« السابقةمتابعة »
sublime, his energetic, his martial songs; neither Cicero nor Demosthenes would have astonished us with their torrents of rhetoric, and overpowering profusion of language; Sculpture would not have obtained its present height on the scale of perfection; the Fine Arts and sublime Sciences might have remained buried in oblivion, unknown, and unregarded, had not War given them subjects to immortalize; and finally, in the language of the learned Lord Kames, it gives exercise to the elevated virtues of courage, generosity, and disinterestedness, which are always attended with consciousness of merit and of dignity. Friendship is in peace cool and languid; but in a war for glory, exerts the whole fire of its enthusiasm." Having thus pointed out a few of the advantages which result from this honourable profession, and shown its accordance with law and with equity, its tendency to cultivate science and literature, and to aggrandize and give power to nations, I shall confidently submit my arguments to the judgment of your lordship, whose decision will doubtless set at rest a dispute, in its nature fanatical, and overbearing in its object.
Necessity next rose, and addressed the Court in the following speech:→→→ My lord, after what my learned friend has expressed on the circumstances of this extraordinary case, it may probably be thought presumptive in me to trouble you with a single observation; but with your lordship's permission, I will take a glance of the subject, in a light somewhat different to any in which it has hitherto been submitted to your notice. I will not show that it is legal, that it is honourable, that it is just; I will not attempt to prove that it causes every germ of magnanimity to spring forth, and every bad of courage and generosity to unfold its beauty; these have already been proved, I doubt not to your sătisfaction: but I shall demonstrate that it is necessary; that without it, nations could scarcely exist, and king
doms would lose their stability'; countries would be overspread by anarchy, and desolated by internal commotions; ambition would know no bounds, the rulers would be tyrants, and the people slaves. Let us suppose, however, for the sake of argument, what is not very likely to occur, that the result of this investigation should terminate against us: What follows? a congress is established, as my learned friend opposite has suggested, and then he very sagaciously concludes, that every thing is effected. But we must recollect that it is not impossible, nor in the least improbable, that one of the powers, against whom judgment may have been given, may prove refractory, and be unwilling to abide by the wise and pacific regulations of the majority if such an occurrence should take place, I simply ask, and leave it to common sense to deter mine, by what means can this rebellious power be brought to submission but by military force; for by coercive measures alone will he be made to acquiesce in the general decision. Again, pursuing the same supposition, how can Christendom defend itself against the inroads of the nations in the Mahometan and Pagan world? These will take War under their protection; and are we tamely to permit them to invade our territories? are we not rather bound by every dictate of nature, of reason, and sound policy, to exert all our powers in repelling the attacks of those, who will not consider themselves amenable to this Court for their actions? Having thrown these observations before you, I leave them for your consideration, and wait the result with that confidence which the justice of my cause, and my sense of your lordship's integrity, alone can inspire.
Prejudice next addressed Court.-May it please your Lordship. It is with great deference that I venture to add to what has been already advanced in my client's behalf; but, knowing as I do that great respect
is attached to the opinion of eminent men, I shall mostly confine my attention to authorities of this nature, and select a few, to meet those advanced on the opposite side, and to set in a clear and undeniable point of view the legality of the profession in question.. But before I proceed, I would briefly notice what in my opinion is nothing short of ingratitude on the part of Christianity, whom War has heretofore so nobly and successfully befriended. Was it not by his aid that the Saracens were exterminated from Christendom? has he not often protected him from the power of the Turk, the Pagan and the Infidel? and now, since he is engaged in other enterprises, the legality of his profession is disputed, and himself threatened with destruction, by the very person who has in time of need been so materially benefited by him. The first authority which I shall adduce, is one which will be respected by every virtuous and learned man; it is the opinion of Dr. Porteus; and the consideration, that in his younger days he beheld the subject in a very different point of view, adds not a little to the weight of his testimony: as his judgment became matured, his eyes were opened, his vision extended beyond the narrow bounds prescribed by superstition, and he felt it to be his duty to advocate that cause which before he had rashly and unfairly aspersed. Should not such an opinion more than counterbalance the declamations of those, who, like Dr. Porteus, may afterwards be convinced of their errors, but, not like him, have courage and candour sufficient to acknowledge them? He writes thus on the subject: "When we observe men bred up in arms repeatedly spoken of in Scripture in strong terms of commendation, we are authorized to conclude that the profession they are engaged in is not, as a mistaken sect of Christians among us professes to think, an unlawful one. On the contrary it seems to have been stu
diously placed by the sacred writers, in a favourable and honourable light, and in this light it always has been, and always ought to be considered. He who undertakes an occupation of great toil and great danger, for the purpose of serving, defending, and protecting his country, is a most valuable and respectable member of society; and if he conducts himself with valour, fidelity, and humanity, and amidst the horrors of war culuivates the gentle manners of peace, and the virtues of a devout and holy life, he most amply deserves and will assuredly receive the esteem, the admiration, and applause of his grateful country, and what is of still greater importance, the approbation of his God." I shall make no animadversions on what I have quoted, for the language is its own advocate, it speaks to the heart, and to the understanding also. Lord Kames, amongst many others, has the following very excellent remarks: "But war is necessary for man, being the school of every manly virtue; it serves to drain a country of idlers, few of whom are innocent, and many not a little mischievous:" and in a war for glory between nations, he not only asserts, but he demonstrates by facts, that "barbarity and cruelty give place to magnanimity, and soldiers are converted from brutes into heroes." Such language from such men, on such a subject, is or ought to be an answer to the wild sophistry, the illusive arguments, and the unfounded assertions of those who, without the ability, have perhaps a greater love of novelty and innovation, than these two excellent and learned men. I wish not to occupy too much time, or I could adduce the opinions of many more equally celebrated for learning and virtue; but suffice it to say, that the first Christian Emperor and the first converts from amongst the Gentiles, were soldiers; that War has had Kings and Princes, Nobles and Prelates, Christians and Heathens,
Greeks and Romans, Cæsars and Alexanders, enlisted under his martial banners; and that all classes, from the time of Nimrod to the present day, have concurred in the policy and justice of the profession.
Religion. In rising again to offer a few remarks in reply to what has been said by my learned friends, I shall be as brief as possible, and shall therefore consider their arguments under two general heads. First, that the old law is, equally with the new, a rule for our conduct. This I deny, and I trust the following quotations will support me in what I affirm. In 2 Cor. iii. 7. the old law is styled 'the ministration of death,' which, ver. 11. was done away;' and the new law, ver. 9. 'the ministration of righteousness.' In Heb. viii. 7. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been found for the second.' Again, Heb. ix. 9, 10. The first covenant was a figure for the time then present, imposed on them until the time of reformation.' And in Heb. x. 1. For the old law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never make the comers thereunto perfect;' but of the new dispensation it is said ver. 16. This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them.' These I doubt not will sufficiently prove that the present laws have repealed those of longer standing and more ancient date, and consequently are those which we are bound to obey. But let me not be understood by these remarks to derogate from the merits of those good men, who, living under a dispensation less pure than our own, practised the profession which for us is illegal; many of them pierced through the darkness which enveloped them, looked with the eye of faith, looked into futurity, and inhaled the very spirit of the gospel precepts. The second objection is the necessity of the profession. Are we then to do
evil that good may come? Admit that it is illegal, and the necessity of it vanishes. If we are to allow that precaution or retaliation is a sufficient excuse for committing murder, then instead of our laws opposing a barrier to vice, crimes of the greatest turpitude may be tolerated whenever the plea of necessity can be obtained. To one who considers the uncertainty of time, the transient advantages and fading honours of this world; to one who looks forward to a future state of being, where endless misery shall be the punishment of vice, and eternal happiness the reward of virtue; there can be no sufficient inducement to commit a crime, that he may preserve his life, which he holds on so precarious a tenure. The dreadful atrocities of War cannot be well pleasing in the sight of Him, whose tender mercies are over all his works; we must not seek for protection from War, we must look to a far superior power, recollecting that Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. The actions of man are indeed impotent; though he spread devastation through many states, and dictate laws to surrounding nations, though he rule with a rod of iron, and make his name a terror to his subjects, yet by a thousand different ways may he be brought to acknowledge that the Most High ruleth in the kingdoms of men, and giveth them to whomsoever he will.' To enter into all the minor arguments which have been brought forward would be needless. I have shewn from the unerring standard of truth, that we cannot enter into the service of War, without excluding from the government of the world (as far as lies in our power) the sole Arbiter of the universe. If, my lord, there is no superintending power to direct the affairs of men,if the soul is not immortal, if there is no 'fearful looking for of judgment,' if murder and violence are honourable, if the feelings of our nature re
volt not at cruelty, if the Gospel is a lie and virtue a disgrace, then is the profession of War strictly lawful, highly meritorious, and a great blessing to mankind; but if the contrary of this be true, we cannot possibly find a system more illegal, more unjust, or more rebellious towards God; since it violates the law, the feelings of human nature, and the civil institutions of nations; places its confidence in the arm of flesh, and assumes to itself the perogative of heaven.
The case being now closed, every one appeared anxious to discover what impression the reply of Christianity's Counsel had made on the mind of the Judge: it was very observable that many of the audience cast a scornful look on Religion, as he resumed his seat; and even some of those who had studied more attentive ly the sacred code, seemed hardly willing to allow the justice of his remarks; when the attention of all was arrested by the Chief Justice addressthe court to the following effect:
"The vast importance of this question, and the collison of opinion which exists upon the subject, has led me to give the pleadings my most serious attention; and although the arguments adduced by the respective counsel, place it in very opposite points of view, I have endeavoured to arrive at a decision unbiassed by any motive but what should actuate the breast of an impartial judge. Christianity has very properly rested his case upon those laws by which, as followers of the Son of God, we profess to be guided contending, and justly contending, that the old code was abrogated and annulled, except indeed that admirable compendium given to Moses on the mount, and which is expressly recapitulated and incorporated in the new code. The counsel for War have laid considerable stress upon the declaration of Christ, if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,' thence inferring that the kingdoms of this world are sanc
tioned in the profession; but this position is untenable they appear to bave forgotten the proclamation of the seventh angel, as recorded in Rev. xi. 15. The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. The objections which Necessity has urged are certainly very plausible, and may have appeared to be conclusive; but Religion has answered them on that broad and general ground, which no other advocate has done: if nothing more had been adduced than Humanity and Reason have brought for ward, then I should have felt it my duty to have decided that in some very extraordinury cases the profession of War was lawful; but the arguments of Religion are unanswerable, they are founded on unchangeable truth, they will remain when the seasons shall cease, and will survive the wreck of nature. An eminent writer very justly observes, 'It should be held as an eternal truth, that what is morally wrong, cannot be politically right.' But there is another principle on which my opinion is unalterably fixed,a principle superior to all worldly policy, to every human institution, to customs of the most remote antiquity, and that is, That what God has prohibited, man has no authority to sanction. On these grounds therefore I give it as my opinion, that the profession of War is decidedly illegal.
A Plan for the Abolition of Piracy
THE numerous instances of Piracy, and of executions for the crime, demand a solemn inquiry respecting the best means for abolishing the evil. But to apply means to the best advantage for the suppression or removal of the evil, it is important that its nature, its causes, and its extent, should be well understood.
Dictionaries inform us that PIRACY is "the act or practice of robbing on the sea," and that a PIRATE is 66 a sea robber."
The definition extends to all unjust depredations on the seas, whether by an individual, a few associates, or a large company whether without license or by order of a government by Algerines, Europeans or Americans-by Heathens, Mahometans, or Christians. The whole business of maritime robbery, in all its horrid forms, is clearly and justly included in the common and authorized de finition of Piracy. Of what an alarming extent, then, is the evil for which a remedy is needed!
Piracy, by whomsoever practised or licensed, is of the nature of offensive war. It is either perpetrated without any provocation, or innocent merchants are made to suffer for the sins of their rulers. In either case it is offensive war on the real sufferers. The practice of piracy is of ancient date. It probably originated in the avarice of one barbarian; and the example was followed by others, till it became a well known but horrible practice. An enterprising and successful pirate might readily obtain associates, who would acknowledge him as their Chief. When his followers became very numerous, and gained an establishment in some country, then the Chief might as sume the title and authority of a King. Thus the Saxon bands that ravaged and conquered Britain had their Chiefs, who became Kings, after having subdued the country. The present King perhaps in almost every country is the successor if not the descendant of some ancient and renowned robber or pirate.
That our readers may clearly discern the justice of classing all maritime depredations under the general name of Piracy, let it be supposed that Hengist, the Saxon, commenced robbery on the seas as a private individual; that, after several successful exploits, he obtained five associates, of whom he was the Chief; that as he continued his depredations, his followers increased to 20—to 50— to 100 to 500-to 1000, that he
then formed an alliance with Horsa and invaded Britain-made a conquest of a part of the country, and assumed the title of King-and was so acknowledged by his followers. Suppose also that in every stage of his advancement he practised depredation and multiplied mischiefs according to the increase of his adherents:-At what stage of his progress did his depredations cease to be piracy? Had he any more right to practise or authorize depredation after he became a King, than he had when a Chief of 50 men, or when without any associate or follower? We presume he had not, and that depredation was piracy, and Hengist a pirate, as long as he practised robbing on the
By the same that you infest the universe." This was a just answer, and it is applicable in all similar cases. Unlicensed pirates may truly affirm that they have the same right to practise depredation as rulersmeaning, that nothing but an assumed right exists in either case.
Perhaps there is no Christian nation which has not reproached the Algerines as pirates. But what valid reason can be given why all the maritime powers are not liable to the same reproach? The Algerines indeed capture merchant vessels from nations with whose government they are at war; and which of the other maritime powers does not follow the barbarous example? Is it not then a truth, that the reproach, so abundantly cast on the Algerines, is unjust, or, that all the maritime powers of Christendom are liable to the same condemnation ?
Besides, in every war between these Christian nations, does not each accuse the other of "robbing" merchant vessels? And are not these