On this page
-
Text (2)
-
' 408 • ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ' . ¦ .; ¦ TltJLlAifl. ....
-
SOCIETY OF THE FRIENDS OF ITALY. pnoFESS...
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
The Week In Parliament. The Militia Bii....
f ying by his speecha warm interest in the retention of the building . Lord Seymoub , on the contrary , spoke spitefully and cynically , as is his custom , against Lord Carlisle , the motion , the building , and Sir Joseph Paxton . He stood by the pledge , and champiotied the interests of the house property opposite the building . Mr . Wakley made the pouse laugh at the expense of the Government , and Lord' John JJUnners was so for piqued as to call the good-humoured banter of the not too-refined member for Fihsbury , " unmitigated nonsense . " Mr . Waldey had audaciously said on the pledge qxiestion , " This was a pledge for destruction ; but suppose it had been a pledge for protection , would the article ' good faith' then be so worthy of admiration ? " ( " Hear , hear , " and laughter . )
Mr . Geaeh , Mr . J . Evans , Mr . Alcock , and Sir Robert Peel spoke in favour of the motion , but after all , when the House divided there were—For the motion 103 ; Against it 221 . Majority for the destruction of the palace—118 .
HOTTSE OF LORDS . In the House of Lords on Tuesday , Lord Tobbing-TO 2 T presented a petition from the merchants and traders of London and Westminster , complaining of the Treasury minute with respect to the sale of coffee mixed with chicory , and entered into a statement of the reasons which rendered the rescinding of that minute desirable . The noble lord concluded by moving that the petition be laid on the table . The Duke of
Monxkosjb supported the motion . The Earl of Deebt admitted the importance of the petition , and expressed his dissent from the doctrine laid down on the subject by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer . Though there might be some difficulty in rescinding the Treasury minute complained of , the present Government would give their best endeavours to prevent the spurious mixture of deleterious articles with coffee . The petition was then ordered , to lie on the table .
Lord GbauviIjIiE asked on Tuesday whether instructions had been given to the authorities at Plymouth to receive the ex-Dictator Rosas , on his landing , with official honours ^ Lord Maxmesbttry replied , that no instructions had been sent from the Foreign Office . He could not explain why the authorities at Plymouth had received the general in such " a manner as Jbhey had done , except by supposing that a natural feeling had led them to receive with hospitality and respect a distinguished refugee from a foreign country . No more definite answer could be obtained either from the noble lord or the Duke of Northumberland .
The Earl of Shaftesbttry brought forward his motion on the sanitary state of London , intreating the House to pass a resolution to the effect that the sanitary state of the metropolis required the immediate interposition of the Government . The Earl of Derby -declined to follow Lord Shaftesbury into his statistics , and complained that with all hia experience he had failed to point out any definite measures by which the great evils of the existing system might be remedied . Under the circumstances he thought the noble lord should have laid a bill on the table which might have been calmly discussed , instead of moving this abstract proposition , which unreasonably called on the House to settle a question at once which had been a puzzle to Parliament for ten years .
After some further discussion , the Earl of Derby sxiggested that the word " immediate" should bo omitted in the motion ; and strange as it may sound , the Earl of Shaftesbuby agreeing to this suggestion , the motion , so amended , was adopted .
' 408 • ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ' . ¦ .; ¦ Tltjllaifl. ....
' 408 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ' . ¦ . ; ¦ TltJLlAifl . . : ; ;;; . ¦ . ; . ; ^ IgATttRpAV , ;
Society Of The Friends Of Italy. Pnofess...
SOCIETY OF THE FRIENDS OF ITALY . pnoFESSon nkwman's lmctubk on " England ' s PLAC . I 0 AND DUTY IN EUKOPE . " Tnw third conversazione of this Society was hold , on Wednesday oveninp last , in tho Princess ' s Coneort-room , Castlo-strcct , Oxford-street ; . A numerous and select nsBomblago waa proscnt , consisting of tho moinbera of tho Sooioty and tlioir friends , together with a considerable number of foreigners—Italians Germans , IlungananH , ami Jb ' ronchmoTi—interested in tho society , and , above all , interested in tlio subject of tho locturo which had boon announced lor tho evening . Tho chair was taken at eight o ' clock , by W . N . Adjure !; , JUsq ., of M ' uswoll-hill , who introduced 1 ho . lecturer , J ' rofoHBor Francis Nuwman , of University College I ' rofeHHOr Newman then proceeded , amid tho clobpoHfc attention of the audioneo , iutorrupted only by marks of wpoeinl sympathy and approbation at particular imHHages , io deliver tho following diHcourao—a diawmrao worthy of tho most earoful jwrumu , and tho most calm and HoriouH consideration , both of ordinary cilissons and of
pro-1 'oHnional politicians . FniKiroH and Oounthymkn , — It is common to open nn address l > v UHkinu itu } ul | Eonon s but now , to profoHH dillldonoo would bo to plowl miill-y of iudiaorotion . At tho roquost ot certain Friends of Italy I huvo undertaken to diaoourao on u dooply important nubjeot . I could not do bo , uiiIobb I had Htrong convictions . But I » lmU try to adhere to grout prinoiplua , o » whioh o » o may he confident without arrogance . It may be asked—by some portly , by some seriously— « Why
do you not leave so difficult a subjeot aa Foreign Politics to Statesmen P "—and as a preliniinary I think it well to give a direct and frank reply , 1 , ~ w First , there is no topic which the House of Commons way discuss , on which it is not desirable that all should have exercised minds , who ! constitutionally elect that House , and who need to judge of the conduct of their representatives . Secondly , the subject most intimately concerns us . As things have long been managed , our brothers , sons , neighbours , friends , are liable even in ordinary times to he sentiabroad . as soldiers or sailorp , and become either agents of high justice or tools of cruel outrage . In extraordinary tikes such as these , oar very laws and liberties , not to speak of our trade , bur wealth , our taxation , are eminently suspended on European events . Thirdly , whatever the ability of statesmen , and whatever their superior knewledfrfi of fact . I do not admit that they have more moral wisdom
than private persons , and I fear they have generally les 3 - A" their most valuable wisdom was earned in private life ; and _ the higher they rise , the more are they immersed in a corrupting atmosphere . I dare not utter fully my feelings on this subject they might seem extravagant . I Will barely say , that ^ pubhc history leaves upon my mind a most painful conviction that the morality of our foreign and colonial policy is exceedingly behind the morality of our home-political life . Crime is imagined . to cease to be crime , because it is perpetrated on the most audacious scale . . _ . I have now to discourse on the place and duty of England m Europe . I understand this to refer to the place which England ought consciously to occupy in the existing state of things . That state is surely unprecedented in all history . Never were the nations so intelligent , so industrious , so humane , so abhorrent from pillage , so peace-loving , so law-loving ; yet never were
so many great and powerful peoples pressed by mere military force under a yoke which they abhor . Never was so vast a soldiery kept up ^ -kept , not against foreign enemies , but to ensure that a few men , neither wiser nor more virtuous than their fellow-mortals , may exert irresponsible power over a hundred million persons . This can only be a state of transition . How longthe ^ throes of birth "will be prolonged ; what amount of misery , destruction , and utter rending away of things new from things old shall precede the Order which is to arise out of this Chaos , may probably depend on England . Her insular position gives her a peculiar security ; but if this be interpreted to hbe ^ rate her from duty to countries less happily situated , it will turn to her certain disgrace , and possibly to her ruin . What she can do f or them , depends on what she is in herself , and what she may become in her whole empire , by the mere exertion of virtuous will . On this very grave subject I fear I cannot be lively ; T nn-n nnl < r llO OOmOot _ unrl T « T 1 tT *»« .+. tilfl . £ ltfl dfiPTl llltereSt UiaV
sustain your attention , if I fail of being as concise as might be wished . To prevent mistake , I will at once avow that I speak as a royahst to royalists . Whatever be the progress of republican theory among us , it would he absurd to expect a , servant of the Crown to act on any but royalist principles . A permanent and consistent foreign policy hostile to English royalty , is unimaginable from British ministers without a previous revolution at home . N " o arguments are here admissible , but such as may be sincerely pressed on ministers of the Crown in either House of Parliament . ¦ ~ . _ Again , I speak as an Englishman , and not from the ground of any one section of English politicians . Tory , Whig , Radical , are in this -argument all one . No English statesman has done himself and Tiis country more honour in recent days as to European politics than Mr . Gladstone , who is called a Tory . In to absolutism
fact , England has no party favourable . . Every possible ministry will avow that the glory of the crown consists m its reconciling freedom with subjection , by being itself subject to law . We may differ as to the more or lets of active authority which may beneficially be assigned to a prince j naturally , for the problem varies with every internal change in a nation . But all England agrees , that legitimate and honourable royalty does hot mean the supremacy of an Individual Will over Law , but means the consecration of an . individual person or family to be the chief minister and representative of Law ; and that the sacredness of royalty is only a natural efflux from the higher sacredneaa of Law . ¦ . ' . Republicans have combined with Absolutists to deride constitutional royalty 5 and it is easy to deride every possible form of government , by exhibiting how it is managed by foolish persons . Foolish democracy , foolish aristocracy , and certainly foolish
despotism , are ridiculous , as well as evil . No wonder , then , it foolish constitutional monarchy is ridiculous : let us be thankful if it bo less evil . But I strongly deny the propriety of treating English statesmen as necessary hypocrites in their approval of our peculiar institutions . It is an insidious falsehood , sometimes unawares admitted by good men , that restriction on royal power is a recent humiliation . It is not recent , but was born with primitive royalty : it is not a humiliation , but is necessary to make the royal office one which a good and wise man could desire to accept . Legal limitations on tho prerogative do not hinder a wise king from services to his country , such as none 6 m * a kinft can render . It might be well for the black population of tho United States of America , if a constitutional king reigned there . In old England , the burgess , the freeholder , and the serf , found in the king a protector against the baron j yet our rovaltv was then as truly limited as now , though the limits were
not all so well agreed upon . No royalty is in the highest sense legitimate , untifall the institutions are scoured by Law aguinst the cupricjos of individual will . LiioiTijuacy js a word which , lilce Order and Authority , h » w been claimed and abused by despots who had a most doubtful title to it . The lowest form in wliioh it can bo conoeded to exist , is , where ostensibly willing obedience ia paid to a sovereign whoso will is Law . Such is tho legitimacy of the Russian emperor in Russia proper . Such countries may bo temporarily well governed : we rejoioo whon that iu the oase ; but wo know tho arduousnoBS of tho problem . Tho state in ono of transition , only as transitive ia it legitimate . A superior form ol'logitimacy appears , whore thoro is somo division of powers botweon independent holders of authority , so as to make a double or triple system of antagonist forces , caoh likely to check the unjust procoodings of tho other . Thus in our Indian Empire tho Buproma Tribunals aro independent of tho ordinary Executive , and all authoritioa alike aro consciously amenable to tho ulliinato judgmont of Enerland . Suoh also i « tho legitimacy of Civil
Despotinms whioh aro limited by unchangeable Religion , or by oxtromely nnoiont Forma equally unchangeable . Hut horo , tho hotter usability ia provided for , tho Iobh ia I ' rogroas possible Tho third form of Logitimauy is , whon Law is acknowledged to bo human and changeable , yot changeable only by pnblip dobato mid tho oonourronoo of different oi-dors ; when tho magistrate can onforoo law on tho pooplo , and tho pooplo on tho ma-. If istrulo . To work out unaided so complicated a problem , ia todi ( r tiH to all natloiiH , and possible to vary low ; but nuiuun oxporiorico now haa fully auttlod tho conditions of huoophh . Thin mghoHt form of Legitimacy in ¦ uonorally oallod UoiinliMitionul Froodom . It provides alilco Tor Stability and for ProyrosH . Tho truo olasHiHoation of goyorninentH ia nor , into Monarchical , Arlntooratio , and Domoorutio . but into tho Luwlemi , tho Stagnant , and tho Legally progreHsivo . Tho history of tho English Crown ia itaolf anilontbut oloquont protesli iu favour of this highest form of Louitimocy , Tho dethroncinont of thu Stuarts , and oloot ion of tho Hquho of HrunHwiok , propjaimod that lcmil barriors niual . bo niaintoinod ugaiuab tlin mulversatlona of tho JJxooutivo Powtu ' , and that a king who l > cuomoB notorlounly Inv / haa . ivto facto abdicates the Crown by
-violating his fundamental duties and engagements ; On the con trary , nearly everywhere oh the Continent i kings have used ar " mies to oyerturn law , and haye hereby desecrated royalty Foreign invaders assume to be kings or emperors of natioriB whichbate them , and whichdisown all allegiance . Noble families Lave gained- 'kingdoms by hy-poonsy and baths , and have turnefl them into tyrannies by perjury iuul murder . Unless English royaltyseparates its cause from that of lawless wiokednesa it in dishonoured by the pretenders to its Hkeness . What rape is to marriage , suoh is the sway of a usurper toi that of tm £ legiti . inacy ,. ' : ' . ¦ * . ; . ¦ ¦' '¦¦"¦' . . " . " ; ¦ ' ¦ ' ¦ ¦'' : '' "¦ ' ¦ '¦' ¦¦ ' .-: '''¦ ' . ' '¦¦ . ' ¦ ' : '¦ ¦ •" In * defence of absolute despotism ^ it is often said , that the wisest long cannot give freedom to his . people . But if he cannot da everything , he can do much ; and if he desire to secure the supremacy ot Law over Caprice , that will be seen Jn the direction of his endeavours . Few born despots have the knowledge or the genius , and still fewer have the will , to establish any power antagonistic / to their own .
But—what takes away all excuse from modern European des pots—the despotism has not been necessitated by barbarism and ignorance , but has been , facilitated by civilization and knowledge . Advantage is taken of . the industry , peacefulness and wealth of the people , to tax them largely , to raise a great soldiery , and make Might the arbiter 6 f \ Right . Bribery , Perfidy Slander , Cruelty , all add their powers to support the ' ' rotten cause . The rule of the despots is now , beyond all contradictioii the rule of atrocity over moderation , of stupidity over intellect ' of superstition over reverential philosophy . It is the prostra ? tioh of genius , the extinction of literature , the suppression of debate , the fettering of comnierce , the annihilation of law , the debasement of aristocracy , and the elevation of a ruthless priesthood . , , The sentiment of every remaining royalist natio n to its king must soon be undermined , if royalty and tyranny become
confounded in one idea . Conspirators against law and right have a common interest as tyrants ; but a legitimate crown has no common interest with them . England ^ in all her orders and ranks , has but one interest in Europe- * and this coincides with her providential mission ^—to inculcate and promote the supremacy of Law .. '¦ ¦ " ' -. ' . -. Right , indeed , and not Law , is the true sovereign ; bat to distinguish these two is ordinarily a purely internal question for each nation . The chief except ional case , which in modern days has been thought to justify foreign interference to protect whole classes of men from unjust law , is that of religious persecution . When fanaticism dissolves the ties of humanity , it . destroys with them the ties of nature ; but in less vital disputes , the very sufferers by evil laws would deprecate aid from abroad . Ordinarily , t h en , we salute Legality as the flag of Justice . But the illegitimacy of power is sometimes clearly avowed by its own conduct . Wnen a prince surrounds his person with a
powerful foreign guard , when he garrisons fortresses and overawes the country with foreign troops , and carefully : disarms the natives , he proclaims to the world that he is an invader heading an army of occupat ion , not a ruler administering law . It is manifestly a state of tear , and as suoh' alone ought we to treat it . A nation trampled down is surely as . broad a phenomenon on the face-of Europe , as the enemy wno tramples on it . In ancient and in modern days alike , poHtical observers have regarded it as an axiom , that a power is illegitimate —« r , as the Greeks phrased it , tyrannical—when it rested on foebiqk armies . Even where the armies are not foreign , the events may be so glaring , that no sane man can doubt that power is illegitimate . If a magistrate who was entrusted with legal and limited authority , corrupts the army , falsifies his oaths publicly , disperses civil assemblies by violence , slaughters , banishes , arrests , imprisons , at nleasure 3 dictates processes which give to his new
position a formaiauthority and then , assumes to be legitimate—the last step does but add hypocrisy to atrocious wickedness . To trust such a man is henceforth impossible . To exchange courtesies with him is to deprive our courtesies of all moral value . We either become partakers of his ill repute , or are thought to act from cowardice . To be forced to salute such a monster with civility , must surely be a dishonour and a grief to any virtuous man . To send a fixed ambassador to pay court to him , appears to me a prostitution of our royal legitimacy , I * P * , iorward our Queen as co-ordinate in authority with the vilest ot criminals . . . I say , then , the proper function of England in Europe is—by example and silent action always , by express word or forcible actions sometimes—to promote true legitimacy . A mass of human beings becomes a nation , only when it is cemented into eonsifltenov and moral unitvbv law ; by law , which is the sonie _
tomorrow as it was yesterdays and does not depend on individual caprice . But this function of England to promote legitimacy is mischievously caricatured when interpreted to mean that Inland must promote English institutions . Our particular form of Legality is adapted to a nation which has a royal race , a peerage , and a commonalty , all socially independent , and therefore cupable of playing an independent political part . It any 01 the three elements do not exist in a certain country , our lorm is there manifestly impossible ; and if we urge its introduction , we do a mischief proportioned to "our influence . Moreover , m order that the king may be a sacred person , irresponsible w law , and lifted above party disputes and attack , there must De a national reverence for him . This is a sentiment whipn cftuno * be oroated at will . As to force a husband on an unwilling ^ W ^ is no honour to matrimony , so to foroe a king on an unaesinng people is no honour to royalty . Nations whioh . have no Kingjy
race , or none that they can revere or trust , are essenuwiy unroyalist . If we aro proud of our old oak-trees , shall vre « rgo foreigners to plant saplings and be equally proud of themr Shall we think to honour Queen Victoria by asaunng her that royalty can bo raised like a hothouue plant ? True and legitimate royalty may rise again in Europe , as in old days , by niK " services which win a nation ' s heart ; but tho monstrous aio-Burdity is , that whenever thoro appears any proapeot ot BU . cn iu » ovont—whenever in time of revolution a citizen overtops « ' » ooiuitrymen , and tho intense lovo of his nation seems s " " ^ tiblo of ripening into loyalty and allogianco—then fort ^ . -n " prctondod royalists clamour ngainat him , and impute tluB / J ? tinifenoy as though kingship were horrid tyranny j wholly puu » to tho iact , thatff over royalty is to bo again etrengtheaoa » n ICuropo , it is by tho election or auch men to bo kings . In short , then , I avow : Royalty i 8 made saoredhy its »»'" £ the organ of law ; royalty becomes holoved whon it visibly !<» «» riL'ht and justice more than royalty . If Queen Viotoria . ™
aponsSblo ndviaera urge hor to manifest cordial Bympainy "" logitimato iVoedom , whether it appoar in a form more ox »« like to our own , then tho affections of tho British people w » i" » doubly rivettod to ' . hor children ' s throno . Thiaia true royansipolicy , and tliia ia tho genuine English policy . ' „ ilinqO Ihit many of my audioneo will any - " Enough ol ti »« B « truisniH 1 oomn to tho point , and Hay what wo aro to tlo . J & ouso 1110 , that I rogiu-d those topics aa nowise anporin ou » to JCnglialmion . Exouao mo ftirtlior , jf I roply in * Jl S ' " . order of my own to tho question , " what wo aro to do Y »»» land ia a moral power , not indeed Bololy , yot primari ly . . ¦ * iuiHreot rtmult produood by our own u « e of dominion is , » " ¦ long run , far groator on Europe than any result from « 'N * 7 , torforence . If we aro tyrannical iu our own ndmtatatr » Mo » j naturally our ministers have bad oonsoionoos ; they oann ° ; , iLr with tho boldnoaaof innooonoo , thoy oriime to . tyrants , *» % {'« - to ostablish preoodenta that condemn fhomsolvoa ; n » v ? "X own conduot is quoted aa prooodont against them . l «™ » fc $ farced into au argument which I fear you may thm $ " " w jil plaoo , on tho government of Entjlieh dependencies . * "
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), May 1, 1852, page 4, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_01051852/page/4/
-