THE POSTURE OF FRANCE.-GOVERNMENTS AFRAID OF THEIR OWN STANDING ARMIES.

We are

Ir is curious to observe the course adopted by the French Government in view of the commotions in Germany. They proclaim their determination to maintain the strictest neutrality, and then they demand of the Legislative Assembly extraordinary credit for 6,840,000 francs, to augment the army 40,000 men. It is but fair to say, however, that notwithstanding this apparent practical contradiction between their declarations and deeds, they are probably sincere in their wish to avoid involving France in the threatened melée of German affairs, and the addition to the army is only made in deference to the old and absurd superstition, that the way to prevent a conflagration is to accumulate around you the utmost amount possible of combustible materials, or in other words, that to avoid war, you must prepare for war. afraid, indeed, that the dread of war, by which French statesmen and the majority of the Assembly are actuated, springs from no lofty principle, of social or political morality. It is not because they detest the worship of Moloch. It is not because they have learned to despise those ideas of "national glory," which have been so long the bane of our neighbours on the other side of the Channel. It is not that they wish to inaugurate the era of moral influence, in the place of brute force, in the administration of empire and the relations of peoples. Alas, no! Never was there a class who had a dimmer discernment of all such generous ideas as these, than the party now in the ascendant in France. But, happily, they are afraid that war would shake their own power. They are probably aware also that the French people, more enlightened than they were, would not be so prompt as they have been to shed their blood on the quarrels of kings. The following is the language of M. Remusat, the Reporter of the Committee, when introducing the subject to the Assembly. There is no attempt to disguise the utterly low and selfish motives, by which they are influenced in their abstinence from intervention :

France, who bears towards Austria and Prussia sentiments only of esteem and benevolence, respects the rights of both, but can espouse neither the resentment nor the pretensions of either power. If they go to war, France will behold the combat with strict impartiality. She cannot desire the victory of either, for such a victory would menace the subjection of Germany to the absolute preponderance of one sole power. This result would be as contrary to justice as to the interests of Europe it would be, without any doubt, opposed to the permanent policy of France. In the name of its own policy, as well as of general interests, France is, therefore, formally opposed to war. There is, finally, a consideration which strikes all minds. War, in breaking out, might bring in its train evils still greater than those of war itself. The soil of Europe is still covered with fires only half extinguished. War might reanimate these. War might furnish with chances

way

of

fatal theories, hopes and passions. War is the last resource of subversive factions; it might shake, even to its foundations, European society; it might become only the improvident signal of a social war. signal of a social war. This thought ought to dominate all other thoughts in the mind of the Cabinets of Europe, partithe upon cularly of those which have nobly entered wise reforms and serious progress." The plain meaning of all this, we take to be, that the governments of Europe cannot trust their own armies; that there is a leaven widely spread among them, which might lead them to turn their arms against their own masters, that the tremendous engine which they have created, and which they maintain at so ruinous a cost, if it is set in motion, may recoil and burst in the hands of those who wield it. This portentous danger is one, indeed, which every man having the smallest pretension to foresight must have long anticipated. The ranks of the army in all European countries, (except, perhaps, Prussia) and emphatically so in France, are recruited from that very class, among whom the crudest and wildest theories of political right and social regeneration are likely to prevail. And yet these are the very men whom the statesmen of Europe are constituting the armed guardians of property, order, and religion. Perfectly aware of the peril that menaces them from this quarter, their sole reliance is on the habit of military obedience, as sufficient to counteract and control the strongest interests and passions of this multitude. We do not deny that that habit is marvellously powerful, so much so as to give some colour of truth to the boast of military men, that the assumption of the uniform changes a man's nature. But there are ample illustrations in the recent history of Europe, to prove that there are emergencies when it is utterly powerless to bind this blind Samson of physical force.

It may be said, indeed, that the mysterious spell by which a hundred thousand armed men were held in thrall by one dominant will, is already broken, and that just in proportion. as thought and reflection of any kind spread among the masses, will it become more feeble every day. It is evident, from the passage we have already cited, ambiguously worded though it be, that it is the uneasy consciousness of this fact which holds back the continental powers from the actual hazards of war. And yet they persevere daily in adding to this equivocal force, on which they themselves can place so little reliance. Ask the reason in France or Germany why they maintain these enormous standing armies, which consume the strength and substance of the country, and they will reply, that they are necessary to keep down socialism, communism, Red-republicanism, and other hideous phantoms, which violently haunt the imaginations of "the friends of order." But, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will ensure the fidelity of these guardians themselves? That there are turbid and threatening speculations abroad, subversive of social order, cannot be doubted. But how are they to be arrested, by taking thousands and tens of thousands of the very classes

among whom they are spreading with the most pernicious activity, and putting arms into their hands, all over Europe? If socialism and communism are such terrific apparitions, when only lurking about in obscurity, as the vendors of tracts and newspapers, what will they become when stalking forth with myriads of muskets and bayonets in their hands, held in only by the cobweb leading-strings of military discipline, from which they may burst loose in a moment? These are thoughts which the admirers of standing armies will do well to ponder. The tenacity with which politicians cleave to this panacea as the only remedy and salvation for states is amazing. While the French Assembly was discussing the proposed augmentation of the army by 40,000 men, on account of the disturbed condition of Germany, the tidings arrived that peace had been concluded between Austria and Prussia. Was the proposal then withdrawn? Oh, by no means. The increase was still necessary, in order to be prepared against eventualities!

We are glad, however, that one man was found in the National Assembly who had the courage to advocate other means for regulating the affairs of nations. We grieve deeply We grieve deeply over the grave and lamentable error into which this gentleman fell, some months ago, in a moment of excited passion, and under the influence of a temptation, the full force of which we perhaps in this country can but imperfectly appreciate. Notwithstanding this, however, we believe him to be sincerely devoted to the defence and propagation of peace ideas, of which no better proof can be afforded than the persevering constancy with which he has forced the subject on the attention of so unsympathizing a body as the French National Assembly.

M. Francisque Bouvet moved the following amendment to the resolution of the committee

"The National Assembly, considering that the questions which at this moment divide Germany, cannot be equitably solved by armies; that war is ordinarily for the nations who suffer themselves to be drawn into it, a source of misery and slavery, and at the same time a subject of disquietude and scandal to neighbouring nations; desiring to be able, without derogating from its dignity, constantly to restrict itself to a policy of peace; cherishing desires for general peace, and for a positive institution of common right, by which it may be permanently insured to the peoples, and thus deliver them from the expenses of war; the Assembly passes to the discussion of the articles."

In supporting this proposition, M. Bouvet said,

"Two sorts of interventions offer themselves to you; the first is that of the past, that of your fathers, that of the valorous instincts that preceded civilization; the second, that of the future, that of your children, that of distributive justice, and the consolidated interests of all people. If you adopt the policy of the past, act in a manner worthy of your forefathers, and declare frankly, as they are doing in England, that you will interfere by force of arms, at any moment and in any place, where you can subserve your national interests. But such is not assuredly the advice which I give to the National Assembly and to my country. I vote for a policy of the future, a policy more enlightened, more moral, more advantageous, more generally practicable. I propose that it should be declared by this assembly, that war is not only a thing horrible in itself, but also that it is unsuitable as a means for solving with justice the questions in dispute. And, in fact, gentlemen, after fighting has taken place, and rivers of blood have inundated the soil, are men not always obliged to come to negotiation! Is it not a treaty that arranges all? Well, then, according to my judgment, it will be a task worthy of France, to inaugurate a new policy, and by means of it to cast these propositions amid the Teutonic discords of the German princes. This policy will consist in making appeal to

You

an international jurisdiction, by whose authority all those differences shall be tried and decided, which shall so commonly produce war between governments, and ruin to nations. see, gentlemen, that I place this idea before you in its own grand simplicity. I believe that it does not require elaborate demonstrations, but is one of those ideas that speak at once to the conscience and to the reason. I know, gentlemen, that I sow my seed among thorns, but under the thorns there is a fruitful soil, and I have confidence in the future.”

THE CONTEMPORARY PRESS.

THE responsibility of the pulpit is frequently insisted upon, with great but not exaggerated emphasis; those who occupy it are solemnly reminded of the immense influence they exercise for good or for evil, on man and society. They are admonished against abusing the power which the sacredness of their function gives them, to propagate deadly error and mislead the souls of men. We think it were well, if similar charges were occasionally given to those who have been designated the "high-priests of letters," and who are now wielding an influence hardly inferior to that of the pulpit. It is sad to think with what levity this office of public instructor is assumed, and how frivolously and recklessly it is often exercised at the bidding of vanity, spleen, cupidity, and party feeling. We fear that there are but few of those who address the community through the medium of the periodical press, in this country, who have any thing like an adequate consciousness of their responsibility as the moral guides of the nation. The aim seems to be to write something racy, smart, and taking, to minister to the prevailing prejudices of the age, and above all to secure the patronage of the respectable and ful.

power

Hence it is, that whatever does not bear the seal of prescription is eschewed, or if advocated at all, with such extreme hesitancy and tenderness, and with so many cautious and enfeebling qualifications, that the effect is almost as bad as positive hostility, while the earliest opportunity is seized of escaping from even this small seeming sympathy, with what is unfashionable and unprofitable. Those who are interested in the Peace Movement, have had some very edifying examples of this. The last and most deplorable instance is that just afforded by the Daily News. That paper after having written sundry articles on the subject, much in the style of those who "damn with faint praise," thought proper suddenly to abandon even that questionable form of alliance, and to come forth in open and bitter antagonism to the principles and exertions of the Peace party. The substance of the sage strictures in which it indulged on the occasion to which we refer seems to have been this, that it is vain, and worse than vain-positively foolish and pernicious-to preach peace, while so many armed men are confronting each other on the continent. In the name of all common sense, when is it a suitable time to urge upon men the horror, guilt, and manifold and infinite evils of war, if not when two great nations, or rather when two sections of one great nation, are standing arrayed in an attitude of mutual suspicion and defiance, on the very eve of being precipitated into a deadly and sanguinary conflict, the ultimate consequences of which no human intelligence can foresee.

We are happy to say, however, that there are many, especially of the more able of the provincial press, who teach a sounder philosophy, and that in no mincing and modulated accents. An able and eloquent article has just appeared in the Hull Advertiser, occasioned by the visit of Mr. Stokes to that town and its neighbourhood, who, says the editor, "on Friday evening last, delivered one of the best lectures we ever heard in favour of the principles of universal Peace." It is by no means certain that the crisis in Germany is yet past. Should war after all break out, the meddling propensities of our

statesmen may expose this country to the danger of being involved in the fray. We commend, therefore, to all friends of Peace, the following most wise and seasonable counsel on that subject, which we regret is the only part our space will permit us to give from the above article :

"But if, in spite of everything we can do to promote Peace, the potentates of continental Europe will shed the blood and exhaust the physical resources of their people, we trust that the Government of Great Britain will be careful not to involve this country in disputes with any of the belligerents. We are happily rid of Hanover, and have no longer an interest in the petty policy of the smaller states of Germany. The antiquated nonsense of Bolinbroke, Harley, Godolphin, and the statesmen of the reigns of Anne and George the First, about the "Balance of Power" and the necessity of its maintenance, is not applicable to the present state of Europe. Napoleon put an end to all that; and though we attempted to restore it by the Treaty of Vienna, in 1815, the job was so bunglingly performed that it hardly survived the dissolution of the far-famed Congress by whom that treaty was concocted. In our sea-girt island home we have nothing to fear from the internal dissensions of continental nations. If our capitalists have only the wisdom to abstain from the negotiation of foreign loans, and our statesmen confine their interference to the offer of a mediating influence, this country will soon enter upon a course of unprecedented prosperity."

Not less excellent in its style, or decided and encouraging in its tone, is the following, from a very able leader recently published in the Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard :

"There are many who regard this movement as Utopian, and jeer at its preachers. There will be people to jeer at good men and their teaching till the end of time. It is easy to set doctrines down as impracticable; it is easy to jeer, but it is not wise so to do without investigation and consideration. Only men blinded by prejudice or ignorance will do so. The Peace movement is a great one-one worthy of the co-operation of all the lovers of humanity -a holy crusade against strife, war, and barbarity. It is a sign of the times, and the one visible on the horizon of the dawning era. It has been said that the time has not arrived for the introduction of such extremely moral doctrines. If by this it is meant that the time has not yet come when the principles of Peace will be universally and speedily accepted, we grant it; we do not expect the world to be converted as if by magic. Everything must have a beginning, and the preachers of Peace will have much to contend with, doubtless, much unchristian feeling, barbarism, rapacity, and discontent. Persecution may follow them for a while, but truth will prevail in time. We look to this movement as a new epoch in the world's history. Ambition, national differences, and jealousies, the incentives to strife, and that rapacious spirit of foreign policy, which tempts rival powers to engage in wars, outraging humanity with their horrors, will melt before its influence, like ice before the genial breath of the south wind."

But above all have we been delighted by one of the most admirable and powerful articles we have read for a long time, which adorned the pages of the Economist on the 7th of December. The writer avows, indeed, that he does not belong to those who consider that under no circumstances can war be righteously undertaken, "but," he adds, "we know that such cases (i. e. of justifiable warfare) are infinitely rare-that judging from the past history of our race, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, war is a folly and crime; and that where it is so, it is the saddest and wildest of all follies, and the most heinous of all crimes."

The following is the picture he draws of " War as it is." "The menace of war still hangs over Central Germany. We still hope and believe that such a calamity may be avoided; but in the mean time, such numbers on both sides in Germany seem willing to encounter it, and anxious to provoke it, and it is canvassed by many among ourselves, in a tone so little befitting the awful seriousness of the subject, that we cannot, we believe, do a greater service than by recalling to the minds of the people some of the realities of that war which we generally think of only in the abstract, and therefore speak of with such unbecoming levity; and by reminding monarchs and statesmen of the fearful weight of responsibility which lies upon them, if they bring such realities

upon their people for any considerations whatever, and of the inexpiable guilt they incur, if these considerations are trivial, fallacious, or inadequate.

era.

"The wars of Napoleon-the last general wars, happily, which have desolated Europe-were among the most destructive on record. It appears from authentic documents which Mr. Alison has collected, that from the commencement to the close of the revolutionary wars, the levies of soldiers in France exceeded four millions, and that not less than three millions of these, on the lowest calculation, perished in the field, the hospital and the bivouac. If to these we add, as we unquestionably must, at least an equal number out of the ranks of their antagonists, it is clear that not less than six millions of human beings perished in warfare in the course of twenty years, in the very heart of civilised Europe, at the commencement of the nineteenth century of the Christian But even these stupendous numbers give us no adequate conception of the destruction of human life, directly consequent on the wars of the Revolution and the Empire. We must add the thousands who perished from want, outrage, and exposure, and the hundreds of thousands who were subsequently swept away by the horrors of that pestilence, which took its rise amid the retreat from Russia, and the crowded garrisons of the campaign of 1813, and for several years afterwards desolated in succession every country of Europe. And even when we have summed up and laid before us in all the magnitude of figures, the appalling destruction of life here exhibited, we can still gather only a faint and remote conception of the sufferings and the evils inflicted by this awful Scourge. Death in the field is among the smallest of the miseries of war; the burned villages-the ruined commerce-the devastated harvests the towns carried by assault-the feeble and the lovely massacred and outraged grief, despair, and desolation carried into innumerable families-these are among the more terrific visitations of military conflict, and the blackest of the crimes for which a fearful retribution will one day be exacted at the hands of those who have provoked, originated, or compelled them. If anything could awaken the statesmen of our age to a just estimate of war and the warrior, surely their deeds, and the consequences of these deeds, should do so when exhibited on a scale of such tremendous magnitude. Yet so far the impression made seems to have been both feeble and imperfect. Our views with regard to war are still in singular discordance both with our reason and our religion. They appear to be rather the result of a brute instinct, than of obedience to the dictates either of a sound sense or of a pure faith. On all the other points, Christianity is not the acknowledged foundation of our theory of morals, however far we may swerve from it in practice; but in the case of war, we do not pretend to keep up even the shadow of allegiance to the authority of our nominal lawgiver."

We have seldom seen a point put with more resistless power, than is the following representation of the responsibility of rulers on the subject of war. We wish it might be read by every monarch and prince, and prime minister in Europe.

"When a statesman declares war in consequence of any of the ordinary motives thereto-for the sake of a rich colony which he is desirous to obtain, to prevent an ambitious neighbour from acquiring what might render him a formidable rival, to restore a monarch dethroned by a people weary of his manifold oppressions, to resent a private wrong, or avenge a diplomatic insult-his thoughts on the matter seldom travel beyond the appointment of a general, the issuing of a manifesto, the levying of troops, and the imposition of taxes for the maintenance of the contest. He is, therefore, wholly unconscious what in reality he is doing; and if a sage were to go to him, as Nathan went to David, and say, 'Sir, you have given orders for the commission of murder on a monstrous scale; you have directed that 50,000 of your subjects shall send as many of their fellow-men, wholly unprepared for so awful a change, into a presence where they must answer for their manifold misdeeds; you have commanded that 30,000 more shall pass the best years of their life in hopeless imprisonment, shall in fact be punished as the worst of criminals, when they have committed no crime but by your orders; you have arranged so that 20,000 more shall lie for days on the bare ground, horribly mutilated, and slowly bleeding to death, and at length be succoured only in order to undergo the most painful operations, and then perish miserably in an hospital; you have given orders that numbers of innocent and lovely women, as beautiful and delicate as your own daughters,