The clouds have not yet all dispersed from the sky;
But the sun like a conqueror travels on high:
The strife that awaits him, though not without anguish,
Must yield to the virtue that never can languish.

O Britain! my country! the land of the faith!
The rock of the Church that prevails against death!
The phial of horror on thee was not poured,
Fair isle of the west! that on other lands fell-
What though Germany drank of the wrath that it stored,
And Switzerland's mountains confessed to the spell;
Though Peninsular vallies and Austrian fields,

Russia's sands, Poland's forests, availed not as shields,
Nor Russia's wide plains might with blood rest unsodden;
Thy shores were still sacred, thy thresholds untrodden.

No mother was seen through thy borders to come,
With her bed in a basket, exiled from her home,
Her children in nakedness leading along,
While bearing twin infants on shoulder and breast;
No father in agony sought through the throng
For her he had wedded, and them he had blessed—
No daughters in vain for their parents enquired,
No sick among war-steeds in terror expired;

The groans of the wounded, the cries of the plundered,
In thee were heard not-nor the cannon that thundered.

We saw not the warrior lie dead in the street,
The horse's slain carcase ne'er stumbled our feet;
We saw not the cripple, nigh spent with his pain,
Exert his last effort to reach far abode,
Where, when he arrived, he was baffled again;
We saw not the sufferers couched on the road,
And moaning unsheltered upon the damp ground,
Admittance denied at the' asylum they found,
The gates closed upon them, the refuse of slaughter,
Untended, unpitied, and pining for water.

We saw not the beggar at window and door,
Whence succour might come not, where war had made
We saw not the cannibal hunger, enraged,
Regale on the carrion abhorred of the eye,
Which, but in his need, had the raven assuaged,

The vulture had scorned, and the wolf had passed by.
We saw not the vampyre look out in the glare
Of destitute thirst, and the gaze of despair-
Our graves were unrifled, our tombs were unwasted,
Our hearths unpolluted, our larders untasted.

Who saith that to mammon be given the laud?
On him shall come down the sure vengeance of God.

poor

A curse shall descend on his house and his name,
His heart shall be desolate, barren and dead,
His children be out-cast, his wife sunk to shame,
And baldness disgrace the old age of his head!
In God we rejoice, and to him be the praise,
Who gave to us riches and honour, and days;
To God be the glory, O land of the living!
To him who fought for us eternal thanksgiving!

DUELLING AND CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE.

THE recent correspondence between the Clergy of Ripon and Lord Londonderry, has attracted a very uncommon share of public attention; but we are concerned to find that the question is left in fully as unsatisfactory state as before, that is to say as a religious question. The spirit of the present age is doubtless against the practice of duelling. Be it our endeavour to put it in a right direction.

We are not disposed to complain of the Clergy of Ripon for remonstrating with one with whom they are not immediately connected. We consider a clergyman is entitled to esteem himself a general missionary, independent of any local charge he may be appointed to; we therefore do not think there is any force in the imputation of "going out of their way, as if they fancied they had a roving commission to denounce any, whether locally connected with them or not." We, however, think that, in this instance, they have declared only part of the council of God." On the other hand, we are inclined to think, that however shocking to the pious mind much of the noble Marquis's answer undoubtedly is, yet that sufficient allowance has not been made for the difficult position his Lordship is in.

66

As a question of religion, it is useless at this time of day to argue the sinfulness of duelling; and as a philosophical question, the utter absurdity of duelling is manifest to all reflecting minds.* From the difference of hand, eye, and size in different persons, perhaps there never was an instance of the parties meeting upon equal terms, while it is possible that the injured party may, so far from obtaining satisfaction, only get additional injury. Yet it must be confessed, that there is practically this result from the custom of duelling, that it keeps within the limits of decent behaviour many bullying cowards, who, without some strong restraint, would be continually encroaching beyond the limits prescribed by the courtesy and refinement of society. This, we believe, most clergymen have found by experience at some time or other of their lives, when they have been obliged

When we consider the injury done to the State, and to private individuals, by the practice of duelling,-to the State, by the danger it exposes it to of losing some of its best blood; and to individuals, of losing those upon the continuance of whose lives all their prospects in this world depend; when we consider these things, it is hard to come to the conclusion that no sufficient substitute can be found. Surely there are other disputes as easy to be decided by arbitration as those on horse races, the decision of the Jockey Club on which has prevented so many duels and law suits.

to patiently put up with language they would have never heard, had they worn blue coats instead of black. Still the end must not be held to sanctify the means; neither should the difficulty of supplying a perfect remedy deter us from the attempt.

There are two remarkable instances in our times of public men of no small importance, announcing a determination on religious grounds, of never fighting a duel, viz., the late respected Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. O'Connell. We only mention their names from their public eminence; and in examining the subject, we disclaim the least insinuation against the motives of the latter, though we think, should these pages meet his eye, he will see, what is not wonderful considering the varicus subjects with which his mind must be constantly occupied, that he has indulged a partial and merely superficial view of the matter, and not that enlightened one advocated by Mr. Wilberforce. The truth is, that Mr. O'Connell is right as far as he goes; for, with all the disputes upon the meaning of certain passages in the Bible, there can be no doubt that taking the life of a fellow-creature in cold blood, is a most grievous offence against the express commands of God; but what we contend for (and so we understood the ground Mr. Wilberforce assumed to be) is, that it is fallacious to adopt one command in the Bible alone, instead of accepting the whole moral system we find in the Scriptures as the model of our conduct. "But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil."* Again, "Bless them that hate you,

for

if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not

even the publicans the same?"+ Again, "Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." After reading the third and fourth chapters in the first epistle of St. John, let the reader calmly consider how our blessed Saviour illustrated his own doctrine by his life, as described in the second chapter of the First Epistle of St. Peter. It is true that this frame of mind can only be attained by those who have learned what is really meant by the baptismal vow of renouncing the world; but it will, nevertheless, not be questioned that we have justly stated the principle of the real Christian. Yet we think it was not judicious in the Ripon Clergy to select as their first example a military man, for a military or naval officer may be said to be practically as much bound to fight a duel under certain circumstances, as to fight against the enemies of the State; he enters his profession under such a tacit agreement. Perhaps no duellists engage in such unholy acts with more sincere regret; but they feel that, unless they can make up their minds to retire altogether from the world, they have no alternative. In the case before us, we must say, with great deference to the Ripon clergy, for whom personally we have the highest respect, that their first remonstrance should have been addressed to the opponent of the noble Marquis, for he was the real aggressor in casting imputations upon a whole party, without naming any exception whatever, which was tantamount to casting the same imputa

* St. Matt. v. 39. † ib. verses 44, 46. ib. ver. 48. See also St Luke vi. 27, to the end.

tions upon each separate individual. It was, therefore, with some surprise that we saw from whom the challenge proceeded; and we think that, even according to the custom of the world, the Marquis might have answered him very differently, by saying “ When you retract, and apologise for the personal attack you made upon me, who am one of a party you attacked in the lump, without adding that you did not mean to include me, I shall be ready to satisfy you with regard to any observations of mine in reply, to which you take exception." Contrast this intemperance in attack, and oversensitiveness afterwards, with the Christian temper we have endeavoured to describe, and we shall easily arrive at one of the remedies against duelling (there are but two we can think of), viz., for each individual who resolves that nothing shall induce him to incur the guilt of duelling, also firmly to resolve that no provocation shall induce him to use language calculated to hurt the feelings of others. This, indeed, is a "cross" difficult to take up in following his Divine Master, whose meekness exposed him to many indignities; but, in following the rule of conduct he has so clearly laid down for us, his disciple has the consolation of knowing, that the more converts his example produces, the less will he be exposed to inconvenience from the resolution he has formed. On the other hand, it can never be too strongly impressed upon the minds of all men, that to stop at a reluctance to engage in duelling, without also adopting that inoffensive Christian temper which should accompany it, is not only sinful, but highly pernicious; that it is a remedy worse than the disease; that it is calculated, in some cases, to lead to the worst of murders, assassination; and in others, whether the motive of the person declining to be accountable is cowardly or not, that it is calculated to give a man an improper advantage over his fellows. We may here allude to analogous pugilistic fights, of which much of the preceding may be remarked, and particularly that the combatants, even in prize-fights, are seldom, if ever, strictly on equal terms; but what we are most concerned to draw public attention to, is the fact, that boxing appears to have been discouraged of late years without much public advantage: and it is to be feared, that to it may be traced a cowardly spirit of assassination upon the slightest provocation, arising, as we think, very much from the absence of concurrent endeavours to improve the Christian temper of those, whose ancient mode of settling quarrels was interfered with.

To return to our main subject, the other remedy we would recommend is founded upon a suggestion of Paley. There is certainly much difficulty in it in a practical point of view, as Paley seems to have felt; but still we think it possible to overcome most of the more serious objections. We think it might be brought to bear in this way. The Court of Honour to be composed of a few military, naval, legal, and country gentlemen, with one or two peers, the whole to be selected in as impartial a manner with regard to politics as possible; for all families of respectability to pledge themselves not to associate with any individual while under the interdict

N. S.-VOL. II.

4 G

of the Court of Honour; that upon a misunderstanding between two gentlemen, at the point at which a meeting is usually resolved upon, the case to be, instead, transmitted to the Court of Honour, that court to decide upon the dispute by adjudging, according to the merits of the case, such and such an apology, or a reprimand, or expulsion from the society of gentlemen for a limited time (after which it should be reckoned an offence, to be punished by the court, to taunt the punished individual with any allusion to it),-or expulsion from society for ever; that the court shall not be called upon in cases where one of the parties shall prefer instituting legal proceedings; and that-and here is the principal difficulty-the court shall have the power, if it think fit, upon the application of either party, to prevent the whole, or part, of the cause of difference transpiring. With regard to the last point, our readers may conceive many cases where a man cannot, without disgrace, or injury to a third party, publicly avow the cause of his resentment. We will put one case only, and many others will occur to the reader from it. A brother of a young lady thinks a certain gentleman bound in honour to marry his sister: the other takes, or affects to take, a different view of the matter. But the sister has an unconquerable reluctance to consent to having her name dragged before the public: nay, there may be such peculiarities in the case that it would be cruel to wish to make it public. There have been many duels under such delicate circumstances, conducted without the public ever learning the particulars; and therefore we would give the court the same power of secresy.* A Court of Honour thus carried out would, we conceive, in a great measure, supersede the grievance thus stated by Paley "The insufficiency of the redress which the law of the land affords, for those injuries which chiefly affect a man in his sensibility and reputation, tempts many to redress themselves. Prosecutions for such offences, by the trifling damages that are recovered, serve only to make the sufferer more ridiculous. This ought to be remedied."

Thus we have endeavoured to place this painful subject before our readers in its proper point of view; and we trust we have done so without giving the slightest offence to a single human being, than which nothing could be further from our intention. Whatever may be the public judgement upon our efforts, it is clear that some understanding must ere long be come to; for, without the obligation to accept a challenge being diminished, or the consequences of refusing being relaxed by fashion, judges and juries have lately so plainly intimated that a trial for killing a man in a duel shall no

*The mode of appointment of the court requires careful consideration: on the whole, we are inclined to think that appointment by the crown would be the least objectionable mode. To prevent frivolous cases being brought forward, and applica tions from improper persons, there are two plans, which may be adopted. One is to restrict the court to those who are receivable at court: the other, which may in deed be combined with the former, is to impose a scale of fees to be paid by one of both parties, according to the discretion of the court; which fees may go to the crown, in return for whatever expense the court might be to the country.

+ Paley's Moral Philosophy, Book iii., part 2, chap. 9.