234

QUESTION:

Is universal Peace probable?

THE supporters of the negative might say

I. That the present appearance of the world gives no promise that Universal Peace is at all to be expected. Ambition is opposed to ambition, interest to interest, and many other sources exist from which quarrels may be anticipated. Disputed territories; mutual jealousies; irritated distrust; and many other causes of hostility, threaten war daily, even in Europe.

II. That the principle of hatred and contention implanted in all our hearts cannot fail to produce and foment quarrels, which only appeals to arms can decide.

III. That as a large class in every community finds pleasure and interest in war, it is scarcely

possible that war can ever cease.

IV. That whilst the human race exists, sources of contention cannot altogether cease: but social, domestic, political, or foreign discontent will always need to be repressed by military strength.

In the affirmative it may be argued

I. That although the present appearance of the world may lead us to think that existing contentions can only be settled by the sword, the increasing infrequency of war gives promise of Universal Peace at some future time.

II. That civilisation brings a growing conviction that war is unjustifiable; and therefore that when civilisation is perfect, this conviction will be universal, and war will be abolished.

III. That as men have at length found that war

is in the highest degree inexpedient, and destructive to the best interests of the human race, considerations of policy ensure its gradual and certain abolition.

IV. That although there are in the human heart principles of strife and hatred existing, the Christian religion is gradually rooting out these seeds of evil, and planting principles of Peace instead; which will not cease to grow until they have covered the whole earth. V. That we have clear Scriptural assurances that Universal Peace shall one day prevail.

The following amongst others may be cited:

I. The prophetical description of our Saviour, namely, "THE PRINCE OF PEACE."

II. The anthem of the Angels at the birth of Christ, "Peace and goodwill amongst men." III. The dying bequest of our Lord, "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you." IV. The distinct prophecy of Isaiah that “Nation shall not rise against nation, neither shall there be war any more."

See LORD JEFFREY'S Essays, vol. i. pp. 91–93. SIR JAMES MACKINTOSH'S WORKS, ii. pp. 320— 327.

THE TRACTS of the PEACE SOCIETY.

CHALMERS'S WORKS. DISCOURSE ON WAR.

CHANNING. ON WAR.

PYNE'S LAW OF KINDNESS.

CAPTAIN SWORD AND CAPTAIN PEN.

By

Leigh Hunt.

QUESTION:

Which was the greatest man, Bonaparte, Watt, or Howard?

THE supporters of Bonaparte might say that he was the greatest because he had the largest capacity and genius: proofs of which are to be found in that rare combination of abilities which made him, from the condition of a subordinate soldier, rise to be the humbler of Europe, and the Emperor of France: and which enabled him to settle and successfully govern his country at the most disorderly and chaotic period in her history.

The supporters of Watt might say that he was the greatest man because he did the most to benefit mankind. Napoleon was more dazzling; but Watt was more useful. By applying and improving the steam-engine he conferred lasting advantages upon the human race, whilst Napoleon's brilliant career was an injurious and destructive one to man. The question of the comparative greatness of Napoleon and James Watt depends

upon whether vast genius not turned to good account is greater than inferior genius beneficially employed.

The favourers of Howard might say that as moral goodness is the only true greatness, his pure philanthropy and generous charity make him a greater man than either the giant-souled Napoleon, or the ingenious and useful Watt.

That Howard's unceasing efforts to conquer cruelty in prison discipline prove him to be both of higher courage than Napoleon, and of more value than James Watt; for his bravery was the bravery of soul, whilst Bonaparte's was only the bravery of physical courage; and his philanthropy was the philanthropy of heart which led him to desire the moral good of his fellow-creatures, whilst James Watt's endeavours were directed merely to the improvement of man's physical condition.

Opportunity may be taken in this discussion to

show,

I. The detestability, horrors, and inexpediency of war; of which Napoleon's history furnishes the most striking instances on record. II. The vast good that a philanthropic spirit

can effect; for to Howard's endeavours our improved, but not yet perfect, prison discipline is mainly owing.