A the whole civilized world were at its occurrence. war, existing under such circumstances, may prove that the rulers are perverse and cruel, but does not necessarily prove this in respect to the people generally. It will, of course, be seen, that things of this nature are to be taken into consideration, before we are at liberty to say, in opposition to the arguments which have been brought forward, that man is by nature, and instinctively, the enemy of his fellow-man. § 181. The objection, drawn from wars, further considered. But there is a third view of this objection which remains to be taken. If we could arrive at the truth on the subject before us, it would undoubtedly be seen (and the distinction in respect to all inquiries into the active principles of human nature is frequently an important one) that, in times of national war, men fight together as corporations rather than as individuals; and while, in battle, they shoot at the man who happens to be opposite to them, they subdue the voice of pity and conscience by the mistaken and illusive consideration that the wound is aimed, not so much at the poor bleeding individual as at the state or nation. If they could thrust aside this idea, and separate the man from the political corporation to which he belongs, it is beyond doubt that they would reach forth the hand of kindness, bind up the wounds of their victim, and breathe their consolations into his dying bosom. In consequence of early associations, and what are supposed to be conflicting national interests, it is not an uncommon thing for Englishmen to say that they hate the French nation, while the same persons will frequently admit that they have no hatred to individual Frenchmen, but, on the contrary, have a regard and love for those with whom they happen to be acquainted. We maintain, therefore, that a hatred against nations, under the existing facts and circumstances, is not necessarily a hatred against humanity. And men begin to understand this. They make a broader distinction than they were wont to do formerly between the nation, or the government representing the nation, and the people; between the responsibilities of public policy and the responsibility that attaches to private individuals. And, accordingly, in times of war, if the action of armies in the vicinity of each other is suspended by a truce, nothing is more common than to see both officers and soldiers reciprocating acts of hospitality and friendship. Acting as men, and with the natural feelings of men, they sympathize in each other's personal sufferings, and endeavour to render each other happy. And yet, acting in their national capacity, and as members of their respective political corporations, they will be found, in a few days after, coolly putting each other to death. The fact is, that it is impossible for us either to love or hate masses of beings, considered in the mass. And hence war necessarily involves the pathematic and moral anomaly of destroying those who would be found, when separated from the mass and considered individually, to be entitled to our esteem and affection. § 182. Illustration of the statements of the foregoing section. The doctrine of the foregoing section, that bodies or masses of men may fight with and destroy each other, while, at the same time, each party entertains towards the opposite party, individually considered, no other than humane or friendly sentiments, is not a mere assertion. Strange and paradoxical as it may appear, it is proved beyond doubt by history, particularly by that interesting and instructive portion of history which appears in the form of private Memoirs. A single extract, illustrative of this apparently contradictory view of human nature, and in confirmation of what has been said, will be introduced here. In the late bloody war, generally known as the Peninsular War, two detachments of the French and English armies were stationed near each other on the banks of the Tagus, the one at Almeyrim, the other at Santarem. The following statement of the feelings and intercourse that existed between the two parties, when not engaged in battle, is given by a member of the English army in the interesting Work entitled Recollections of the Peninsula; and when we consider that it relates to men who, both before and afterward, were engaged to their utmost ability in destroying each other, it is to be regarded as one among a thousand other proofs that war is a horrible delusion, and is against nature. "About the middle of February," says this writer, "as I was one day walking by the river side with three or four companions, we observed an unusual crowd on the opposite bank, and several French officers. They saluted us with a 'Bon jour, Messieurs, and we soon fell into conversation. They were exceedingly courteous. They spoke in the highest terms of Romana, who had lately died, calling him 'Le seul général Espagnol digne de son grade. They asked after Lord Wellington, saying he had done wonders with the Portuguese, and praising him greatly for his conduct of the campaign. They next inquired if our king was not dead; and on our replying that he was not, one of them spoke, but inaudibly; another, in a louder voice, repeated, 'Le général dit, que tout le monde aime votre Roi George, qu'il a été bon pére de famille, et bon pére de son peuple.' We were thus at once let into the rank of one of their party, and not a little delighted at the manner in which they had spoken of our excellent and unfortunate sovereign. A great deal of good-humour prevailed; we quizzed each other freely. They asked us how we liked bacallao and azete instead of English roast beef; and we, what they did at Santarem without the restaurateurs, cafés, and salles de spectacle of their dear Paris. They replied, laughing, that they had a theatre; and asked us to come over and witness the performance of that evening, which would be 'L'Entrée des François dans Lisbon.' A friend of mine most readily replied that he recommended to them 'La répetition d'une nouvelle piéce, La Fuite des Fran çois.' They burst into a long, loud, and general laugh: the joke was too good, too home. Their general, however, did not think it wise to remain longer; but he pulled his hat, and wishing us good-day with perfect good-humour, went up the hill, and the group immediately dispersed." § 183. Of patriotism, or love of country. One of the most important modifications of that more general and extensive form of good-will or benevolence, which extends to all mankind, is PATRIOTISM, or love of country. It seems to be the intention of nature, when we consider the diversities of customs and languages that exist, and particularly that in many cases countries are distinctly separated from each other by large rivers, lakes, gulfs, mountains, and seas, that mankind, instead of being under one government, shall exist in separate and distinct communities or nations, each having its own institutions and civil polity. And such, at any rate, is the fact. We are not only members of mankind and citizens of the world (a relation which ought to be more distinctly and fully recognised than it ever has been), but are members, and, as such, have appropriate duties to fulfil, of our own particular community. And it is thus that a foundation is laid for that particular state of mind which we denominate Patriotism. This affection we regard as secondary rather than original. It is that love which we exercise, and ought to exercise, towards the members of our species, considered as such, heightened by the consideration that those towards whom it is put forth are sprung from the same race, inhabit the same territory, are under the same constitutions of government, speak the same language, and have the same interests. So that the love of our race, as it is modified in the form of love of our country, while it is more restricted, becomes proportionally more intense. And, in point of fact, it is unquestionably one of the predominant and ruling principles which regulate the conduct of men. Nevertheless, we are not to suppose that there is necessarily any conflict between these two principles. For, in doing good to our country, we are doing good to mankind; and to that particular portion of mankind, which Providence, by placing them more immediately within the scope of our observation and effort, seems to have assigned as the especial field of our beneficence. At the same time, it cannot be denied, that patriotism, in its irregular and unrestrained exercise, does sometimes, and but too frequently, interfere with Philanthropy, or the love of man. The passion of patriotism, as a general thing, has become disproportionate in degree, as compared with the love of the human race. The interests of our country, by being continually brooded over, are exaggerated to our perception, while those of mankind are too much lost sight of. There is too much ground for the feeling lamentation of Cowper: "Lands intersected by a narrow frith Abhor each other. Mountains interposed Make enemies of nations who had else, § 184. Of the affection of friendship. Another interesting modification of that feeling of good-will or love, which, as men, we naturally bear to our fellow-men, is denominated Friendship. It is a passion so distinctly marked that it well deserves a separate notice, although there are no good grounds for regarding it, considered as a distinct affection, as connatural. The love which we bear to our species is so diffused, that it cannot be said, as a general thing, to possess a high degree of strength. As it withdraws from the vast circumference of the human race, and contracts its exercise within the narrow circle of our country, it acquires increased energy. Retreating within the still more restricted limits which imbody those with whom we are most accustomed to associate, it assumes a new modification, being not only characterized by greater strength, but a source of |