vacant hours were well directed, there would be little danger of their thinking dismissal a light punishment, nor is it probable that any bounty would permanently be needed to allure them. But this touches on a wider subject than we intended. It suffices here to insist that in the existing system, the soldier, often cruelly entrapped into his slavery, is treated like a slave; and that this ought to be fundamentally changed. The details afford material for very lengthened and mature discussion.

There are many who believe that the time will come when no weapons of war shall be forged, and universal peace shall reign. If they expect this time to be brought about without human effort, and that in consequence they may fold their arms in contentment or in despair, their belief is a mischievous superstition. But if they look to this consummation as the final result of manifold struggling towards a juster and purer state, and accept this struggle as laid upon us all by the Highest Wisdom, then it is a generous creed. We also believe that a time will come when men will look back in wonder and pity on our present barbarism; a time at which to begin a war-unless previously justified by the verdict of an impartial tribunal, bound in honour to overlook what is partially expedient to their own nation or party—will be esteemed a high and dreadful crime. The "Governments" will never initiate such institutions until compelled by public opinion and by the inevitable pressure of circumstances; nor is any nation in the world yet ripe to put forth such pressure; otherwise it would not be difficult to devise a supreme court, or rather jury, which would put a totally new moral aspect on war. We honour the good intentions and the moral courage of a man who, like Mr Cobden, comes forward to advocate international arbitration as a means of evading war; and we can admit, that many great wars might have been advantageously avoided by us, if ue had been willing to submit to arbitration. But it is too visible that not only are foreign despotisms unwilling, English ministries and English governors-general are equally unwilling to submit their claims to judgment, when they think they are able to seize by the strong hand what they fancy is their right. It seems to us, that those who wish to stop needless and unjustifiable war, have to begin their work from another point-the reform of martial law. Let some member of Parliament give notice that he means to oppose the unceremonious annual renewal of the Mutiny Act, and meanwhile move for a committee to consider in detail what is the least loss of civil rights which will suffice for army

discipline. A new Mutiny Act should embody several principles, first, that a broad distinction be made as to a soldier's surrender of his civil rights during peace and during war; secondly, that in the peace-discipline his subjection be assimilated to that of an apprentice or other servant who may not leave his master, and all questions between him and his superiors be tried in the civil courts; thirdly, that the militia never be under war discipline, except if the country were invaded; fourthly, that war discipline otherwise begins only when war has been declared in the capital by her Majesty, with the formal assent of Lords and Commons; fifthly, even in war, the limits of a soldier's obedience need to be more strictly defined; for it is abominable and unendurable, that when the Queen has declared war against one power, the commander should lead his men to attack another power, against whom no war has been declared. To expect a soldier to obey under such circumstances, is to train him to overturn the constitution and laws of England, whenever commanders are found unscrupulous and daring enough to attempt it. All such laws of obedience are essentially immoral and demoralising.

The effect of such a change in martial law would be to make piratical hostilities on our part almost impossible. If nine or ten years ago this had been the state of the law, Commodore Lambert would never have dared to commit the offence for which Lord Dalhousie rebuked him, of bombarding Rangoon without orders, and indeed against order: but every sailor, when commanded to fire, would have known that he was committing slaughter at his own risk; inasmuch as neither her Majesty nor her Indian viceroy had declared war. The English navy would forthwith become, what we fondly fancy it is, a purely defensive force, whereas in the eyes of foreigners it is now essentially offensive, provoking extreme dislike of us, and inciting every great power to raise a navy in opposition to us. In those who remember Navarino and Copenhagen, how could any other sentiment toward us be expected, especially when our statesmen coolly avow that they send a fleet as "a demonstration" to influence negotiations. But if it were well known that our ships at Gibraltar, at Malta, at Corfu, or elsewhere, are bona fide a police repressing piracy and all lawless violence, but in no case can dare to blockade a port, bombard a city, or fire into a vessel, unless the cause have been heard, and both sides pleaded in full Parliament, with abundant time for ambassadors and diplomatists to discuss, to explain, to retract or compromise; should we not

soon be everywhere welcome as mere preservers of the public peace? And might we not find that one quarter of our present Mediterranean fleet sufficed for that duty?

We fear that no Quaker will move in the direction of improving that which he condemns in toto; but the Peace Party by no means consists of none but Quakers; and if any of them read our pages, we earnestly press on them that it is by claiming a revision of the Mutiny Act, and by opposing its unconditional renewal, that they will find an opening for their action. Of course the change will be called impossible: what new thing is not? but there is only one misapprehension which it here seems worth while to anticipate. A felonious attack is unceremoniously resisted by civilians, equally as by soldiers. The spirit of our countrymen is abundantly proved on all sides of the globe, and, without martial law, can be fully trusted for repelling active assault when made upon them. In India, in Borneo, in the backwoods of Canada, or in seas where pirates abound, English civilians are always willing to fight, in pure self-defence, of course, without her Majesty having declared war; nor can there be the slightest danger that soldiers should refuse, in cases in which merchant sailors are always courageous. Nor are our policemen under martial law. It must not then be pretended, that, by such a reform of the Mutiny Act as we advocate, the right and necessity of real self-defence would be for a moment compromised. But it would on the one hand stop the officious zeal of individuals, who fancy it belongs to them to maintain the honour of our flag (a zeal by which they cruelly dishonour it) on the other, it would control usurping ministers, or the dynastic influences which they represent; and in place of this it would enforce public parliamentary debate and solemn approval, as a necessary pre-requisite to any voluntary deed of

war.

FOR

EUROPEAN FREEDOM.

From "Fraser's Magazine," February 1861.

OR full thirteen years England has had more to hope or fear from foreign events and from her own foreign policy, than from any of those measures which habitually divide the parties of Parliament. We do not undervalue the importance of the great social questions which are ever obtruding themselves on the magistrate and on the philanthropist, the relations between workmen and employers, between tenants and landlords, between the individual workmen towards one another, and the demoralising influences of excessive sensual temptation. Nor would we on any account overlook the immense result of good or evil which must issue to ourselves from our Indian policy; indeed, in many respects this branch of politics may well be called foreign. But to treat any of these questions wisely by legislation, neither the public nor the Parliaments nor the Cabinets are ripe, except so far as to support steadily the undeniable rights of man against man in social relations. And it is not to these questions that either faction of politics turns with complacency while Parliament is sitting. In the vacation one or other statesman may toy with philanthropy: it pleases many, and irritates none but the matters which call out the energy of visible struggle are those which by traditionary routine constitute rallying cries for Whig or Tory; and these neither interest philanthropy at home, nor direct policy abroad.

On the other hand, the results to England from the establishment over Europe of freedom on the one hand or despotism on the other, must be enormous. By daily contact with despotism our own statesmen are enslaved, and more or less corrupted. With perpetually increasing intercourse European nations tend to common principles and common practice. If the Continent cannot be elevated to our level of law and freedom, we shall be depressed to their level. The violent overthrow of liberty there tends to sap the foundation of our liberties; and with crude despotism abroad comes restriction of movement, of trade, of

education, of printing; in short, everything to cripple material or moral well-being, not on the Continent only, but in all who have close relations with the Continent. Moreover, our position is made at once more glorious and more dangerous by our old liberties, our free press, and our hereditary maintenance of the right of asylum. In 1850 we heard the muttered threats of the Eastern despots on these very grounds. Neither Belgium nor Switzerland were then safe places of refuge for eminent exiles against imperial anger; much less did their press venture to criticize freely the right and wrong of imperial doings. If on the Continent an irresponsible imperialism is to prevail, England must remain permanently armed in time of peace in order barely to maintain her own hereditary liberties. Things might easily have been far worse. Russia and Austria might have gladly welcomed the Prince President of France after his coup-d'état of December, 1851, when he sought admission (according to current belief) into the old royalties of Europe, and was coquetting for a RussoPrussian bride. In that case we should have seen and felt Russia, Germany, and France in hostile union against us, Austria being at that time visibly a mere satrapy of Russia, not daring to encounter her displeasure. We are already in threefold armour avowedly because of the military successes of France, a power professing friendship to us. With what a weight of military and naval armament should we have been worn down, if, in the interests of despotism, Russia and France had combined against us in 1852 Constantinople would then have fallen into the hands of Russia, for the Turkish fleet could not resist unaided. Our fleet on the Mediterranean would have been permanently doubled. Greece might have thrown herself into the arms of Russia, and England must have looked across the Atlantic for allies, if she desired to maintain the luxuries of free press and safe asylum. If we have been saved from these dangers, it is not by the wisdom of our statesmen, but by the folly of the Russian policy. In fact, since 1849, events have shown that there is a profound and momentous contrast of sentiment in regard to foreign policy, between the nation at large and the two parliamentary coteries which wield the national force; and it may seem that the instinct of party prompts the statesmen on both sides studiously to avoid eliciting the sympathies of the nation, lest its enthusiasm overpower them both. On this account they shroud their doings in secret diplomacy, and generally evade publication until the crisis is past; and if of late things have im