Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

66

66

the proof of their " instinctive patriotism,” "that it should have been tried in cunthey hired themselves as soldiers to the "tries where no man in his senses will say French, the Germans, the Prussians, or "that the frame of political society is such, any body else, and were not unfrequently "as according to the most moderate prinopposed to each other in battle by the princes" ciples of regulated freedom it ought to to whom they let themselves out to hire," be: where I will venture to say, withuntil the French revolution, by an exposure out hazarding the imputation of being of the infamy of such a traffic, put a stop myself a visionary reformer, political to it; though now, perhaps, amongst the society is not such, as, after the success other good things, which Mr. Canning an"of this war, and from the happy conticipates from the great approaching change, "tagion of the example of Great Britain, it this traffic may possibly be revived. "is sure gradually to become. It is happy There is, however, such a confusion of" for the world that this question, as to the ideas in this part of the speech, that I must" value of national independence, should quote it, in the speaker's words, in order, "thus have been tried on its own merits; not that the reader may comprehend its "that after twenty years of controversy we meaning (for that is impossible, I think);" should be authorized by undoubted rebut that I may not be chargeable with hav-"sults to revert to truth and nature, and ing garbled it." The order of nature "to disentangle the genuine feelings of the "could not subsist among mankind, if "heart from the obstructions which a ge"there were not an instinctive patriotism, neralizing philosophy had wound around "a love of national independence, I do "them. What Goldsmith has beauti"not say unconnected with, but prior and fully applied to the physical varieties and "paramount to, the desire of political" disadvantages of a country has been found "amelioration. It may be very wrong "to be not less true with respect to poli"that this should be so. I cannot help it. "tical institutions. The sober desire of "Our business is with the fact. And improvement, the rational endeavour to "surely it is not to be regretted that tyrants "redress wrong or correct imperfection in "and conquerors should have learned from "the political frame of a government, are "experience that the first consideration "not only natural but laudable in inan : "suggested to the inhabitants of any coun"but it is well that it should have been try by a foreign invasion, is not whether "shown by irrefragable proof that these "the political constitution of the state is "sentiments, where they exist, supersede "perfect, but whether the altar at which "not that devotion to native soil which is "he has worshipped, and the home in "the foundation of national independence. "which he has dwelt from his infancy," And it is right that it should be under"whether his wife and his children, whe"ther the tombs of his forefathers, whe"ther the palace of the sovereign under "whom he was born, and to whom he 66 may owe, or fancy that he owes, allegiance-should be abandoned to violence

66

66

66

"stood and remembered that this senti"ment of national independence alone

aroused where it had slumbered-en"lightened where it had been deluded— "and kindled into enthusiasm by the in"sults and provocations of the enemy, has "been found sufficient, without internal

"and profanation ?- -That in the infancy of the French Revolution, many" changes, or compromises, of sovereigns "nations in Europe were unfortunately "and governments with their people, with"led to believe and to act upon a different "out relaxations of allegiance or abjura"persuasion, is undoubtedly true;-that "tions of authority, to connect the nations "whole countries were over-run by re"of the continent in one common cause, to ❝forming conquerors, and flattered them-" lead them against their tyrant, and to "selves with being proselytes till they" shake and (may we not hope to over"found themselves victims. Even in this "throw) the Babel of his power?”. country, as I have already said, there Here is, as I said before, such a confusion "have been times when we have been of ideas, that one hardly knows where to "called upon to consider whether there begin the work of separating and comparing was not something at home which must them and bringing them to the test of rea"be mended before we could hope to repel son. We are told, that it is an “in"a foreign invader with success. "stinctive patriotism," a "devotion to ❝tlemen, it is happy for the world that "native soil, which is the foundation of "this sort of question should have been "national independence." We will, by “ tried, if I may so say, to a disadvantage; and by, inquire what is meant by these two

66

66

-Gen

in spite of this "devotion to native soil ;" in spite of this "genuine feeling of the "heart" that, in spite of this "foundation

66

In

tive patriotism." Here we see nations, many nations, receiving the invader with open arms, because they thought he would better their lot; and we see them driving him out again, because he had rendered their lot worse than it was before.——Here we see many nations" actuated, in this question of invasion, not by any "instinc "tive" feeling about the soil; but by motives of self-interest; by considerations connected with their property and political institutions; we see them, in short, making calculations, putting the good against the evil likely to arise to them from the invasion of their country; and deciding in favour of the former. We see "whole na

last words, the use of which is so common, and the meaning of which is so very vague; but, at present, let us suppose that the Speaker means, that the effect of this "in-" of national independence," that, "many "stinctive patriotism," this "devotion to "nations of Europe were unfortunately led "native soil," is, the exertion of a people "to believe and to act upon a different perto keep any enemy out of their country. In "suasion; that whole nations were overother words, that there requires nothing" run by reforming conquerors, and flatbut this love of their native soil to make "tered themselves with being proselytes, men fight against an invader; that this "till they found themselves victims." feeling, this genuine feeling of the heart," plain words, many nations of Europe, in is quite sufficient without any other consi- the hope of bettering their condition, rederation. But, not to speak of the fact ceived the French invaders with open arms; again yet, how does this agree with the but, at last, &inding themselves "victims;" Speaker's observation, that men fight for finding that they had been “deluded," the homes in which they have dwelt; for being "insulted" and "provoked" by their their wives and children, and other objects? new masters, they joined with their old They fight, he says, against an invader, be- sovereigns to drive the new masters out. cause these objects, so dear to them, should Let us take all this for granted; for it comnot be exposed to violence. In short, they pletely drives away the notion of " instinc hazard their lives in repelling invasion, because they fear that the invader will take away their property and make them miserable; and, not because they fear he will insult or dishonour the dirt upon which they walk, or the place where they happen to have been born, and upon which particular spot not one out of five hundred is living. What becomes, then, of his doctrine of "instinctive patriotism," if it be for houses, goods, chattels, churches, wives and children, that men repel invasion? These are under the safe-guard of laws, that is to say, political institutions, without which there can be no property, or ownership, in any thing.-What becomes, then, of his degrading doctrine; what becomes of his assertion, that a mere cattlelike attachment to the earth, is of itself sufficient to make men fight against an invading enemy?- Even in those countries, where the wretched inhabitants are bought and sold with the estates, in which they are bred, and where the human form is animated with a degree of intelligence little superior to that of a brute, it is not the mere a devotion to native soil" alone is the love of the soil which produces resistance foundation of national independence, and that to an invader; for, though the vassal be a it is quite sufficient for the purpose of keepsort of beast, the lord knows his interest, ing out or driving out an invader, without and he drags forth the vassal to war, not the aid of any motive connected with polifrom a love of the soil, but from his love tical institutions. Yes, Mr. Canning of the profits of the soil. In short, for the could not disguise the fact, that "instincsake of his property; for fear of losing more" live patriotism" had not prevented the than he has any chance of gaining. Brabanters, the Dutch, the Italians, the Germans, the Prussians, the Polanders, from receiving the French invaders with open arms, and with the avowed hope of bettering their condition; he could not disguise this fact, so well known, and so directly in the teeth of his doctrine; and,

[ocr errors]

But, why need we have made these observations? What need had we of an argument drawn from the reason of the case, when Mr. Canning himself has told us (what, indeed, we well knew before), that, in spite of this fine" instinctive patriotism"

tions; many nations," acting thus ; Mr. Canning himself exhibits them to us as thus acting; and yet, with the statement of this fact, this notorious fact, upon his lips, he, from his innate love of cattle-like feeling in the people, he tells his hearers, that a twenty years' war has decided this great question, has put reforming philosophy to shame, and has clearly proved, that

66

therefore, he says, that this "instinctive | ple; nay, they have brought a very con-
"patriotism," this "devotion to native siderable army of foreigners into the coun-
"soil," this "genuine feeling of the try, upon the ground, expressly alleged,
66 heart,"
""slumbered," that it was "de- of their being necessary; districts of Eng-
66 luded," till" enlightened and kindled" land itself have been under the command
by the insults and provocations of the in- of some of these foreigners. Now, if
vaders. A strange sort of instinct this? the" instinctive patriotism" of a people be
Instinct is a feeling wholly unconnected sufficient to induce them to repel an invader,
with reason; wholly distinct from mind, and if this "genuine feeling of the heart"
How, then, could it be enlightened; how be not less powerful in England than in
could it be kindled; how could it slumber; Germany, why all these military establish-
how be deluded? -But, this confusion ments? Why all the enormous expense of
of ideas, this floundering, this flippant camps, barracks, armies of reserve, yeo
trash, was well enough suited to Mr. Can- manry, volunteers and foreigners, amount-
ning's audience. It is possible that he ing to not less than ten or fourteen millions
thought that he himself understood what sterling a year? As a speech-maker at
he was talking about; but, whatever might Liverpool, Mr. Canning found it conve
be his thoughts as to that matter, he knew nient, in support of his principles, as an
well enough, that his audience was incapa- enemy of reform of corrupt abuses, to
ble of detecting any absurdity that might broach his doctrine of "instinctive pa-
escape him.
The darker the deeper he "triotism;" but, as a minisler, he was too
knew for them.There was, however, wise to trust to that patriotism for the re-
to be drawn from this monstrous doctrine pelling of an invader; or, if he did trust
of" instinctive patriotism," a practical in- to it, he wisely chose to clothe his "in-
ference of great import to ourselves. It"stinctive patriots" in uniform, and to
was this; that, whereas," there have
"been times when we have been called
"upon to consider, whether there was not
"something at home, which must be
"mended before we could hope to repel a
"foreign invader with success." This
question, says he, is now settled; because
we have seen that people who have less
liberty than the people here enjoy, have,
by the operation of "instinctive patriotism"
alone, repelled the invader.There the
premises are false; for we know, that the
nations of Europe did not repel invaders;
that they received the invaders with open
arms, as Mr. Canning acknowledges; and
that, whatever they have now done to assist
their old masters, has been in the driving
out of new masters, by whom, as he says,
they had been insulted and provoked.-
Besides, whatever may be Mr. Canning's
opinion of the power of "instinctive pa-
triotism," in this country, none of the
ministries, to which he has belonged (and
he has belonged to almost every one for
twenty years past), appear to have placed
much reliance upon it. They have acted
upon notions very opposite indeed. They
have kept on foot a large regular army;
they have had an army of reserve; they
have had all sorts of militias; they have
established camps, built barracks near
every considerable town; they have had
recourse to yeomanry and volunteers, clothed
as soldiers, and placed under afficers ap-
pointed by the crown and paid by the peo-

furnish them with arms, pay, lodging,
coals, candles, and with bread and meat
at a given price. I am by no means call-
ing in question the wisdom of these mea-
sures; I am not endeavouring to show,
that the camps, barracks, and all the other
causes of expense, above enumerated, were
not necessary, in our situation, for the re-
pelling of invasion; but, I must insist upon
it, that the practice of Mr. Canning and
his different sets of colleagues has been in
direct opposition to the doctrine that he
now holds. Mr. Canning tells his au-
dience, that the Reformers have said, that
without a reform, the country could not be
defended against an invader. Now, says
he, this is not true, for we have seen the
contrary on the continent, where no reform
has been made or promised; and, there-
fore, the question is decided against the Re-
formers. In the first place, I repeat,
that invasion was not repelled on the con-
tinent. It was a new master that was
driven out; and, in the next place, I deny,
that the Reformers have ever said, that,
without a reform the country could not be
defended against an invader. What the
Reformers have said is this: that, to en-
sure the repelling of an invader the people
must be better satisfied with the state of
the representation; OR, that an enormous
expense must be incurred for the support of
an army of some sort in the country. This
is what the Reformers have said; this is
what they still say; and is there any thing

that Mr. Canning, or any one else, cannay, we see, besides, that nations having

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

not even the name of political liberty in

use amongst them, have fought heartily against the French and defeated them; which clearly shews, that "instinctive

a people to defend their country.' And hence the speaker leaves us to infer, that even if the mass of the people of England were reduced to the state of those of Russia, there would be no danger of their siding with the invader.- -This, this is the result at which he aimed. With this object the speech was made. This was the account to which the speaker endeavoured to turn the recent successes of the Allies.-—————— The friends of freedom, under the name of Jacobins, Levellers, Democrats, or what not, have often been accused of wishing success to the French; of rejoicing at their triumphs; and of mourning at their reverses. This was a very foul and base way of opposing arguments in favour of a reform of notorious abuses; but, really, if Mr. Canning's doctrine, if his mode of arguing, if his inferences were right, the friends of freedom might with pride plead guilty to the charge; for, if the defeat of the French by the armies of nations who

produce in the change of governors on the Continent, or in any of the events there for the last twenty years, which does not make for, instead of against, this position? And, as to what has happened here it is" patriotism" alone is sufficient to induce true, that no reform has taken place, and that yet, we have not been invaded with any considerable degree of success; but, the army at home has added many scores of millions to a debt, which no peace, no state of prosperity, which nothing short of an event which no minister will dare look in the face, will ever get rid of, or materially diminish.-The money, which this home army has cost, might easily be shown to surpass £10,000,000 a year. This, during the 20 years of war, amounts to 200 millions. Thus, 200 millions of the national debt is due to this cause, and this imposes upon the people of this country 10 millions a year of interest for ever; that is to say, about one half of the amount of the Property Tax. So that, if a 5 per centum tax, or one half of this terrible tax, under which the farmers and tradesmen and handicraftsmen are writhing with such impatience, should be kept on after the war, the country will probably begin to feel, that it would have been better to have a re-enjoy no political liberty be taken to be a form and no domestic army, during the last 20 years. The Reformers have asserted, and MAJOR CARTWRIGHT has brought forward arguments to prove, that, with reform, this army might have been dispensed with. It is possible that the Reformers may have been wrong, and that Major Cartwright may have reasoned erroneously; but, his reasoning has never been shown to be erroneous; and Mr. Canning has not now produced any thing to shake the assertion of the Reformers.So that this speech fails in its main object, which was to produce a belief, that, because the French armies had been driven back by nations, having no political liberty, political liberty is not at all necessary to the safety of a country against the attacks of a foreign enemy. This was the main drift of the speech. The object of the speaker was to impress upon the minds of his hearers, and, through the press, on the minds of the people at large, that Reform has not been, and is not necessary. This was what he was aiming at. Here,' says he, we are in a state of triumph; we have 6 not been invaded; we have beaten France; we have got out of all our dangers; we • have done this without any reform, which clearly shows, that no reform was necessary;

proof, that rotten boroughs and sinecure places are good things, and that Englishmen need no political liberty; if such a conclusion be to be drawn from the defeat of the French by the Allies, ought not Englishmen to lament that such defeat has taken place, and is it not natural for them to wish to see the ground of such a dangerous doctrine speedily removed?—According to this doctrine of Mr. Ganning, it is not only natural for a man who is attached to the rights and liberties of his country to lament that his own government is successful, but it is his duty to endeavour to prevent such success; because this gentleman tells us, that we are to take that success as a proof, not only that no reform of abuses ought to take place; but, also, as a proof, that no political liberty at all is necessary to the defence and safety and happiness of the country. Such is the state, to which the prevalence of this abominable doctrine would reduce the friends of freedom in every country in the world where abuses exist. A due regard for their own liberties and those of their fellow citizens would compel them to wish to see their government and its armies defeated.It is absolutely necessary, to show the falsehood and the absurdity of this

doctrine in every way that it presents itself to us. Success in war being, by Mr. Canning, taken as a complete proof, that no reform is wanted in the government which has obtained that success, we may ask him, why he has, for the last twenty years, been crying out against the several governments in France; seeing, that under them, far greater successes in war have been obtained than by all the other govern ments in Europe put together within the two last centuries. If success in war be a proof, or even a mark, of a good government, the French have, for twenty years past, been blest with the best government that ever existed; and yet Mr. Canning has been incessantly scolding and railing against the French government, during the whole of that period.The American government, too, which Mr. Canning so hates, and the President at the head of which the Times newspaper calls a "hypocritical villain," must, according to Mr. Canning's doctrine, be a pretty good one; for, it is notorious, that its forces have been victorious by sea and land; that in the war of frigates, they have beaten ours three times out of four; that, in several instances, their inferior ships of war have beaten ours with an equal force; that they have defeated us upon the lakes; and that they have invaded and possess a large portion of our North American dominions.- -The flashy gentleman, as he was dashing along, seems to have forgotten these things; but we must stop him and pin him down here, and make him acknowledge, that the American government is an excellent one, and that the French government for the last twenty years has been excellent; or, make him eat his words, and confess, that success in war is not a proof that the government obtaining it is excellent and stands in need of no reform.- I now come to inquire a little into the meaning of the words national independence," so often made use of by Mr. Canning, and of which he appears to have no very distinct idea. He says, that his famous nostrum of" instine live patriotism," is of itself, without any political considerations, sufficient to ensure "national independence," by which, from the context, it would seem that he means the keeping out of invaders, for he - states the effect of his wonderful instinct to be the defending of property from plunder. But, are natious, then, to be regarded as independent in all cases except while they have invaders in their territories? May not a nation be placed in a

complete state of dependence on others, or on another, without being invaded? All the world knows, that they may; and, it is equally well known, that a nation, whose rulers are turned out by foreign aid, and who receives a foreigner for their sovereign, may still be independent nations. In that revolution, which we style "Glorious," a foreigner was put upon the throne of this kingdom, and brought with him foreign. troops to assist him against the partisans of our king. No one will, I imagine, attempt to say, that England was degraded, or that she lost her independence, in consequence of that Revolution. In Sweden we see in the heir to the throne, a Frenchman, in no wise related to the Royal family; a man who was not long ago a private soldier in the service of France; a relation by marriage of Buonaparté himself. No one will, I imagine, be inclined to dispute the legitimacy of his title to the Crown of Sweden, or to say that Sweden has been degraded, or lost her independence by his being placed over her. He is one of our august Allies; we have, in the most solemn manner, acknowledged his heirship to the crown, and to an island which we have ceded to Sweden.What, then, becomes of all the outcry about the loss of national independence in those countries where Frenchmen have obtained the sway? Why should Naples, or Italy, be looked upon as degraded by their change of sovereigns any more than England was, or than Sweden is, by the change of sovereigns in those countries?Why should it be a crime in a Neapolitan, or an Italian, or a Dutchman, or a German, to have favoured and sought for a change of rulers, if it was no crime, but a great merit, as Mr. Canning will not deny it was, for Englishmen and Swedes to favour and seek for such a change?. The words "national independence," like the word "constitution," are made to take whatever meaning may best suit the purposes of those, who use them with a sinister view. But, unless Mr. Canning be prepared to go the length of condemning our glorious revolution, and the more recent glorious revolution in Sweden, he must acknowledge, that men may love their country, that they may be very meritorious men, that they may be entitled to every mark of respect, and every epithet of praise, notwithstanding that they effect, or endeavour to effect, a change in their rulers, even with the assistance of foreign troops. -What then, become of all these loose and unqualified invectives against re

« ZurückWeiter »