party least blameable in that particular quarrel endures the greater share in the calamities of the conflict. Consequently, the result of a duel or a war affords no proof, as to which of the parties had been the more guilty. But the judgments executed by God in the calamitous effects of duels and wars, afford sufficient evidence of the madness, the barbarity, and the wickedness of men, in resorting to such tribunals for the adjustment of their differences.

From these remarks important questions naturally occur.

How can a gentleman best secure himself and his sons from falling by the judgments of God in duels? And how can a nation best secure itself against the judgments of war?

In answer to the first question, it may be safely said, that the duellist has no reason to expect that he and his children will escape the judgments of God by cultivating the principles and the spirit of duelling, by boasting of former feats and successes, or by becoming greater adepts in the art. For the more he pursues such a course, the more probable it is that he or his children will perish in combat, and that great affliction will be brought on his family. On the contrary, if he would secure himself and his family from such judgments, let him renounce the murderous principles of duelling, and cultivate the "meek and quiet spirit;" instead of learning the art of duelling, let him learn the art of peace, and teach his children to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly before God, and to ahhor the spirit and practice of duelling. By pursuing this course, any man may secure himself, and probably his children, from falling by the judgment of the Lord in a duel.

The answer to the first question is applicable to the second. A nation cannot reasonably hope to escape the calamities of war by cultivating its principles and spirit; but as soon as a people shall have openly renounced the principles of war, and adopted the principles of peace, they will be as secure against the judgments of war, as the Quakers are against the judgments of duelling, or as honest and temperate men are against the judgments inflicted on gamblers and drunkards.

A man who was in the habit of making too free a use of strong liquors, being about to open a tavern, was cautioned in respect to the dangers to which he and his sons would be exposed by this measure. In reply, he expressed the opinion, that children brought up in a tavern, and accustomed when young to the use of ardent spirits, were less likely than others

to be ruined by intemperance. Duellists and warring nations seem to have acted on a similar principle. Hence destruction and misery are in their ways.

THE BEST MAN.

IN the "Recollections" of the Rev. Timothy Flint, we have the following account of a race of men, seen by him on the banks of the Mississippi.

"They arrogate to themselves the finish and entireness of the Mississippi character, of which they aver the Kentuckians have but a part. They claim to be the genuine and original breed, compounded of the horse, alligator, and snapping-turtle. In their new and strange curses,' you find new features of atrocity— a race of men placed on the extreme limits of order and civilization. I heard them on the bank entering into the details of their horrible battles, in which they talked with a disgusting familiarity about mutilation, as a common result of their combats. Indeed I saw more than one man who wanted an eye, and ascertained that I was now in the region of gouging. I heard them speaking of a tall, profane, barbarous, ruffian-like looking man, and they emphatically pronounced him the best' man in the settlement. I found, on further inquiry, that the best man was understood to be the best fighter-he who had beaten, or, in the Kentucky phrase, had whipped' all the rest.”

Astonishing barbarity! What! can rational beings exult in their "horrible battles" with the fist-in "mutilation," or "gouging" out each other's eyes, and give the name of the "BEST MAN" to the "best fighter!" Hark! what do I hear? A voice saying unto me

"Think ye that these Mississippians are sinners and barbarians above all other men? I tell you, nay. There are several classes of men who surpass them in atrocious cruelties and mischiefs. Think of your self-styled "gentlemen of honor," who, for trivial offences, can blow out each other's brains, or plunge their swords into each other's hearts !-who can talk over these deeds of murder with a disgusting familiarity— and can give the name of the Best Man' to the 'best shot.'

"Think, too, of your highwaymen, your privateersmen, and your bucaniers. Each of these classes of men can exult in deeds more atrocious than mutilation' or 'gouging.' They equal, if not surpass the gentlemen of honor,' both in their atrocities and their exultations.

"There is still another class of men far exceeding in numbers all that have yet been named-exceeding them, too, in the magnitude of their crimes and mischiefs. Think of the millions of men, trained and employed by governments, on lands or seas, for the purposes of robbery, devastation, and death. With what pride and pleasure they can talk-not merely of mutilation as a common result of their combats,' but of the thousands and tens of thousands of brethren slain,-of spacious fields covered with the dead, the dying, and the wounded-of many hundreds in ships of war blown into the air, sunk in the depths of the ocean, or lying dead or wounded on the decks or in the holds of ships-of towns besieged and sacked, and of provinces ravaged and desolated, and the miserable inhabitants put to the sword, or driven from their habitations, and reduced to beggary! For such horrible deeds, the perpetrators expect more praise than men are accustomed to give for the most extraordinary works of benevolence. Nor are they disappointed; for men, calling themselves Christians, unite in myriads to extol these deeds of murder, rapine, eruelty, and horror-and in eulogizing him as the 'Best Man,' who has surpassed all his competitors in sanguinary feats!

"You seemed to be astonished that any tribe of men was found so inhuman as to glory in the miseries they had inflicted in pugilistic combats; but you now see, that the same barbarous feeling is common to every clan of fighters, from the Mississippian gougers, through the several tribes of retail murderers, up to the government or wholesale butchers of mankind. And, however profane, barbarous, or ruffianlike' a man may be, he is sure of glory, if he is but the best fighter!' Such is the barbarity of the Christian world in this enlightened age!"

The voice paused; I blushed and wept, but could not utter a word of contradiction or apology.

In the same region where men can glory in gouging, duelling is also popular and prevalent. The writer of the "Recollections " says, "The duels that occur here, compared with those that occur in New England, in proportion to the population, are as a hundred to one." But why does pugilistic gouging and duelling occur more frequently in the Mississippi region, than in New England? Because they are more encouraged by public opinion; because the people are less civilized, and less under the influence of humane and benevolent principles.

In New England, the Mississippi "Best

Man" would be regarded as a kind of devil incarnate. This conduct, instead of being applauded, would be regarded with horror. For one display of his dexterity in gouging, he would probably be compelled to flee from 'New England, or be confined in a state prison.

It may be said, that the Mississippi pugilists might, if they would, settle their quarrels without resorting to the fisty-cuff tribunal, or mutilating one another. This is very true; but not more so, than that duellists might settle their disputes without the more fatal resort to the pistol or the sword. Nor is it more true, than, that the rulers of nations could settle their differences without a resort to public war—a tribunal far more unjust and barbarous than either of the other. Each of these practices becomes necessary by the influence of opinion on the several classes of persons concerned. Let these savage and ferocious opinions be corrected, and let humane and benevolent sentiments be duly cultivated; then war and duelling will become as detestable throughout the world, as gouging now is to the Christians of New England.

REVIEW OF THE ABOLITION OF BARONIAL WARS.

For many centuries, the Barons of Europe claimed a right to wage war on each other, as the monarchs have done in later ages. Their hostilities were denominated private wars, to distinguish them from the wars of emperors and kings. Like the great planters of our Southern States, each Baron had under him a great number of vassals or peasants. When a Baron made war, all his vassals and all his relations were held as bound to aid him; and they were all exposed to the horrors of the conflict. Before these wars were abolished, they became so frequent and fatal, that they threatened the depopalation of Europe. It is worthy of particular notice, that while this custom prevailed, none but gentlemen or persons of noble birth had the right of private war." Other people settled their disputes without an appeal to the sword, or if any of them imitated the atrocious example of the nobility, they were of course regarded as murderers. Yet when the right of the Barons to wage such wars came to be questioned, they defended it as a "natural right," and complained of all attempts to wrest it from them. Yet the progress of light eventually abolished this formidable, long continued, and horrid

institution, and placed the Barons on a level with other men, as to the right of making war.

Various means had been in operation to abolish this custom; but, says Dr. Robertson, "about the beginning of the ninth century, Charlemagne struck at the root of the evil. The church, too, found it necessary to interpose. Several kings exerted what power they had to put an end to the practice. Associations and leagues were formed for the preservation of peace; but the final and perpetual abolition of private war was not accomplished until A. D. 1495. That barbarous and pernicious privilege, which the nobles had so long possessed, was then declared to be incompatible with the happiness and existence of society." History of Charles V.

It is proper here to observe, that these private wars of the nobles were entirely distinct from the duel or judicial combat; and that, of all the customs recorded in history, no other approaches so near to that of the public wars of governments, as the one which has now been named. It may, therefore, be useful to observe the grounds we have to expect, that public war may also be abolished.

We have seen, that in those dark ages, all the relations, the vassals, and dependants of the Barons were involved in their quarrels, and thus exposed to death or ruin. It is now perceived, that it was very unjust thus to expose the lives of innocent people, by the contests of the Noblemen. May we not then hope, that the time is near, when it will be as clearly seen to be unjust, to expose the happiness and lives of two nations of people in the quarrels of their princes or rulers?

Although for many ages it was admitted that Noblemen had a right to make war on each other, yet, now, public opinion positively denies that right, and places the Nobleman, in this respect, on a level with the private citizen. Since this revolution was effected, it has been found, that the nobility can settle their disputes without resorting to such barbarous conflicts, or involving innocent people in their quarrels. May we not, then, anticipate a day when the progress of light will place kings and emperors on a level with the nobles, as to the right of waging war, and show, that they, too, can settle their controversies without a resort to the sword?

For the abolition of baronial wars, "the church," that is, the clergy, made great exertions; and unquestionably had great influence to bring about the event. This was a noble exertion of clerical influence. May we not, then, expect similar aid in