tion is a check to oppression and ambition, and affords protection to the defenceless. And again; the custom of war, by which nations take their position on what they denominate the point of honour, refusing to make the proper concessions and overtures for the preservation of peace, and sacrificing justice itself to resentment and pride, is one vast system of duelling. The principle of international arbitration is the principle of order and peace on a scale of equal magnitude. In short, every reason that can be urged in favour of the peaceful adjustment of individual disputes, and against a resort to individual violence, can be urged with as much greater force in favour of international arbitration, and against war, as the evils of war exceed in every respect the evils resulting from individual combat. "Now then, if the ends of justice itself can be better subserved by arbitration than by war, and so much evil prevented, and so much good done, what plea remains for war?"-APPENDIX TO THE AMERICAN PRIZE ESSAYS ON A CONGRESS OF NATIONS. We cannot blind ourselves to the manifest advantages proffered by the establishment of a CONGRESS AND A COURT OF NATIONS. How insignificant by its side will appear those endless treaties, built up by stratagem and fraud, pulled down by violence and treachery, made but to be broken! This covenant would be as a rainbow across the political horizon, telling man that the storm of ages had passed away, and that peace, happy peace, was restored! Religion appeals to the conscience; mercy and humanity dictate to the heart; policy and prudence confirm the mind in abhorrence of war, and in favour of a system that may banish its horrors from the world for PRIZE ESSAY ON PEACE. ever. The history of every war is very like a scene I once saw in Nithsdale. Two boys from different schools met one fine day upon the ice. They eyed each other with rather jealous and indignant looks, and with defiance on eac brow. "What are ye glowrin' at, Billy?" "What's that to you? I'll look where I have a mind, and hinder me if ye daur." A hearty blow was the return to this, and then such a battle began! It being Saturday, all the boys of both schools were upon the ice, and the fight instantly became general and desperate. I tried to pacify them; were pelting the others? "O naething at a', mon; thrashin'." and asked one party why they What had they done to them? we just want to gie them a good After fighting till they were quite exhausted, one of the principal heroes stepped forth between them, covered with blood, and his coat torn to tatters, and addressed the belligerent parties thus: "Weel, I'll tell ye what we'll do wi' ye. If ye'll let us alane, we'll let you alane." There was no more of it; the war was at an end, and the boys scattered away at their play. I thought at the time, and have often thought since, that that trivial affray was the best epitome of war in general, that I had ever seen. Kings and ministers of state are just a set of grown-up children, exactly like the children I speak of; with only this material difference, that instead of fighting out the needless quarrels they have raised, they sit in safety and look on; hound out their innocent, but servile subjects to battle, and then after a waste of blood and treasure, are glad to make the boys' conditions; "If ye'll let us alane, we'll let you alane." JAMES HOGG. On this anecdote, it is observed in the ESSAY ON PEACE: "This is the general course of war; and we assert, that it would be a manifest advantage for nations to let each other alone at first; in other words, that they should have recourse to justice in the first instance, in the place of only appealing to it when they are exhausted or satiated." Truly it would be well for them to remember the words of SOLOMON, "Wisdom is better than strength." And also, that "the beginning of strife" is indeed "like the letting out of waters," so incalculable is the mischief, and so direful are the consequences that may, and most likely will, ensue. ARMS. WEAPONS of offence, or armour of defence. JOHNSON. Derived from the Latin noun Arma, from whence also come the words ARM, to take arms; ARMY, a number of armed men; ARMISTICE, a cessation of hostilities; ARMOURER, One who makes arms; ARMOURY, the place where arms are kept; ARMOUR, defensive weapons; ARMAMENT, a naval force, which is also the meaning of the Spanish word Armada; ARMED and UNARMED, with and without weapons, &c., &c. Arms or Weapons, whether offensive or defensive, are spoken of in Scripture under the name of Armour, and are sometimes alluded to in a spiritual sense, as the armour of righteousness, meaning such graces and spiritual weapons as are for the defence of the soul. See ROMANS XIII. 12-EPHESIANS VI. 11. The Sword is frequently used figuratively in scripture, to denote war; the vengeance which God inflicts upon sinners; and also power and authority, as in Romans xiii. 4,-" He beareth not the sword in vain." The following quotations will show the folly and wickedness of trusting in other than spiritual weapons, and also that we are to look forward to a time when instruments of strife will be no more used : Some trust in chariots, (war-carriages), and some in but we will remember the name of the Lord our PSALM XX. 7. horses God. The Lord of Hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. He maketh wars to cease unto the ends of the earth; he breaketh the bow and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire. PSALM XLVI. 7-9. And he shall judge among the nations and rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. ISAIAH II. 4.-MICAH IV. 3. There is much error with regard to war and the common notions of courage. It is a very mistaken idea, that the men who adopt the principles of the Peace Society are not courageous-that they are sneaking, timid, fearful men, who could not face a foe-who could not assert their rights-who could not defend their country-who were wanting in heroism, moral and physical. It requires much more courage to travel a dreary dangerous road without pistols, than with them. I fancy I behold two individuals preparing to journey on such a road; I see them occupying the last half-hour, ere they bid farewell to their friends, and, with their treasure in their pockets, take the road-each alike making a profession of Christianity; and how is that half-hour employed? The one is priming his pistols, looking to see that his powder is dry, and his bullets heavy enough to do execution; and then he sets forth, trusting partly in his pistols, and partly in his God. Oh! strange inconsistency. Oh! practical atheism, mingled with the profession of Christianity! trusting first to his pistols, but hoping that, should they miss fire, or should he not take a sure aim, the Almighty will then come to his aid, and help him out of his danger. I see the other man, on the contrary, trusting to the simple but divine and beautiful principles of the Peace Society, commending himself, his family, his interests for time and eternity to God; he traverses the road with confidence and resignation, whatever may be his fate. Now I deny that the man who carries the pistols is the safer of the two. If the robbers are aware of the approach of these two persons, and are acquainted with their principles, and, by the clear light of the moon, can recognise their persons, the man of peace will be permitted to pursue way-his person will be safe whatever may become of his property, the robbers knowing that no danger is to be apprehended from him; while the other man will be brought to the ground weltering in his own gore, ere his hand can reach his pistol, or his eye take the aim that would have destroyed the murderer. his GEORGE THOMPSON. It has been the ordinary practice of those who have colonized distant countries, to force a footing, or to maintain it with the sword. One of the first objects has been to build a fort, and to provide a military force. The adventurers became soldiers and the colony a garrison. Pennsylvania was however colonised by men who believed that war was absolutely incompatible with Christianity, and who therefore resolved not to practise it. Having determined not to fight, they maintained no soldiers and possessed no arms. They planted themselves in a country that was surrounded by savages, who knew they were unarmed. If easiness of conquest, or incapability of defence could subject them to outrage, the Pennsylvanians might have been the very sport of violence; plunderers might have robbed them without retaliation, and armies might have slaughtered them without resistance. If they did not give a temptation to outrage, no temptation could be given. But these were the people who possessed their country in security, whilst those around them were trembling for their existence. This was a land of peace, whilst every other was a land of war. The conclusion is inevitable, although extraordinary-they were in no need of arms, because they would not use them. These Indians were sufficiently ready to commit outrages upon other states, and often visited them with desolation and slaughter, of that sort which might be expected from men whom civilization had not reclaimed from cruelty, and whom religion had not awed into forbearance. But whatever the quarrels of the Pennsylvanian Indians were with others, they uniformly respected, and held as it were sacred, the territories of William Penn. The Pennsylvanians never lost man, woman, or child by them, which neither the colony of Maryland nor that of Virginia could say, no more than the great one of New England. CLARKSON relates that "the Pennsylvanians became armed though without arms; they became strong though without strength; they became safe, though without the ordinary means of safety. The constable's staff was the only instrument of authority amongst them, for the greater part of a century, and never, during the administration of Penn, or that of his proper successors, was there a quarrel or a war." And when was the security of Pennsylvania molested, and its peace destroyed? When the men who had directed its counsels, and who would not engage in war, were outvoted in its legislature :—when they who supposed that there was greater security in the sword than in Christianity, became the predominating body. From that hour the Pennsylvanians transferred their confidence in Christian principles, to a confidence in their arms, and from that hour to the present they have been subject to war.* JONATHAN DYMOND. *For further particulars on this interesting subject, see An Inquiry into the Accordancy of War with the principles of Christianity. |