Imágenes de páginas

NOTE (-Page 181.


“ The ancient republics were almost in perpetual war, The maxims of ancient war were much more destructive than those of modern ; chiefly by the distribution of plunder in which the soldiers were indulged. The battles of antiquity, both by their duration and their resemblance of single combats, were wrought up to a degree of fury, quite unknown to later ages. Nothing could then engage the combatants to give quarter, but the hopes of profit, by making slaves of their prisoners. In civil wars,

we learn from Tacitus, the battles were the most bloody, because the prisoners were not slaves.

“ What a stout resistance must be made, when the vanquished expected so hard a fate! How inveterate the rage, when the maxims of war were in every respect so bloody and severe !

“ Instances are very frequent in ancient history, of cities besieged, whose inhabitants, rather than open their gates, murdered their wives and children, and rushed themselves on a voluntary death, sweetened, perhaps, with a little prospect of revenge upon the enemy. Greeks, as well as Barbarians, have been wrought up to this degree of fury.

« Sometimes the wars in Greece, says Plutarch, were carried on entirely by inroads and robberies and piracies. Such a method of war must be more destructive in small states, than the bloodiest battles and sieges.

“ The only cartel I remember in ancient history, is that betwixt Demetrius Poliorcetes and the Rhodians;

when it was agreed, that a free citizen should be restored for 1000 drachmas, a slave bearing arms for 500."(Hume's Essay on the Populousness of Ancient Nations.)

NOTE (P)- Page 183.

Summary View of Wars in England, occasioned by disputed Claims of the Crown, from Sidney's Discourses on Government.

“ But the miseries of England upon the like occasions, surpass all. William the Norman was no sooner dead, but the nation was rent in pieces by his son Robert, contesting with his younger sons, William and Henry, for the crown. They being all dead, and their sons, the like happened between Stephen and Maud : Henry the Second was made king to terminate all disputes, but it proved a fruitless expedient. Such as were more scandalous, and not less dangerous, did soon arise between him and his sons; who, besides the evils brought upon the nation, vexed him to death by their rebellion. The reigns of John and Henry the Third were yet more tempestuous. Edward the Second's lewd, foolish, infamous, and detestable government, ended in his deposition and death, to which he was brought by his wife and son.- Edward the Third employed his own and his subjects' valour against the French and Scots ; but whilst the foundations were out of order, the nation could never receive any

advantage by their victories. All was calculated for the glory and turned to the advantage of one man. He being dead, all that the English held in Scotland and in France, was

lost through the baseness of his successor with more blood than it had been gained ; and the civil wars raised by his wickedness and madness, ended as those of Edward had done. The peace of Henry the Fourth's reigh was interrupted by dangerous civil wars; and the victory obtained at Shrewsbury, had not perhaps secured him on the throne, if his death had not prevented new troubles. Henry the Fifth acquired such reputation by his virtue and victories, that none dared to invade the crown during his life ; but immediately after his death, the storms prepared against his family broke out with the utmost violence. His son's weakness encouraged Richard, Duke of York, to set up a new title, which produced such mischiefs as hardly any people has suffered, unless upon the like occasion; for, besides the slaughter of many thousands of the people, and especially of those who had been accustomed to arms, the devastation of the best parts of the kingdom, and the loss of all that our kings had inherited in France, or gained by the blood of their subjects, four-score princes of the blood, as Philip de Commines calls them, died in battle, or under the hand of the hangman. Many of the most noble families were extinguished ; others lost their most eminent men. Three kings, and two presumptive heirs of the crown, were mardered, and the nation brought to that shameful exigence, to set up a young man to reign over them, who had no better cover for his sordid extraction than a Welsh pedigree, that might shew how a tailor was descended from Prince Arthur, Cadwallader, and Brutus. But the wounds of the nation were not to be healed with soch a plaister. He could not rely on a title made up of such stuff, and patched with a marriage to a princess of a very

questionable birth. His own meanness inclined bim to
hate the nobility, and thinking it to be as easy for them
to take the crown from him as to give it to him, he in-
dustriously applied himself to glean up the remainders
of the house of York, from whence a competitor might
arise, and by all means to crush those who were most
able to oppose him. This exceedingly weakened the
nobility, who held the balance between him and the
Commons, and was the first step towards the dissolution
of our ancient government; but he was so far from
setting the kingdom in peace, that such rascals as Perkin
Warbeck and Simnel were able to disturb it. The reign
of Henry the Eighth was turbulent and bloody; that of
Mary, furious, and such as had brought us into sabjection
to the most powerful, proud, and cruel nation at that time
in the world, if God had not wonderfully protected as.
Nay, Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth, notwith-
standing the natural excellency of their dispositions, and
their knowledge of the truth in matters of religion, were
forced by that which men call.jealousy of state,' to foul
their hands 'so often with illustrious blood, 'that if their
reigns đeserve to be accounted amongst the most gentle
of monarcbies, they were more heavy than the govern-
ment of any commonwealth in time of peace;
their lives were never secure against such as conspired
against them upon the account of title.”

[merged small][ocr errors]

and yet

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

That Christianity would surely induce its converts to relinquish the profession of hired soldiers, and yet that it


contains no explicit prohibition of that profession, is not more to be wondered at, than that without a single prohibition, (except in the case of bishops, Tim, iii. 2.) it should have abolished polygamy. The result was perhaps more valuable when produced by the individual, unprompted perception of the incompatibility. It is also possible that there might be some indulgence shewn to those who were already in bondage ; at least, a modern historian is of opinion, how correctly the reader must judge, that such toleration, in the latter case, would have aided a proselyting attempt made some years ago in Jamaica..

“ In the course of an attempt to convert the Maroons to Christianity polygamy was considered, and the Maroon told that, as a Christian, he could not have more than one wife. Having been attached to two for some time, and having children by both, · Top, Massa Governor,' said he, 'top lilly bit ; you say me mus forsake my wife.' - Only one of them'-'Which dat one? Jesus Christ say so ? Gar A'mighty say so ? No, no, Massa; Gar. A'mighty good ; he no. tell somebody he mus forsake him wife and children. Somebody no wicked for forsake him wife! No, Massa, dis here talk no do for me.'(Dallas's History of the Maroons, Vol. I. p. 113.)

It was with an ill grace that this requisition was made of the Maroons, while such an example was before their eyes as the same author has described :

« The white people on estates have as many sable wives as they please, and change them as often as they please ; and there are few properties in the West Indies, on which families of mulattoes have not been left by each

« AnteriorContinuar »