often seen in tumult with those of the Holy Chapel; and on the day that Louis XIII placed his kingdom under the protection of the Virgin Mary, the parliament of Paris and the court of exchequer fought for precedence in the very chapel of the Saint they were both met to supplicate.

"Almost all the communities were up in arms, and almost every individual was possessed with the madness of duelling. This species of Gothic barbarity, formerly encouraged by kings themselves, had then become the characteristic of the nation, contributed full as much as the foreign and civil wars to depopulate the country. We may with truth say, that in the course of twenty years, ten of which were spent in war, more Frenchmen fell by the hands of Frenchmen, than by those of their enemies."

Age of Louis XIV, vol. i, p. 22.

Speaking of Louis XIV, Voltaire says,―

"The abolition of duels was one of the greatest services he did to his country. These combats had been formerly authorized even by the parliament and by the church; and though they had been prohibited from the time of Henry IV, yet this fatal custom prevailed still more than ever. The famous combat of La Frettes. four against four, 1665, was that which determined Louis XIV not to pardon it any longer. His happy severity corrected by degrees our own nation, and even the neighbouring nations, who conformed themselves to our wise customs, after having adopted our bad ones. There are in Europe a hundred times fewer duels at this day, than in the time of Louis XIII.” Vol. ii, p. 241, 242.

Reflections.

1. How horrible must have been the state of society in France, prior to the age of Louis XIV! How shocking to see communities of men, in the same nation, so constantly divided into factions and engaged in shedding each other's blood on frivolous occasions,-parishes coming to blows-processions fighting-professed christians of different orders destroying each other on a question of precedence, when assembled for religious worship, in a house devoted to God!

2. To what an astonishing extent was the Gothic practice of duelling carried by the people of France-equalling the slaughters of public war! Yet this dreadful carnage by

duels is accounted for, when we are told, that it was " formerly encouraged by Kings themselves, and authorized even by the parliament and the church." What barbarous kings! What a barbarous parliament! What a Gothic church! But be it remembered, that by similar means and agents, by Kings, Parliaments and Churches, the equally needless and horrid practice of public war acquired its fatal renown in christendom.

3. To Louis XIV, Voltaire ascribes "the abolition of duelling," in France and the neighbouring countries; and this is mentioned as "one of the greatest services" done by this monarch. The abolition, however, was not entire ; but if Louis caused a diminution of duels equal to that of ninety nine in a hundred, as Voltaire seems to suppose, it was indeed one of the "greatest services" ever done by him. We are willing that he should have all the glory which is due to him for his exertions to abolish duelling; and we regret that his energy of character was not always displayed for purposes equally good. But while he exerted himself to bring duelling into disrepute, he did as much perhaps as any other man, to render public war glorious and popular; and from a comparison of what he did in these two cases, it might seem probable, that he wished to abolish duelling, that his subjects might have the honor of killing and being killed in his wanton and atrocious wars with neighbouring states.

"The famous combat of La Frettes, four against four," was so horrible in the view of Louis, that it determined him not to pardon duelling any longer." What a humane prince! Yet this same Louis, from motives of avarice and ambition, could make war on neighbouring states, and cause armies of thirty or fifty thousand men to meet each other for mutual havoc and butchery! Such fatal combats he could multiply, and pursue from year to year, and glory in his shame!

As it has been proved that one king could do much. to diminish the frequency of duelling, what could not be done by a combination of kings for diminishing the frequency of war!

WAR POLICY IMPROVED TO PRESERVE PEACE.

IT is consistent with the laws of war for the rulers and generals of one party, to endeavour to persuade the soldiers of the other not to fight. For this purpose proclamations are issued, and appeals are made to the consciences and passions of soldiers, to prevent enlistments or to encourage desertion. They are told that the war is not with them, but their rulers, and that they have no just cause for exposing their lives in battle.

Now if such a policy is justifiable in time of war, can it be improper in time of peace? Presuming that it should be as consistent with the laws of peace as the laws of war, we shall concisely give some reasons, why the soldiers of different states and countries should decline the work of killing one another.

1. They are all brethren, the children of our merciful Father, who has required them to "love one another," and who has said to each of them, "Thou shalt not kill."

2. When armies of men meet for battle, they are generally strangers, having no rational ground of complaint against each other. Why then should they engage in the work of mutual destruction?

3. The enmity, artificially excited, which soldiers occasionally feel towards each other, is wicked in itself, and abhorrent to God; it is a passion which no ruler on earth has either a right to indulge in his own breast, or to excite in the minds of others.

4. When two armies meet for battle, there is probably in each many innocent men, who were seduced or compelled into the ranks: Why should these abused and unfortunate men shed each other's blood?

5. There can be no case of dispute between governments, which good rulers cannot settle in a manner infinitely better for both parties, than that of a decision by weapons of death. But if fighting were necessary, still the soldiers of every country might adopt, with little variation, the language of

a Delaware chief to a British officer, and thus address their respective rulers :-"It is your concern to fight the long kurves; you have raised a quarrel among yourselves, and you ought to fight it out. You should not compel your children to expose themselves to danger for your sakes." Heckewelder's Historical Account, p. 122.

6. If any reliance may be placed on the mutual reproaches of the governments of different countries, when at war, the soldiers on both sides have far greater reason to employ their arms for deposing their respective rulers, than they have to butcher one another. For, on each side, the rulers encourage on the other, desertion, revolt, rebellion, and treason; which it must be abominable wickedness to do, if the soldiers and subjects have no just cause for such a course of conduct. On the other hand, if no confidence is to be placed in these mutual war reproaches and allegations, what opinion is to be entertained of those rulers, who resort to such atrocious means to induce men to murder one another? How are soldiers to know, that they are not called to fight in a cause perfectly unjust, a war perfectly unnecessary? And why should they surrender their consciences, their liberty and their lives, to the direction and control of men so unprincipled ?

7. Suppose the heads of two neighbouring families, having some dispute, are such barbarians as to resolve to decide the controversy by a sanguinary battle between their respective children and servants. What is the duty of these children and servants, when called on to imbrue their hands in each other's blood? May they not justly decline the horrible combat, and mutually say in regard to each other, "These sheep, what have they done," that we should attempt to kill them? Such a decision of the children and servants would justly be applauded by every benevolent mind, and by every reasonable government; and why would not a similar decision, by the soldiers of two nations, be equally worthy of applause, and as likely to meet the approbation of the supreme Governor of the world?

He found a light in the tent of a Captain Zietern, which he entered just as he was folding up a letter; Zietern knew him, and instant. ly fell on his knees to intreat for mercy. The king asked to whom he had been writing; he said it was a letter to his wife, which he had retained his candle these few minutes beyond the time in order to finish. The king coolly ordered him to rise, and write one line more, which he should dictate. This line was to inform his wife, without any explanation, that by such an hour the next day, he should be a dead man. The letter was then sealed and despatched as it had been intended; and the next day the Captain was executed." Foster's Essay on Decision of Character.

Such is the tyranny and cool barbarity of the war institution, and such the inhuman character it is adapted to form. How unfit was such a merciless tyrant to rule over men! and with how much less injustice might the appointed executioners have shot the king than the captain!

But why does humanity revolt at this cold-blooded murder? The command to kill this one man was far less cruel than the usual war mandates, by which thousands of inuocent men are required to butcher one another. How blind, then, must be the man, who deliberately employs his influence to involve two nations in war! Must he not possess a bewildered understanding, or a heart as black as malignity itself?

Some of the advocates for war will probably plead that such severity, as that of the king towards the captain, is necessary in an army. In reply, we ask, what does this prove, but that war is a diabolical custom, which authorizes the grossest acts of injustice, both towards friends and enemies? which transforms officers to tyrants, soldiers to slaves, and both to professional destroyers of their species!

DEATH OF WILLIAM THE Conqueror.

"WILLIAM the Conqueror was extremely alarmed on his death bed, and intreated the clergy to intercede for mercy, exclaimingBeing laden with many and grievous sins, O Christ, I tremble; and being ready to be taken, by and by, unto the terrible examina