race to bring this accusation against their hereditary monarch of favoring a set of rebels against their own sove

ence.

reignty. Their complaint reminds us of the feudal barons chiding their king for emancipating the commons, and thus erecting a barrier against the tyranny of the nobles.

A brief extract from the Hungarian Declaration of Independence, dated at Debreczin, April 14th, 1849, will show the true character of the quarrel between the two countries.

"Croatia and Sclavonia were chosen to begin this rebellion, because in those countries the inhuman policy of Prince Metternich had, with a view to the weakening of all parties, for years cherished hatred against the Hungarian nation. By exciting in every possible manner the most unfounded national jealousies, and by employing the most disgraceful means, he had succeeded in inflaming a party with rage; although the Hungarians, far from desiring to oppress the Croatians, allowed the most unrestrained development to the provincial institutions of Croatia, and shared with their Croatian and Sclavonian brethren their political rights, even going the length of sacrificing some of their own rights, by acknowledging special privileges and immunities in those dependencies.

"The Ban revolted, therefore, in the name of the Emperor, and rebelled openly against the King of Hungary, who is, however, one and the same person; and he went so far as to decree the separation of Croatia and Sclavonia from Hungary, with which they had been united for eight hundred years, as well as to incorporate them with the Austrian Empire. Public opinion and undoubted facts threw the blame of these proceedings on the Archduke Louis, uncle to the Emperor, on his brother, the Archduke Francis Charles, and especially on the consort of the lastnamed prince, the Archduchess Sophia; and since the Ban in this act of rebellion openly alleges that he acted as a faithful subject of the Emperor, the ministry of Hungary requested their sovereign by a public declaration to wipe off the stigma which these proceedings threw upon the family. At that moment affairs were not prosperous for Austria in Italy; the Emperor, therefore, did proclaim that the Ban and his associates were guilty of high treason, and of exciting to rebellion. But while publishing this edict, the Ban and his accomplices were covered with favors at Court, and supplied for their enterprise with money, arms, and ammunition. The Hungarians, confiding in the royal proclamation, and not wishing to provoke a civil conflict, did not hunt out those proscribed traitors in their lair, and only adopted measures for checking any extension of the rebellion. But soon afterward the inhabitants of South Hungary, of Servian race, were excited to rebellion by precisely the same means.