ought to have been killed for that offence, it was Alexander ; not his innocent soldiers, nor the soldiers of Napoleon. But what civilized government ever made the violation of a promise a capital offence? Yet such has been the barbarity of sovereigns, that, without any form of trial. they have often sacrificed myriads of innocent men, to revenge the alleged wrong of a royal or imperial individual. No pirate ever waged a more unnecessary or a more unjust war, than was the war of Napoleon on Russia; yet the wars of Christian nations have generally been of the same detestable character. Is it not, then, time that Christians should better understand their rights and their duty, than to suppose themselves under moral obligations to obey such vengeful mandates, as those by which Napoleon summoned half a million of men to the field of murder and of death?

Had the Indian chief, whose business it was to keep order and peace among the boys, but done his duty, the war would have been prevented. But when he saw the boys excited, instead of acting the part of a peacemaker, "he happened to be in ill humor and talked about bloody war," till the mothers came to blows in contending for their sons; then the men on both sides engaged in the quarrel, and dreadful was the result. So wars in general may be imputed to the neglect or "ill humor" of rulers, who ought ever to be conservators of order and peace. It is to be expected that disputes and bickerings will arise between rash and imprudent individuals of different tribes or nations; but so long as the men in power do their duty as peacemakers, so long will the public tranquillity be preserved. Hence it is of vast importance to the people of every country that their rulers should be good men, whose minds are deeply imbued with the principles and the spirit of peace. Rulers of an opposite character have long been the scourge of nations, and the reproach of Christendom.

Another important lesson may be learned from the narrative of the grasshopper war. We may learn the natural tendency of educating boys for warriors; and also learn whence that practice originated. The object in bringing the boys together to shoot at grasshoppers, was not mere amusement; they were learning how to kill the deer and the buffalo, and, above all, how to kill men. I say, above all, how to kill men, because it is with the savages as it is with Christians-to them "military glory is the greatest of all glories." But educating children

for warriors, naturally produces in them haughty and revengeful feelings, and an inhuman disregard of life; and such an education as naturally tends to violence and bloodshed, as sowing thistles tends to a corresponding harvest. Hence we may account not only for the grasshopper war of the Indians, but for the grasshopper duels among our midshipmen, military officers, members of Congress, and others who have been educated for mankillers. And hence, too, the multiplied wars of Christian nations. But whence did Christians derive their custom of educating boys for warriors? Not from the example or the precepts of the Messiah; nor from the example of civilized men; but from the example of pagans and savages. The ancestors of all the Christian nations were once pagans and savages. Their posterity have assumed the name of Christians, and have discarded many of the pagan opinions, rites, and usages; but they have retained, as the glory of Christian nations, the most savage of all savage customs, that of deciding controversies by the sword, glorying in sanguinary achievements, and training their offspring for works of violence and manslaughter!

I would here solemnly state one query-Had the prince of darkness been commissioned to dictate one savage custom to be retained by Christians, could he have named one more according to his own heart than that which has so long been the boast of Christian nations? or could he have devised one more injurious to man, or more repugnant to the spirit of Christianity?

COMPARATIVE ESTIMATE OF PIRACY.

IN 1821 the committee of Congress on the judiciary made a report on the punishment of piracy, and gave the following estimate of the offence:

"In the catalogue of human offences, if there is any one supremely distinguished for its enormity, it is piracy. It can only be committed by those who have become base by habitual depravity. It is called by jurists an offence against the universal laws of society."-Nat. Int. Feb. 13, 1821.

With sentiments of respect for the committee, and a perfect abhorrence of piracy, we may question the correctness of this estimate. The pirates referred to in the report were a class

of hardened depredators, many of whom had probably been trained to rapine and murder in the wars of their respective governments. Having been ruined by education and dismissed. from public employment, they expatriated themselves, assumed independence, and like other independent communities claimed the right of waging war. They did not merely fight in selfdefence, but made wars of aggression, revenge, and conquest, like an Alexander or a Napoleon.

The committee further observe respecting the pirate, that he "is at war with his species. His flag consists of a death's head, a battle axe, and an hour glass. These are the ensigns of his profession. He does not select the enemies of his native country as the only objects of his conquests." He attacks the defenceless, prowls every ocean in quest of plunder, and murders or jeopardizes all who fall into his hands."

Such is the atrocious character of piracy. But what is there singular in all this, or more inhuman or unjust than what is commonly practised in the public wars of rulers? Do not public ships and licensed privateers" attack the defencelessprowl every ocean for plunder, and murder or jeopardize the lives" of the innocent?

Pirates indeed violate the laws of humanity, the laws of states, the laws of justice, and the laws of Heaven; but the same may be as truly said of warring governments; and what are called the laws of war sanction atrocities as horrible as any which can be imputed to pirates. Indeed we may say that the atrocities of the pirates are as the drop of the bucket to the ocean when compared with the robberies, conflagrations, and murders of the most celebrated conquerors from Nebuchadnezzar to Napoleon.

As depraved and abandoned as the pirates have generally been, they have not surpassed war-making rulers in their disregard of the lives of inen, and they have done far less to multiply the distresses of mankind. Let the reader for a moment compare the most cruel instance of piracy with the conduct of royal or imperial robbers, in sacking and burning cities, ravaging provinces and countries, depriving myriads of human beings of life, or reducing them to starvation and despair. Probably a single campaign of Napoleon caused more destruction of life, and more human misery, than have been caused by all the unlicensed pirates of the world for two centuries. Yet he is admired and praised, while the less guilty pirates are doomed to infamy.

The advocates for war may set down its atrocities for nothing, because they are done by order of men in power, or they may apologize for them as the natural and necessary consequences of national hostilities; or they may celebrate them as deeds of heroism and glory; but enlightened posterity will regard them with horror, consign them to infamy, and blush for the barbarity of their ancestors. It has indeed been re

ported of some pirates, that they have been so very wicked as to seduce or impress innocent men to aid them in their cruel enterprizes. This is very bad, but it is only a miniature picture of the conduct of Christian rulers, in their wars of rapine and conquest. We may now submit the subject to our readers and leave it for them to decide, whether piracy is "supremely distinguished for its enormity," and whether indeed its mischiefs and atrocities are not light when laid in the balance against the usual mischiefs and atrocities of public war. Never was a more just reproach uttered than that of the Scythian sage to Alexander, "Thou art the greatest robber in the world." Let robbers then suffer infamy according to the magnitude of their crimes and mischiefs; and not applaud the greater felons while the less are doomed to the gibbet.

TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN TWO BORDERERS.

PRIOR to the union of the Britons and Scots under one government, the wars of the two nations were frequent and terrible. Those who lived near the line, which divided the two kingdoms, were on each side, called the Borderers, and these were often at enmity with each other. The following anecdote of two of these Borderers is related in Espriella's Letters.

"A Borderer, who was at mortal enmity with one of his neighbors, fell sick, and, being given over, sent for his enemy. Ah!' cried he, when his neighbor entered his room, I am very bad, very bad indeed. Do you think I shall die?' The other replied, To be sure, you are very bad, but perhaps you may not die yet.' 'No, no,' said the sick man, I shall die, I know I shall die, and I have sent for you that I may not go out of the world at enmity with any one; so, do ye see, we will be friends. The quarrel is over-give me your hand.' The neighbor complied, and was about to leave the room, when the sick man exclaimed,

< But stop! stop! if I should not die this time, then this is all to go for nothing; mind now, it's all to be just as it was before if I do not die."

Thus princes, like these Borderers, make treaties of peace. They mutually promise, that "there shall be a firm and perpetual peace" between them; but "this is all to go for nothing," if they should recover from their exhausted state. Accordingly, before they finish the treaty, they often introduce stipulations to be observed in the event of another war, which God forbid!" And as soon as the treaty of peace is proclaimed, each party immediately proceeds to prepare for future hostilities, just as the sick borderer meant to do, if he should recover from his sickness. What must God have thought of the sincerity of the dying borderer! and what must he think of the prince or ruler who makes such treaties of peace!

MILITARY FORCE IN EUROPE.

"According to a calculation published in 1824, in the Mentz Gazette, the military force of Europe then amounted to 2,500,000 men, including all, both of land and sea service. These cost their governments annually, 2,000,000,000 francs, (about 11d. each) or 91,666,666l. 13s 4d. sterling, while the entire territorial revenue of Europe does not amount to more than 1,800,000,000 francs, or 82,500,000l. About the eightieth part of the population of Europe is still under arms; and each inhabitant furnishes upwards of nine shillings sterling per year, for the support of this mass of armed men, whilst Europe is in profound peace.-Balt. Paper.

For what purpose is this enormous expenditure of time and money-the time of two millions of men, and more than four hundred millions of dollars to pay and support them? To prevent the evils of war. So says the ruler, the statesman, the warrior, and so says popular opinion, and all on the principle," that preparations for war are the surest means of preserving peace." But does not reason and history unite in asserting that this principle is false and delusive? Does not reason teach us that the preparations for war are means for exciting and cherishing that spirit, without which wars would never occur? and does not history assure us, that those nations