On this page
-
Text (4)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
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.
Untitled Article
FALLACY OF NON-INTERVENTION . In foreign affairs the Ministerial policy has halted bi tween two opposite courses , but so also it appears to us has the policy of those who censure the Government . We are told that the principle in the relation of different countries should be that which regulates the intercourse of individuals , and " noninterference ' * is the dogma of the day . It is , we think , fallacious and impracticable ; but at all events it is desirable that it should be thoroughly understood ; for at present it is asserted and accepted , like many antiquated physiological notions in days gone by , about the spleen , on mere guesswork and metaphor .
That there is some radical error in the doctrine is rendered probable by the fact that it is so differently interpreted . Sir Robert Peel upheld the principle of Fox , Ganning , and Castlereagh , " non-interference except in case of necessity /* Now how did those statesmen give effect to their principle ? Castlereagh ' s idea of ' necessity" included that wholesale instrument of arbitrary intervention , the Holy Alliance ; and began the process which swindled Sicily out of her ancient constitution in false reliance on English support . Lord John Russell lays down the doctrine of noninterference , and proceeds to justify interference the most sweeping and arbitrary : —
" The best way for us to act is , whilst determining upon non-interference , not to lay down any abstract maxims as a guide for our actions . We interfered in the case of Portugal ; we soon afterwards interfered in the case of Spain , and that we did upon the suggestion of that most eminent statesman Prince Talleyrand , ambassador here at the time , and who felt that the success of the contest in Spain would endanger the stability of the Orleans dynasty in France . It is for statesman to judge of the occasion ; and I hold that we cannot lay down any abstract rule as to non-interferenpe . I only say that there should be interference when it is
necessary . I do not go so far as the right honourable member for Oxford University , that there should be interference when the opportunity arose ; but I say when interference is absolutely necessary , and our influence without our interference when it may be useful . I say then our interference when it is necessary , and our influence when it can be asserted to the promotion of temperate liberty—that liberty which is consistent with order , without practising a propagandism—our desire I say is to see institutions , whatever they may be called , a monarchy or a republic , still institutions which combine together the elements of authority and of
freedomthe same institutions as exist in this country—the same institutions as they prevail in the United States of America—institutions that tend to promote the happiness of mankind , and that have an immediate influence in promoting the independence of nations ; for it is the interest of England that the independence of nations should be promoted , and the balance of power thus secured . I say , then , for my part , that I rejoice after all the troubles , all the confusion , and all the bloodshed of the year 1848 , that there has yet been won two boons of considerable
magnitude—the establishment of representative Governments in Sardinia and in Turin . I should be glad to see that other nations could safely be entrusted with such institutions . It is of importance that it should be understood in Europe that we take part with neither of the extreme portions which are dividing Europe ; and that , whilst we abhor the crimes that produced the murders of a Rossi and a Latour , we also deprecate all acts that deprive nations of their ancient rights , and that shed the best blood of its bravest citizens on the scaffold . I
think it of importance that it should be understood in Europe that we approve of neither extreme—of the wildness of democracy , nor of the iron rule of despotism . I believe that all those opposed to free institutions and a free press , and who think that their security consists in despotism , would rejoice if they were told that the present Government in England had been destroyed . " What does all this mean ? Seriously we cannot
make out . We can only conjecture that Lord John is for a foreign policy which shall indirectly tend to keep Whigs in office ; that he will interfere in foreign countries to set up in those countries " institutions" of a Russell pattern ; but what practical or definite rule is indicated we cannot surmise . The whole passage seems to set aside the genius or wish of any nation , and to imply that Lord John will be deaf to the claim for assistance
from any nation , unless it is prepared to accept an English policy . So that he advocates non-intervention , except when it can be accompanied by dictation ! Lord Palmerston ' sprofession is influence and nonintervention ; his practice , half measures of intervention everywhere , such as exasperate our enemies , disappoint our friends , and destroy our influence . Interpreted by the Daily News , his principle is absolute non-intervention without
saymy so—which seems to mean non-intervention always , but sometimes a pretence of intervention ; and that is a very tolerable description of Lord Palmerston ' s policy . Its results are to foster revolution all over Europe , and to frustrate all the popular efforts which he professes to encourage : to precipitate
anarchy , and then rivet the chains of despotism . That is the practical result of Lord Palmerston ' s " non-intervention but don't-say-so " policy . Mr . Cobden is the most consistent promulgator of the non-intervention policy . If we rightly construe him—and if we do not , we invite correctionhe would proclaim absolute non-interference ;
would limit his influence abroad to teaching the nations how to live by example alone ; and would await the growth of opinions until they should rise to the level of imperial thrones , and should convert the autocrats of Russia and of Austria into enlightened free traders , Liberal politicians , and all that is good . Let us see how such a policy would work practically .
Nations , we are told , should be guided by the same rules that would regulate individuals . Now , if you saw Connop Thirlwall prostrate on the ground , with a huge country clown , standing over him , dictating what he should or should not do , by the simple right of force , would you observe the doctrine of non-intervention , and tell Thirlwall that independence must be conquered by himself ? Would you represent to Thirlwall , in support of your policy , that if you were to interfere , you might get your coat torn , be involved in a law suit , and
otherwise incur expense ? Would you advise Thirlwall to rely on the march of intellect , and on the moral force of your example upon the bestriding clown , or on the progress of education for embuing him with enlightened opinions such as would forbid him to trample on accomplished scholars ? Would you do that ; or would you resort to the organized physical force of the police , if not to some more summary intervention , in sympathy with the insurgent Thirlwall ? To pursue the analogy—Mr . Cobden would preach thus to Thirlwall , and also to the clown . Lord Palmerston would resolve not
to interfere , but would make as if he meant to help Thirlwall ; and then , when Thirlwall had made an attempt to rise , Lord Palmerston would draw back that the clown might dash the insurgent to the earth again ; and then Lord Palmerston would utter a very spirited protest against that cruelty , but would assure Mr . Cobden that he never meant to run into the expense of intervention . Lord John Russell would interfere—at least morally , in the preachy-preachy way , and perhaps also deludingly in the Palmerston way—on condition that Thirlwall should show a wish to make his household
and mode of life conform to the Russell patternnot otherwise . Now we do not think that , in this case of individual analogy , John Bull , if left to himself , would behave at all like these his distinguished advisers . He is desperately easy to be talked over ; but if left to himself , we have a strong conviction that he would insist on fair play , would set Thirlwall on his legs ; and , if the clown proved the bigger man , it is quite possible that John Bull would insist on settling accounts with him , while Thirlwall left fighting to study Grecian antiquities . We say that the conduct of nation to nation should be that of man to man , and that the
relation of humanity involves intervention as a necessity . It also involves the necessity of force . But it is a mistake to suppose that moral and physical force are necessarily antagonists . Institutions and opinions are not things " established , " and the metaphors which suggest that idea mislead us . They subsist , like all things dependent on the action of organized beings , by a perpetually renewed action , and accord precisely with the state of vital power in a nation . That vital power may be enlarged or restricted by aid or oppression . and
" Right" consists in the union of conviction power : we ought to do whatever we think good in itself and practicable to our strength . If we see a great nation prostrate under an inferior ^ nation , which is superior to it in the art of force ; if we are still superior or equal to that stronger nation , then we ought to interfere in raising the prostrate nation—to lend it our strength . The actual state of Europe is this . A class of men bred to thrones , aided by a still larger and abler class that subsists by supporting despotic thrones , have so managed
that in class interests a general accord exists among them , and they can at any time bring all their resources to bear upon any point at which those class interests are menaced . They have been able to divide the Peoples of Europe , so that the Peoples cannot act together , except through the royal and governing classes . The only international action , therefore , is anit-national . To teach the ruling classes , thus banded and flourishing on the antipopular conspiracy , must be a work of centuries ; to await the emancipation of Europe by the didactic proce 8 i on those pupils is to expect a teetotal
reform from the licensed victuallers , thorough law reform from lawyers , navy reform from crimps . Human feeling demands something less speculative and remote—some comfort more practical and tangible ; and it will get it , without waiting for the dreams of non-interventionists . Nations will come to a better accord , and will help each other : the
question is , whether the nation best able to take a lead in bringing about that Holy Alliance shall suffer its generous sympathies to slumber in the dreams of ceconomists , or shall sacrifice nations to the manoeuvres of the weakest of parties , or shall only acknowledge a national impulse to aid the conspiracy of some retrograde Holy Alliance to keep down Europe in detail .
Untitled Article
GROANS OP THE COMPROMISERS . Straightforwardness is not only the most honourable but the most successful course ; equivocation , compromise , and halfness rob us of our strength . Pitiable it is to see the manner in which those who suffer from the new Sunday regulation , evade the real question , and throw up groans of distress at the " inconvenience" which results , and miserable pretences that the Sabbath " will not be so well observed as before . " Pitiable , indeed ! enough to make us ashamed of our fellowcreatures for their cowardice .
The real question is this : —Is it or is it not an offence against God to do any work on the Sunday ? If it is—as the Saints proclaim—then all the talk about " inconvenience" is idle ; we must not be allowed to outrage God for our convenience ; not only postal employments , but all other kinds of labour , are wicked and should be put down . A correspondent points to some striking instances . ^ If it is not an offence against God—if neither religion in the abstract nor Christianity in the particular pronounces against employment on the Sunday—then the Saints should be answered on that ground ,
and the talk about " inconvenience" be let alone as totally irrelevant . But , no ! men shirk that argument ; they are afraid to meet the Saints on religious ground ; destitute of any serious convictions themselves , yet terrified at the thought of being stigmatized as unbelievers , they shuffle and equivocate , talk about " convenience , " declare the nation " won t stand it , " and suffer the Saints to press victoriously onwards . They dare not grapple with the principle . This , indeed , is the curse of our age : we are " destitute of faith , yet terrified at scepticism !" The House of Commons does not believe , yet dares
not avow the fact . The majority has outgrown the opinions taught in the nursery and schoolroom , but it has not outgrown the terror those opinions inspire . It has lost its faith , and retained its prejudices . As a man who has lost an arm continues to feel pain in the hand which he no longer possesses , so will he who has lost his faith continue to feel twinges of fear and misgiving , as if his faith were living still . This will continue until the New Reformation has fairly seated itself on the ground now strewed with the ruins of sects .
Meanwhile we note here the victory of earnestness . The Saints gained the day , and—let us add—deserved to gain it . They were straightforward . They declared what they meant . They did not equivocate . They said religion is injured by letter carriers ; the blue coat with red collar must no longer desecrate the Sabbath . The sharp Rat-tat ! startled away pious reveries ; it was right j . _ _ M ____ It . rPmiA m > falsa niAHO / " »!• YWttnrtat AlYkllHto silence itTrue falsepious or preposterous
. or , , there was a distinct principle involved . It could only be overcome by some truer , higher principle . Instead of this the principle was evaded . The Saints argued in the name of Religion ; they were answered in the name of the World . They declared with indignation that to permit the Sunday Post was to outrage God ; they were answered that it is a convenience to Jones 1
Untitled Article
HYDE PARK AND THE EXPOSITION OP 1851 . We are glad to see a disposition to rally round the official authorities in resisting the recently-raised outcry against Hyde Park as a site for the Exposition of 1851 . No place could be equally good . The outcry evidently originates with some nobleman or other near the park , who does not like a great publio conoourse brought too
near his mansion ; and , to serve some personal dislike , the public , with large private interests , are to be saorificed ! The Exposition includes two things—the exhibition of goods , and the vast concourse of people . The exhibition of goods cannot fail to be interesting and useful . The concourse will depend upon these probabilities—a thoroughly convenient and attractive site ; a good neighbourhood to that site for lodging ; and the
Untitled Article
July 6 , 1850 . ] © ft * 3 Lt& * tX * 349
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), July 6, 1850, page 349, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1845/page/13/
-