the attempt to abolish the more destructive wars of kings and nations? A more glorious and important object never engaged the attention of ministers of the Gospel, in any age, or in any country.

While the catholic clergy were engaged for the abolition of private war," associations and leagues were formed for the preservation of peace," and in aid of the glorious enterprise. Here we have a successful example to encourage the formation of peace societies, and to excite those which have been formed to the most vigorous exertions.

Emperors and kings also exerted their powers to put an end to baronial wars. How justly and gloriously might this conduct be retaliated or rewarded, by a union of all the nobles and great men of the world, to abolish the wars of kings and nations. The abolition of private war was of great advantage to the nobility of Europe, though they for a long time opposed it. They have been in a far more safe condition than they were while exposed to settle their disputes by war. Kings would derive equal advantages, should public opinion take from them their imaginary right of waging war, and subject them to the laws of justice, peace, and civilization. And who can estimate the immense advantage which such an event would be to the nations of the world! Then all their revenues might be devoted to the advancement of public happiness.

As it was possible, by such exertions as have been named, to effect so great a change in public opinion, as to take from the feudal Barons,-and that to their own advantage,-what had been for so many centuries regarded as a natural right, and to put an end to a description of hostilities so much resembling the wars of princes; there remains no ground to doubt, that the latter custom may also be abolished and exploded, as one of the pernicious productions of barbarism, which withers in the sunshine of the Gospel. Let public opinion, then, be enlightened, and it will pronounce the same doom on public war that it formerly did on private, and "declare it to be incompatible with the happiness of society."

THE HONEST MURDERER AND PETER THE GREAT.

To illustrate the character of Peter the Great, the consul, Eustaphieve, has recorded many interesting anecdotes; one of which we shall present to our readers. Peter had been accused of cruelty in the punishments he caused to be in

The Honest Murderer and Peter the Great.

265

flicted. His eulogist has mentioned many acts of clemency, and represents the monarch as not implacable, except in regard to murderers, and he records one instance, in which a murderer was pardoned. The following paragraphs will show something of the opinion of the writer, and of the character of the sovereign.

"I have further to observe, that this unrelenting justice of Peter was chiefly exercised towards murderers; as criminals not of this description were frequently spared, and more than once forgiven by a general pardon throughout the empire. There is, however, one case of murder excepted, which deserves to be noticed.

66

"A fellow convicted of this dreadful crime, was confined in jail, and was to suffer death at the end of five days,-during which the holiday of St. Nicholas, the great saint and patron of Russia, was to be celebrated. The prisoner sought Prince Romodanofsky, who, during the emperor's absence, always personated his majesty; and entreated permission to go home for five days, to pass the holiday, and to take leave of his friends and relations; calling the saint to witness, that at the end of that time he would return of his own accord, and resign himself to the executioner, as he was repentant, and would then be better prepared to die. The request was so singular, and the prince so struck with it, as to grant it upon his own responsibility. Peter hearing of it, took the prince to task, and even threatened to punish him for his credulity, in supposing a man, who was capable of committing murder, honest enough to keep his word, and shrink from perjury. However, at the expiration of the term, the prince triumphantly informed his majesty, that the prisoner had actually returned. Peter was astonished, went himself to question the man, and being satisfied that he came with a full knowledge of his fate, once in his life deviated from his practice, by forgiving this murderer, and causing him to be enlisted in one of the Siberian regiments." Notes, p. 226.

It is not improbable that this "fellow" had as much cause for killing his neighbor, as princes generally have for making war on each other? Why then should Peter have doubted whether a "murderer" could possess integrity enough to keep his word, when his life was at stake? Did he judge this man by what he knew of other warmakers? It is not wonderful, that Peter accepted of this "murderer" as a soldier; for military commanders have long understood, that murderers, pirates, and highwaymen are among the bravest of men for war.

BATTLE OF THE SECRETARY AND THE SENATOR,

THE EIGHTH of April, 1826, will long be memorable in the annals of our country, as the day on which was fought the battle of the SECRETARY OF STATE and a Virginian SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES. To many this combat has been an occasion of deep regret, on account of the reproach it has brought on the whole nation; and some, as I am credibly informed, have regretted, that so much powder and ball have been expended without freeing the country from the danger of further disgrace by the combats of these public men. Such regrets, however, have probably been indulged without suspecting that these duellists were the unhappy victims of mental derangement. But, in this enlightened age, suicide is generally imputed to insanity, and it is time to inquire, whether duelling ought not to be attributed to the same cause. Should this hypothesis be supported and admitted, it will go far to wipe away the supposed reproach, which the late duel has brought on our country; and the combatants may then be regarded as objects of compassion rather than censure.

In writing on the "Diseases of the Mind," Dr. Rush gave it as his opinion, that mental derangement is sometimes so partial, that a man is insane on one point only. Hence, we may infer, that a duellist, who appears of sound mind, except in regard to the right and the honor of duelling, may on this subject be perfectly insane. Here it may be asked with confidence, what man, if not insane, would ever think of appealing to such a senseless tribunal as a loaded pistol, to determine whether he is a more honorable man, or a greater villain, than his antagonist? It is now well understood, that this tribunal oftener takes the life of the more innocent, than the more guilty, of those who resort to it for justice or for honor. Who, then, of sane mind would put his life in jeopardy, and incur the guilt of intentional homicide, by making such a Gothic and senseless appeal?

It is needless here to state all that might be said to prove, that the Secretary and the Senator were the subjects of mental alienation, in their lamented duel. If it can be clearly shown, that such must have been the case with Mr. Clay, the friends of Mr Randolph may find it easy to apologize for him on the same ground.

About a year prior to his recent battle, the Secretary published his sentiments on duelling, and denounced it as a

"pernicious practice, condemned by the judgment and the philosop y of every thinking mind." He even gave it as his opinion, that "ALL ought to uite in its unqualified proscription." Now let these sentiments be honestly compared with his late conduct in challenging and fighting Mr. Randolph ; and who can deny that the evidence of madness is sufficient⚫ to satisfy any impartial jury? Are we to suppose that the Secretary of State is so utterly devoid of principle, that he, in his senses, would sanction, by his own example, a "pernicious practice," contrary to the avowed convictions of his own mind! Were he indeed such an unprincipled man, what confidence could be placed in him? and what reason should we all have to be thankful, that he did not obtain the presidency of the United States!

As there seems to be no other alternative in the case, we must impute the duel, on the part of the Secretary, to a defect of principle, or to intellectual derangement; and I am most happy when disposed to give as favorable a construction to the questionable conduct of my fellow men, as the circumstances of the case will justify. As in suicide, so in duelling, the supposition of insanity involves the least reproach, and excites the most pity. Yet, on this supposition, I am aware, that the inquiry will naturally arise-What should be done to save duellists from destroying one another? But when their disease shall be better understood, the proper remedies and restraints will be more obvious. It is pretty clear, that penal laws have been of little use as preventives of duelling. Such laws are treated by duellists as they are by other insane people. Perhaps Hospitals for the Insane will be found more efficacious; and experience has shown, that the insane are more easily governed by kindness, than by harshness and severity.

The humane and charitable hypothesis of insanity, should perhaps be extended not only to duellists, but to warmaking rulers, and to all who glory in shedding human blood. This article may now be closed by some pertinent lines from Beck's "Age of Frivolity."

"Such furies should, like madmen, be confined,
Or snappish curs, chained up from all mankind;
Or Europe might these testy spirits haste,

To challenge tigers on some desert waste

There might their prowess do the world some good,
By slaughtering their own likeness-beasts of blood!"

L

"He is no proper man to wear a sword,
Who rages like a demon at a word;
He is no gentleman, who cannot bear
A wise rebuke, but he must war declare;
He no philosopher, who cannot cool
His reason, when insulted by a fool;
He is no wise man, who would throw away
A life, in some ridiculous affray;

He is no christian, who cannot forgive
A fellow-worm, nor let the offender live;
He no good subject, who would madly break
The laws of God and man, for vengeance sake;
He no good husband, brother, parent, friend,
Who rashly all relationship would end;-
Who life's endearing ties would all divide,
To please his anger, or support his pride;
He is no hero, who cannot sustain

The world's contempt, and scorn that world again;
Frail is that honor, little worth our care,

That withers at a touch of blighting air;

Weak is that man, oppressed with basest fear,

Who kills or dies, lest Custom's slaves should sneer.'

The author of "The Age of Frivolity" seems not to have clearly understood, that duelling is the effect of insanity; and as there may be some duellists who will reject this hypothesis, they may perhaps profit by applying to themselves the remarks and reproofs of the poet.

N. B. Since writing the preceding paragraphs, it has occurred to me, that some may attempt to invalidate the apology for the Secretary, by observing, that, in the letter in which he published his sentiments on duelling, he intimated a possibility that he might again be engaged in that " pernicious practice." But there are two hypotheses for accounting for this fact. He might be conscious of a want of moral principle to secure him from violating his own conscience; or he might be aware, that, on former occasions, he had been the subject of insanity, and, therefore, feared a return of the disease. The latter is the more charitable supposition; and, if correct, it rather supports than invalidates the argument in favor of derangement. To a man of religious and humane feelings, who had in former years been so deranged as to attempt to kill one and another of his fellow men, what could be more natural in speaking on this affair, than to intimate his fears, that he might again be the subject of such dreadful paroxysms of insanity?