It

Perhaps if, fifty or sixty years ago, some of these cold-hearted philosophers had been asked which would be abolished first, the Slave-Trade, or War, they might have hesitated both were under the patronage of governments, both could plead the prescription of antiquity, both seemed the interest of large and powerful bodies of men, and had nothing against them but reason and justice. They would have hesitated-and deemed it a choice between two impossibilities. And the Slave-Trade is abolished, and its practice is felony.-Two facts are cheering. 1. Peace now scarcely differs more from war, than modern war fare does from ancient. We see in barbarous states what war must have been originally. is mere slaughter. No quarter is given. All advantages are taken. Among the New Zealanders, and Aboriginal Americans, there is nothing like the openness and honour of European conflict. To lie in wait and rush unawares upon their prey; to fire upon him from unsuspected ambush; to steal in the dead of night, set fire to the huts, and massacre the inhabitants as they fly naked and defenceless from the flames; these are their deeds of glory. In Greece and Rome the vanquished had only the alternative of death or slavery. What would be thought now of the insulting ceremony of leading princes and nobles through the streets, chained to a triumphal chariot, for the mob to gaze at-and then dis

missing them to menial attendance on their victors? The proportion of the numbers slain to those engaged, is trifling now, in comparison with the battles of antiquity; to say nothing of wars of cold-blooded massacre, and complete extermination. The improvements in the art of war have pretty uniformly tended to make it more a matter of calculation and less of force and slaughter. Perhaps, too, the advance of physical science may lead to discoveries and inventions which will have an unexpected and happy influence. At first brute -strength alone decided contests. Discipline took off part of its superiority; and the use of gunpowder almost equalizes the weak with the strong. May not some future invention level the many with the few, or at least provide means of defence, which will baffle an immense superiority of numbers? Destructive machinery seems peculiarly adapted for this purpose. The torpedo may be improved so as to protect the fishing boat from the man of war, and secure the coast from desolation. However we shudder at such instruments, they may, perhaps be brought to an infernal perfection, which will serve the cause of humanity, by infinitely multiplying the perils of encroachment and attack. However this may be, it is obvious that there is more of mind in the conduct of war, and of humanity in its operations. Half the horrors of ancient warfare have vanished. (°) What is to stop the progress here ?

2. The tendencies of society have been, and are, to limit war, and consequently to abolish it ultimately, It cannot take place now in numerous situations where it used to rage. The formation of society stops individual hostilities. Private war, once so general and destructive, is abolished. In England once Baron warred upon Baron, and castle against castle hoisted the flag of defiance. Those combats have ceased, and for ever. What rivers of blood have Scotch and English shed in desperate struggles! From all appearance, they have waged their last war with each other. Had the United States of America been, by different formation and circumstances, disunited kingdoms, or republics, what incessant and bloody conflicts would have deluged that continent! In this respect, the tendency of small states to coalesce into larger, and of larger ones to a sort of federal union, is auspicious to mankind. At present, all the great powers of Europe are in alliance this may be only the coalition of governors. Supposing all those governors to become the faithful guardians of free nations, that union. might remain-the arbiter of national disputes, the congress of peace and justice.

The wide diffusion of knowledge and Christianity, which we have already seen good reason to anticipate, and the hope of which will be further confirmed by considerations to which we shall hereafter advert, encourages us to argue from the

manifest guilt and folly of wars to their disuse and abolition. Let but the great majority become enlightened, and although certain classes of society may still be interested in exciting appeals to the sword, there can be no want of means to prevent the sacrifice of the general good to their vanity, avarice, or madness. Wars may be divided, according to their causes, into four principal classes:

1. Wars for disputed sovereignty. The crown of England was long contested by the two houses of York and Lancaster. An historian, speaking of the battle of Tewkesbury, which seated Edward IV. on the throne, says, "This was the twelfth battle that had been fought in this fatal quarrel; and in these battles, and on the scaffold, above sixty princes of the royal family, above one half of the nobles and principal gentlemen, and above one hundred thousand of the common people, lost their lives." And what followed? The licentiousness of Edward, the usurpation of Richard, the grinding avarice of Henry VII., and the wanton tyranny of Henry VIII. Had the common people had common sense, would they not have left the houses, or the nobles, if What they pleased, to fight it out themselves? to them was York or Lancaster? The crown has since been bestowed more rationally; not by divine right, ascertained in battle, but by Act of Parliament, in defiance of succession: on Wil

liam III., Anne, George I. and the house of Hanover, it was thus conferred. These scenes will never be reacted in this country. Their folly must be seen in all countries; and when seen, however individuals or families might be wicked enough to aim at their revival, they would find that, losing the opinions and prejudices of the multitude, they had also lost the direction of their physical force. What a fine contrast to Yorkists, Lancastrians, Stuarts, Bourbons, and all the rest who "wade through slaughter to a throne," was Richard Cromwell! He was advised to take off a seditious leader, and secure his father's elevation for himself. "No," said "I will not purchase authority at the price of one man's blood.” (P)

he,

2. Wars of conquest and usurpation. Such as those of Edward III. and Henry V., in France, by which the people got nothing for their blood and treasure, but the pleasure of seeing the lilies in the royal arms. What conquest was ever worth its purchase; even to any one? The only gain from them is to the pride of the monarch, and the avarice of the favourites, who may then acquire plunder. Will nations always sacrifice themselves for these; or for what is baser still, the gratification of commercial rapacity? For trade now prompts to wars of encroachment and usurpation, as well as ambition.

3. Wars of passion, revenge, and glory. To