MR. BRIGHT ON WAR.
WE need hardly say how cordially we agree with Mr. Bright, that any proposal to plunge this country into war for the sake of re.establishing the power of Turkey over her revolted subjects, would be not merely a cynical and un- justifiable, but a thoroughly wicked proposal. Nevertheless, we ground that conviction on the nature and objectslaf the particular war in question, and cannot go with Mr. Bright at all in those general propositions of his which seem to imply that if it was well known in Europe that England would never again under any conceivable circumstances engage in war, unless, perhaps,—we are not sure how far Mr. Bri,ght's general aseurep- tions admit the exception,—for the defence of her own coeds, that resolve would redound to the moral advantage of this country, and to the happiness and progress of the Continental States. Mr. Bright is indeed, taking strong ground when he appeals to the judgment of sober men to declare in how many cases a war has been lightly entered upon which, when calmly reviewed afterwards, is seen to have produced a great balance of evil over good, and to have been in addition not very difficult to avoid. He is quite right in saying that it is impossible to justify such a war as the war against those colonies of Ours which now call themselves the trnibed States of America, or to make out any case for the commencement at least of that great war between the English and the French, which originated in our compassion for the loyal and noble victims of the Republican propaganda in Paris. at Mr. Bright's argument goes a great deal beyond limited criti- cisms such as these. It appears to mean that -there ought moral necessity of war which would be required by Courts like Mr. Bright attributes solely to the willingness of nations and our own for the conviction of criminals charged with a capital governments to go to war for a bad or insufficient purpose, offence. Mr. Bright, indeed, evidently regards the various have been at least equally due to the unwillingness of nations victims of war as suffering no better a fate than those who and governments to go to war for a good and sufficient pur- have to undergo a violent death or severe bodily torture by pose. Who shall say, if this war between Russia and Turkey way of expiation of their own crimes. He looks upon war as breaks out, whether it is more due to the unrighteous readiness a deliberate order for the slaughter of a crowd of human of Russia for conquest, or to the unrighteous unreadiness of beings, and for the infliction of severe suffering on another England to support, even by arms if necessary, the legitimate still greater crowd, and seems to think that nothing could demands of Russia ? Who shall say whether the partition of justify it short of what would justify a direct order for making Poland was more due to the unrighteous ambition of the the probable number,—if there could be any computation of Powers which divided the spoil, or to the unrighteous indif- a probable number,—of injured and ruined and murdered ference of the Powers which looked on and did not put in victims. By parity of reasoning, Mr. Bright should maintain their veto ? Who shall say that the mischiefs of the Crimean that after calculating carefully the probable number of victims war were more due to the unrighteous eagerness of Nicholas of an Arctic expedition, nothing should justify a Government to divide the possessions of " the Sick Man," or to the unrighteous in resolving on it which would not equally justify them in indifference of Prussia and Austria to a European aggression ordering out precisely such a number to death, or to the suffer- in which they were not directly " interested," but in which, ings of scurvy and frost-bite, as the case might be. Yet the morally, they were profoundly interested,—an indifference to mere statement of the case refutes the fallacy into which Mr. which was no doubt partly due that ultimate neglect to take Bright has fallen. No popular horror could be too great for securities against Turkish misgovernment, as well as against a Government which, merely for the sake of adding to our Russian dictation, that has borne fruit in the anxieties of existing knowledge of geography, magnetism, and other the present crisis ? It is the more or less impartial neutrals sciences, should decree that it should be bought,— if who will always see most clearly the best securities for that were conceivable,— by the immediate execution future peace. Russia was too much interested on the one of two innocent men, and the infliction of sharp side, Turkey and England too much on the other, to lay pains and penalties on a good number of other equally down the best securities for peace in 1856. Had the great innocent men. But there is no popular horror at all, nothing German Powers taken their share of the responsibilities of the indeed, but popular gratification, when a Government war, they would assuredly have had the influence, and most authorises an expedition which is sure to cause suffering to likely the insight, to demand that Europe should be secured many, and very likely to cause death to a few, so long as those not only against the Power which found its opportunity in who incur these risks were originally volunteers for the Turkish misrule, but against the anarchy, misnamed a Govern- service, which is always the case with regard to the ment, which furnished that opportunity. We believe history soldiers and sailors of our Army and Navy. Every one would show that at least as many disastrous conquests recognises at once the moral distinction between de- have been due to the selfish indolence of neutral Powers, ciding upon a step which must bring grief and death on as have been due to the selfish ambition of aggressive some of those who have themselves asked leave to incur Powers.
the risk, whenever such decision is taken, and, even for No doubt Mr. Bright's real inner faith is the Quaker belief the same object, ordering off arbitrary victims to vicarious in the wickedness of all violence,—in fact, in the duty of non- punishment. The responsibility of a declaration of war is resistance. We do not ourselves hold that Christ gives the least a most grave one. No one can feel more strongly than we real sanction to that doctrine. It is quite certain that there were do the force of Mr. Bright's denunciation of those who make centurions amongst those whose faith Christ himself most highly it, without a deep conviction that to refuse war involves valued, and amongst the chief disciples of St. Paul, and that a much greater peril to the conscience and life of the no one ever thought of demanding as a proof of their nation. But the responsibility of a declaration of war is a faith that they should abandon the military calling. responsibility on behalf of the nation at large, and of the society It is quite certain, too, that the sanction of the Christian of nations to which our nation belongs, not on behalf of those approbation was expressly given to the Roman Government, in our Army or Navy who, as it ultimately turns out, are which secured order by a civil use of force quite as much destined to suffer in consequence of this decision. That is open to objection, on the principles usually called those of their own responsibility, which they take when they enter the peace and non-resistance, as is the military use of force in Army or Navy. The particular soldiers and sailors who are war. But we would not for a moment deny that if ever a
to suffer by the war have no claim on the forbearance of any nation arose equal to the almost impossible task of doing axle- Government who believe in their conscience that the duty of quately for the fraternity of nations what the Quakers have the nation is to go to war. It is only as units in the done for the community of the Churches, they might teach us
nation, not at all as those members of the nation a most powerful and valuable lesson. Such a nation would destined to feel the severest individual consequences of the undoubtedly suffer to save. But we do not doubt that by its decision taken, that they have any claim on the scruples of sufferings it would do much for the salvation of others. Only the Government. You might as well say that the Directors it must really believe in its own principles. It must regard all of a commercial company, in deciding on their commercial use of force as wrong, and all the heroism displayed in policy, ought to consider specially the interests of those who violent assaults on established wickedness as a spurious have embarked their whole capital in that company, instead kind of heroism. Acting genuinely and steadily on such a
of considering equally the interests of all shareholders in pro- creed, a nation of non-resistance principles might very well portion to their shares, as say that a Government which attract a certain veneration and influence in the world by decides to the best of its ability on the duty of war, is its long-suffering of reckless assailants. But clearly if war be specially responsible to every soldier and sailor destined to suffer always wrong, whatever the cause, the use of force in civil by that war, and to all their relatives. Every government government is always wrong, whatever the cause. It cannot which decides to plunge a nation into war is responsible to be right to knock down a wife-beater, and wrong for one nation the nation for advising that this is the duty of the nation, to withstand the systematic oppression of another nation. For but it is childish to hold that the most unfortunate of the our own part, we reject Mr. Bright's principle. We believe
individual sufferers have any greater individual claim to con- that war may be righteous, and peace cowardly and sideration than that which they have simply in their capacity unrighteous. We believe that the moral discipline gained of citizens. No doubt the loss of life and the suffering caused in a self-forgetting assault on potent wrong is as high as to the nation, on the whole, should always come into the any moral discipline which can be found in the patient account of statesmen who declare war ; but that they are suffering of unprovoked wrong. And believing as we directly responsible to those who lose their life and incur the do, we hold that England, -though she would certainly be suffering, in any sense which would permit them to count these doing evil to risk any war on behalf of such a Power as consequences as overruling the obligation of what would Turkey, might very well be doing evil if, by ignoring her otherwise be a national duty, it is monstrous to maintain, grave responsibility for redressing the wrongs of the Christ- Mr. Bright appears to us to be simply guided by his own ian provinces of Turkey, she made a war necessary, or imagination, when he brings into the foreground of the picture perhaps caused it to be prolonged, which were she to the individual misery caused by war, and allows that to inter- join Russia in imposing adequate measures of redress, she fere gravely with the broader estimate of the nation's collective would unquestionably have the power either to shorten or duty. to prevent. always to be the same sort of overwhelming proof of the It seems to u that a great many of the misfortunes which moral necessity of war which would be required by Courts like Mr. Bright attributes solely to the willingness of nations and our own for the conviction of criminals charged with a capital governments to go to war for a bad or insufficient purpose, offence. Mr. Bright, indeed, evidently regards the various have been at least equally due to the unwillingness of nations victims of war as suffering no better a fate than those who and governments to go to war for a good and sufficient pur- have to undergo a violent death or severe bodily torture by pose. Who shall say, if this war between Russia and Turkey way of expiation of their own crimes. He looks upon war as breaks out, whether it is more due to the unrighteous readiness a deliberate order for the slaughter of a crowd of human of Russia for conquest, or to the unrighteous unreadiness of beings, and for the infliction of severe suffering on another England to support, even by arms if necessary, the legitimate still greater crowd, and seems to think that nothing could demands of Russia ? Who shall say whether the partition of justify it short of what would justify a direct order for making Poland was more due to the unrighteous ambition of the the probable number,—if there could be any computation of Powers which divided the spoil, or to the unrighteous indif- a probable number,—of injured and ruined and murdered ference of the Powers which looked on and did not put in victims. By parity of reasoning, Mr. Bright should maintain their veto ? Who shall say that the mischiefs of the Crimean that after calculating carefully the probable number of victims war were more due to the unrighteous eagerness of Nicholas of an Arctic expedition, nothing should justify a Government to divide the possessions of " the Sick Man," or to the unrighteous in resolving on it which would not equally justify them in indifference of Prussia and Austria to a European aggression ordering out precisely such a number to death, or to the suffer- in which they were not directly " interested," but in which, ings of scurvy and frost-bite, as the case might be. Yet the morally, they were profoundly interested,—an indifference to mere statement of the case refutes the fallacy into which Mr. which was no doubt partly due that ultimate neglect to take Bright has fallen. No popular horror could be too great for securities against Turkish misgovernment, as well as against a Government which, merely for the sake of adding to our Russian dictation, that has borne fruit in the anxieties of existing knowledge of geography, magnetism, and other the present crisis ? It is the more or less impartial neutrals sciences, should decree that it should be bought,— if who will always see most clearly the best securities for that were conceivable,— by the immediate execution future peace. Russia was too much interested on the one of two innocent men, and the infliction of sharp side, Turkey and England too much on the other, to lay pains and penalties on a good number of other equally down the best securities for peace in 1856. Had the great innocent men. But there is no popular horror at all, nothing German Powers taken their share of the responsibilities of the indeed, but popular gratification, when a Government war, they would assuredly have had the influence, and most authorises an expedition which is sure to cause suffering to likely the insight, to demand that Europe should be secured many, and very likely to cause death to a few, so long as those not only against the Power which found its opportunity in who incur these risks were originally volunteers for the Turkish misrule, but against the anarchy, misnamed a Govern- service, which is always the case with regard to the ment, which furnished that opportunity. We believe history soldiers and sailors of our Army and Navy. Every one would show that at least as many disastrous conquests recognises at once the moral distinction between de- have been due to the selfish indolence of neutral Powers, ciding upon a step which must bring grief and death on as have been due to the selfish ambition of aggressive some of those who have themselves asked leave to incur Powers.
the risk, whenever such decision is taken, and, even for No doubt Mr. Bright's real inner faith is the Quaker belief the same object, ordering off arbitrary victims to vicarious in the wickedness of all violence,—in fact, in the duty of non- punishment. The responsibility of a declaration of war is resistance. We do not ourselves hold that Christ gives the least a most grave one. No one can feel more strongly than we real sanction to that doctrine. It is quite certain that there were do the force of Mr. Bright's denunciation of those who make centurions amongst those whose faith Christ himself most highly it, without a deep conviction that to refuse war involves valued, and amongst the chief disciples of St. Paul, and that a much greater peril to the conscience and life of the no one ever thought of demanding as a proof of their nation. But the responsibility of a declaration of war is a faith that they should abandon the military calling. responsibility on behalf of the nation at large, and of the society It is quite certain, too, that the sanction of the Christian of nations to which our nation belongs, not on behalf of those approbation was expressly given to the Roman Government, in our Army or Navy who, as it ultimately turns out, are which secured order by a civil use of force quite as much destined to suffer in consequence of this decision. That is open to objection, on the principles usually called those of their own responsibility, which they take when they enter the peace and non-resistance, as is the military use of force in Army or Navy. The particular soldiers and sailors who are war. But we would not for a moment deny that if ever a
to suffer by the war have no claim on the forbearance of any nation arose equal to the almost impossible task of doing axle- Government who believe in their conscience that the duty of quately for the fraternity of nations what the Quakers have the nation is to go to war. It is only as units in the done for the community of the Churches, they might teach us
nation, not at all as those members of the nation a most powerful and valuable lesson. Such a nation would destined to feel the severest individual consequences of the undoubtedly suffer to save. But we do not doubt that by its decision taken, that they have any claim on the scruples of sufferings it would do much for the salvation of others. Only the Government. You might as well say that the Directors it must really believe in its own principles. It must regard all of a commercial company, in deciding on their commercial use of force as wrong, and all the heroism displayed in policy, ought to consider specially the interests of those who violent assaults on established wickedness as a spurious have embarked their whole capital in that company, instead kind of heroism. Acting genuinely and steadily on such a
of considering equally the interests of all shareholders in pro- creed, a nation of non-resistance principles might very well portion to their shares, as say that a Government which attract a certain veneration and influence in the world by decides to the best of its ability on the duty of war, is its long-suffering of reckless assailants. But clearly if war be specially responsible to every soldier and sailor destined to suffer always wrong, whatever the cause, the use of force in civil by that war, and to all their relatives. Every government government is always wrong, whatever the cause. It cannot which decides to plunge a nation into war is responsible to be right to knock down a wife-beater, and wrong for one nation the nation for advising that this is the duty of the nation, to withstand the systematic oppression of another nation. For but it is childish to hold that the most unfortunate of the our own part, we reject Mr. Bright's principle. We believe
individual sufferers have any greater individual claim to con- that war may be righteous, and peace cowardly and sideration than that which they have simply in their capacity unrighteous. We believe that the moral discipline gained of citizens. No doubt the loss of life and the suffering caused in a self-forgetting assault on potent wrong is as high as to the nation, on the whole, should always come into the any moral discipline which can be found in the patient account of statesmen who declare war ; but that they are suffering of unprovoked wrong. And believing as we directly responsible to those who lose their life and incur the do, we hold that England, -though she would certainly be suffering, in any sense which would permit them to count these doing evil to risk any war on behalf of such a Power as
Previous page
