imagining a difference of circumstances:-Suppose then that the petition from Maine had been rejected in an arrogant, menacing tone, and from motives of ambition, avarice or malignity; that the people of Maine, resenting such abuse, had immediately proceeded to organize an independent government; that the rulers on each side, resolving on the savage appeal, had issued orders for calling out their troops to decide the controversy in a field of battle. How antichristian! how horrible these mandates!

We may here be permitted to ask-Would the soldiers, in such a case, on either side, be under any rational obligatious to obey such orders? Might they not justly refuse thus to murder one another, in a quarrel so perfectly unnecessary, or which might have been so easily avoided by the display of pacific dispositions?

In this time of peace and good feeling these questions will probably receive correct answers, from all the well disposed citizens of Massachusetts and Maine. The bare proposition for such a war would fill their minds with horror. But when they shall have answered these questions according to the dictates of reason and benevolence, let them seriously reflect on the following:-When or where was there ever a war between any two states or communities, which was more just or necessary, than would have been a war between Massachu setts and Maine, in the supposed case? Or when was there ever a contest between the rulers of different nations, in which the soldiers on each side might not as justly have refused to shed each others blood?

Had there been a disposition for war between Massachu. setts and Maine, the questions and interests necessarily involved in the division of a state, would have furnished ample materials for a long and sanguinary conflict. If the business had been managed under the influence of warring passions. and had taken the course which has been supposed -on the one part we should have heard the cry of rebellion, and on the other, the cry of oppression and tyranny. Then, by the aid of newspapers and inflammatory harangues, the

sparks might soon have been blown to a flame, which would have filled both districts with desolation and horror. On the termination of the diabolical contest, the promoters of it, and the successful generals, on each side, might have been extolled to the skies, for their bloody and destructive patriotism. Perhaps too, for many years, there would have been anniversary celebrations of deeds of horror, adapted at once to immortalize the names of wicked or deluded men, and to perpetuate the enmities which had been excited by a wanton and needless war.

But to how much higher renown are those heroes entitled, who have been the champions of a Pacific Revolution !—who, in dividing a state, have not only avoided the calamities of war, but laid a foundation for mutual respect and a permanent peace! Perhaps history will say nothing of medals or festivals, given in honor of these bloodless deeds of patriotism : but God will remember and reward them: an enlightened posterity will review and admire them, as far transcending in glory all the sanguinary exploits of a Cesar, or a Napoleon. During the long and barbarous reign of military fanaticism, warriors have been the objects of praise, in proportion to their success in destroying their species, and ravaging the world; but the day begins to dawn, in which the mighty desolators of the earth will be banished from the temples of fame, to make room for those who come not to destroy men's lives, but to save them,' whose courage and patriotism are displayed in promoting the happiness of mankind, and in preserving the peace of their country, and of nations.

REVIEW OF THE WARS OF BRITAIN. No. 2.

In the last Number of this work we gave an outline of the wars of Britain, from the time of Julius Cesar, 55 years before Christ, to the Norman conquest, A. D. 1066. We have seen that the original people of that country were barbarians; that the successive inhabitants of the island were engaged in war a great part and probably much the greater part of eleven

centuries; that the country was conquered four times by foreigners, by the Romans, by the Saxons, by the Danes, and by the Normans; that in each conquest a great change was made in the population-each conqueror cutting off many of the former inhabitants, and repeopling the island with those of his own nation. Consequently, after the Norman conquest, the inhabitants of England were a mixed multitude of ancient Britons, Saxons. Danes, and Normans; and it would be difficult perhaps to ascertain which of the several tribes was the most ferocious, blood-thirsty and inhuman. Nor would it be easy to determine which were the most deserving of respect, the piratical chiefs who ravaged the country, or the kings by whom it was conquered.

Before Christianity was established in England, it had been corrupted by an unnatural association of its principles with the maxims of war, or by basely accommodating its precepts to the popular passion for military fame.

Plunder and dominion appear to have been the motives of the several nations that invaded Britain; and in each case the cruelty of the invaders was characteristic of the ages of barbarism. Prior to the Norman conquest, there had been many civil wars in the island; these probably originated from the ambition of a few aspiring individuals.

From such a mingled population of barbarians, addicted to war, and taught to glory in deeds of outrage and violence, what better could have been reasonably expected than a long continuance of a bloody and barbarous policy? From such a population descended the present inhabitants of England, and of the United States. But we are not to suppose that Britain and her descendants have been alone in their pursuit of military fame ;-other nations have also pursued the same destructive career.

From the Norman conquest to the death of William the Conqueror was a period of 21 years. Much of this time was spent in suppressing successive revolts, which were occasioned by his despotism and cruelty. He also had wars with the

Scots, the Danes, the French, and with his son Robert of Normandy. To make the best of this man, he was a barbarian and a tyrant.

William II. son of the Conqueror, reigned 13 years. He also was a tyrant. He had civil wars in England to secure his crown, and a war with his brother, Duke of Normandy.

Henry I. began his reign A. D. 1100, and reigned 35 years. He warred with his brother and made a conquest of Normandy-which was followed by "a series of wars with France."

King Stephen succeeded Henry I. and reigned 18 years. The greater part of his reign was spent in wars with the Welsh, the Scots, and in civil wars for the crown. These contests"drenched England with blood, and converted her fertile fields, her villages and towns into scenes of desolation." -Bigland.

Henry II. reigned from 1155 to 1189. He had a war with the Duke of Bretagne, with the Welsh, and several civil wars with his aspiring sons and barons;-war with Ireland-with Scotland, and three wars with France.

Richard I. reigned 10 years; nearly three of which were spent in a crusade to Palestine, and four in wars with France.

King John was crowned 1199, and reigned 17 years—in which period he had one war with Ireland, four wars with France, and a civil war in his own dominions.

Henry III. was crowned during a war with France, which continued about a year after his coronation. He was avaricious and oppressive, but not remarkable for love of war. He however was engaged in a number of civil wars-in two wars with the Welsh, two with France, and one insane crusade. He died in 1272, having reigned 56 years.

Edward I. reigned 34 years. He was of a war character. By repeated wars he conquered Wales. He had one war with France; five times he invaded Scotland and ravaged it in a merciless manner; and while preparing for a sixth expedition with an avowed purpose of "desolating the country from sea to sea," he was seized with a fatal distemper, which put an end to his bloody career. But when he saw his

death approaching, he urged his son to prosecute the horrid enterprize, and to "carry his bones at the head of the army, to strike terror into the Scots." "What a murderer!

Edward II. ascended the throne A. D. 1307, and reigned 19 years. He had two disastrous wars with the Scotsseveral civil wars-the last of which was with his wife, who, aided by barons, compelled him to resign the crown to his son.

Edward III. was crowned at 14 years of age, in 1327. During his minority a peace was made with Scotland which was unsatisfactory to the English. When he assumed the government, he formed the design of conquering both Scotland and France; and a great part of his long reign was devoted to these atrocious projects of ambition.

To accomplish his purpose he first excited a civil war in Scotland; then openly violated the treaty of peace and invaded the country. One war prepared the way for another, and in the course of a few years, he four times led his armies into Scotland, filling the country with havoc and desolation. Having, as he imagined, subdued Scotland, in 1338 he made war on France. This war was prolonged twenty-two years, excepting some intervals of truce agreed on by the parties.

During the wars with France two more wars occurred with Scotland, in which great numbers were slain on both sides.

For a long time, Edward was successful. When a treaty of peace was formed between him and France in 1860, the king of France and his son, and the king of Scotland, were all prisoners of war in England. But in the treaty, Edward relinquished all claim to the crown of France, which had been his pretext for war on that country. It has been supposed that he was induced to consent to this treaty by the terrors of a hail-storm, which destroyed 1000 of his troops and 6000 horses. This occurred while he was rapidly pursuing his conquests in France. The bloody monarch was brought upon his knees before God, and constrained to vow, that he would consent to equitable terms of peace. But while he resigned his claim to the crown of France, he retained a considerable portion of his conquests.