PLE, with a war defensive in its OPERATIONS. Where attack is the best mode of providing for the safety of a State, the war is defensive in principle, though the operations are offensive. Where the war is unnecessary to safety, its offensive character is not altered, because the wrong doer is reduced to defensive warfare. So a State, against whom dangerous wrong is manifestly meditated, may prevent it by striking the first blow, without thereby waging a war in its principle offensive. Accordingly, it is not every attack made on a State, that will entitle it to aid under a defensive alliance; for if that State had given just cause of war to the invader, the war would not be on its part defensive in principle. *

The Policy indeed of preventing by war the farther progress of insidious hostility and degrading insult, must in each case depend on the particular circumstances; and there are also cases in which a considerable uncertainty concerning the facts may occasion a correspondent perplexity in the application of principle. But in the case which we have now considered, there is no such perplexity. It is evident that the King and People of Portugal desire to establish a constitution which shall secure the well-being of that country, without disturbing any other wise government; that the national agreement in support of it, is as extensive as can ever be expected to exist; that it has been conducted with a perfect regard to the fundamental laws, (of which, however, as long as it is innocent no foreign power is entitled to judge), and that the handful of military mutineers who have cried out against it, are stirred up and guided by foreigners; and have themselves nothing Portuguese, but what enables them more effectually to destroy their country. We are thoroughly convinced that every Englishman who fully considers the sacred obligations of his country, will be satisfied, that without the liberal performance of them, England can neither preserve her honour nor enjoy real security. It is needless, and it would now be base, to inquire if our treaties with Portugal were wise. We shall not say a word on a question which, at this moment, would be too like a doubt whether we ought to hold them sacred. And we are sure that the minister, who has stationed a British squadron in the Tagus, as a characteristic and national pledge of frank, bold, and unchangeable friendship, will never suffer such a symbol to be dishonoured by restrictive expositions and niggardly interpretations of a promise of succour to

'Dans une alliance defensive le Casus Fœderis n'existe pas tout de 'suite que notre allie est attaqué. Il faut voir s'il n'a point donné à son 'ennemi un juste sujet de lui faire la guerre. S'il est dans le tort il faut l'engager à donner une satisfaction raisonnable. — Vattel, Liviii. c. 6.

an ancient, faithful, and feeble ally, endangered by an attempt to establish Liberty.

The whole of the above was printed before the King's message and the discussion of it in both Houses of Parliament, on Tuesday the 12th of December 1826. It is very satisfactory to find, that nothing passed on that occasion which does not corroborate this long statement of complicated and little known transactions, in which some inaccuracies might have been excusable. It is still more agreeable to find, that we concur so entirely, in reason and feeling, with those whose judgment we most value. In the House of Lords, the claims of Portugal were maintained by Lord Lansdown and Lord Holland, on comprehensive and generous maxims of policy, independent of the obligations of treaty. In the House of Commons, those who were present, especially those who again tasted their wonted pleasures after a period of privation, will never forget the precise, succinct, luminous, graceful, and (where it was fit) magnificent exposition of Mr Canningwhose warnings are not to be thought at all unfriendly, or, in the end, unprofitable, because, like most wholesome and needful counsels, they have proved unwelcome-powerfully seconded as it was by the grave, nervous, masculine, and commanding eloquence of Mr Brougham, who never showed himself more worthy of the confidence of those whose bond of union is the love of freedom.

The energetic measures of the Administration, were justly commended by those who are accustomed to differ from them. No man so far forgot decorum towards the French Minister, as to suggest that they who had seconded the Remonstrances of Mr Lamb at Madrid, which were necessarily founded on our Treaties with Portugal, could, in any circumstances, or from submission to any influence, be made the instruments of a war against England, solely for her adherence to these very self-same treaties.

But neither did any reasonable man rest the justification of his vote, at this awful moment, on such a foundation of shifting sand, as the events of war and the issues of political intrigue. There is nothing certain in the case, but the duty of the English nation. But this sacred certainty renders all other doubts of little moment. Hoc satis est dixisse Jovem. Those who voted for supporting the King, in performing the duties imposed on this country, by Treaties, were neither blind to the uncertainty of success or to the general evils of war, nor to its peculiar inconvenience to this country, at this critical moment ; But they believed that the observance of faith and justice, if it

were no more, would always be the highest policy of nations. They did not think it decent to support a call of the House, for the express purpose of discussing, as a debateable question, whether England ought to perform her engagements? They thought it as unwise as dishonourable to declare to Europe, either that we were unable to succour an ally, and, by consequence, to resist an enemy, or that Portugal, by the crime of attempting to establish liberty, had forfeited those claims on our aid, which, if similar treaties had existed, would have bound us as fast to Morocco. To the doubts, whether the secession of Holland from the Triple Alliance of 1703, had not annulled the whole compact, it was justly answered by Mr Canning, that such an argument might have had some force, if the ancient Treaties of ALLIANCE and GUARANTEE had not been expressly renewed at the treaty of Vienna.' To which it may be added, that this renewal was deliberately made by England, long after the retirement of Holland from the alliance; that the use of the Plural Treaties,' both in 1810 and 1815, evidently supposes the two treaties of 1661 and 1703 to be in force; and that the words, alliance and guarantee,' in the treaty of Vienna, must be referred to the two treaties which stipulate for the objects which these words denote. At any rate, they are sounds without signification, unless they refer at least to either-and either is sufficient for this argument. The transactions at Utrecht, in 1713 and 1715, show the sense of Portugal and England of their federal relations at that time, especially if it be considered that Holland did not then, like England, guarantee the peace of Portugal with France and Spain; and the unanimous language of Lords and Commons, Ministers and Opposition, in 1823, demonstrates, that the treaty of Vienna was then universally perceived and felt to bind us to defend, help, and secure our most ancient ally.

6

6

Let it not be said, that, in this federal connection, the burden only is ours, and the advantage wholly that of Portugal. Twice within half a century- once in 1762, and a second time in 1807 -Portugal was brought to ruin by her fidelity to England.

We write in the midst of the most gloomy reports. We are perfectly aware that a soldiery, taught to be mutinous, may carry its treacherous sedition to the best market. English aid may perhaps be too late: But neither that, nor any other event shall affect the satisfaction with which we see it granted, in a just cause, where it is required by good faith, and consecrated by the defence of Liberty.

* This must have been before 1762, when the aid of Holland was not claimed.

NOTE to the Article on PHRENOLOGY in No. 88.

The Phrenologists, we think, have taken their physic, on the whole, very quietly-the only considerable reclamation against cur prescription we have yet heard of being Mr Combe's Letter to the supposed author of the criticism-to which we beg leave to assure him, that we have no wish or intention to reply, though every new step that is taken in the discussion impresses us with a deeper sense of the utter absurdity of the hypothesis.

There are two detached points, however, in Mr C.'s pamphlet, of which we think it fitting to take notice on the first opportunity-not certainly on account of their bearing on the argument, but because they directly impeach, one of them, the integrity or credit of an individual; and the other, the truth or fairness of a particular statement in the Review. Our readers, therefore, we are confident, will favour us with their attention to the following short justification :—

Mr Combe, in his original publication, was pleased to observe, that an individual, from whose theory of the beauty of colours he saw cause to dissent, had the organ of colour actually depressed on his skull— and was, therefore, most probably in the condition of those persons who could not distinguish brown from scarlet, or buff from orange. In a note on this passage, the Reviewer took occasion to state, that he knew the individual in question to have a remarkably fine and exact perception of colours—and also a great sensibility to their beauty. Now, in reference to this statement, Mr Combe thinks fit, in his pamphlet, to observe, that consistency is one of the great elements of credibility; and as this same individual had positively asserted in the Supplement to the Encyclopedia, (article Beauty), that colours were in all cases absolutely indifferent to the eye, and that any one arrangement of them, on a painter's pallet, or a mercer's pattern card, was likely to be just as beautiful as any other -the necessary inference was, either that no credit could be given to his recent pretensions to discrimination and delight in colours, or that the faculty and the organ had been miraculously developed in him, since the date of his former publication. Of the taste and courtesy of these remarks, we shall abstain from saying any thing; but of their candour and justice, we think the reader will be enabled to judge from the few following observations.

There are two questions here; first, whether there are any grounds, from inconsistency or otherwise, to impeach the credit of the Reviewer, when he says, that he can distinguish colours, and shades of colours, with more than common accuracy? and, secondly, whether there are any such grounds for disbelieving him, when he says, that he has a strong sense of their beauty? The first is the main allegation, and formed the whole original subject of controversy. Mr Combe alleged that the organ of colour was actually depressed in the forehead of that individual, and inferred that he probably did not know scarlet from brown: it was

answered, that this was a mistake,—for that he was well known to have a remarkably fine perception of colours and their diversities: And the replication to this in the pamphlet, is, that that cannot well be, since he had himself stated, in the Encyclopedia, that all colours are indifferent to the eye, and one just as beautiful as another. Well-suppose he had said so, where would have been the inconsistency? for where is the connexion between the allegations that are held to be contradictory? A man who happens to think brown as beautiful as scarlet, may surely perceive the difference between them-or rather he must perceive it, when he compares them, in this way, as two distinct and distinguishable objects. There is not therefore the shadow of a pretext for discrediting the Reviewer's leading allegation, that the individual alluded to, though destitute of the phrenological organ, can discriminate colours with unusual readiness and precision.

2. But, in the next place, and this is still more material, it is certain that the individual in question does not maintain in the Encyclopedia, that there is no beauty in colours, or combinations of colours-but the very reverse. His whole object in that Treatise, as every one must know who has looked into a line of it, is, not to deny the existence of beauty, but to explain its nature and causes-in colours as in every thing else: And accordingly, not only is there no doubt thrown on the fact of their beauty, but its reality, and that of the peculiar pleasure afforded by it, is both expressly asserted, in a variety of passages, and constantly assumed and taken for granted, as the very basis of the theory, and the test of the illustrations which are urged in its support. The theory is, that colours are beautiful, not in consequence of the mere organic operation of their physical qualities on the eye, but in consequence of their habitual association with certain simple emotions or mental qualities, of which they remind us, in a great variety of ways. Thus Blue, for example, is said to be beautiful, because it is the colour of the unclouded sky-Green, because it is that of vernal woods and summer meadows-and red, because it reminds us of the season of roses, or of the blushes of youth and innocence;—and, accordingly, when these associations are disturbed, the beauty, which they created, disappears. Green would not be beautiful in the sky-nor blue on the cheek, nor vermilion on the grass. The doctrine is precisely the same as to the beauty of combinations of colours-and it is attempted to be proved by similar illustrations. Throughout it is distinctly stated, and invariably assumed as indisputable, that they are beautiful, and afford pleasure to those who admire them-though it is alleged that there is a good deal of pedantry in those who dogmatize on the laws of their harmony, and affect to limit their pleasing combinations exclusively to certain arrangements. It is maintained, as before, that their beauty depends entirely on the associations with which they are connected;—and, while it is admitted that certain combinations will generally excite the same asseciations in those who are devoted to the same pursuits, it is denied that these are either universal or unvarying, or that the feeling they undoubtedly excite can ever be referred to the organic action of the co