Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

VOL. XIII. No. 7.] LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1808. [PRICE 10p.

"The waste of War is not, in its final consequences, so injurious to a state, as the luxuries and corruptions of Peace."- -ADDISON.

225]

ΤΟ

WILLIAM ROSCOE, Esq. LETTER I.

SIR,

Your pamphlet, published within these few days, under the title of "Considerations on the Causes, Objects, "and Consequences of the present War, "and on the Expediency, or the Danger,

of a Peace with France," having fallen into my hands, and appearing to me to express sentiments and opinions, which, if generally adopted, would be greatly mischievous to the country, I think it my duty to make some observations thereon; and, as you have evidently pointed at me, in several parts of the pamphlet, no apology will, I presume, be thought necessary for my addressing myself, in this case, more immediately to you.

When one is told of the publication of a book, or paper, the first question which invariably presents itself is: "What is it ***about?" Your pamphlet is, to be sure, about war and peace; but, Sir, it is about so many other things as well as war and peace; it enters upon so many different subjects; it contains so many opinions unsupported by reasoning, and so many assertions unsupport*ed by proof, that, to answer you upon every point would require a volume of no moderate size. If I were asked, however, what appears to me to be the object, which you have had in view, in writing and publishing this pamphlet, I should answer, that your main practical object evidently is, to induce the people, especially those of the manufacfuring districts, to unite in petitions for peace; and, that your reason for this is, that the war, if continued much longer, will produce financial embarrassments, such as those which led to the overthrow of the morarchy of France, while, on the other hand, there exists, in reality, none of those dangers, which I, amongst other persons, apprehend from a peace, made at this time, and leaving Napoleon in full possession of all the ports and naval arsenals of the continent of Europe

If you had confined yourself to this one Bugject, to have answered you would have Deen plain, straight forward work; bat, un

[ocr errors]

[225 der the pretence of showing, that the war has now no rational object, you have gone into a history (a very partial one decd) f the alledged objects of both the last and the present war, not only at their outset, but also at the several stages of their propes. Not content with this, which has nothing at all to do with the question of peace, or w now; you have given us a history of e warlike operations, interspersed with discussions upon points of public law and of political economy; with descriptions of the characters of public men; and with a delineation of the views and motives of political parties. To follow you through all these topics, a sentence of statement demanding, in general, a page of answer, is a task too serious to be thought of; and yet it is, on the other hand, by no means pleasant to suffer any part of your pamphlet, from the sentiments or assertions of which I dissent, to pass off under a silence, which might very reasonably be interpreted into an assent. In this dilemma the course, which appears to me the best to be pursued is this; to reserve, for a future letter, all the digressive.topics of your pamphlet, and to examine now into the nature of your statements and opinions, I. With respect to the real original cause of the present. war between England and France: II. With respect to the breaking off of the negociation in 1800, and the views theu manifested by Napolcon: III. With respect to the relative situation of the two countries, supposing peace to be now made, leaving all the ports and naval arsenals upon the continent of Europe in the hands, or under the acknowledged controul, of our enemy.

But, first of all, I think it necessary to state to you my reasons for differing very widely indeed from you, as to the tendency of war in general, which I perceive you to consider as a pure, unmixed evil, and which I consider as being, not only necessary, as it notoriously is, in many cases, in the present state of the world, but also as conducive to the elevation of human nature, to the gene ral happiness of mankind, and, of course, as being a good, though, like the greater part of other good things, not unmixed with evil. I am aware of the force of habit, and men are

H

[ocr errors]

in the habit of talking, as you do, of the "horrors of war;" but, I can safely defy you, and all the "philanthropists" now in existence, to prove, that there is, as the consequence of war, any thing a millionth part so horrid as a sight of the interior of those receptacles of disease and of infamy, which are tenanted through the influence of that luxury, which it is the natural tendency of war to abridge, and which can be completely destroyed only by war. That war makes a part of the great scheme of the Creator is abundantly obvious from the universal propensity of his creatures; who, from man himself down to the lowest reptile, discover, the moment they have the powers of motion and perception, that to war makes a part of their nature as much as to love. Look, Sir, at all the natural sports of children, and of young animals of every kind; you will find, that they are only so many sorts of shamfights, And, if you see, that all God's creatures, in the moments of their greatest enjoyment of life; in those moments when they are free from all pain of mind and of body when they are full of health and of spirits; when they are perfectly unrestrained, and bidden, as it were, to be as happy as their natures will permit: if you perceive, that, in such a state, they all, without a single exception, discover a propensity for war, will you still say, that war is, in itself, and for its own sake, a thing horrid to contemplate? But, not only is to war, to fight (which is the same thing) a passion natural to all the creation; but, it appears to me to be necessary to the elevation of human nature, and to the happiness of mankind; for, if we suppose a state of the world, from which war is completely and for ever banished, not only is there no longer any use for courage, fortitude, emulation, magnanimity, and many other ennobling qualities, but the very words describing those qualities have no longer any meaning; and, if you strip man of those qualities, what is he, as to this world at least, better than a brute? In giving to the different classes of men, which compose the different nations of the earth, languages so different, that the sounds used by the one are utterly unintelligible to any of the other, the Creator seems to have said, "be you for ever separate ;" and, herein is implied the necessity of war; for, without war it is, I think, evident, that to preserve that separation would, unless the nature of man were previously changed, be quite impossible. As to wisdom and science, too, where would be the use of them, if war were banished from the earth? The object of the learned as well as the brave is distinction.

The source of distinction is public utility. Public utility, after a very little tracing, is found to rest at the point of public safety; and were it not for the occasional existence of wars, and for the continual poss.bility of their recurrence, public safety would be a mere sound without sense. In like manner patriotism, loyalty, fidelity under all its different appearances and in all its different degrees, would be obliterated from the catalogue of virtues; and, in short, man would, and must, become a stupid, unimpassioned animal, having no care but that of obtaining his food, and no enjoyment but that of deyouring it. I am not, observe, contending, that war, may not, as well as love, be, in. some cases, and even in many cases, productive of mischievous effects; but, if I look back into history, or, if I look around me at the present moment, I am compelled to conclude, that its effects are, in general, the reverse. The Greeks and Romans were renowned for their science and their freedom, but not less renowned for those than for their wars; and, which is well worthy of remark, with their martial spirit they lost their love of liberty. The two nations of modern Europe the most famed for science, and, in fact, for freedom, are France and England; and that they have been the most frequently engaged in wars is a fact too notorious to be stated. China offers us an ex ample of a nation living in perpetual peace; and, I believe you will not deny, that, as compared with an European, a Chinese is hardly worthy of the name of man. Nearly the same may be said of all the inhabitants of Asia; whereunto may be added, that the internal government of those unwarlike states and empires is uniformly a pure des potism, the life of every subject being at the mere mercy of the prince, whose very pleasures do not unfrequently consist of what we should call acts of deliberate murder, attended with a refinement in cruelty. You, Sir, make a pathetic appeal to your readers upon the horrors of war. Were we," say you, to divest ourselves for a moment of

[ocr errors]

that irritation of mind and inflexibility of "heart, which blinds us to all the evils and "horrors of war, it would be impossible "that we should not acknowledge the cala "mities it introduces, and feel a most sinIf

[ocr errors]

cere disposition to terminate them...1 65 we turn our eyes to the continent of Eu rope, what devastation and slaughter has "it occasioned, from the confines of Russia "to the Southern extremity of Italy. If

we look to Egypt or South America, we "still find the same cause for sorrow a and regret. At no period of society have the

" contests of the field been more obstinate, "or attended with such a profuse destruc"tion of human life. To the sufferings and "the death of the thousands who have fall"en, we are to add the misery and the ruin "of the tens of thousands that survive "them, who have to lament the death of "their relatives, their protectors, and their "friends: and who, amidst grief and hunger and wretchedness, pour forth their curses on the unsparing sword of war, and "on those who call it into action." The principle, upon which you here proceed applies to all wars, under whatever circumstances; for, it is because human misery and a destruction of human life have been produced by the war, in which we are now engaged, that, according to your doctrine, we ought to feel a sincere disposition to terminate that war. But, Sir, though war is certainly the immediate cause of the death of many persons, it does not follow, that it is, for that reason alone, to be held in such abhorrence, seeing, that first or last, all those persons must meet with death in some shape or other. As to the wretchedness produced by war, you will find it very difficult, I believe, to show, by the use of dispassionate reason, that there is much want which arises, or which can arise, to any persons remaining at home, from the death of other persons, who are killed in war, it being pretty evident, I think, that of those who are personally engaged in war, very few indeed. have been, previous to their being so engaged, the protectors of their kindred and friends. That war does, in no very sensible degree, tend to enhance the dearth of provi. sions has been amply proved by reasoning as well as by experience; and, though, in some countries, the suddenly withdrawing of a great number of hands from the field may have the effect of causing a scarcity of grain; yet, in this country, no such effect is to be apprehended; because, if a youth be taken, by war, from the plough to day, another, who was just quitting the plough for the side-board, takes his place to-morrow, and that, too, from causes arising out of the war. A thousand men are called from the plough, by the war, to garrison the forts at Portsmouth; a thousand others supply their place, coming, through various channels, from the manufactories, which have been destroyed by the war. The same quantity of food is raised; the same number of persons are fed ; but, as the same quantity of manufactures are not exported or made, there is a diminution in the importation and creation of luxuries, and a diminution also in the vices which invariably accompany the enjoyment of those

The

luxuries. This is one of the general effects of war; and, hence it is, that war, in some cases, operates to the good of nations. Hence it is, that the comparatively barren lands of England are covered with rich crops, while the rich lands of Italy scarcely añorded bread to its enervated inhabitants. state of England and France, compared with that of Germany and Italy, is a quite sufficient proof, that the general and permanent effect of war is not to destroy, or even to check, the prosperity of nations; while the history of Holland pretty clearly evinces, that the moment a nation ceases to be warlike, that moment she commences her decline, and has already made some degree of progress on her way to subjugation.

But, Sir, notwithstanding what has here been said, I am not, as you seem to insinuate, and as the Morning Chronicle scruples not to assert, so much in love with war as to think it a pity that there ever should be a cessation of hostilities. To speak of war as being, in all possible cases, a good, would be as absurd, as it is to speak of it as an evil, în all possible cases. I wished to enter upon the discussion with you, relative to the expediency of a pence, at this time, with Frince, without having against me, from th beginning to the end, the weight of that prejudice, which you have so carefully cherished, that war is, in itself a pure, unmixed evil; a thing, in all cases, to be held in abhorrence, and, of course, to be, at all times, gotten rid of as soon as possible; without much, or, perhaps, any, consideration as to the terms. And, if I have been so fortunate as to remove this prejudice from the minds of my readers, I have not much apprehension. as to their decision upon the points to be discussed.

1. With respect to the real original cause of the present war between England and France, you allow, Sir, that there were certain" impediments" relating to the evacuation of Holland by the French troops, and of the island of Malta by the English; but, that the chief cause of the war, was, the writings and publications of certain "unprincipled" individuals in England, who found an interest in the revival of the war. You complain of the conduct of the French emigrants, in this respect, and then you tell us, that "another, and still more formida"ble party" [of these enemies to peace] "consisted of the innumerable bands of "journalists and hireling writers, who feed

[ocr errors]

upon the credulity and fatten upon the "calamities of a nation; men who flour sh "most in the midst of tumult; to whom. the disasters of the country are as valua

"ble as her triumphs, à destructive battle as " a rich harvest, and a new war as a freeTheir reiterated cla

hold estate. . . . . . . "mours," you tell us,

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

call

appeared like the public voice. Scarcely were the prelimi"naries of the treaty concluded, than" [an odd sort of English, this] "new grounds of war were discovered. . . . . . . . . . By these means the combustibles were prepared for "a new explosion." And this, Sir, is, in another part of your pamphlet, what you .66 having shown that the present war was in"stigated by a few interested and unprincipled individuals." This representation of yours, Sir, is not true; and, as you have, from your frequent quoting of them, proved that you have read the several official dispatches, connected with the rupture, in 1803, you must have known, that it was not true. In no one of these papers is there contained any complaint against the English press, previous to the signing of the definitive treaty; it is notorious, that, at the time of signing the definitive treaty, and for several months afterwards, all those hirelings, of whom you speak, were engaged in praising the then first Consul and his government; and, when, in the month of July, 1802, Mr. Otto, made his complaint to Lord Hawkesbury, the only presses he complained of by name were, that of Peltier, the Courier de Londres, and of Cobbett. He did, indeed, add, and others like them;" but those others it would have been very difficult for him to have pointed out*. As, therefore, Mr. Peltier and the Courier de Londres, belong to your class of foreigners, who sighed without ceasing for the return of feudal vassalage (not so degrading, by the bye, as the vassalage of our manufactories), you leave to me, of course, the undivided honour of having instigated the war, and of being an "interested and unprincipled individual,” a hireling who fattens upon the calamities "of the nation." But, Sir, again I say, that your representation is not true, and that, as you had evidently read the official papers, you must, at the time when you wrote it, have known it not to be true. This will appear from the whole tenor of the papers, but particularly from General Andreossy's letter to Lord Hawkesbury, of 8. Germinal, year 11, that is to say, in the month of March, 1803, in which letter he says: "A few days after "the ratification of peace, one of his Bri"tannic Majesty's ministers declared that

64.

the peace establishment must be consider"able; and, the distrust excited by this de

See Mr. Gtto's letter, Register, Vol. II. page 1002,

Didcounts.4

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

temptible as those libels. Since that "time these writers have found themselves "invariably supported in their insolent ob"servations by particular phrases taken "from the speeches of leading members of

[ocr errors]

In a

parlament. These speeches, scarcely to be "exceeded by the news-writers themselves, have, for these eighteen monthsy tended to encourage insult against other governments, to that degree, that every European must be offended, and every reason"able Englishman must be humiliated, by "such unheard-of licentiousness." subsequent part of the same letter Andreossy tells Lord Hawkesbury, that the wish of the First Consul is, that measures should be adopted in both countries to prevent any mention being made of what was passing in the other; and this prevention he wished to be extended to the "official discussions" as well as to the "polemical writings;" that is to say, to the parliament as well as to the press. Is it true, then, Sir, as you have represented, that the complaint of France was made against wretched " hirelings only; that it was a few "interested and unprinci pled individuals" who blew up the flame of war? Or is your representation false? Here, in the letter of Andreossy, is a complaint made of the language of the ministry, of the opposition in parliament, of pamphleteers and of newspaper editors. Were all these "interested and unprincipled" individuals who "fattened upon the calamities of the nation?" It is evident, not only from this letter of Andreossy, but from the generally pervading tone of the correspondence, that Buonaparté aimed at silencing, not only the press, but the parliament, as far as related to him and his actions; and that, first or last, nothing short of this would have satis fied him. You, indeed, appear to think that there would be very little harm in the success of an effort of this kind. To fo"reign states," you tell us, "that which a country does, or which it permits to be "done by its subjects is the same. With our internal regulations they can have no concern; but, they have a right to expect "from us that respect for their institutions, "which we claim for our own."Well, Sir,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

HAD

and what is this respect, which we claim for our institutions? Can you cite an instance, wherein complaint has been made by England of a libel upon her institutions? How many thousands of times has the king of England been loaded, in the American papers, with every epithet and name expressive of what is hateful and wicked; how many thousands of times have all our institutions been treated in the same manner; how many thousands of times have we been olled slaves, beasts of burden, journeymen thieves, and all this because we did not rise and overturn our institutions. Yet, have you never heard, I believe, Sir, that our mi nister in America made, at any time, a complaint upon this score. You can find no "claim," of this sort, that we have ever made; and, whether in a manner unprincipled," or not, you have evidently invented such a claim, on our part, for the purpose of defending, or of giving the air of reasonableness and fairness to, the claim of Buonaparté, which claim, you leave your readers to conclude, ought to have been granted, in order to prevent the renewal of the war; but, I think, it will not be difficult to convince those readers, that the man who would have granted this claim, would have found no claim too great to be granted. If we are to "respect the institutions" of foreign nations, we are to respect one as well as the other; and, why should we not, then,

respect the Inquisition in Spain? Volumes have been written by us against that "institution;" and, if we ought to be permitted to write freely upon that subject, why were we to hold our tongues as to the institutions of Buonaparté, one of which was the celebrated "Cayenne Diligence?" Why, Sir, pray tell us why, we ought not to be permitted to speak of the latter "institution" as well as of the former ? About the time, to which we are referring, Buonaparté, by a sham election, made himself Consul for Life, in direct violation of what was then called "the constitution of France." This must have been a severe mortification to you, and others, whose wisdom had, in 1790, perceived the day-star of liberty advancing

o'er the vine-corer'd hills and gay regions "of France;" and, out of compassion for you, we might have disguised the fact, if that had been possible; but it was impossible; and, therefore, we did langh most heartily at the post-like senate and legislative corps. All the world laughed as well as we, only difference was, we dared laugh out;" and when we were told, that this military despotism, the establishment of which could now be no longer disguised, had been caused

"the

by the Duke of Brunswick's proclamation, issued in 1793; when we were told, as you now tell us, that it was from indignation at the attempts to conquer and enslave her, that France became warlike and became herself a conqueror; and that, having, through the courage and exertions inspired by a love of liberty, got rid of, or subdued, all her enemies, she, from the same cause, became herself the slave of a single military despot, who kept a Cayenne Diligence continually upon the trot; when we were gravely told this, we laughed still more; and, it was this that you would have prevented by the cutting of our ears off, or the splitting of our noses. If your doctrine be adopted, how shall we dare to write at all respecting foreign nations? Who will dare to say, that the government of France, or Spain, or Rassia, or Turkey, is not as good as the government of England' Who will dare to describe the character of foreign princes or ministers? Who will dare to write history? Who will dare to write a book of travels? Who will dare, upon subjects connected with foreign princes, or. states, to move his pen, or to open his lips! "In war time we may abuse them as much as we please." But, not to dwell upon the baseness of this, apon the total want of principle which it developes, when the war ceases, the newly-invented public law of libel begins again to operate; so that the identical paper or book, which was a lawful publication but yesterday, may, to-day, if a copy of it be sold (every sale being a fresh publication), subject both the author and the publisher to the loss of their ears and to confirement in jail at the discretion of the judge. After broaching a doctrine like this, it is with singular propriety, that you ob serve, in the true attorney-general-like style, that " to incroach upon the freedom of the press, will never be the act of any real "friend to the interests of mankind; but, "to restrain its licentiousness is not to en

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"

croach upon, but to preserve, that free, "dom." These are almost the very words of Mr. Blackstone, who, soon after he had put them into print, became a judge, This very form of words was used in the case of M. Heriot, who was prosecuted by that famous Whig, and “ friend to the interests of mankind," Lord St. Vincent, for having published an alledged falshood relative to his conduct, as Lord of the Admiralty; and, who, in order, I suppose, to prove to all the world as clear as daylight, that the thing asserted by him was false, was brought to trial by a form of process which prevented him from producing any evidence to prove that it was true. Nevertheless, Mr. Heriot

« ElőzőTovább »