(To THIS EDITOR Or THE " SPECTATOR.") SIR,—A perusal of
the article "A Lesson from History," in the Spectator of August 30th, suggests the thought that the comparison of England's -intervention in the affairs of France at the time of the Revolution with her intervention in Russian affairs of to-day is not altogether happily drawn. At any rate, the language used seems inappropriate. For the general trend of paragraphs 4 and 5, and the use of the word " interference." suggest that England should not have " interfered " with the affairs of France at the time of the Revolution. But that " interference " (or should it not be "intervention "?) was not of England's seeking. In Pitt the country possessed a Prime Minister who did not want war, who, in fact, shortly before war came, was reducing the strength of the Navy. England, iu truth, had no choice in the matter, for a series of hostile measures against her culminated in a declaration of war by the French Convention on February 1st, 1793.-1 am. Sir, &c., Richmond, Yorkshire, H. W. WILLIAMS.
Previous page
