On this page
- Departments (1)
- Pictures (1)
-
Text (6)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
<£>$m entrant. „
-
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
Beyond the moneyvalue of the yice-regal subscanptioD ^ the Northern Whiff can lose nothing bythiscourse j and , beyond the saining of that amount , the lord-Lieutenant can gain nothing . But then , Tories are like bulls—they prefer running with shut eyes at their adversaries , arid Lverning a country by ignoring ^ not estimating , opinion . Ifo doubt , if the research were conducted in , a proper spirit , it would be found that at the great Eglinton Tournament ; the Viceroy of Ireland and ! the Dibtator of France tilted not only with their visors down , but in visors without bars-
Untitled Article
TAXES OBT KNOWXEDGtE . Mb . Milneb Gibson has announced big intention of bringing the whole subject of the Taxes on Knowledge before the House at an early period . He should be strongly supported by petitions . This is made more imperative on the part of those who demand the repeal of the obnoxious imposts , by another announcement , to the effect , that the Board of Inland Bevenue has resolved to renew the contest with the Proprietors of the Household Narrative , and to submit the question once more to judicial decision , let there be no delay in sending in single , or collective , petitions . ' ¦
Untitled Article
THE TRUE PEACE . To Teobnton Hunt , Esq . ( Continuedfrom last number . J My deab Sib , . Ip we have already achieved methods of determining differences between individuals and parties within our own country really preferable to the wild modes which used to prevail , why should we despair of establishing analogous means of determining the differences between them and those without ? Why should nations not submit to the same rule as individuals , and bodies of individuals , do within them ? Is it not a superior method , and more manly , too ,
for disputants to abide voluntarily by the decision of twelve —or , as is becoming more common day by day in mercantilo transactions , pi the majority of three—indifferent mon as to what is right between them , than to go and fight about it P Why should not nations submit themselves to an analogous rule P You , indeed , appear to demur to tho alleged advantages of this process , and attribute a kind of mystical virtue to the arbitration of the sword-for settling what , it wou ld seem , could , not bo settled by the other method—viz ., " one half tho right . " You say , " The arbitramen t of the sword , indeed , has ono quality invaluable in all stages before wo arrive at final truth ; it loaves conviction untouched , and settles only the other half of right , which is might ; and thus "when tho adherents of two opinions are conflicting , it determines which shall rule ,
without bondage to tho conquered opinion . " Do you eoriousl y moan that to slash tho souls out of each other , is really a preferable way of sottling even tho " might" of tho case , than the use of the ballot-box , or othor machinery for determining the forco ( numbor ) of bodies no less than that of brains rangod on either side P But , admitting that tlio sword does , in a rude and barharous way , dotormino ( pro tern . ) which of two parties shall rule ; that it doos so " without bondage to tho conquored opinion , " is , I think , an entirely gratuitous assertion . Experience seems to me to demonstrate quite tho
contrary . Tho firBt , most obvious , and , it must bo audod , most reasonable ^ courso , universally pursued towards tho vanquiahod , is to disarm them ; to dony thorn their right to arms , " and , in ovory mannov accordant with tho character and culturo of tho pooplo , to take precautions and securities against their rising aurojn to renew the" settlement . " The very condition of mercy is d laying «» w » o / a ™« on tho part of tho conquorod ; that ia , a voluntary rolinquishmont of tho moans , according to you , ol maintaining their rights , certainly of recovering their victory . If this condition bo in any case waived , it ia always under the pledge of honour , that tho arms will not bo used against tho victors , and thia is never conceded except to those in whoso honour tho conquerors can rely . ? ^ i » 'k ® bondage ia , either that of absolute privation of ri ght * ( not often , utoppiog- with the right to wrnw ) , or
that of moral obligation ; and in neither case are the rights allowed until the conquerors are satisfied that they may be allowed safely . You seem to have had a consciousness of the weakness of your position here , for you immediately add , " If victory inducetyranny , it is because the faith of war is at a low standard , " &c . But this is , rather an adroit evasion of the point than a direct meeting of it . Its validity will ,, turn upon what you mean by "tyranny . " Is it tyranny to denya malithe means or destroying you ? The war theory implies that he is actively willing the means of your destruction . If you cannot restrain him by one means , why should you be denied the use of other means P Do you not see that by direct and necessary sequence the
deprivation of rights proceeds until his freedom is wholly suppressed P If this be tyranny , it is the necessary product of the war spirit . The adherent of the war theory cannot proceed a step in evasion of this result without an assumption of the grounds of his opponent . That it is not the invariable result , arises , not because the "faith of war " is at a high standard , but because the faith in man is at a higher standard than war implies ; because it is discovered that , after all , we can trust our fellow-man , and that all we gained—all , at least , that we ought to have gainedmight have been gained without war . You erroneously say that I " assume that right and force must be opposed to each other . " On the contrary , my assumption is , that where right is , there force ( in its
vulgar or popular acceptation ) is unnecessary . You have never touched my positions . You will see that the definition y _ ou give of " right" is not the definition of the "right" in the foregoing sentence ; which is right in the sense of Justice , not of Jus . The introduction of the otter "right" tends rather to a diversion from the point at issue between us . What I want is , to see your "right "— * i . e . might and conviction— -restrained within the limits of justice . It is not necessary to act as ifthiB were attained , but merely as if it were possible of attainment . In this case , the spirit would be cultivated which *' makes for peace , " the chances of war reduced to a minimum , andthe time hastened when war would be universally abhorred and abandoned . The
progress of true civilization , which is , in essence , but the gradual subordination of force to lay , would be quickened , until at length would be enthroned in the affections of the people that absolute right , which one cannot have to another ' s prejudice , but which comprehends the good of all . The gravamen of my charge against you and the JLeader , however , is not that you lack faith in . what seems to me an obvious and necessary inference from the doctrine of "development ! " It is , that you manifest a more fatal want of belief—a positive rftsbelief ,-rather , and a concomitantdisbelief more fatal still : a disbelief * to wit , of the doctrine that we in this country can get all desirable political : ameliorations \ yj the ^ nfluence of thought and free speech—the force of opinion ; a misbelief that these
may begot by force of amore vulgar kind—theforce of arms . If this be stating the case too broadly , if you do not deny the sufficiency of the peaceable progress of this country , why advocate the arming of the people , with a view to the settlement of internal , no less than international , politics P Do you really believe that the questions agitated in this country would be more speedily , effectually , justly settled between us , by the instrumentality of the sword ? Does your experience justify the notion , that there are more love of truth and righteousness , more selfcontrol , more practical love of freedom , greater humanity and reverence for other's rights among the masses of tho people , than among the governing classes P If not , on what ground would you arm them P Surely , not with a
view to the sword ' vindicating humanity ! A wilder , a more delusive proposal , was never made to a people circumstanced as we ore . The mere announcement of it is enough to alarm all who have anything to loso , and thus delay or frustrate all attempts at rational reform . A tendency to adopt it , is the very thing which a government and governing class , desirous of enslaving a pooplo , or ~ of withholding a people ' s rights , would , of all others , desire ; tho very thing which a government and governing class , desirous of tho people ' s political and social amelioration , and ultimate emancipation from all disabilities , would most deplore . It is tho very thing which affords continental despotism at this hour tho pretext for keeping up its myriads of mercenaries , for tho support of some kind of that restrains
" law and order . " It is- tho vory thing governments , desirous of doing justice , and promoting thoir country ' s true progress , from diminishing thoir protective forces . Did I not know your heart to bo wholly in tho causo of human advancement , I should have boon prono to say of tho announcement of such a proposal , " an enemy must have done this . " It is , in relation to tho social and { jolitical condition of this country , precisely what tho poice-mado barricades wore to Paris in Docombor last . That you , of all mon , could soriously proposo it ! But it wore doing you injustico to confine tho view to this sido of your proposition . Your objection lies to the keeping up of a soldiery distinct from tho pnoplo , and your recommendation contornplatos tho gotting rid of a standing army altogether . In this half of your design , I decidedly
concur * My opinion , howovor , as to tho modo ol accom-S lishing this , diffors widoly from yours . I boliovo ( hat Ir . Cobdon ' e plan , of mutual disarmament among tho . Eurppoan . powers , notwithstanding tho ridioulo it has mot with from tho , pro-war party , has greater claims to noooptanoo . On tho more score of practicability his plan is , in my view , superior to youm Preach tho dootrino of rational reform to all peoples , i . a . tho adjustme nt of tho outer institution to the inner man—tho reform of growth or development , not that of sudden eruptions and mechanical compressions—a reform to bo accomp lished by reason and affection , and therefore peaceably—and you take away fully one-half of the pretext governments havo to keep up large standing forces . The proposal of mutual disarmament takes away the remainder : and this , I believe , io the modo really moro oafe , and honoo likely to be more upeedily 0 uooo 0 oful . Independently of this , it
has the merit of throwing all peoples upon , their reason and moral sense , for the determination of their differences . It cultivates the distinguishing faculties of man . Its tendency is to elevate , ennoble , enfranchise . The tendency of the opposite proposal , on the other hand > is just the reverse . It recognises anirrationalar biter : no wonder that its direct results shouldbe , to sink the man and raise the beast . You err in imputing it to me , that I speak " as if pain arid death were worse evils than an enervated luxury , than the sufferings that peace tolerates , " &e . If . to you I have seemed to speak this way , be assured it has been only be ? cause you have not reauzed my point of view . I do not
speak against the use of the sword merely because , as you justly say , I think it " cruel , unbrotherly , inhuman . ; " but also because I think it irrational , not in keeping with , but largely destructive of , its professed object . I give no quarter to the before-mentioned evils , any more than you } only I would see them uprooted by other means . My quarrel with you is , that your proposed means are not in harmony with your ends . I do not dread the sword ; I despise it . But , quoth you , " has the sword never vindi * cated humanity ? " In a subordinate sense I willingly concede that it has . But now , I think , humanity can be better vindicated without it , by weapons of more ethereal temper , and more conclusive power . ¦
Your constant assumption is , that the advocates of peace have no regard for their liberties or the liberties of their country—as applied to the body , a flagrantly unfounded imputation . You have been singularly unfortunate in your intercourise with them , if you have any basis for it in individual members . I take leave to suggest that the spirit of s that assembly of your countrymen which shrunk from an allusion to the subject of defending these liberties , might possibly be misapprehended by you . I repeat in distinct phrase what is implied throughout all my remarks , that it is not a difference of object , but a difference of means , which is between the adherents of the opposite policies of peace and war . I respect your objects , concur in them , am prepared to so myself , and to induce
all others to go to every length in exertion for their accomplishment , within the limits of reason and absolute justice —within such limits as do not necessarily involve the voluntary infraction of the very rights for which we are contending . There is nothing save the integrity of his own soul which the true advocate of peace is not prepared to sacrifice . The loss of his life , if that issue must needs come , he can contemplate with at least as serene courage , and unshaken faith , as the bravest in the ranks of war . But , thus peacefully braved in the service of humanity , sacrifices of life , I feel persuaded , would be few . With the glorious Mazzini ( glorious in my estimate , in spite of his agreement with you on this
topic ) I do profoundly believe in " the might of devotion and self-sacrifice . " I believe there is a force in opinion and active human sentiment and volition , compared with which , for accomplishing the moral purposes of life , " the might which slumbers in the peasant ' s arm "—which also in its true relation I respect , reyere—is inconsiderable and " poor indeed . " This is the might which , in my opinion , you should seek to elicit , organize , and direct ; not to the neglect or debasement of the other—for that , too , as hag been said , is sacred and to be revered—but to its due subordination and beneficent control- To make the latter the arbiter , however , is to abdicate reason , to deny the force of truth in relation to human conviction , to doubt
the capacity of man for the very things which nevertheless —with happy inconsistency of motive , though melancholy infelicity of means—you are endeavouring to accomplish for him ! , Ono point , of a personal character remains , upon which a word . I owe it to you , to the'individuals referred to , and to my own positions , to relievo you of a doubt which you expressed , as to tho vices against which the members of tho Peace movement sot themselves . The vices ^ o -which I roferred were those of ignorance , drunkenness ! improvidence , filth , national extravagance , and so forth ; and tho individuals then present to my thought as distinguished bv thoir sacrifices , personal and pecuniary , are bo
in aid of tho Financial Reform , tho Sanatory , tho Temperance , tho Educational , and other movements , having for their objects tho subjugation of such vices , and the introduction of intelligence , superior habits , a higher class of amusements , and so forth , among tho people In those efforts they exhibit none of that " straight-laced virtue " to which you allude , and which is entirely opposod to their natures , but as much gonoroidty and toloranco as are com-i patiblc with an earnest endeavour to ovorcomo the evil with the good . You and tho Zcader do the actiyo Peace Party tho constant injustice of confounding its mombors with tie ignoble and selfish , who dosiro peace only because it sorvos tho purposes of trade ; and Mm Barrott Browninc is ciuotoa to countenance tho implication that thoir of bets
peace is tho " occomplico" " gib , " " dungeons , " " chain-bolts , " « starving homes , " and all tho other evils which tho gonius of that lady knows bo well how to marshal togothor . To such implications as those I havo simply to reply , that the facts are not so . Those things themselv es are tho products , not of tho peace , but of tho war policy , either in its overt , or in its covert , manifestations ; and thoreforo tho responsibility for thorn recoils and roats upon such as you , and not upon them . They do not , any more than you or Mrs . Barrott Browning , nurao that fftls 0 " Peace , that sits Bestido ( , ho hearth , in self-commended mood , And takes no . thought how wind and rain , by fits , Are howling out of doors . against tho good . Of tho poor wanderer . "
They , hko hor and you , " love no peace which iB nbt fellowship , And which includes not morcy . " Whioh party pursuoa it by tho noblest and moat effectual moans P " That is the quostion !" I am , dear air , youra very truly , Ziaervool . 29 th March , 1803 . A . lu
Untitled Article
ApRBh 0 > 1852 ] THE LEADER . &s
≪£≫$M Entrant. „
< £ > $ m entrant . „
Untitled Article
( JK SHIS DEPABTMEKT , AS AMi O * IWI 0 N 8 i HOWBVBB BXTBBKE , ABB AIitOWED AST BXPEBSSIOK " , THB BDITOB HTSCESSABILY HOI / DS HIMSELF BBSPOITSIBI . E SOB KOITB . ] x
Untitled Article
There is no learned man but will confess he hath , much profited by reading controversies , his senses awakened , and his judgment sharpened . If , then , it be profitable for him to read , why should it not , at least , be tolerable for his adversary to write . — Mii / ton ,
Untitled Picture
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), April 17, 1852, page 373, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1931/page/17/
-