in saying that the very full and able debate to which we have listened, has tended to convince me beyond doubt that of the three characters whom I submitted to your judgment the Poet is by far the noblest, the highest, and the worthiest. He is above the Warrior, inasmuch as the immortal must always transcend the perishable; and he is above the Statesman, inasmuch as morality must ever be superior to intellectual wisdom. The good which the Warrior does, tends towards evil, and most generally produces evil; that which the Statesman does, is mutable and temporary; but that which the Poet does is everlasting. Love of glory animates the Warrior; so that his good deeds originate, at most, in selfishness. The Statesman follows virtue for expediency's sake, and this shows him to be selfish too. But the Poet worships truth for its own sake alone, and never till he abandons self can he be a Poet at all. I fear, however, it may be thought that all this is speculative. Let us therefore for a moment view the question with the eye of fact. I will select from our history the greatest Warrior, the greatest Philosopher, and the greatest Poet that I find there. I will take CROMWELL as our Hero, BACON as our Statesman, and SHAKSPERE as our Poet. The same influences tended to produce all three, nearly the same time beheld them, they are therefore fit objects to be mutually compared. What then did Cromwell do for his country? Raised it doubtless to its highest pinnacle of political greatness: conquered its enemies, struck terror into the hearts of its malcontents, acquired for it the dominion of the seas, first, indeed, gave England that high supremacy in the world which from that time to this she has held. But let us look a little further. What do we see following his despotic rule? That which always results from military despotism licentiousness, irreligion, moral slavery. Charles the Second would never have demoralised us, had not Cromwell first trodden us down. So it is always with the conqueror. I could show you, were it necessary, many parallel instances, some from our own records, some from those of France and other countries. Wherever the iron heel of the Warrior treads, there spring up foul and pestilential weeds which poison the whole atmosphere around, and flower into misery and crime. So much then for our Hero! And now what of our Statesman? I grant that the clearest and most sagacious mind in all our annals is the mind of Bacon, and that his philosophy (rightly studied and understood) is of a high, pure, and useful character. But what has he done for us? To say nothing of the miserable example he sets us by his own conduct, do we not find that the effect of his works has been to plunge Europe in scepticism, if not infidelity; in doubt, if not darkness? To it are clearly owing the disbelief of Hume, the atheistic philosophism of the last century, and the mean, ignoble, calculating utilitarianism of the present day. I do not impute this fault to Bacon, nor to his philosophy; I merely instance it to prove that all mere mental teaching is vain, useless, and injurious; that it fills the mind without touching the heart, and that it makes a man wise without leading him to be good. But who can estimate the vast benefit that Shakspere did and is doing to his country? Who can sufficiently point out the effect of his chivalrous patriotism, his pure benevolence, his high philosophy, his sound morality, his universal sympathies, his glorious aspirations to nobler and to better worlds than this? The Warrior, as we have seen, links man to man by the word of command, the word of authority. The Statesman, as we have seen, links man to man by the principle of mutual dependence and self-interest. But the Poet links man to man by the holy tie of sympathy and brotherhood; a tie which no authority, no force, can break. Place then these three men side by side-Cromwell, Bacon, Shakspere; and let your choice point out to you the answer you should give to the question now before us. You will not hesitate, for you cannot doubt. For whilst you will perceive that the Warrior and the Statesman are but the creatures of the day that produces them, and perish with that day; you will also find that the Poet engraves his glory so deeply on the world's affections, that till the heart of man perishes for ever in the grave of time, that glory shall be fresh and ineffaceable. See Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH'S WORKS, vol. ii. pp. 320-327.; and vol. iii. pp. 200. 252. Lord JEFFREY'S ESSAYS, vol. i. p. 231.; vol. ii. p. 259. EDINBURGH REVIEW, vol. xlvii. pp. 184-196.; HEROES, HERO WORSHIP, AND THE HEROIC MAXIMS AND OPINIONS OF THE DUKE OF JAMES'S FOREIGN STATESMEN. QUESTION II. Are the Mental Capacities of the Sexes equal? OPENER.- Sir, In rising to open the question which has been put from the chair, I assure you that I feel the need of much indulgence. I expect no small amount of reproach and contumely for the part I mean to take in this debate, for I know the gallantry of many of my friends around me, and I fully make up my mind to smart under the weight of it. However, I prefer truth to reputation, and I do not mind a wound or two in a cause that I feel to be right. I will meet my fate boldly at all events; and I will at once declare that, so far as I have been enabled to judge, I have been led to believe that the mental capacities of the sexes are not equal; that the man's intellect is, on the average, superior to the woman's. I am quite ready to own that this rule will not hold universally. One cannot read the records of the world, or look round his own circle of acquaintance, without perceiving that some women are superior to some men. But I arrive at my present judgment, by observing that the best samples of the male sex are superior to the |