applications, because (1) it would take a larger work than the Babylonian Talmud, and (2) because men have got some sense and Christians some conscience to apply it for themselves. Fourthly, teaching morality, even though founded on religion, is not the preacher's grand function. This is indeed the Unitarian notion, and is perhaps too prevalent in other pulpits. But there is a more excellent way. Chalmers' experience at Kilmany will stand good to the end of time. He preached morality in detail twelve years without having "the weight of a feather on the moral habits of my parishioners;" and "it was not till the contemplations of my people were turned to the great and essential elements in the business of a soul providing for its interest with God and the concerns of eternity that I ever heard of any of those subordinate reformations, which I aforetime made the earnest and zealous, but, I am afraid, the ultimate object of my ministrations."

THE ACADEMIES IN CONGRESS.- It is quite a significant and surprising comment upon what has been urged, in our pages and elsewhere, concerning the importance of academies, that in the U. S. Congress, out of two hundred and sixty-five members, ninety-nine had an education in colleges or "universities” (Heaven save the mark!) and ninety-five at home, or in the public schools, or “common schools," while the remaining seventy-one were educated in academies. In its original idea the academy is rather more a preparatory school for the college, than an institution in which one's education is to end. It has always been the case, however, that many academy students, from want of means to go on farther, or want of inclination and scholarly impulse, have been content to forego a college education, though they could not have been content with a common school education. Great multitudes of young ladies, also, for whom no higher education had been provided, have found in the useful academies of New England such culture as has fitted them for superior positions in society, If there is anything to which the English phrase "middle-class education" could be applied this side the ocean, with a change of meaning from persons to things, it is the style and range of literary and scientific training given in the academy. But considering how few and how poor are the academies out of New England, compared with the noble institutions in New England bearing that name,- - some of them truly "ancient and honorable,"— one is quite surprised to find so large a proportion of our M. C.'s educated in academies. Of course, the great majority of them must be New Englanders. If the rest of the land - if even the Northwestern States settled by New England people — were as well supplied with these intermediate institutions as is that favored land, the academy men in Congress would far outnumber those educated in any other class of institutions. And a man educated in an academy of the New England type and grade, such as either of the "Phillips" Academies, Easthampton Seminary, Monson or Byfield Academy, or the Hopkins Grammar School, or the Boston Latin School,possesses a training and culture excellent and serviceable for any sphere of public life in a land like this. For some men it is as good or better than a college education - far better than what can be got at many a so-styled "university "-west of the Alleghanies.

THE

CONGREGATIONAL REVIEW,

VOL. XI.-JULY, 1871.— No. 60.

ARTICLE I.

THE NEW DEPARTURE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW.*

In that most telling hit of the literary season in England, "The Fight at Dame Europa's School," such a picture is given of the sordid neutrality of England, when other powers are involved in war, as would have been unpardonably offensive if done by any other than an English hand. The author-a clergyman of the Established Church- does not hesitate to represent the Dame as calling John Bull "a sloven and a screw." "You are content to sacrifice everything-duty, and influence, and honor - for the sake of putting by a few paltry shillings." When humanity and peace and his own position

* THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON; Signed by the respective Plenipotentiaries, and sealed at Washington, the 8th day of May, 1871. (Ratified in Senate May 24th)

LETTERS BY HISTORICUS, on Some Questions of International Law. Reprinted from the (London) Times, with additions. Londoa and Cambridge. 1863. Pp. 212.

A HISTORICAL ACCOUNT of the Neutrality of Great Britain during the American Civil War. By Mountague Bernard, M. A., Chicheleun Prof, of International Law and Diplomacy. Oxon and London. 1870. Pp. 511. THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW, No. CCXXIX., Oct., 1870, Art. I.: British Neutrality During the Civil War. By Pres. T. D. Woo'sey. Pp. 31. THE ALABAMA CLAIMS; Two Lectures to the Senior Clas, at Yale, May, 1869. By the same. Reported in the College Courant.

call for action, to prevent war and bloodshed,-"Sit still and grind away, old chap," says his financial fag, "and make some more money." The public sentiment of Europe upbraids him through the Dame's lips: "You sit coolly in your shop, supplying the means of carrying on the fight, and coining a few wretched coppers out of your school-fellows' blows and wounds." "And just look here," cries out William, (of Prussia,) "do you know where these cuts on my forehead came from? Why, from stones which you pitched across the water, for Louis (of France) to throw at me."

"Can't help it, Bill," replies John, "it is the law of neutrality!"

"Neutrality, indeed! I call it brutality."

All this is quite as severe as anything we said of the very peculiar style of neutrality to which England treated us during the Rebellion, and equally as just. Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur. "When I went to settle in the place where I now live," said Rev. Dr. Quint, of New Bedford, in the Boston Council, (1865,) "I found that my people's property, being upon the sea, had been given to the flames by British. pirates, vessels of war, built in England, manned, and supplied there. But when I was in the service of my country, and saw my comrades dead, when I saw friends from Wisconsin, Indiana, and New York, dead, side by side, I knew that they fell by British bullets, from British muskets, loaded with British powder, fired by men wearing British shoes and British clothing, and backed up by British sympathy." Dr. Robert Vaughan, on his return to England, characterized this just and accurate language, in his Review, as a "burst of spleen," and put on record the statement that, "A pastor of position in the denomination, who had taken a conspicuous part in the Council, assured (him) that he did not think there were three men in the Assembly who did not deplore the exhibition which his brother Quint had made of himself." (Brit. Quar. Review, October, 1865, "Notes on the U. S. since the War, by the Editor," pp. 443-446.) Six years have passed. An English clergyman turns the honest indignation of his countrymen

upon the neutrality with which England has disgusted and angered Christendom. The first sentence of a new treaty between the great Anglo-Saxon Powers, contains these words of acknowledgment-extraordinary words, in such a document"Whereas, Her Britannic Majesty has authorized her high commissioners and plenipotentiaries to express, in a friendly spirit, the regret felt by Her Majesty's government, for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of the Alabama, and other vessels, from British ports, and for the depredations committed by those vessels." This acknowledgment is the basis of the action of arbitrators to be appointed, and of the treaty itself, implying some lack of neutral duty on the part of England; perhaps worse, some "laches," at least, as lawyers would say. The author of "The Fight" says - worse:

"Each of the upper boys, at Dame Europa's, had a little garden of his own in the corner of the play-ground. John's garden was pretty enough, and more productive than any; owing its chief beauty, however, to the fact that it was an island, &c. But his arbor was a mere tool-house, where he shut himself up almost all play-time, turning at his lathe, or making nets, or cutting out boats to sail on the river."

Mr. Nast, our American John Leech, points the hit with an illustration, in his edition, (one of the best of his thirty-three, all of merit,) representing John at his bench, cutting out an Alabama, with a sign over his head, "THE NEUTRAL SHOP," and a smaller one at the corner, "Privateers for Sale." Dr. Quint is quite harmless, compared with the author and the illustrator of the English brochure. He did but call attention to the cuts on Brother Jonathan's forehead, from stones which John had pitched across the ocean for a squad of mutineers against Jonathan to throw at him.

The Treaty of Washington has settled the long-mooted question of John Bull's responsibility for the mischief accruing from the sea-going craft and the warlike missiles he has made so many "wretched coppers" by furnishing, to the injury of those with whom he professed to be at peace. He has been found guilty of "supplying the means of carrying on the fight," and is to be mulcted accordingly. It is ten years since

the Southern Rebellion broke out. It is nine years the 29th of this present month (July) since the "290," afterwards called the Alabama, but then known only by the number she bore in the ship-yard of the Lairds, her builders, sailed from Liverpool. In all these years England has been denying her responsibility. She has denied it on the ground of the established principles of international law. This has been the position taken by Members of the Government, Members of Parliament, publicists, orators, editors, British correspondents of American journals, review and magazine writers, private gentlemen at home and traveling in this country, -in short, by everybody who has intelligently spoken or written on the English side. If they have been right and we have been wrong, and it is the intent of the treaty to alter neutral duties and belligerent rights, or if we have been right and they wrong, and the treaty substantially recognizes this, in either case it is a new and important departure in international law.

The author of the first of the able English works named above is well known to be Mr. W. Vernon Harcourt, the new M. P. for the city of Oxford, colleague of the Rt. Hon. Edward Cardwell, M. P., (Mr. Gladstone's War Secretary,) and a Liberal. The letters here collected and enlarged attracted great attention when originally published in the "Times," and made the author a Member of Parliament. Mr. Harcourt, under the pseudonym of "Historicus," ventures to "unhesitatingly assert that the trade, in contraband, with either belligerent, by private persons of the neutral state, within the neutral territory, is a lawful trade; that it is not the duty of a neutral Government to prohibit such a trade within its own territory, and that the belligerent State can have no ground of complaint against the neutral Government in respect to such a trade." What is meant by "contraband of war," is sufficiently clear, viz.: arms and implements for warlike purposes, ships, ship-timber, naval stores, ship-building materials, horses, even provisions in certain cases, and any other articles, before innocent, which have become necessary for warlike purposes. Whatever vagueness may have rested on the earlier definitions,