confederacy of states, be strong enough to overwhelm the rest. The objects of just war are precaution, defence or reparation. In a larger sense, every just war is a defensive war, inasmuch as every just war supposes an injury perpetrated, attempted, or feared."

What a text is here!

War is justified by "deliberate invasions of right." Of what right? Of whose right; and who being judge? We need not look far back in history to meet with ample proof of the inexpediency, and consequently of the wickedness and folly of asserting rights by war, whether they be rights of sovereign, subject, or parliament.

In 1715 and 1745, Charles Stuart appealed to arms against what he deemed the "deliberate invasion of right," by the house of Hanover, in withholding from his father the British crown. The result was, that, after a considerable effusion of blood in the field and on the scaffold, the hopes of his family sunk for ever.

In 1739, war was declared by this country against Spain, on account of "deliberate invasions of the right" of British subjects to navigate the American seas without being subject to search. A war with France was soon added to that with Spain, and when at length peace was concluded, in 1748, all conquests were restored, the original cause of hostility was not even mentioned, and all the fruits of the contest

were " a dreadful expense of blood and treasure, disgrace upon disgrace, an additional load of grievous impositions, and the national debt accumulated to (what Smollett calls) the enormous sum of eighty millions sterling."

The Americans deliberately invaded "the right" of the British Parliament to tax them; enforcing this right involved the country in a bloody conflict,-in a war with Spain, France and Holland,-in a debt of more than one hundred and ten millions sterling; lost us the colonies altogether, and excited in them a hostile spirit fraught with evils, which have been ever since and will long be felt.

Had the belligerent party in each of these cases submitted his or their claims to the decision of any impartial, or even any hostile, court, or man, or body of men, could the award have possibly been so unfavourable as the event of the contest proved? But, it may be said, they were the aggressors. Not perhaps, in the second case; but, be it so. They were still more wrong in waging war. And when "invasions of right" are assigned as a justifying cause of war, "right," in the estimation of the attacker, not in that of the attacked, or of a third party, is of course understood. It is plain, therefore, that all "invasions of right," even what are impartially and correctly so called, are not "justifying causes

of war;" whether any are, shall be considered presently.

The other vindication is "the necessity of preserving such a balance of power amongst neighbouring nations, as that no single state, or confederacy of states, be strong enough to overwhelm the rest.”

That is to say, It is just to attack and desolate a neighbouring country, because its inhabitants are more prosperous, and consequently becoming more powerful, than we are. O Christian! Christian! when you forget the principles of your Master, how easily may an infidel put you down! Montesquieu has advanced the same position, (De l'Esprit des Loix, Liv. x. Ch. ii.) which is thus commented on by Voltaire:

"Voici ce que dit Montesquieu.

"Entre les sociétés le droit de la défense naturelle entraîne quelquefois la nécessité d'ataquer, lorsqu'un peuple voit qu'une plus longue paix en mettrait un autre en état de le détruire, et que l'ataque est dans ce moment le seul moyen d'empêcher cette destruction.'

"Comment l'ataque en pleine paix peut-elle être le seul moyen d'empêcher cette destruction? Il faut donc que vous soyez sûr que ce voisin vous détruira s'il devient puissant. Pour en être sûr, il faut qu'il ait fait déjà des préparatifs de votre perte. En ce cas c'est lui qui com

mence la guerre, ce n'est pas vous; votre suposition est fausse et contradictoire. S'il y eut jamais une guerre évidemment injuste, c'est celle que vous proposez; c'est d'aller tuer votre prochain, de peur que votre prochain (qui ne vous ataque pas) ne soit en état de vous ataquer.

"C'est-a-dire, qu'il faut que vous hazardiez de ruiner le pays dans l' espérance de ruiner sans raison celui d'un autre. Cela n'est assurément ni honnête, ni utile, car on n'est jamais sûr du succès; vous le savez bien.

"Si votre voisin devient trop puissant pendant la paix, qui vous empêche de vous rendre puissant comme lui? S'il a fait des alliances, faitesen de votre côté. Si ayant moins de religieux, il en a plus de manufacturiers et de soldats, imitezle dans cette sage économie. S'il exerce mieux ses matelots, exercez les votres; tout cela est très juste. Mais d'exposer votre peuple à la plus horrible misère, dans l'idée si souvent chimérique d'accabler votre cher frère le sérénissime prince limitrophe! Ce n'était pas à un président honoraire d'une compagnie pacifique à vous donner un tel conseil." (s)

Nor for a professor of moral philosophy and archdeacon of a Christian Church, either. History is full of the mischiefs and sufferings which have accrued to this country by her attempts to " trim the balance of Europe;" but where shall we find the record of the good which has resulted either

to herself, or other nations? What might not have been accomplished by the appropriation of half the means thus wasted, to the purposes of internal strength and prosperity?

"The objects of just war are, precaution, defence or reparation.”

pre

It would not be thought a very just caution," though undoubtedly it would be an effectual one, to hang a man of bad character because he was suspected of an inclination to become a housebreaker. An additional bolt, or guard, would be very reasonable in such a case. Attack, as a precaution against attack, is crime for the prevention of crime. It is incurring a certain, to avoid a contingent, evil; and when that certain evil is so immense and undefined as war must always be, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to assign the mischief against which it is wise and right to have recourse to such a precaution. And what sort of "reparation" has war ever afforded? None, consistent with justice, in any instance which I can recollect. The injury is usually offered by one party, the reparation exacted from another, and that reparation is obtained and overbalanced by the labours and sufferings of a third. A king of England seizes on some provinces subject to the king of France: here is the injury. The king of France recovers the dominion of those provinces: this is reparation. But this reparation