sioned by a want of correct understanding between the parties, of the cause of complaint-angry passions hastening to an is sue, when explanations would reconcile."

Signed by George Trotter, and 84 others.

This is good news from the West. We had heard with deep regret, that the people of the Western States were in the habit of travelling armed, like Arabs, to be always ready to fight on the shortest notice. We cannot therefore wonder that duels had become so frequent as to excite alarm. The formation of a Peace Society, or a Civilization Society, was very needful, and we doubt not that the effects will be salutary. If this Association can bring the barbarous custom into disrepute it will of course be abolished; and we hope it will not be long before our western brethren will be ashamed of the savage practice of going armed and prepared for murdering one another. By assuming this menacing attitude, men betray a want of confidence in one another, a want of brotherly love, and expose themselves to the worst of crimes.

But private war is public war in miniature, and we may reason from the less to the greater. The supposed necessity, the principles, and the spirit are the same in both customs, Those who have duly reflected on the causes and effects of public war, can with great truth adopt the language of our Lexington brethren and say, we are "unequivocally of the opinion that no circumstances can arise between nations where their honour might not be better sustained by a reference to the deliberate opinion of a few judicious and pacífic men, than by an appeal to deadly combat." They can also express it as their "mature and decided opinion, that it will evidence more magnanimity in thus submitting any difference that may arise between nations, to such men to decide as justice may require -and more completely preserve the honour of the nation, than a resort to arms, which makes no discrimination between innocence and guilt-and which is often occasioned by a want of correct understanding between the parties-angry passions hastening on to an issue, when explanations would reconcile." War, as well as duelling, "makes no discrimination be tween innocence and guilt;" and the method of settling dif

ferences by referring them to "a few judicious and pacific men," is equally applicable to national disputes and those between two individuals. Duelling and public war were both derived from the barbarous state of society in former ages, and their present existence is a proof that the nations in this age are but partially civilized.

The manner in which the testimony of our Lexington brethren was signed, is worthy of particular notice. To the names of George Trotter and four others the following words are annexed" who would go much farther"-meaning, probably, that these five gentlemen were disposed to take the most decided ground for the suppression of duelling. Another gentleman signed thus" S. H. Woodson concurs, except in ve ry extreme cases."

This is a fair picture of society in general, when emerging from a state of barbarism, in regard to any injurious custom which has long been popular. A similar diversity of opinion exists among those who desire the abolition of war. In such cases it is not to be expected that each of a hundred men will see with equal clearness the various bearings and full extent of general propositions in which they may all unite. Hence much candor is necessary among those who desire the abolition of sanguinary customs. They should not be hasty to call in question each others sincerity, because they do not see alike on every question which may occur; but they should sev crally lie open to conviction, and mutually endeavour to aid one another in the search after truth.

In the testimony against duelling we have seen, that one gentleman "concurs, except in very extreme cases." In like manner some excellent men make exceptions in respect to war-and with equal reason, for the cases are similar,

But in regard to duelling, it is easy for some men to see, that the exception leaves open the door for the practice of duelling in all the extent in which it now prevails. For every man will judge in his own cause; and, while under the dominion of passion and prejudice, it will be easy for him to make a "very extreme case," of one which candor would pronounce not worthy of a moment's altercation. It is doubtful

whether there has been one duel or one war for a thousand years, in which the combatants on both sides, did not regard it as an "extreme case." But it is difficult to conceive of any case in which the "honour of the parties might not be better sustained by a reference to the deliberate opinion of a few judicious and pacific men, than by an appeal to deadly combat" —a mode of decision "which makes no discrimination between innocence and guilt."

In bearing testimony against adultery, burglary, forgery, stealing, boxing, drunkenness, piracy, or highway robbery, it is not common to "except very extreme cases." Why then is such an exception necessary in bearing testimony against duelling and public war, the fashionable modes of murder? Is it not the wiser course to bear an unqualified testimony a gainst duelling and war, as barbarous methods for deciding controversies and redressing wrongs-without adding any thing which those who delight in blood will employ to justify themselves in an "appeal to deadly combat." In a testimony against the habit of drunkenness, we have no occasion to palliate, by saying, that, in the "extreme case" of the lockjaw, a man may be justified in drinking a pint of brandy in an hour. But, without any allusion to such cases, we may condemn the practice of intoxication. Why may we not in like manner justly condemn duelling and war?

REMARKS ON A SPEECH OF A BRITISH ADMIRAL.

AT a meeting of the "Naval and Military Bible Society," held in London, May, 1818, several persons of high rank spoke in favor of supplying the Navy and Army with Bibles. The following passage is from a Speech of Admiral Sir. J. Saumarez, as reported in the Christian Observer for the same month.

"The Admiral said that he had uniformly found, that the best and bravest sailors, were those who habitually read their Bibles. In allusion to a victory gained under his command, he added, that he could only say, that it was solely through the Bible and from a firm confidence in the grace of God which that sacred volume inspired, that he had been animated to combat the dangers before him and to be successful; but the victory was of God, and

he could join with the Psalmist in exclaiming→ Not unto me, O Lord, noť unto me, but unto thy name be all the glory.' Every ship did its duty on that day; but it was in the name of our God that we set up our banners! and the Lord heard our prayers. To fight in a humble dependence on Divine protection, and with a simple, unmixed reliance on the Divine mercy through the Redeemer, is and always must be the highway to victory and honour."

Prior to any remarks on the sentiments contained in this paragraph, we would premise a few things to prevent misapprehensions.

We are not acquainted with the character of this Admiral, except from his speech; we have no prepossession against him, no wish to injure his reputation, nor to wound the feelings of naval or military men. Our aim is to correct errors which we believe to be pernicious.

Second. We have no doubt that good men have been engaged in war; and from experience as well as the testimony of others, we believe that men have been animated in the sanguinary work of war by such considerations as this Admiral has mentioned.

Third. We are ignorant respecting the engagement to which the Admiral referred; we know not with what nation he fought, nor the cause of the war.

Fourth. We have no desire to discountenance the exertions of the "Naval and Military Bible Society," before whom the speech was delivered; but we sincerely desire that the Bible should be placed in the hands of every military man, with a particular request, that he would carefully study the precepts and imitate the example of the Prince of peace.

,,

We may now review the testimony of the Admiral. It consists of four sentences.

In the first we are told, that "the best and bravest sailors are those who habitually read their Bibles." This remark is doubtless as applicable to soldiers as to sailors. We believe, however, that the number of naval and military men who habitually read the Bible has not been very great in any country; and that, for eighteen centuries prior to the present, there was not one to a thousand who had formed this habit. In the numerous armies of Napoleon, even in this century,

how small was the number of men who paid any religious regard to the scripture's! Yet his soldiers were both brave and successful. The number of seamen and soldiers, who have been in the habit of reading the Bible, is, we suspect, so small, as to afford but a slender basis for the Admiral's remark, especially when we take into view the innumerable multitude of brave fighters who never say that sacred Book.

The second sentence contains the Admiral's testimony respecting his own experience. This will not be controverted. We doubt not that he may have been "animated to combat the dangers before him, from a firm confidence in the grace of God which the sacred volume inspired." But history will justify us in saying, that good men have had many incorrect views of God and religion, and that false views may inspire men with courage. If by education a good man has been trained up from his cradle in the belief, that fighting is a lawful and noble employment-that it is his duty to fight whenever his ruler requires him so to do, and that the joys of heaven are prepared for those who die in battle, these sentiments will inspire him with courage, whether they be true or false. On similar ground Mahometans, Pagans and even Barbarians, have displayed remarkable bravery. The Goths and Vandals of former ages were animated with the most desperate valor by the bloody principles of their religion-with valor which perhaps has never been surpassed by the seamen under Admiral Sau

marez.

In the third sentence we are told, that "every ship did its duty on that day." Perhaps the Commander of the opposing fleet would have said the same of his ships, and with equal truth. Such language is con.mon with naval and military men, however unjust the cause in which they are engaged. But how awful the delusion by which the men of two fleets or armies are led to believe, that they all do their duty in their endeavours to destroy one another! so deluded as on each side, "in the name of God to set up their banners" while engaged in the work of revenge and murder! Do Christians imagine that the Father of all, like Odin, delights to see his children.