broken. Human instruments, no doubt, were employed in the
remainder of the work; nor would I deny to Germany and to
Prussia the glories of the year 1813, nor to England the honour
of her victories in Spain, or of the crowning victory of
Waterloo. But at the distance of thirty years, those who lived
in the time of danger and remember its magnitude, and now
calmly review what there was in human strength to avert it,
must acknowledge, I think, beyond all controversy, that the
deliverance of Europe from the dominion of Napoleon was
effected neither by Russia, nor by Germany, nor by England, but
by the hand of God alone."

The question, whether some races of men possess an inherent superiority
over others, is mooted by Dr Arnold, in his dissertation on military
science. Without laying down any universal rule, it may be stated that
such a superiority can be predicated of no European nation. Frederick
the Great defeated the French at Rosbach, as easily as Napoleon overcame
the Prussians at Jena. If Marlborough was uniformly successful, William
III. was always beaten by Luxembourg, and the Duke of Cumberland by
D'Etrées and Saxe. It seems, therefore, a fair inference, that no
civilized European nation possesses over its neighbours that degree of
superiority which greater genius in the general, or greater discipline
in the troops of its antagonists, will not be sufficient to counteract.
The defeat of the Vendéans in France, by the soldiers of the garrison of
Mentz; and the admirable conduct of our own Sepoys under British
generals, are, no doubt, strong instances to show the prodigious
importance of systematic discipline. Still, we cannot quite coincide
with Dr Arnold's opinion on this subject. We are quite ready to
admit--who, indeed, for a moment would deny?--in military as well as in
all other subjects, the value of professional attainments and long