troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my

arms never never — never.

And again Lord Chatham said:

I would sell my shirt from off my back to assist in proper measures, properly and wisely conducted; but I would not part with a single shilling to the present ministers. Their plans are founded in destruction and disgrace. It is, my lord, a ruinous and destructive war; it is full of danger; it teems with disgrace, and must end in ruin.

In the Lords, Nov. 18th, 1777, the Duke of Richmond said:

Can we too soon put a stop to such a scene of carnage? I know, that what I am going to say is not fashionable language, but a time will come when every one of us must account to God for his actions; and how can we justify causing so many innocent lives to be lost?

In the Commons, Dec. 5th, 1778, Mr. Hartley, the constant friend of America, brought forward a motion :

That it is unbecoming the wisdom and prudence of Parliament, to proceed any further in the support of this fruitless, expensive, and destructive war; more especially without any specific terms of accommodation declared.

In the Lords, Feb. 16th, 1778, the Marquis of Rockingham said:

He was determined to serve his country, by making peace at any rate.

In the Lords, March 23d, 1778, the Duke of Richmond brought forward a motion for the withdrawal of the forces from America.

In the Commons, Nov. 27th, 1780, on a motion to

thank General Clinton and others, for their military services in America, Mr. Wilkes said:

I think it my duty to oppose this motion, because in my idea every part of it conveys an approbation of the American war; a war unfounded in principle, and fatal in its consequences to this country. * Sir, I will not thank for victories which only tend to protract a destructive war. * As I reprobate the want of principle in the origin of the American war, I the more lament all the spirited exertions of valor and the wisdom of conduct, which, in a good cause, I warmly applaud. Thinking as I do, I see more matter of grief than of triumph, of bewailing than thanksgiving, in this civil contest, and the deluge of blood, which has overflowed AmeriI deeply lament that the lustre of such splendid victories is obscured and darkened by the want of a good cause, without which no war, in the eye of truth and reason, before God or man, can be justified.

ca.

* *

Mr. Fox said:

He allowed the merits of the officers now in question, but he made a distinction between thanks and praise. He might admire their valor, but he could not separate the intention from the action; they were united in his mind; there they formed one whole, and he would not attempt to divide them.

Mr. Sheridan said:

There were in that House different descriptions of men who could not assent to a vote of thanks that seemed to imply a recognition or approbation of the American war.

Such is the doctrine of morals, sanctioned by high English examples. Such should be the doctrine of an American statesman. If we apply this to the existing exigency; nay, more, if we undertake to try the candidates on the present occasion by this standard, we shall

find, that, as Dr. Howe is unquestionably right, so Mr. Winthrop is too certainly wrong. In thus exalting our own candidate, I would not unduly disparage another. It is for the sake of the cause in which we are engaged, - by the side of which all individuals dwindle into insignificance, that we now oppose Mr. Winthrop. We desire to bear our testimony earnestly, heartily, sincerely, against Slavery, and the longer continuance of the Mexican war. We demand the retreat of General Taylor, and the instant withdrawal of the American forces. And even if we seem to fail, in this election, we shall not fail in reality. The influence of this effort will be felt. It will help to awaken and organize that powerful public opinion by which this war will at last be arrested.

Hang out, then, fellow-citizens, the white banner of Peace. Unfurl all its ample folds, streaming with Christian trophies. Let the citizens of Boston rally about it; and let it be borne by an enlightened, conscientious people, aroused to the condemnation of this murderous war, until Mexico, wet with blood unjustly shed, shall repose undisturbed at last beneath its celestial folds.

ARGUMENT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF ENLISTMENTS IN THE MASSACHUSETTS REGIMENT OF VOLUNTEERS FOR THE MEXICAN WAR, JAN. 1847.

[By the Mexican War Bill (approved May 13th, 1846,) the President was authorized "to call for and accept the services of volunteers to a number not exceeding 50,000,” and provisions were made for their organization. The Governor of Massachusetts, by proclamation, called for a Regiment in this Commonwealth, which was organized under the Act of Congress. Before it had left the Commonwealth, applications for discharge from it were made to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in behalf of several persons, who had repented their too hasty enlistment. At the hearing of these cases, the proceedings, by which the Regiment had been organized, were called in question. Their validity was denied on the ground that the Act of Congress, in some of its essential provisions on the subject of volunteers, was unconstitutional; that the enlistments were not in conformity with the Act; and also that the militia laws of Massachusetts had been fraudulently used in order to form the Regiment. These points, and the further question, whether a minor was bound by his contract of enlistment under the Act, were argued by Mr. Sumner, who appeared as counsel for one of the petitioners.

The Court sustained the validity of the proceedings, but discharged the minors. See In re Kimball, Murray & Stone, 9 Law Reporter, 500, where the case is reported.]

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONORS,

THIS cause has a strong claim upon the careful consideration of the Court. It comes with a trinoda necessitas, a triple cord, to bind its judgment. It is important as respects the parties, the public, and the principles involved.

To the parties, it is one of the highest questions known to the law, - a question of human freedom. It is proposed to hold the petitioner in the servitude of the army for an indefinite space of time, viz., “for the duration of the war with Mexico." During all this period, he is to be subject to martial law, to the articles of war, with the terrible penalties of desertion. He is to be under the command of officers, at whose word he will be obliged to move from place to place beyond the confines of the country, and to perform unwelcome duties, involving his own life and the lives of others.

To the public, it is important, as it is surely of high consequence, in whose hands it places the power of life and death. The soldier is vested with extraordinary attributes. He is at times more than marshal or sheriff. He is also surrounded expressly by the law with certain immunities, one of which is exemption from imprisonment for debt.

It is important from the principles involved in the inquiry. These are the distinctions between the different kinds of military force to be employed under the Constitution of the United States; the constitutionality