_Civilization._--Now about prisoners, strange as this may seem, it really is not settled whether and how far it is the duty in point of honour and reasonable forbearance to make prisoners. At Quatre Bras very few were made by the French, and the bitterness, the frenzy of hatred which this marked, led of necessity to a reaction. But the strangest thing of all is this, that in a matter of such a nature it should be open to doubt and mystery whether it is or is not contradictory, absurd, and cancellatory or obligatory to make prisoners. Look here, the Tartars in the Christian war, not from cruelty--at least, no such thing is proved--but from mere coercion of what they regarded as good sense the Tartars thought it all a blank contradiction to take and not kill enemies. It seemed equal to taking a tiger laboriously and at much risk in a net, then next day letting him go. Strange it is to say, but it really requires an express experience to show the true practical working of the case, and this demonstrates (inconceivable as that would have been to the Tartars) that the capture is quite equal (quoad damage to the enemy) to the killing. (1.) As to durability, was it so? The Arabs were not strong except against those who were peculiarly weak; and even in Turkey the Christian Rajah predominates. (2.) As to bigotry and principles of toleration Mr. Finlay says--and we do not deny that he is right in saying--they arose in the latter stages. This, however, was only from policy, because it was not safe to be so; and repressed only from caution. (3) About the impetuosity of the Arab assaults. Not what people think. (4.) About the permanence or continuance of this Mahometan system--we confound the religious system with the political. The religious movement engrafted itself on other nations, translated and inoculated itself upon other political systems, and thus, viz., as a principle travelling through or along new machineries, propagated itself. But here is a deep delusion. What should we Europeans think of an Oriental historian who should talk of the Christians amongst the Germans, English, French, Spaniards, as a separate and independent nation? My friend, we should say, you mistake that matter. The Christians are not a local tribe having an insulated local situation amongst Germans, French, etc. The Christians _are_ the English, Germans, etc., or the English, Germans, French, _are_ the Christians. So do many readers confer upon the Moslems or Mahometans of history a separate and independent unity. (_a_) Greek administration had a vicarious support. (_b_) Incapacity of Eastern nations to establish primogeniture. (_c_) Incapacity of Eastern nations to be progressive. FOOTNOTES: