ing was continued several years, and was not closed when Henry died. After his death the Earl of Hertford was made Duke of Somerset, and he reigned as Protector in the minority of Edward VI. He pursued Henry's plan of courtship, and entered Scotland with a great army, and caused the death of 10,000 Scots. But after all this havoc, devastation, and horror, the object was not attained-Mary was never married to Edward VI.

What we have now before us is a fair sample of what have been called, "just and necessary wars" in Christendom. Whoever will be at the trouble of examining history in respect to the numerous wars which Christian princes have waged, within the last thousand years. will probably find that four fifths of the whole were as perfectly wanton and unjust, as that of the military courtship. Yet we may ask, was ever a private robber so deserving of the halter, as this abominable monarch of England?

It is believed that there is no enlightened man of this age, in Europe or America, who will venture to say, that Henry had a right to wage war on the Scots for such reasons as he had then to allege; nor that it was the duty of his subjects to support him in such an atrocious enterprise. Yet it is probable that the people of England in that age were so blind as to believe that the war was just, and the only honourable mode of settling the marriage controversy. But taking it for granted that all enlightened men of this age will condemn the conduct of the English monarch, in the case before us, we may request their attention to the following queries:

If it be unjust, irrational, and horrible, to appeal to arms for the decision of a controversy respecting a proposed marriage, why should not all wars be viewed in a similar light which have been waged to settle controversies in regard to boundary lines-claims to islands or provinces-titles to thrones, or any other questions relating to political or civil rights? Is not the tribunal to which the appeal is made as likely to decide contrary to justice as in its favor? And does it not generally, and almost invariably sacrifice multitudes of innocent people of both of the contending parties? Is there not then reason to expect that future generations will read the history of wars in our day with the same kind of horror, that the people of the present age read the history of the military courtship?

REMARKS OF NAPOLEON AT BAYONNE.

M. DE PRADT reports the following remarks of Napoleon to his Ministers when he disclosed to them his perfidious design of seizing the Spanish throne, and of detaining as prisoners Charles and Ferdinand, who had been persuaded to meet him at Bayonne.

"If it were to cost me 80,000 men, I would not undertake this; but it will cost me only 12,000 men-mere child's play. Believe me, it will soon be over. I do not wish to do any one an injury; but when my political car is in motion, it must go on, and wo to those who are under the wheels." See Analectic Magazine, Vol. viii, p. 468.

We may here remark with what cool, calculating barbarity Napoleon could talk of sacrificing " 12,000 men," in a project of ambition. "If it were to cost me 80,000 men I would not undertake this; but it will cost me only 12,000-mere child's play!" But who gave Napoleon, or any other sovereign, a right to sacrifice 12,000 men, or even one man, in such an enterprise? He had no more claim to the Spanish crown than the highwayman has to the purse of the gentleman he meets on the road; and no more right to sacrifice or expose the lives of others in his perfidious attempt, than the Chief among pirates has to expose the lives of his crew to capture a merchant vessel. All the difference in the two cases consists in this-Napoleon was the more powerful robber. He however was not able to accomplish his purpose, notwithstanding all his power and all his perfidy. His calculation in regard to what the enterprise would cost him was very erroneous. De Pradt "estimates the loss sustained by the French during the six campaigns at 600,000 men!" The loss on the part of the Spaniards and their allies was probably as great as the loss of the Fench-making a total of one million and two hundred thousand men, sacrificed in the vain attempt to acquire the crown of Spain!

M.

Let us further attend to the professions of this Arch Robber-"I do not wish to do any one an injury." So he could say when he was determined on a most atrocious robbery, which he expected would cost him about 12,000 men-and while he probably expected that these men would butcher a still greater number of Spaniards! With equal propriety the most abandoned bucanier might make the same profession.Napoleon adds,

"But when my political car is in motion, it must go on, and wo to those who are under its wheels!"

Thus this celebrated Destroyer could deliberately resolve to set his "political car in motion," for the accomplishment of a purpose as base as ever was formed by any private robber, or incendiary; and that too with the expectation that many thousands of innocent men would be crushed to death by its wheels!

Such is the man that even Christians have delighted to honor! Of a similar disposition are warmakers in general. Is it not then astonishing that soldiers, seamen, and subjects, who-if they did but know it-have in fact the power in their own hands, should suffer themselves to be thus offered in sacrifice to the avarice and military ambition of Princes? Surely nothing more can be necessary to take from Kings the warmaking power, which they so wantonly exercise, than to enlighten the minds of their subjects, in respect to their duty and their interest.

IMPORTANT ARTICLE OF THE RECESS OF AUGSBURG.

FOR many centuries prior to the Reformation in Germany, a dissent from the established religion in any country, was' deemed proper grounds for capital punishments; and for public war, if the dissenters were numerous. In 1546 war was waged against the Protestants by Charles V. and the Pontiff of Rome. The Protestants were overcome, and bard conditions were imposed on them. But in 1555, the aid of the Protestants being needed to repel an invasion of the Turks, a diet was held at Augsburg, for the accommodation of differences. The articles then agreed on were far more favorable to the Protestants than they had before been able to obtain. The most important of these articles was the following:

"That, for the future, no attempt shall be made towards terminating religious differences but by the gentle and pacific methods of persuasion and conference." Hist. Carles V. Vol. iv. P.

200.

In speaking of these Articles, Dr. Robertson remarks-" In our age and nation, to which the idea of toleration is familiar, and its beneficial effects well known, it may seem strange that a method of terminating their dissensions, so suitable to the mild and charitable spirit of the Christian religion, did not sooner occur to the contending parties. But this expedient, however salutary, was so repugnant to the sentiments and practice of Christians, during many ages, that it did not lie

obvious to discovery." It may also be observed, that the just and luminous principle contained in the article which has been quoted was an advance far beyond the general light of that age; and it was afterwards too often violated by both Catholics and Protestants: Yet from that period the principles of toleration gradually advanced till wars and capital punishments on account of religious opinions, became the abhorrence of Christian nations, and were of course generally abolished.

From these important facts may it not be justly inferred that the progress of light will first diminish the frequency of political wars, and eventually explode the practice as barbarous and beneath the dignity of man? Religious disputes and political controversies stand on equal ground as to affording any just cause for waging war. In every case resort to war is a proof of barbarism.

After the Emperor Charles V. had resigned the affairs of government, and retired to a monastery, he amused himself as a mechanic. "He was particularly curious with regard to the construction of clocks and watches; and having found, after repeated trials, that he could not bring any two of them to go exactly alike, he reflected, it is said, with a mixture of surprise as well as regret on his own folly, in having bestowed so much time and labor on the more vain attempt of bringing mankind to a precise uniformity of sentiment, concerning the doctrines of religion." Some of the warring rulers of the present age may yet be led to reflect with "surprise and regret on" their "own folly" and wickedness, in appealing to arms to decide their political disputes. After the benefits of the principles of peace shall have been experienced, some future historian may, in the language of Dr. Robertson, remark-"It may seem strange that a method of terminating their dissensions, so suitable to the mild and charitable spirit of the Christian religion, did not sooner occur to the contending parties."

TRUTH TOLD BY NAPOLEON.

"A man when he is at the head of a few, during the disturbances of a country, is called a chief of rebels; but when he succeeds, effects great actions, and exalts his country and hinseif, from being styled chief of rebels, he is called general, sovereign, &c. It is only success which makes him such.-It is success which makes the great man." Napoleon in Exile, Vol. i. p. 104. "When the canaille gains the day, it ceases any longer to be

the canaille. It is then called the nation. If it does not, why then some are executed, and they are called canaille, rebels, robbers, &c. Thus goes the world." p. 267.

Whatever may

These remarks of Napoleon are correct. have been the motives or the characters of men who have taken the lead in the civil commotions, insurrections, or revolutions of states or empires, in the outset they have been regarded as rebels. But if successful, they are afterwards honored as heroes, great generals, or sovereigns: If unsuccessful, they are punished as traitors, or rebels, and the worst of men. So in respect to their followers, they are at first regarded as the canaille, the rabble, or the mob. If successful, they are then called the nation, and honored as patriots; if unsuccessful, why then some are executed, and they are called the canaille, rebels, robbers, &c. Thus goes the world!" and that too without any regard to the justice or the injustice of the exertions, censured or applauded.

66

99

In a letter from Alexander to Darius, during their contest, he says, "And indeed the gods, who always declare for the just cause, have favored my arms. In every insurrection and war from that time to the present, the same sentiment has perhaps been entertained by the successful party. Yet all well-informed men know, that success in war is no criterion for determining which of the parties was in the right, or whether both were not in the wrong. Dionysius was successful in his attempt to overturn the elective government of Syracuse, and to raise himself to the rank of sovereign. Love of liberty and regard to the welfare of the people, were the pretexts by which he deluded the multitude; but when he obtained the sovereignty, he reigned as a merciless tyrant. Had he been unsuccessful, he doubtless would have been destroyed as a rebel. Cromwell was a successful rebel in England, and of course was honored as Lord Protector. Had he failed, he would probably have been beheaded or hanged. The Leaders in the American Revolution were at first regarded as rebels. And had they been unsuccessful, many of them would doubtless have suffered an ignominious death. But success crowned them with glory. In the recent Revolution in Spain and Naples, want of ultimate success exposed many of the Leaders to banishment or death. Had they been successful, they would have been honored as Saviors. "Thus goes the world" for "it is success makes the great man," in the view of the unreflecting.

Such being the case, and it being also certain, that the most wicked designs are sometimes accomplished under false pre