TOPICS OF THE DAY.
PEACE IN DANGER.
SOME active philanthropists in this country, foreseeing' the chances of war, have set on foot a movement to supersede such barbarous struggles by "international addresses" to persuade the nations that arbitration is a better thing. That object is praise- worthy and wise. Nothing can be said too strong in condem- nation of a practice which not only spreads death over the world, but which is attended by a rabble of vices and outrages too hideous to name. Nothing should be spared to prevent war, and to establish between nations a custom which has long been in civilized use for the most equitable attainment of justice between man and man.
And here let us say- a word for arbitration. Some past experi- ments in state arbitration between contending nations have brought discredit on the novel practice because the results of the reference were not perfectly satisfactory. Observe, the result can scarcely be quite satisfactory to both sides. Nor is it pro- bable that it would be perfectly satisfactory to any side. It is a truism to say that perfection is not given to humanity. Of the three parties concerned in an arbitration—the two litigants and the arbitrator—it is almost certain that neither one can take at once a minutely complete and a purely impartial view. There will therefore be defects in the award. But the question is not whether a perfect award is attainable, but whether even the most imperfect is not better than either of the two alternatives—the absolute will of one predominant in the quarrel, or a more equal contest inflicting mutual injury and injustice upon both. The movement to supersede war by arbitration has met with great encouragement. Active philanthropists in this country are responded to by active philanthropists in .America ; and at home, again, individuals of all classes are uniting to support the new opinion.
At this success we rejoice ; but we take leave to think that some of these estimable persons are now advancing propositions calcu- lated to defeat their own excellent purpose.
For instance, they call upon Parliament to withhold thanks from the Army of the Sutlej for the victories of December. To withhold that customary approval would be tantamount to a cen- sure on the troops—nothing would so dispirit our soldiery in India. So much the better, say the philanthropists. But stop.: look at the consequences. Among barbarian and uncombined races, the English power in India rests upon our incomparable strength of arms. Loosen that keystone of our Indian empire, and the whole fabric falls to pieces ; there is a Sicilian vespers throughout an empire instead of an island ; the Native races, released from the central control, fall to fighting, as they have done in all past ages—for predominance some, more for existence; and the comparative peace which now reigns throughout Bridal India is converted to anarchy, bloodshed, and every horror of war aggravated by every refinement of barbarity and corruption. That would be a happy issue of peace agitation ! In fact, the com- mon sense of ordinary people—that is, people beyond the pale of the particular enthusiasm—is outraged by the proposition. Sir Robert Peel, embodying that common sense, cordially acknow- ledges the merits of peace, but asks " if we are to stand with our arms folded and have our throats cut ? "
To come nearer home. Once let it be understood that the English nation entertains scruples against resorting to arms on any occasion, and aggression would not be confined to our distant dependencies : Canada would not only be overrun by Yankee Sympathizers, Lynchers, " Skinners," and such hordes—the West Indies scrambled for by buccaneers from New Orleans, Cuba, Hayti, and the Spanish Main—the Cape seized by the Anglo-Dutch minority—Australia by rebel convicts—New Zea- land by savages—India first by Indians, afterwards by all the warlike nations of the world, another scramble—but fleets from every point of the compass would enter the Thames, the Severn, •
the Mersey, the no, not the•Clyde, the Forth, or the Tay; for we have not presumed the hardy and hardheaded Scots to be converted yet. London, Liverpool, and Manchester—Lincoln- shire, Warwickshire, and Devon—would be the scene of a new conquest of multitudinous invaders, more ravenous than if Ro- mans, Sea-Kings, Saxons, Danes, and Normans, had come all together ; and the scrupulous English would be spectators of the strangest war ever witnessed on the face of the earth—watching the bloody struggle within their own homes, like sheep surveying the fight between tiger, panther, and wolf, for the largest share of the living and contemplative mutton. We are not such lost sheep yet.
There are two kinds of war—that for aggression, and that for' defence. You must persuade the aggressor before you can speak to the defender. Preach arbitration, by all means—England will preach it too, and will justify her preaching by her practice; but never let it be supposed that the only alternative for England is, arbitration or surrender. No nation in the world would ever con- sent to arbitration with England in such a case. We have not yet reached that stage of civilization. You peacemakers have not yet so far accomplished your task. The test of sincerity in professions of peace is the willingness to prefer arbitration to war. Not long hence, we believe, Eng- land will be willing to refer every question, freely, absolutely, entirely, without qualification, to rational arbitrement—England, who of all countries is really strongest in the resources of war. But if you ask Englishmen to throw the sword away in the face of the foe, you not only outrage common sense—the strongest instinct of nature, self-preservation—but you make men revolt from peace itself, and diminish your own numbers as far as fear of being at once defenceless and ridiculous can deter all but en- thusiasts.
You do more. No country in the world is so attached to peace as England is. No other county is so well able to maintain it. She can afford to do so because her bravery is proved. She can do so with most effect because she is strong ; and in most cases, there will be no war unless the party most confident in its strength begins the aggression. By adopting a strictly defensive policy, therefore, as she has done for many years, England does the utmost that she can for the advancement of peace as a principle in the code of civilization. Her power in that way is based on her physical strength. All great national movements in the world have been based upon physical force ; and it remains to be proved that force is not a necessary condition to such movements. Force has been the great pioneer of civilization. It is well that we should not be content with it—that we should not confound the pioneer and the legislator ; but until we know that " outside barbarians " are tamed and converted to the religion of peace let us not throw down our fortifications, disarm our guards, and in the name of peace expose to destruction the very legislators of peace. In the name of peace, we forbid the mad sacrifice.
Previous page
