not be productive of less evil? In the only instance on record, in which such a line of policy has been steadily adopted, it proved completely successful. We know that to the arguments in favour of inviolable peace, adduced from the history of Pennsylvania, it is commonly objected, that as William Penn and his followers had to deal only with uncivilized Indians, the principles which were found equal to their emergencies can afford no rule of action amidst the complicated relations of European states. This is plausible. But since the English, the Dutch, and indeed all preceding settlers had been involved in perpetual hostilities with the natives, it must be granted that if William Penn had never made the experiment, we should have had precisely the same reason for maintaining the impracticability of establishing any colony upon peaceable principles, which the present advocates of War allege against the possibility of ensuring to these principles a universal reception.

"But how," it is asked, "if the lawfulness of War be denied, is liberty, that choicest blessing on earth, to be preserved?" Do we then undervalue liberty? God forbid. No, we would cherish her as the dearest gift of heaven, and at her altar we would cheerfully sacrifice all the treasure we possess; all but the treasure of a pure conscience and an unspotted life. The doctrine of non-resistance, in the sense of unqualified submission, is alike degrading to the character, and subversive of the rights of man. There does, however, exist a principle, which, though little appreciated, because seldom brought into action, is yet fully adequate to the preservation of liberty-the principle of MORAL RESISTANCE. Its power is infinitely superior to the force of arms, not only because free from the imputation of blood-guiltiness, but because not, like the operations of physical strength, liable to uncertainty in its effects. The event of a battle is always doubtful; but the opposition of steady, persevering non-compliance, no victory can subdue. No man can be literally compelled to obey the commands of another. Would any ruler attempt to invade the liberties of a nation, when he was perfectly assured that all his efforts would be utterly unavailing in producing obedience to his decrees, and that, after baffling the last resources of tyranny, resolution would remain as immoveable as at the beginning of the contest? It would be like attempting with a knife to cut against the solid rock :-physical resistance is the clash

of opposing lances in the tilt-yard, where it is an even chance which shall first shiver the other to pieces. Hampden did more for the liberties of his country, when he steadfastly refused to submit to the illegal imposition of twenty shillings, than when he took up arms in defence of those liberties. And if all Englishmen had been Hampdens, there would have been no Charles to tyrannize-no Cromwell

to usurp.

With respect to internal reforms, experience has surely manifested that they are seldom permanently effected by violence. It is by the strong voice of public opinion-that voice, the power of which is daily increasing, and against the unanimous expression of which no corrupt system of government can long maintain its ground, that effectual reform is alone to be accomplished. It was by the plan of passive endurance-of calm unbending fortitude, that Christianity obtained her footing among men. If the early Christians had flown to arms in defence of their principles, the probability is, that they would have sunk beneath the overpowering weight of numbers. But the sword was not their instrument of warfare, and their weapons were unconquerable by earthly force. The cause of Christianity, it is true, was under the special protection of Divine Providence; but may it not be added, that the same protection will be afforded to all who, in a firm reliance on that Providence, conform their actions unreservedly to the will of heaven? If it be said, that such a mode of proceeding would involve a great deal of passive suffering, we answer, first, perhaps not so much as is invariably produced by measures of active resistance—and, secondly, that this system once established, the practice of War would necessarily cease, as devoid of object.

We call upon all, who are capable of discerning the mischief and ultimate inutility of War, to unite in diffusing those sentiments which will lead to the discovery of some better means of adjusting differences,

some

more dignified tribunal" than the field of battle. Why should there not be a congress of nations* to combine the energies of all in

*Since this Tract was written, the official document relative to the settlement of some differences between the Governments of Great Britain and the United States of America, by arbitration, has been laid before Parliament by Lord Liverpool and Mr. Canning, or the author would probably have adverted to it. The mode adopted by the two governments was, first, for each respectively to appoint a commissioner to settle the points in dispute between them; and, provided the

the promotion of one common interest? Let us urge home to the conscience and understanding of every rational creature, the necessity of an adherence to fixed principles. Half the mischief in the world arises from men's forsaking those grand general rules of Christianity which are calculated to secure the greatest eventual sum of good, to go in quest of temporary expedients. It is this which fills our streets with beggars,-it is this which overspreads the earth with slaughter. Perhaps it will be said that every general rule admits of exceptions. True;-where these exceptions are deduced from other general rules, but not where they are framed to suit the exigencies of a particular case. When any class of exceptions, however, proves on the whole productive of mischief, the rule by which it is supported must be fallacious. If it be granted that the universal adoption of pacific principles would conduce to the wellbeing of mankind, we ask how it is possible that these principles should become universal whilst any individual is permitted to claim an exemption in his own favour? When every single nation is determined on the preservation of peace, there will be an end to contest. And though we are not so sanguine as to expect that in the present state of public feeling and opinion any nation unjustly attacked will abstain from using arms in her own defence; nevertheless we remain convinced that the best method of furthering the entire abolition of War is, by placing it in its true light, to promote the spread of those principles which, if generally adopted, would arrest alike the hand of the invader, and the angry resistance of the injured party, and which would, at all events, induce the rulers of each country to exert their most strenuous endeavours in avoiding every ground of offence and contention. Or if War must be considered a necessary evil, let it be regarded strictly as an evil,-let the warrior no longer be looked upon with feelings of admiration, and we may venture to predict that his profession will not be of long

66

Commissioners could not agree, finally to refer their differences to the decision of some friendly power, to be mutually agreed upon by the two governments. In the instance above referred to, the Commissioners disagreed, and the difference was referred to the Emperor of Russia, each party engaging to consider his decision final and conclusive." It is therefore suggested whether the same mode might not be adopted in settling any future differences between nations, even in preference to forming a congress for that purpose proposed in the text. The principle is the same, but the mode is less complex, and less liable to objection; it has also the advantage of having been tried, and proved successful.

continuance. If the judgment be impressed with the guilt and folly of strife, it is well;-but it is not sufficient. There are illusions which play round the heart, whose active energy bids defiance to the sober calculations of reason. The understanding and the passions exert a reciprocal influence; and in order to insure the practical conviction of the former, it is essentially requisite to dissipate the false glare of the latter. Most of those erroneous prepossessions which have tinged the sentiments of men with the colours of military enthusiasm, originate either in partial views of mankind, in a superficial attention to particular evils,-in the influence of prevailing custom,-or in the exclusive contemplation of that grandeur of design and sublimity of character, which are sometimes the accompaniments of warlike exploits, but with which they are so falsely and so fatally considered as inseparably connected.

The quarrels of nations resemble, on a larger scale, the quarrels of individuals. As a proud and selfish man, jealous of fancied dignity, places his own interests in continual opposition to the interests of another, and imagines they are best promoted by an infringement of his neighbour's rights; so each nation, instead of regarding herself as only one of the members of a great family, "bound to co-operate for each other's benefit, and interested in each other's well-being," too often conceives that to injure and depress the trade of foreign countries, is to exalt the prosperity of her own. Reason and philanthropy do indeed teach us, "that one nation thrives not upon the ruins of another,"† and that the welfare of a part is ever conducive to the welfare of the whole; but prejudices imbibed in the cradle obtain a hold over the fancy, that is hardly ever shaken off in after-life; and as long as the infant tongue shall be taught to lisp in accents of congratulation the happy news that our armies have been victorious-that we have beaten our enemies, and have killed several thousands of them-as long as the infant mind shall be directed to dwell exclusively on the glories of its own country; so long will degrading notions of national honour,-petty, narrow misrepresentations of national policy,-continue to oppose the progress of all that is truly excellent, truly noble, and truly patriotic in principle and in action.

A second kind of error consists in the little attention bestowed

upon details. We suffer the imagination to be seduced by floating ideas of magnificence and grandeur; and, dazzled by the brilliant results of a campaign, we neglect to examine closely the real features of War, or we should shrink with horror from their odious deformity. Does he, who celebrates with triumphant applause the defeat of a rival nation, recollect, that at that very moment hundreds are lying on the field of battle in the last agonies of death; that hundreds more, crowded in miserable hospitals, are groaning on the beds from which they will never arise, but with limbs mutilated, bodies enfeebled, and health destroyed, to drag out the remains of a tedious existencee-a burthen to themselves, and a cause of neverceasing grief to their friends? Does he picture to himself the fond wife, who, after listening for many hours in breathless anxiety to the distant roar of that awful thunder, whose every peal is dismissing multitudes to eternity-at the conclusion of the battle rushes eagerly forward, only to meet the tidings that her husband-her friend-the protector of her beloved children, whom she had that very morning clasped to her bosom, warm with life and hope-lies now a bloody corpse among heaps of slain? Does he think of desolated corn fields, ruined villages, towns in flames,--the wretched inhabitants compelled at midnight to seek in the open fields a refuge from the brutality of an infuriated soldiery-and, above all, does he seriously reflect that these calamities are not the work of an over-heated imagination-not the fanciful delineations of fictitious woe; but that they are, at this present time,* actually endured, by beings of his own species-beings with wants as numerous-feelings as acute as his

own?

The prevalent ascendancy of custom is a third cause by which the judgment is biassed. Men cannot easily bring themselves to believe that the force of intellect, the deliberations of councils, and the energies of nations, are wasted in support of a delusion. But is the amount of means employed any standard by which to estimate the utility of the end? Have not whole communities expended their strength, and philosophers their labours, in pursuit of objects now universally acknowledged to be unimportant or pernicious? And if the extent of any practice be admitted as an argument in favour of its propriety, what abuse is there which may not be justified?

* 1823.