A FEW MORE WORDS FOR PEACE.
Clevedon Court, Somerset, December 3. Abuse the plaintiff's attorney" was the recommendation given to the disheartened barrister, who complained he had a "weak case." Thus it is that those who find it awkward to meet the advocates of peace in fair argument, impute to them unworthy motives and a mean spirit. Having premised this much, I will now, if you will allow me, deal with the argu- ments and imputations contained in a letter in last Saturday's Spectator, headed "Russia and her English Allies."
First—Illustration of scamp robbing hen-roost, &e.; In the first place,
Russia was not meddling with any property of ours, neither was she the only scamp concerned. It was scamp versus scamp. France had already thrust her hand into the hen-roost, when Russia cried out "Halves!" and tried to secure her share—a lion's share, if you will—of the spoil. In the next place, we have not only turned one scamp out of the hen-roost, made him drop his spoil, and inflicted summary castigation on him' but, with the aid of France, (the original scamp,) we are busily engaged in picking his pockets, and by the offer of a bribe coaxing a parcel of idle fellows to help us hold his hands.
• Secondly—" This talk about specific purpose in the war, when winnowed
is all chaff," &c. Winnowed, however, it is not yet; and to my mind it con- tains plenty of solid grain, and that rather hard of digestion for the advocates at war. We commenced hostilities in order to release Turkey, and to dimin- ish Russia's preponderance in the Euxine. We embodied these objects in the four points. Russia accepted the principle, but demurred to one of the details. She was under the then existing circumstances justified in so doing. Nothing has occurred since to warrant any substantial enhancement of our terms. Russia has fought bravely. This is no crime to be punished by a bitter war of extermination. You may say there were large stores and am- munitions of war accumulated at Sebastopol. And why not ? Go to Wool- wich and Portsmouth. Go to Brest and Toulon. Nothing, I maintain, war- rants us to raise our terms, if we were in earnest in our original declarations on the subject of the war. But "delenda eat Carthago." Now we have Russia circumvented, let us crush her if we can. Bribe, coax' bully all her neigh- bours to join in the work of destruction. Delenda eat Carthago !—But this is one of the very points in dispute. Can we destroy Russia ; and if we can, is it desirable so to do ? On my conscience, I think it not desirable. But let that pass. Can we destroy her ? It is more than doubtful. Then, Sir, I can only repeat what was stated in my former letter, that no scheme can be better devised for perpetuating European war than that of degrading and dismembering Russia. She will not lightly take up arms again, if peace be concluded on moderate terms. She has-been taught a lesson; and I fully admit ishe deserved it. But if the terms amount to a humiliating confisca- tion of part of her territory—if the terms be wantonly stringent and stu- diously degrading—she will take up arms again. Our peace will be but a triter.- Russia is not to be conquered, in my opinion, by !brute force, but by the arts of peace and by the light of knowledge.
Thirdly— 'Pigs of an improved breed," ezo. On the contrary, I think that
to prosecute the war after we have got what we wanted, and merely to maul and mutilate our foe, is the part of pigs of a deteriorated breed. To me an unnecessary war appears to be something worse than piggish ; and I believe that thew who have had most experience in war will heartily agree with me. The question is this—L3 the war as now carried on necessary ? In my opinion, no.
Fourthly—" Meat and money at the bottom of all Peace arguments," &c.
I cheerfully accept the intended sneer, and will avow that one of the strongest arguments against the protraction of the war appears to me grounded on these very points—meat and money. There might be some- thing exhilarating in the work of "thumping Russia," as Mr. Henley, I Chink, pleasantly terms it, if it could be done without injury to the mass of our population. I put aside the starving inhabitants of the Crimea, and the ruined Finlanders, (whom we generously propose to give to Sweden,) and the Rush= serfs in general, if they still, contrary to the elaborate arguments of • the Times, persist in remaining in the land of the living,—I put these un- fortunates on one aide. It would be, I_presume, maudlin humanity to care for them. In fact, according to Mr. Hughes's doctrine in Cambridge Es- says, if we could catch a few of them and roast them before a slow fire, it would have a wholesome influence on Russians in general, and tend to shorten the war by terrifying them into an eager desire for peace. Therefore, never mind the Russians, but look at our own people. Can anything more clearly show the placid ignorance of the wealthier classes in England concerning the great mass of their fellow countrymen than these scornful flings at the question of the "cost" of the War? I say placid ignorance, because I do not think it sheer inhumanity. Gentlemen of a pugnacious temperament cry out, "Push on the war, and d— the expense!' Just so does an Ox- ford graduate of "fast" propensities chivalrously plunge into debt, leaving the " governor " to pay the bill. They don't feel the smart of it. Their withers are unwrung. They can look down upon the vulgar notion of "cost" with sublime contempt. But it so happens that the majority of our fellow countrymen are badly fed, and badly clothed, miserably housed, and in a state of ignorance dangerous for themselves and for others. What right, then, have the minority of the nation—that is, those who are well at ease— to leave the interests of the majority out of the question ? The wealth we are now squandering in what many English statesmen believe to be a need- lessly-protracted war, might confer unspeakable benefits on the working classes, both in a moral and material point of view. The certain effect of that war is to aggravate and multiply the distresses of the poorer °lessee. These are considerations which, I trust, few of your readers will regard as entirely contemptible.
Of course, if we were engaged in a war of genuine self-defence the case would be different. To such a cause everything must be sacrificed with a willing mind. But, in my humble opinion, the idea of the war with Russia being one of self-defence is a grotesque absurdity. It is probable, that with English officers, money, and arms, Turkey itself could hold Russia at bay for an indefinite length of time. I beg, in conclusion, to thank you for the courtesy with which you have allowed me to speak my mind an your columns, and to subscribe myself your faithful and obliged servant,
Previous page
