of books may, and probably will in the course of time, be employed on the contrary side, and may be expected to act at least as efficaciously in favour of truth as it has done against it. If the elementary historical, and political treatises, that are in the hands of youth, instead of considering war as a necessary and legitimate branch of the social system, and dwelling with complacency on its details, should describe it as the principal scourge of the world, and at least as absurd as it is mischievous, it is clear that they would grow up with very different notions of it from the common ones. Poetry will of course follow in the track of publick opinion rather than lead it, because it is a sort of commodity that must be suited to the publick taste; but even in this department of literature, the progress of refinement is gradually introducing a very important and favourable change. The fictions, which have been the most popular within the last half century, describe the actions and passions of private life, and are found to possess a much deeper interest, than narratives of great political or historical movements. These, though generally in prose, come for all moral purposes under the description of poetry, and thus military virtues have already ceased to be the sole objects of interest in fictitious narration. The principal poets of Great Britain still continue, as was observed before, in their metrical compositions, to select their heroes from the class of pirates and conquerours. But it cannot be long before they will discover how much they lose by this choice. How much greater interest we feel for example in the Antiquary than in the Corsair. Nor is it necessary that the poets should lose the opportunity of describing these immense exhibitions of power and feeling, occasioned by war. It is only necessary to take a correct and fair view of the subject, so as not to mislead publick feeling, and a battle may still be as fine a subject for description as an earthquake, a plague, or an inundation.

The form of the European governments is one great objection to the probability of a reform in the management of international disputes. The Abbe de St. Pierre, who interested himself very much in this subject about a century ago in France, and wrote one or two works upon it, presented a memorial to Cardinal Fleury, then Prime Minister, whose dear delight,' says Pope, was peace'—and who might, therefore, be looked upon as rather favourable to the

6

scheme. His answer was, You have forgotten, M. l'Abbé, as a preliminary measure, to despatch a troop of missionaries, to change the hearts of kings and princes.' It is too true, that while a few individuals, not the 'most likely by the terms on which they hold their power to be particularly attentive to the real interests of their subjects, have the sole direction of a number of contiguous nations, there cannot be much hope of a permanent preservation of peace. But will it not be the natural effect of the progress of political knowledge and general improvement, that the European governments will pass from the hands of hereditary rulers into those of something like a fair representation of the popular feeling and interest? Are there not even strong indications in the present aspect of Europe that the epoch of such a change is rapidly approaching? These are great questions, which would furnish matter of themselves for a long inquiry.—If however, by means of such an improvement, the governments of Europe should ever be brought to act upon a fair and enlightened view of the publick interest, it is clear that we should have no more wars. Supposing even that those governments remain as they now are, is there not room to suppose that in process of time, and in the progress of general information, the voice of publick opinion may declare itself with such clearness and decision against war, that even arbitrary governments may be compelled to listen to it-

• War is a game which, were their subjects wise,
Kings would not play at.'

This is poetry, but no fiction-for kings are themselves the subjects of opinion, and must obey her orders or lose their power; and perhaps, instead of doubting whether subjects will ever arrive at the point of wisdom necessary for effecting this object, we ought rather to be surprised that they have not reached it long ago.

It will be perceived from these remarks, that we place no great confidence in the league of kings and princes in Europe for the preservation of peace, sometimes called the Holy Alliance or Christian Treaty. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. If they really wish for the permanent tranquillity of the world, let them disband their standing armies, and give up their military and naval establishments. When we see them Vol. VI. No. 1.

6

entering into a combination to do this by common consent, we shall begin to think them in earnest, and not before. But it is little better than a mockery of the world, to make these publick professions, while they keep on foot armies of two or three hundred thousand men each, all burning for an opportunity to enjoy the occupation and profit of a new struggle. The only real ground of dependence is the intelligence and good sense of the people. When the publick voice is once clearly and fully lifted up against war, it will cease; and till then the solemn farce of Holy Alliances will probably aggravate rather than diminish the evil,

But what can be substituted for war? How shall national differences be terminated without it? This reminds us of a remark of Voltaire upon a different subject-Je vous délivre d'une bête féroce qui vous dévore et vous me demandez ce que je veux mettre à sa place. I am delivering you from a wild beast just ready to devour you, and you ask me what I mean to put in his place. It is obvious that in this case every change must be for the better. The great adversary himself could not devise a scheme for settling disputes more fraught with mischief than the present. Most writers on this subject have recommended the establishment of an international tribunal, in the nature of an Amphictyonic council, to settle differences between nations. This was the plan of St. Pierre. Kant, who wrote a pamphlet upon it, has also recommended a sort of confederation among states for this purpose. This scheme is considered objectionable by some, on the ground that either the sovereignty of independent states must be compromised by making this tribunal sovereign over them all, or that the tribunal having no power to enforce its decrees would be entirely inefficient. We are very doubtful about the force of this objection, and think it not improbable that it would be found in practice a matter of great ease and familiarity to settle by arbitration such differences as might bona fide occur between independent nations. These would generally be of no great consequence and almost always of that kind, in which it is better for all parties, that the dispute should be settled any way than not at all.

Besides, and this is a point which we think entitled to more consideration than it has yet received-what necessity is there to provide for the determination of many international disputes? Most of the wars waged for a century or two in Eu

1

1

rope have nominally arisen from claims and contests, of ancient origin, bequeathed from generation to generation as standing grounds for quarrel. Now, supposing all such old matters to be once fairly adjusted, as a preliminary step to a new mode of settling national disputes in future-what new subjects could be expected to arise? Nations, it is obvious, have in reality no clashing interests. What promotes the interest of one promotes the interest of all, since it is really for the advantage of every nation that all the rest should be as prosperous as possible. It is true that if military establishments and standing armies remained, the personal interest of those connected with them would never want for pretences to engage nations in war. But the fair trial of a new system would presuppose the entire suppression of such establishments. And as we conceive this last-mentioned cause, to wit, the interest of persons connected with military establishments, to be at bottom the moving cause of most, if not all wars, we are sanguine enough to apprehend, that if this were fairly removed, there would be no great trouble found in adjusting any accidental differences. Such differences would probably, as has just been observed, be surprisingly few-and there being nobody in the state personally interested in making war about them, the utter inefficacy and inexpediency of this mode of adjusting them would strike every body too plainly to permit the thought of recurring to it. It would in fact be universally regarded as an antiquated barbarism-the principal stigma on the character of an age, that called itself civilized and enlightened. Military establishments operate like great schools for teaching the necessity and propriety of what may be called the military system-just as a body of clergy in the state are found a most powerful instrument for keeping up in the publick mind an opinion of the necessity and expediency of religion. The first efficient step therefore that can be taken towards the overthrow of this system, will be the suppression of standing armies and military establishments.

The objection to any attempt of the kind we are considering, founded upon a misunderstanding of the doctrine of Malthus, that war is a part of the established system of nature, and that the attempt to put an end to it would be fighting against Providence-as well as the defence of war, which is sometimes set up on the authority of certain passages in

scripture, we consider too frivolous to require any attention. We shall therefore proceed immediately to make a very few remarks by way of conclusion to this article upon the third point proposed for examination, viz.

3. The probable effect of Peace Societies in promoting the object we are considering. And with regard to this we certainly think that such societies are among the most important and effectual means of producing that reformation in publick opinion, which we consider the only necessary preliminary to the accomplishment of the object. Publick opinion is very sympathetick and very apt to follow the lead of large and respectable bodies of men. The publicity and notoriety attendant on the meetings and proceedings of such societies are also very well calculated to attract attention to the subject-and this is all that is wanted. Let the publick mind be once directed to a serious examination of the matter, and the point is gained. These societies may be expected to meet with opposition and ridicule, but they have no reason to stand in awe of either one or the other. Their object is a good one and will defend itself against argument, nor is it very likely to be injured by the sneers of the interested or the frivolous. We have said little or nothing in the course of our remarks of the objection that is most commonly urged, that the project is a chimerical one. If by this is meant that it is impossible to execute it, we apprehend it will be rather difficult to prove the point; and even if it were certainly impossible to put an entire end to war, no reason can be given, as has been urged before, why every effort should not be used to discourage it on sound and proper principles. Nobody can pretend that it is impossible or improbable, that the steady exertions of societies and individuals should have some effect in discouraging a military spirit, if they cannot wholly eradicate it. If it be intended to connect with the word an idea of absurdity, folly or incongruity, as belonging to the plan in question, we consider the epithet as quite misapplied and belonging with much greater propriety to the practice itself. What can be more thoroughly and essentially chimerical, absurd, and ridiculous, than the pretence of settling a disputed boundary, or a doubtful passage in Grotius by arranging fifty or a hundred thousand men in two opposing lines, and compelling them to shoot each other down? This is the real chimera, and the attempt to put an end to it is benevolent and judicious, and deserves the approbation and encouragement of the friends of humanity.