Address American Peace Society, Boston, sent by mail 25 for 15 cents. 100 for 50 cents, 250 for $1.00, 1000 for $3.00. Use them. We present above a specimen of a new pictorial envelope, which we are sure will be regarded as one of the most beautiful and expressive things of the kind. The Society has now four kinds of envelopes, three pictorial, and one other containing brief paragraphs in relation to war and the object of Peace Societies. They are not only envelopes, but peace tracts in miniature, and their use will promote the Cause perhaps a hundred or a thousand miles away. The price of these envelopes has been reduced to 15 cents a package, 50 cents a hundred, $1.00 for two hundred and fifty, and $3.00 per thousand. Being so cheap, and what almost every one has to purchase somewhere, we are selling thousands every week, and those who buy them are sending these messages of Peace all over the Continent. THE MESSENGER OF PEACE is published monthly by the Secretary of the "Peace Associa tion of Friends in America." It is filled with facts and arguments to prove that war is unchristian, inhuman and unnecessary. That if men and women of intelligence were as anxious to find a remedy as they are to find an apology for war, this self-imposed scourge of our race would soon be banished from the civilized world. It advocates the brotherhood of mankind, and that we cannot injure another without injuring ourselves. Terms, 50 cents per annum, in advance, or 5 copies sent to one address for $2. Free to ministers of the Gospel of all denominations who will read it and recommend it to their congregations. Also, a well-selected stock of peace publications, both DANIEL HILL, for adults and children. Address, New Vienna, Clinton County, Ohio. 6201 THE ADVOCATE OF PEACE. ON EARTH PEACE, ... NATION SHALL NOT LIFT UP SWORD AGAINST NATION, NEITHER SHALL THEY LEARN WAR ANY MORE. Any of our friends having the Advocate of Peace for March or August, 1874, to spare, will confer a favor by mailing them to this office, as we are out of those numbers, and need them. H. C. DUNHAM. Receipts for August, 1874.. The Apostle of Peace..... Peace Society's Envelope... DYMOND ON WAR. ..... This remarkable work is receiving unwonted attention from the reading public. Orders come to the office almost daily for it. We are indebted to Mr. Robert Lindley Murray, one of the Trustees of the Lindley Murray Fund, of New York city, for a new grant of several hundred copies of this most excellent Peace Document. We call the special attention of ministers to the fact that it will be sent to them free, whenever they remit six cents postage. It is a book of 124 octavo pages. Its retail price 50 cents. Address all your orders to Rev. H. C. Dunham, No. 1 Somerset St., Boston. MEMBERSHIP. A BOOK FOR THE MILLION!! The Life and Times of Charles Sumner, his boyhood, education and public career, by Elias Nason. Three hundred and sixty pages, substantially bound, with a capital likeness and finely illustrated. Mr. Nason, evidently con amore, has wrought ont with a vivid hand the facts in the life and times of the great statesman and advocate of peace, allowing him to speak for himself by giving the reader many passages of the masterly speeches which electrified and purified the nation. This book The payment of any sum between $2.00 and $20.00 conwhich will repay many times reading, ought to go into every stitutes a person a member of the American Peace Society for library and family in the land, especially into the hands of one year, $20.00 a life member, $50.00 a life director, and every young man and student as an inspiration to pure and $100.00 an honorary member. lofty aims; for Charles Sumner "being dead yet speaketh" to his countrymen and the world of justice and peace. Price only $1.50 and will be sent, postage paid, for price, by addressing Rev. H. C. Dunham, No. 1 Somerset St., Boston. CHARLES SUMNER ON PEACE AND WAR. THE TRUE GRANDEUR OF NATIONS and the WAR-SYSTEM OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS bound in one volume, will be sent postage paid on receipt of $1.00, by addressing Rev. H. C. Dunham, 1 Somerset street, Boston. We have but a limited supply of these great orations of the great Senator, who was a "tower of strength" in our noble cause, and believe there are many who will be glad to receive a copy on the above terms. The Advocate of Peace is sent free to annual members for one year, and to life members and directors during life. If one is not able to give the full amount of a membership, or directorship at once, he can apply whatever he does give on it, with the understanding that the remainder is to be paid at one or more times in the future. The Advocate is sent gratuitously to the reading rooms of Colleges and Theological Seminaries-to Young Men's Christian Associations-to every pastor who preaches on the Cause of Peace and takes a collection for it. Also, to prominent individuals, both ministers and laymen, with the hope that they will become subscribers or donors, and induce others to become such. To subscribers it is sent until a request to discon tinue is received with the payment of all arrearages. Commendation of the Peace Cause by Prominent Men. OFFICERS OF THE AMERICAN PEACE SOCIETY. "The cause of Peace we regard as an eminently philanthropic and Christian enterprise of great importance, and worthy of sympathy and support. It has already accomplished much good, and would doubtless accomplish vastly more, if it possessed adequate means. We think it deserves, as it certainly needs, a large increase of funds. The American Peace Society, charged with the care of this cause in our own country, and whose management has deservedly secured very general approbation, we cordially commend to the liberal patronage of the benevolent." A. P. Peabody, D. D. LL. D., Cambridge, Mass. A. A. Miner, D. D., Pres't Tufis' College, Boston, Mass Hon. Wm. A. Buckingham, Ex-Gov. of Conn Luke Hitchcock, D. D., Cincinnati, Ohio. Leonard Bacon, D. D., New Haven, Conn. Rev. John H. Aughey, St. Louis, Mo. Stephen H. Tyng, D. D., New York: Howard Malcom, D. D., LL. D., Philadelphia. Bishop Thomas A. Morris, Springfield, Ohio. Rev. T. D. Woolsey, D. D, LL. D., Ex-President Yale College. E. O. Haven, D. D., Evanston, Ill. Hon. David Turner, Crown Point, Ind. J. M. Gregory, LL. D., Champaign, Ill. Hon. Wm. R. Marshall, Ex-Gov. of Minn. Hon. James Harlan, U. S. Senator, Iowa. Rev. P. Akers, D. D., Jacksonville, Ill. Rev. Noah Porter, D. D., LL. D., Pres. Yale College. Rev. Prof. Samuel Harriss, D. D., LL. D., Yale Theo. Seminary. Mark Hopkins, D. D., LL. D., Williams College. Emory Washburn, LL. D., Cambridge, Mass. Hon. Reverdy Johnson, Baltimore, Md. David Dudley Field, LL. D., New York. Hon. Gerritt Smith, Peterboro', New York. Hon. Peter Cooper, New York. George H. Stuart, Esq., Philadelphia. Hon. F. R. Brunot, Chairman Indian Commission, Pittsburg, Pa. Hon. Elihu Burritt, New Britain, Ct. Hon. Edward S. Tobey, Boston, Mass. Amasa Walker, LL. D., No. Brookfield, Mass. George F. Gregory, Mayor of Fredericton, N. B. Hon. Wm. E. Dodge, New York. Hon. G. Washington Warren, Pres. Bunker Hill Mt. As'uion. Hon. John J. Fraser, Provincial Secretary, N. B. C. H. B. Fisher, Esq., Fredericton, N. B. T. H. Rand, Chief Superintendent Education, N. B. A. F. Randolf, Esq., Fredericton, N. B. J. B. Morrow, Esq., Halifax, N S. John S. Maclean, Esq., Halifax, N. S. D. Henry Starr, Esq., Halifax, N. S. M. H. Richey, Ex-Mayor, Halifax, N. S. Geo. H. Starr, Esq., Halifax, N. S. Jay Cooke, Esq., Philadelphia. John G. Whittier, Amesbury, Mass. Hon. Charles T. Russell, Cambridge, Mass. Joseph A. Dugdale, Iowa. Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, Brooklyn, N. Y. GOVERNORS. SIDNEY PERHAM, Governor of Maine. C. C. CARPENTER, Governor of lows. HARRISON REED, Governor of Florida. HONORARY PRESIDENT. HOWARD MALCOM, D.D. LL.D., Philadelphia. PRESIDENT. HON. EDWARD S. TOBEY, Boston. VICE-PRESIDENTS. HON. ALEXANDER H. RICE, Boston. ANDREW P. PEABODY, D.D, LL.D., Cambridge, Mass. JOHN G. WHITTER, A. M. Amesbury, Mass. MYRON PHELPS, Esq., Lewiston, Ill. Gov. CONRAD BAKER, Indianapolis, Ind. BISHOP THOMAS A. MORRIS, Springfield, Ohio. R. P. STEBBINS, D.D., Ithaca, N. Y. HON. ROBERT C. WINTHROP, Brookline, Mass. HON. FELIX R. BRUNOT, Pittsburg, Pa. HON. REVERDY JOHNSON, Baltimore, Md. THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, D.D., LL.D., New Haven, Conn HON. EMORY WASHBURN, Cambridge, Mass. HON. WM. CLAFLIN, Boston, Mass. REV. MARK HOPKINS, D.D., LL.D., Williams College. REV. W. A. STEARNS, D.D., LL.D., Amherst College. REV. DORUS CLARKE, D. D., Boston. HON. Wм. E. DODGE, New York. GEORGE H. STUART, ESQ., Philadelphia. HON. JACOB SLEEPER, Boston. REV. E. E. HALE, Boston. WILLIAM H. BALDWIN, ESQ., Boston. HON. HENRY L. PIERCE, Boston. DIRECTORS. HOR. AMASA WALKER, North Brookfield, Mass. REV. L. H. ANGIER, Everett, Mass. JOHN FIELD, Esq., Boston, H. H. LEAVITT, Esq., 66 SAMUEL RODMAN, New Bedford, Mass. JUDGE MAY, Lewiston, Me. REV. SIDI H. BROWNE, Columbia, South Carolina. WM. G. HUBBARD, Delaware, Ohio. ABEL STEVENS, LL.D., Brooklyn, N. Y. REV. PHILLIPS BROOKS, Boston, Mass. REV. G. N. BOARDMAN, D. D., Chicago, Ill. HIRAM HADLEY, Esq., Chicago, Ill. T. B. COOLEDGE, Esq,, Lawrence, Mass. JAY COOKE, Esq., Phila., Pa, SAMUEL WILLETTS, ESQ., N. Y. HON. EDWARD LAWRENCE, Charlestown, Mass. HON. C. W. GODDARD, Portland, Me. ALPHEUS HARDY, Esq., Boston. DANIFL PALMER, ESQ., Charlestown, Mass. A. S. MORSE, Esq., Charlestown, Mass. REV. B. K. PIERCE, D. D., Boston. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. H. H. LEAVITT, ESQ., Boston. HON. G. WASHINGTON WARREN, Boston. HON. C. T. RUSSELL, Cambridge. S. D. WARREN, Esq, Boston. REV. DORUS CLARKE, D. D., Boston. JOHN W. FIELD, Esq., Boston. REV. JOHN W. OLMSTEAD, D. D., Boston. REV. S. E HERRICK, Boston. REV. J. B. MILES, D. D., Cor. Sec., and Asst.-Treasurer REV. H. C. DUNHAM, Recording Secretary. REV. DAVID Patten, D. D. Treasurer. ON EARTH PEACE. NATION SHALL NOT LIFT UP SWORD AGAINST NATION, NEITHER SHALL THEY LEARN WAR ANY MORE. NEW SERIES. BOSTON, NOVEMBER, 1874. VOL. V. No. 11. THE GRADUAL TRIUMPH OF LAW OVER compromise with this custom, that the institution of Judicial BRUTE FORCE. Among the many able papers read at the recent Geneva Conference, was one by that veteran and distinguished champion of peace, Henry Richard, M. P., Secretary of the London Peace Society. We give extracts from it only regretting we have not room for the entire paper. "War," said the greatest of modern warriors," is the trade of barbarians." But can no remedy be found for the evil? Cannot civilized and Christian nations be brought to adopt some other means of settling their differences, than this system of hideous waste and wholesale massacre? Is there anything inherently absurd in the belief, and in the practical efforts to which such belief, if it be in earnest, must give rise, that the great organized communities which now inhabit Europe may be brought to recognize the jurisdiction of a common law, and to seek adjustment for their disputes by a system of judicial ref erence, in lieu of their present appeal to the arbitration of brute force? We have a very strong conviction that this hope and aim, so far from being absurd, are in perfect harmony with the progressive and predominant tendencies of civilization. We believe that the history of the past points to this consummation as not only possible, but certain; and, if it be so, then those who labor for its attainment, so far from deserving to be branded as impracticable Utopists, are only moving in a line with the inevitable laws of Providence. It is our intention to attempt to prove this by the light of historical experience and general laws of civilization. Our position is this,—that through all the conflict and confusion of the past, there may be traced a powerful and prevailing tendency on the part of mankind to unite and mass themselves in larger social aggregates, under protection of a common policv, based on submission to the authority of a common law. Under the influence of this tendency, customs and practices once generally in vogue have disappeared from civilized society. And first we note the JUDICIAL COMBAT. Now, as Combat, or trial by battle, was introduced among them, and Mr. Richard gives a graphic description of the absurd and monstrous customs of trial by battle, and, also, of private war and traces the gradual triumph of law over them, and closes with a consideration of the third form of the evil which has been abolished. PROVINCIAL WAR. At first the communities above referred to were comparatively small, and, while relinquishing the right of war among the members of their own confederation, they still asserted and exercised that right as against other communities similarly conshall find that all the great countries into which Europe is at stituted with their own. If we go back a few centuries, we present divided, instead of being, as they are now, occupied by one empire or kingdom, consisted of a large number of independent kingdoms, and even of separate nationalities, who had, or imagined they had, divers and antagonist interests, and who watched each other as jealously, and fought as fiercely, and vowed against each other eternal enmity as emphatically as the larger bodies who now call themselves the nations of Europe are still in the habit of doing. Let us first look at our own country when this island began to emerge out of barbarism. In the Anglo-Saxon period of our history we find that there existed, in what might be called England Proper, seven distinct kingdoms, known as the Heptarchy. But the whole western portion of the island continued to be held by the Celtic race, and their territory was again divided into five kingdoms, namely, Cornwall, South Wales, North Wales, Cumberland and Strathclwyd. Besides all which there were in Scotland, at least two independent tribes more. And in what relations did these several communities live as regards each other? Why, in relations of mutual repulsion more vehement, and of strife more desperate and deadly, beyond all comparison, than those which exist now between the least congenial of the European nations. The first rude impulse of men, when brought into any sort of social relation with their fellowmen, was for each individual to defend his own rights and to avenge his own wrongs, by sheer brute strength. And it is surprising how long this impulse lasted, and how difficult it was to induce men to surrender their right of personal retaliation, for the far higher and better security of law. In all ages, legislators, in order gradually to bring under control this barbarous propensity, have had for a time to enter into some sort of compromise with it. Such was the case with Moses, in regard to the "Goel," or Avenger of Blood, a custom which he found so deeply rooted in the habits of his people that he durst not at once abolish it, but was obliged for the hardness of their hearts," to be content with modifying and regulating it, which he did by the institution of the Cities of Refuge. In the account given to us by the Roman writers of the ancient Germans, we are told that they circumscribed the jurisdiction of the magistrates within very narrow limits, and not only claimed but exercised almost all the "The island of Great Britain," says Sir James Mackintosh, rights of private resentment and revenge. And when these referring to this period, was then divided among fifteen petty tribes became, in process of time, Christianized after a fashion, chiefs, who waged fierce and unbroken war with each other. they clung tenaciously to the habit of disposing of their pri- The ties of race were gradually loosened. The German invavate quarrels by the law of arms. It was, no doubt, as aders spilt their kindred blood as freely as that of the native 66 Britons. The events of this period scarcely deserve to be known. The uniform succession of acts of treachery and cruelty ceases to interest human feelings. It wears out not only compassion but indignation. There are crimes enough in the happiest ages of the world to exercise historical justice; and it can scarcely be regretted that our scanty information relating to the earliest period of Saxon rule should leave it as dark as it is horrible." If any one had then predicted that this chaos of fiercely conflicting elements might and would be fused into one homogeneous and solid commonwealth, cohering in the most perfect social unity, and obeying a common central authority, would it not have appeared a far more Utopian and improbable dream than that of a united Europe would be now? And yet that dream has long ago become a substantial historical reality. First, the seven Saxon kingdoms melted into each other and became one. The Celtic provinces of Cumberland and Strathclwyd were next incorporated, then Cornwall, and finally Wales itself, after many ages of intense national antipathy, which seemed to defy the possibility of amalgamation between the two races. How long and to what a comparatively recent period, England and Scotland were in mortal feud is familiarly known to us all. But that also has passed away, and now all the inhabitants of Great Britain, from the North Foreland to Holyhead, and from the Land's End to the Pentland Firth, are one people, between any portion of which and another, a war would be as impossible as it would be between Middlesex and Surry. As for Ireland, the process of assimilation has been going on under our own eyes, and is yet unhappily far from complete as a matter of feeling, however, it may be as a matter of fact. Let us now turn to see how the same tendency to centralization has been at work in France, drawing floating masses of society into an ever-enlarging unity. If we go back only as far as the twelfth century, we shall find that there existed only the merest nucleus of what we now call France. "The territory," says M. Guizot," which Louis le Gros could really call his own, comprised only five of our present departments, namely, those of Seine, Seine-et-Oise, Seine-et-Marne, Oise, and Loiret." Any one looking at a map of France may see what an utterly insignificant fragment that is of what now is comprised under the same designation. It is not necessary that we should trace minutely how province after province became gradually annexed to the central power, as by a law which resembles what in physical nature we call the attraction of gravitation. The first step towards this was the recognition of a supreme royalty, not only above all the feudal powers, but apart and different in kind from them, distinct from suzerainty, unconnected with territorial property, having a purely political character, with no other title or mission than government. "This right," says the great writer whom we have just cited, "was at first vague and practically of small effect; the political unity of French royalty was not more real than the national unity of France, yet neither the one nor the other was absolutely chimerical. The inhabitants of Provence, of Languedoc, Aquitaine, Normandy, Marne, etc., had, it is true, special names, laws, destinies of their own; they were under the various appellations of Angevins, Manceaux, Normands, Provencaux, as so many petty nations or states distinct from each other, often at war with each other. Yet above all these various territories, above all these petty nations, there hovered a sole and single name, a general idea, the idea of a nation called the French, of a common country called France." But it was a long, a very long, time before this idea became embodied in actual fact. It was not until the fifteenth century that there was anything like a real French nationality, and far later down than that we find traces of local jealousies, alienations, and conflicts. By precisely the same process was Spain formed into national unity. For several hundred years after the Saracenic invasion," says Prescott," at the beginning of the eighth century, Spain was broken up into a number of small but independent States, divided in their interest, and often in deadly hostility with one another. It was inhabited by races the most dissimilar in their origin, religion, and government. By the middle of the fifteenth century, the number of States into which the country had been divided was reduced to four-Castile, Arragon, Navarre, and the Moorish Kingdom of Granada. At the close of that century these various races were blended into one great nation under one common rule." We have seen this national amalgamation accomplished, as respects Italy and Germany, under our own eyes during the present generation. Now, there are some points connected with that process of unification we have attempted to trace, to which we would ask the special attention of our readers. In the first place, let it be observed that distinction of race has been no barrier to political assimilation. There is an immense. amount of sentimental nonsense talked in these days about what is called the question of "nationalities." There are many who clamorously insist upon it that every collection of human beings that has, what they call "ethnical distinctness," is entitled ipso facto to politcal separation and independence. How far back they would carry the application of their theory we know not. To be consistent they ought to go to the deluge, or at least to the tower of Babel. For our own part we must avow our belief that the fewer nationalities there are the better. The progress of civilization has been marked by the wider and wider absorption of these sectional distinctions which have divided the human race. There is no great country in Europe at this moment that does not consist of a number of absorbed and amalgamated nationalities. In England we have Celts, Saxons, Danes and Normans. In France, there are the Roman, the Goth, the Frank, and the Breton races. In Russia there are the Sclaves, Teutons, Finns and Tartars, besides many other races comprised in its Asiatic dominions. And so on in regard to other European countries. It must be admitted, moreover, that in no country in the world more than in our own have the ascendant races, first the Saxon, then the Normans,-shown a more absolute contempt for the rights of nationality, or employed more ruthless means to suppress and extinguish them. Perhaps it may be said that this amalgamation of races has been brought about by war, and could not have been affected by another means. But this we wholly deny. War has not promoted, but prevented, or prorogued to a much more distant day, the union into which neighboring races have otherwise a tendency to gravitate. Indeed, it is absurd on the face of it to say the contrary. How can a practice, the very essence of which is to alienate and divide, to excite the strongest antipathy and repulsion, to drive men away from all friendly contact with each other-how can this be the means of cementing and consolidating them into one? It would be as rational to assert that the explosive power of gunpowder is a good agent in the cohesion of material bodies, as that war is an instrument of union. The reason which leads men to maintain so strange a paradox is this: that often amalgamation ensues after long centuries of conflict. But those who ascribe this to the influence of war are only confounding the post hoc with the propter hoc. Amalgamation comes after war, simply because it would be impossible it should come during war, but the whole current of history proves that antagonist races are confederated into unity, not by fighting, but by ceasing to fight. Sometimes, indeed, an attack from without may have served to promote or strengthen the internal concord of the nation or aggregate of nations thus assailed-just as we are told by the French historians that the invasion of France by the English, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, "powerfully contributed to the formation of the French nation, by impelling it towards unity." But it does so exactly in the way we have indicated, by obliging the inhabitants to abstain from fighting or quarrelling among themselves, and by bringing them into closer relations of mutual sympathy and dependence. In the history of all countries it will be found that it is precisely at the point where armed conflicts have ceased that real national unity has commenced, and that just in proportion as policy has been substituted for force, and justice for violence, has this unity become extended and confirmed. M. Guizot gives a striking illustration of this from the early history of France, even when the policy used was of a very low kind. He is contrasting the means of government adopted by Charles le Téméraire and Louis XI. "Charles," he says, "was the representative of the ancient form of gov ernment; he proceeded by violence alone, he appealed incessantly to war, he was incapable of exercising patience, or of addressing himself to the minds of men, in order to make them instruments to his success. It was, on the contrary, the pleasure of Louis XI, to avoid the use of force, and take possession |