We answer these questions, without hesitation, in the affirmative, and for the following reasons: First, Because the present system is at war with the plainest dictates of common sense, and the highest interests of mankind. It may be safely assumed, that any system, policy, or practice, which, in the course of events and the lapse of time, has become, not only absolutely useless, but positively pernicious and absurd, cannot long continue; that the advancing tide of intelligence will sweep it away as the rubbish of the past. FOLLY OF RIVAL ARMAMENTS. Each nation, as we have seen, has its standing army, its navy, fortifications, dockyards, arsenals, &c., &c.; and, consequently, each is endangered by the military and naval preparations of every other, and they live in constant mutual jealousy. Hence, if it is known or suspected that France is making an addition to her navy, England at once makes as large or larger one to hers. And, having done this, is either any safer than before? Are not both as relatively defenceless as ever? But France lays down still other keels, and the dockyards of England are again in motion, until the fleets of both are yet further enlarged; but has the relative condition of either, as to security, been improved? Has not each increased its means of aggression as well as defence? That which is true of France and England is true of all the nations of Christendom. Russia does her utmost to create a vast navy. Austria, Prussia, Turkey, Sweden, do all in their power to prepare for war, however great the burden and sacrifice. And yet does this general system of mutual armaments make them any more safe, respectively, than if no such preparations were made by either? If this question must be answered in the negative, is not the arrant folly of the system fully demonstrated? CHANGES IN WAR ARMAMENTS. Secondly, Because the changes to which we have already referred, that are continually taking place in the machinery of war, are so great and frequent as to forbid all hope that nations can ever be fully prepared for war. We need not obvious to any dwell upon this point; for its importance is one who looks for a moment at the subject. What terrible engines of destruction, what unheard-of forces, are yet to be brought into use for the destruction of mankind? The mind stands aghast at the awful possibilities of the future, if the present senseless and inhuman competition in war preparations is to be continued. The moral sense of the world revolts at the thought of such stupendous folly and crime. INFLUENCES ADVERSE TO WAR. A third consideration which leads us to expect that the present war system will be superseded by a general confederation for the preservation of peace, is, that all the influences of the age are against its barbarities. (a) Commeree, as well as common sense, makes a strong plea in favor of peace. Extending with almost inconceivable rapidity, its influence is every day advancing, and its interests becoming more identified with the harmony of nations. No stronger illustration of this was ever afforded than that presented by the war of the Rebellion in the United States. Although a civil war, confined, of course, within the territories of our government, it deranged, to a wonderful extent, the commerce of the world. How tremendous its effect upon European industry! How rapidly did it transfer the wealth of Europe to India and other Eastern nations! How severely did it affect the commerce of the United States, driving nearly half of it from the ocean in the short period of three years! But how circumscribed were the effects of that conflict to what would be felt, should a war arise between Great Britain and the United States! In such an event, how painful and wide-spread would be the devastation to the commerce of the two most commercial nations on the face of the globe! How terrible the results to trade and industry in every part of the earth! Yet no preparation is being made to prevent the occurrence of such a calamity; but every thing is done to make it as destructive and ruinous as possible, should it take place. It does not seem reasonable to suppose that such a state of things can be permanent; that all the great social, moral, and material interests of mankind can, in the present advanced period of intelligence, be allowed much longer to be thus imperilled. (b) The rapidly increasing intercourse by travel between the different peoples is making them more acquainted with each other, and dissipating much of that ignorance and prejudice which, in times past, has been a prolific source of jealousy and distrust. (e) The education of the masses, their gradual progress in knowledge, and their growing influence in public affairs, is another very hopeful indication. The people are being enlightened, and are becoming too "wise" to be made the dupes of a system of which they are the greatest victims.* (d) The neutralization of the Black Sea, by the treaty It may perhaps be expected, that we should mention "the onward progress of the gospel" as one of the influences adverse to war: but we are indisposed to enter upon the theological question, whether Christianity condemns war as sinful; and, consequently, as we cannot assume that it does so, can make no argument as to its influence in preventing war. Christianity, certainly, has no direct tendency to abolish any system which it does not positively condemn, still less any practice which it openly sanctions and approves. We have our individual opinion, that war is not in accordance with the teaching and example of the great Founder of Christianity, but shall not moot the question here. We prefer to look only at the economical, political, and social bearings of the subject. made at Paris, 1856, at the conclusion of the war of the Crimea, is a very significant fact, as connected with disarmament and the permanent peace of the world. By that treaty, the parties agreed that no ships of war should enter the Black Sea, but that its waters should be sacred to peaceful commerce. This was the introduction of a new principle into European diplomacy, although the idea had before been adopted in the Treaty of Ghent, made, in 1815, between Great Britain and the United States, which contained a provision, that the great lakes, lying between the territories of the contracting parties, should be neutralized, and neither party build fortifications or maintain a naval force upon them. This treaty has been observed down to the present time, upwards of fifty years, to the great advantage of both parties. The argument suggested by these two facts is, that, if the neutralization of the American lakes and the Black Sea is found so feasible and beneficial, the same principle might, with still greater advantage, be extended to all the seas and oceans on the globe. A CONGRESS OF NATIONS PROBABLE. But our fourth reason for expecting that the great object of disarmament will be accomplished, arises from the consideration that public sentiment has been evidently turned in that direction for the last fifty years, and much has actually been done towards bringing the subject directly before the different nations. (a) Associations have existed for a long time, whose object has been to bring about permanent and universal peace; and one of the prominent measures insisted upon as necessary to this end, has been a congress of nations. To bring this idea distinctly before the public mind, an international Peace Congress was held in London, in 1843; in Brussels, in 1848; in Paris, in 1849; in Frankfort, in 1850; in London, in 1851; besides several other general convocations in regard to the same subject. At all these, the prominent idea has been the establishment of a general congress, organized by the representatives of all the states of Christendom. The result of these movements has been to awaken an interest in the public mind in relation to this subject. (b) In addition to these voluntary and merely philanthropic efforts, the question was distinctly presented in the British House of Commons by the late Mr. Cobden, who took great interest in the movement, and had perfect faith in its ultimate success. So far back as June, 1851, this distinguished member of Parliament moved, "That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will direct the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to enter into communication with the government of France, and to endeavor in future to prevent that rivalry of warlike preparations in time of peace which has hitherto been the avowed policy of the two nations; and to promote, if possible, a mutual reduction of armaments." Lord Palmerston expressed his high approval of the motion, and said, "I am glad the honorable member has taken advantage of the meeting of the world (the Great Exhibition), to declare in his place in Parliament those principles of universal peace which do honor to him and the country in which they are proclaimed." Yet his lordship objected to being "bound into negotiations;" and, of course, nothing was ever done. (c) A still more encouraging fact is found in the action. of the French emperor in relation to this matter. Placed at the head of the most military nation in Europe, he proposed a congress to devise, amongst other measures, the means of reducing those enormous standing armaments which are the curse and peril of the world. This proposal England alone, of all the governments of |