obtain just views of this species of gambling, rulers would not make offensive wars with impunity. How little do they consider the misery and wretchedness which they bring on those, for whom they should exercise the kindness and care of a father! Does it not appear that they regard the lives of soldiers as mere property, which they may sacrifice, or barter away at pleasure? War is in truth the most dreadful species of gambling. Rulers are the gamblers. The lives and property of their subjects are the things they put to hazard in the game; and he that is most successful in doing mischief, is considered as the best gamester.

If by the custom of war rulers learn to undervalue the lives of their own subjects, how much more do they undervalue the lives of their enemies! As they learn to hear of the loss of five hundred, or a thousand of their own men, with perhaps less feeling than they would hear of the death of a favorite horse or dog; so they learn to hear of the death of thousands after thousands on the side of the enemy, with joy and exultation. If their own men have succeeded in taking an unimportant fortress, or a frigate, with the loss of fifty lives on their own side, and fifty-one on the other, this is a matter of joy and triumph. This time they have got the game. But alas! at what expense to others! This expense, however, does not interrupt the joy of war makers. They leave it to the wounded and the friends of the dead to feel and to mourn.(106)......

(106) If it were the fashion, that when a king, and the influential few that surround him, should have ordered or allowed acts infringing the rights of a neighbouring Nation, this Nation should assemble, give their suffrages on the question of peace or an appeal to arms, and, in case of deciding for the latter, send forth their king to fight a duel with the aggressing king,-then, if the aggressor happened to fall in the duel, there might be some hope that his son and successor would feel deterred from repeating such infringements; but according to the present customs, if a Nation suffers wrongs from a neighbouring government, and this occurrence affords a fit opportunity for declaring war, this rupture often amounts in fact to an agreement between the warmakers, that there shall be a lucrative period for some few leading men on either side, to fish in troubled waters, at the expense of the lives and property of a large portion of either Nation. And however

These facts, however, are so far from affording a plea in favor of the custom of war, that they afford a weighty reason for its abolition. If in the view of conscience, the aggressor is a murderer, and answerable for the blood shed in war; if one or the other must be viewed by God as the aggressor; and if such is the delusion attending war, that each party is liable to consider the other as the aggressor; surely there must be serious danger of a nation's being involved in the guilt of murder, while they imagine they have a cause which may be justified.

........ In private disputes there may be cause of complaint on each side, while neither has reason to shed the blood of the other; much less to shed the blood of innocent family connexions, neighbours and friends. So of two nations, each may have cause of complaint, while neither can be justified in making war; and much less in shedding the blood of innocent people, who have had no hand in giving the offence.

It is an awful feature in the character of war, and a strong reason why it should not be countenanced, that it involves the innocent with the guilty in the calamities it inflicts; and often falls with the greatest vengeance on those who have had no concern in the management of national affairs. ......

SECTION VI.

Dr. Prideaux states, that in fifty battles fought by Cæsar, he slew one million, one hundred and ninety-two thousand

such a war ends with respect to either Nation is pretty indifferent to those leading men, who think that they know well enough what they individually have gained by the war, (but a dismal gain the fruits of inequity is!) and they feel induced 'ere long to promote some similar harvest. I recollect no instance of any king or minister having got a Consumption in consequence of grief on account of National losses.And in the mean time many a government conquers from its own Nation a remnant of liberty by means of a foreign war, and finds in an increase of power and income something greatly calculated to increase a relish for war.—I would not charge such promoters of war with being aware of the extent of their guilt in acting so; many may deceive their own minds by pretences, but the sad result for the Nations is nevertheless the same.

of his enemies. If to this number we add the loss of troops on his own side, and the slaughter of women and children on both sides, we shall probably have a total of TWO MILLIONS of human beings, sacrificed to the ambition of one man.

If we assign an equal number to Alexander, and the same to Napoleon, which we probably may do with justice, then to three military butchers, we may ascribe the untimely death of SIX MILLIONS of the human family: A number equal to the whole population of the United States, in the year 1800. ......

EXTRACTS

FROM A WORK ENTITLED:

RIGHTS OF MAN:

Being an answer to Mr. Burke's attack on the French revolution. &c. (107)

The French constitution says, that the right of war and peace is in the Nation. Where else should it reside, but in those who are to pay the expense?

In England, this right is said to reside in a metaphor, (108) shewn at the tower for six-pence or a shilling a-piece; so are the lions; and it would be a step nearer to reason to say it resided in them, for any inanimate metaphor is no more than a hat or a cap. We can all see the absurdity of worshipping Aaron's molten calf, or Nebuchadnezzar's golden image; but why do men continue to practice in themselves, the absurdities they despise in others?

It may with reason be said, that in the manner the English Nation is represented, it signifies not where this right resides, whether in the crown or in the parliament. War

(107) The first edition of this work appeared as early as the year 1791, in England.

(108) The crown.

is the common harvest of all those who participate in the division and expenditure of public money, in all countries, It is the art of conquering at home: the object of it is an increase of revenue; and as revenue cannot be increased without taxes, a pretence must be made for expenditures. (109) In reviewing the history of the English government, its wars and its taxes, a stander-by, not blinded by prejudice, not warped by interest, would declare, that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes.

Mr. Burke, as a member of the house of commons, is à part of the English government; and though he professes himself an enemy to war, he abuses the French constitution, which seeks to explode it. He holds up the English government as a model in all its parts, to France; but he should first know the remarks which the French make upon it. They contend, in favor of their own, that the portion of liberty enjoyed in England, is just enough to enslave a country by, more productively than by despotism; and that as the real object of a despotism is revenue, that a government so formed obtains more than it could either by direct despotism, or in a full state of freedom, and is, therefore, on the ground of interest, opposed to both. They account also for the readiness which always appears in such governments for engaging in wars, by remarking on the different motives which produce them. In despotic governments, wars are the effect of pride; but in those governments in which they become the means of taxation, they acquire thereby a more permanent promptitude.

The French constitution, therefore, to provide against both those evils, has taken away the power of declaring war from kings and ministers,

When the question on the right of war and peace was agitating in the national assembly, the People of England appeared to be much interested in the event, and highly to

(109) To monarchs the frequent repetition of war affords moreover a pretence to keep a large standing army on foot at the expense of the Nation over which they rule; and by means of such an army they often secure the better their thrones and despotic power against the Nation, and keep them in complete subjection.

applaud the decision. As a principle, it applies as much to one Country as to another. William the conqueror, as a conqueror, held his power of war and peace in himself, and his descendants have ever since claimed it under him as a right.

But it will perhaps be said, that though the power of declaring war descends in the heritage of the conquest, it is held in check by the right of the parliament to with-hold the supplies. It will always happen, when a thing is originally wrong, that amendments do not make it right, and it often happens that they do as much mischief one way as good the other: and such is the case here, for if the one rashly declares war as a matter of right, and the other peremptorily with-holds the supplies as a matter of right, the remedy becomes as bad or worse than the disease. The one forces the Nation to a combat, and the other ties its hands. But the more probable issue it, that the contest will end in a collusion between the parties, and be made a screen to both.

On this question of war, three things are to be considered. First, the right of declaring it: Secondly, the expense of supporting it: Thirdly, the mode of conducting it after it is declared. The French constitution places the right where the expense must fall, and this union can be only in the Nation. The mode of conducting it after it is declared, it consigns to the executive department.-Were this the case in all Countries, we should hear but little more of wars. (110)

When we survey the wretched condition of man under the monarchical and hereditary systems of government,

(110) This so called French constitution of 1791 was very defective and deficient after all, nor was it ever submitted to the vote of the French Nation; it left a hereditary kingship to exist; it allotted an exorbitant yearly revenue to the king, and the power to propose the declaration of war; the so called National legislative assembly (considered as representing the People) had to decide upon this proposal, and the king had to sanction their decision.-The People could not constitutionally control the government nor manifest their will by voting