balance of even strictly scientific evidence is decidedly opposed to it. We have not space here to enter into a discussion of the arguments which may be brought forward to prove man's possession of a moral sense, different in kind from anything possessed by any brute. It will suffice here to give in a summary form some of the leading objections urged against the Darwinian view of this question by Mr. St. George Mivart, This able writer rejects the view that man's moral sense is merely a developed form of a perception of what is useful, upon the following grounds 1. The utmost degree of morality which could be produced upon the strictest Darwinian principles by "natural selection," extends only to what is useful to the species or individual. The first perceptions, however, as to the propriety of many acts admittedly right would either have been useless to the species, or at any rate so slightly useful that they could never have been preserved and perpetuated by natural selection. In other words, "natural selection might possibly give rise to beneficial habits," but could never generate any genuine sense of right. 2. There is no possibility of accounting for the beginnings of perceptions which might ultimately be evolved into a moral sense. 3. Many actions admittedly right are certainly not useful to the community, at any rate in a savage condition (e. g., the preservation of the aged and the infirm). and explicitly excludes the notion of expediency or of personal benefit. 5. The actions of brutes, even when good as regards their effect on the community, are 'unaccompanied by mental acts of conscious will directed towards the fulfilment of duty;" and are, therefore, only materially moral, but not formally so. 6. It is wholly unnecessary to assume that man is endowed with any innate perception of what particular acts are right. It is quite enough to believe that he has an innate perception of there being a "higher * and a "lower." We may, in conclusion, add that man's possession of a moral sense carries with it the melancholy pre-eminence that to man alone is it given to do wrong. Man alone of all created beings can offend against the laws of his organism, and on him alone of all animals is thrown the responsibility of choosing whether he will live according to the "higher" or the "lower" impulses of his nature. Other animals may offend against laws which we have laid down; but their offences are committed in obedience to the laws of their own organism. Other animals fulfil the laws of their being completely and "instinctively," having no power of departing from these laws. Man alone is enabled to determine when he ought not to act in obedience to the impulses of his appetites and passions. Man alone has free will, and man alone is conscious of its possession and of the duties which thereby devolve upon 4. The present sense of right actually him. THE MOCKING-BIRD. BY CHAS. SANGSTER. HE mocking-bird sits in the old apple-tree, Who trills a daintier song than he? Fresh from his glad heart springing? Up steps my passionate oriole, And sings till you'd think the bird had a soul, So mellow, and deep, and rich the strain— Song-mist and sweet showers of music rain. The mocking-bird hears, in the old apple-tree, When all at once, like a master, he, He has a rare touch of grave humour, too: Each for its own mate searching. My robin peers out from his cage in the hall, Rapid and clear is his morning call, Bird never sung more proudly. Back to the apple-tree flies my thrush, Strikes a fine chord through the calm and hush, That follows my robin's melodious strain, And gives him his strophes all back again. Bobolink whistles his treble note, Rossignol sings a minute; Delicate airs up the ether float, Let them all flutter in plumage bright, Still, my plain mocking-bird there in the tree THE CAVALRY CHARGES AT SEDAN.-THE AUTUMN MANŒUVRES.— THE MORAL THEY CONVEY. BY LT.-COL. G. T. DENISON, JUNR. 'HE years succeeding great wars have | time devoted to duty was occupied in learn su an always been marked by an increased impetus given to military science and literature. The success of the victors and the causes which produced it, as well as the lessons taught by the failure of the vanquished, point out with equal force to those nations, which have occupied the position of bystanders, the faults to avoid and the reforms to adopt. The victories of Frederick the Great caused his army to become the model for Europe, and revolutionized the tactical and to a certain extent the strategical science of war. His plummet line and pace-stick| are still retained in modern armies, although, at the present day, we do not attain the precision of drill which gave to Frederick's army a power of tactical manoeuvring which no other has ever acquired; although the system which arose out of it, and which required it, is a thing of the past. Napoleon also imprinted upon the warfare of his times the impetuous and dashing spirit of his military genius; while, in the Autumn Manoeuvres just completed in England, we see the effect of the late war between France and Germany. The English Government are taking a lesson from Prussia, and are imitating the field manoeuvres by which the Prussians obtained that skill in the real practical work of campaigning which contributed so much to their success. The system hitherto adopted in our army has been simply ridiculous. Officers and men were taught with great care the routine of interior economy, ele. mentary drill, field movements, &c., on rules laid down with mathematical precision. The ing and continually repeating and practising complicated manoeuvres conducted upon the most rigid rules. This was all right as far as it went, but instruction should not have ceased there, as it practically did. The system was bad in its results. The faculty of thought was never exercised, the power of reasoning never brought into play. On the contrary, they were distinctly and positively ignored and their use forbidden. Stolid obedience to orders, and a rigid adherence to routine and red tape were considered the highest type of military discipline and the best evidence of efficiency. The phrase "a soldier has no right to think" became a maxim the importance of which, it was supposed, could not be overrated. The effect of this upon the intellect has never been properly appreciated. Officers living all their lives in an atmosphere where the repetition of apparently unmeaning duties forms the every-day occupation, where rule and line have laid down in advance the manner of performing every minute detail, cannot acquire that decisive, vigorous promptitude of judgment and fertility of resource so necessary in the ever-changing conditions of active operations. The greatest natural talents must certainly feel the depressing and rusting effect of want of exercise. It is a common remark that old army officers or men rarely succeed in business undertakings in civil life; and it is as frequently said that life in the army, in time of peace, unfits men for ordinary employments outside of mere routine. How can it be otherwise with men carefully trained never to think? Nothing could be more ill-judged than the present system. One might as well teach a child his alphabet, teach him every letter and its pronunciation, make him go over it day after day and year after year, and then on examination expect him to read without ever having taught him to spell, as to make officers repeat manoeuvres year after year and expect them by inspiration to know how to apply them practically, in the ever-varying contingencies and trying straits of actual war. Sir Henry Lawrence well says, "No; it is not elementary knowledge. "such as barrack life or regimental parades "that can give that which is most essential "to a commander-it is good sense, energy, thoughtfulness and familiarity with inde"pendent action. "It is not by three times a day seeing "soldiers eat their rations, or by marching "round barrack squares, that officers learn "to be soldiers, much less generals." * * * * * One of the general officers in the late autumn campaign, speaking of the advantage of it to a correspondent of the "Times," said, "It teaches us to think,"-a remark almost pathetic in its honest simplicity. The Prussians found out the secret of this weakness, and seem to have been the only nation to have seriously set themselves to remedy the evil. They invented a method of exercising their armies as near as possible approaching the real operations of war, by opposing two forces against each other, and by employing a staff of umpires to decide disputed points and to settle which side was entitled to the credit of the victory. There was a continual struggle of wits between the officers and men of the opposing forces, and consequently they were obliged to think, and to decide promptly and clearly their course of action in difficult and continually changing circumstances and conditions. Their practice-campaigns were in fact grand dress rehearsals of the part they afterwards played in earnest, and with such marvellous success upon the plains of Bohemia and France. We regret to find that almost all the English papers make the same complaint, that the manoeuvres in Hampshire were not free enough-that even generals commanding were tied down to a great extent to certain fixed conditions. There seems to have been too much constraint-too little freedom and dash. It is nevertheless a matter of congratulation that a step has been taken in the right direction. The lesson conveyed to England on this point, applies with equal force to us in Canada. We have a well drilled volunteer force, thoroughly equipped and armed and composed of active and intelligent young men; but our staff officers are almost all imported from the regular service, and the whole English system, with its rules, regulations, manoeuvres, uniforms and pipe-clay, has been adopted by us as closely as it can be imitated. In the Camp at Niagara last June, there were assembled nearly 5,000 men, consisting of one regiment of cavalry, 3 field batteries and 1 battalions of infantry. The force was in excellent condition, and the regimental and company officers deserve the greatest credit for the strength, efficiency and general good appearance of their corps. The management of the camp, however, and the method of drilling adopted, formed a brilliant illustration of the old-fashioned principles of routine and red tape. The whole sixteen days were occupied in continually repeating parade and field movements. It was professed that everything was done "as if it were in actual war," yet there was no chain of outposts covering the camp as would be absolutely necessary before an enemy; there were no videttes posted, no patrols sent out, no reconnoitring or scouting duty explained or taught. There seemed to be no attempt made to instruct the force in those duties of covering a camp, a bivouac or a line of march, on the proper performance of which their safety would depend during nineteen days out of every twenty of active hostilities. Our authorities should take advantage of the experience of the late war in this particular, and give our volunteers an opportunity of learning, by field campaigning with umpires, those practical duties, the knowledge of which is so necessary to the safety of an army in the field. The war seems also to have settled conclusively the hitherto vexed question as to the inutility of cavalry of the line in modern warfare. Heavy cavalry has been continually decreasing in value in the same ratio as the weapons for the projection of missiles have been improved. Before the invention of gunpowder, the cavalry then (under the feudal system) composed of knights and men-at-arms, formed the main portion of armies, and infantry were practically powerless to oppose them. The invention of gunpowder gave the infantry a projectile weapon of far greater range and power. About the middle of the 16th century, the Spanish musquet was invented. It was a large unwieldy weapon, fired from a rest with a cushion or pad to relieve the force of the recoil. Its bullets pierced the best coats of mail. The Duke of Alva introduced it into the war in Flanders about the year 1550, and, soon afterwards, opinion so completely changed that defensive armour was for a time looked upon with contempt. Cavalry were consequently much lightened in their equipment, in order to increase their mobility and enable them to diminish the effect of the bullets as much as possible, by shortening by increased speed the interval between their arriving within range of fire and the moment of contact in the charge. Cuirasses were afterwards re-introduced, and have been often used since that date. It is stated that Gustavus Adolphus, at the battle of Leipsig, could not conceal his uneasiness when he compared the accoutre ments of Pappenheim's cavalry, who were completely cased in armour, with his own, who were for the most part destitute of such protection. The result proved that these iron-clad warriors were more formidable in appearance than in reality. Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange, gave cuirasses to his cavalry, but it was as a protection against the Spanish lancers. We find also that the cavalry of Frederick the Great comprised 13 regiments of cuirassiers, 12 of dragoons and 10 of hussars. But Seidlitz, his great cavalry general, does not appear to have had much confidence in his cuirassiers. General Warnery, his bosom friend and compeer, in his "Remarques sur la Cavalerie," published in 1781, says, "Seid"litz, whose regiment ought for the useful "(pour le solide) to serve as a model to all "the cavalry of the universe, Seidlitz, I say, "admitted that, in a march of moderate "length, he could not with his regiment re"sist 600 good hussars." The Emperor Napoleon revived the heavy cuirassier at the commencement of the Empire, by giving cuirasses to several of his cavalry regiments, and by decree of the 24th December, 1809, he also gave them to the regiments of carabineers. Great as is Napoleon's authority on all military questions, his opinion on this point is now entirely out of date. From the first use of gunpowder, for some three hundred years, the infantry musket had not attained any great perfection of precision, rapidity or range. |