The Press. — London, England, 1856-03-22 00:00:00

MARCH 22, 1856. fittraturt. The Political Future of England By the Comte de Montalembert. London : Murray. WE are glad to receive an "authorised trans lation" of il. de Montalembert's thoughtful tract. No one can dispute the profundity of the author's genius. His point of view in this instance is peculiar, but ho reasons from it with masterly effect. Though his essay has had a wide circulation in its original French, we think our readers will be pleased with a general notice of it. We shall pretend to do no more than glance at some of his remark able passages. He commences by stating the question generally asked on the Continent—What is to become of England? And he enumerates some of the circumstances which have led to an unfavorable answer being returned : The insupportable arrogance of the English diplomacy towards the weak, and of the English press towards every body, has raised the just indignation of a vast number of reasonable men. . In truth, we . . have to deplore that for several years England should have so varied her attitude—should have passed so quickly from the extreme of invectives to the extreme of adulation— should have forgotten so much, equivocated so much, and so often sacrificed right and liberty to her ambition, to her fears, and to her interests. She seemed to give up com pletely the honour of her free institutions to the pressure of the opposite party. This has been the last stroke to more than one noble heart among us. There are some charges in this extract which those among us who love England best must be compelled to admit ; but it would be erroneous to accept in all cases the language of our press as an index to the mind of the nation. The latter part of M. de blontaletn bert's sentence is obscure. The general state ment is too vague without instances. We do nut clearly see what is meant by the " sacrifice "of right and liberty," and by " the pressure of "the opposite party." If we are to understand that England, after having encouraged " Con stitutionalists " on the Contineut—(or by what ever other name the parties may be designated who have risen in opposition to their Govern ments)—has deserted them in their day of trial, the passage would be intelligible, and would be just. But the " sacrifice " in that case would result less from the "fear" or "pressure" supposed by the author than from the neces sities of a false position. For the last twenty-five years our foreign policy has been eccentric, and, as regards definiteness of purpose, has been unprincipled. It has held out great encouragement to the "constitutionalists" on the Continent, it has even encouraged the hopes of the " nationali ties," but it has shrunk, when they rose in insurrection, from championing their cause in arms. They have received from England ex pressions of sympathy and some secret coun tenance, but nothing more. Our Foreign Minister ought surely never to have en couraged the resistance of subjects to their Governments, in ever so slight a degree, with out being prepared to openly support them. But there is then a difficulty. Are we to survey unmoved the struggles of enthusiastic natures against the oppression and injustice of arbitrary Governments ? Are we to show no preference for one form of government over anothe:-? Are we to think it a matter of no concern whether freedom or despotism pre vails, when their forces are arrayed against each other? These are p uzz li ng ques ti ons, an d th e t ru th is, that no precise rule for the action of our Foreign office can be laid down. Its first duty is to be on friendly terms with the Govern• ments of those countries with which it has relations. Political propagandism is no part of its mission ; it cannot, without a gross viola tion of its proper duty, encourage a party o f disturbance i u any State w i th which it is in friendly communication. This would be to reverse the first f unc ti on o f di p l oma t ic . i ntercourse, and m a k e it ten d , not to t h e con tinuance, but to the rupture of amicable rela tions. There is some pretence for accusing our Foreign -office of double-dealing under Lord Palmerston's rule. We do not know how any Englishman can look without shame to tin sa&U7 times that the cry of " Poland," and 1\ CI WE latic trite] the inst.+ with had we t gent DO E able gene becc som an 11 Th tower body, reaso have so vat the et should so oft fears, pletel of the more Ti whic mus erro of of natic bert' men nut "of 1 as the that stitu ever who men the be j word sup' sitie Fc polit deft It 111 " col eve❑ ties, insu arm Ares tent Min ('our Gov out Bi sure natu of a no over no c, vails each TI is, tl Fore is t( men relat of in tion dist( in f to r juter tinth tion i our Lord any the 1 THE PRESS. " Italy," and " Hungary," has been raised, and has received his encouragement. His kindness has been cruel. He has nourished expectations which have been quenched in blood, and has led dupes on the Continent to believe that he was a revolutionist, when he was but a charlatan. The action of our Foreign-office should, above all things else, be honest, and should excite no hopes which it did not intend to fulful. Between the internal state and the foreign policy of England, M. de Montalembert makes a broad distinction. Of the latter he writes : I do not venture to criticise, nor above all to defend, her foreign policy. I maintain, with regard to him who has for so many years directed it, the same opinion that I had before the catastrophe of 1848. 1 then already saw in Lord Palmerston—in the champion of Pacifico in Greece, and the oppressor of the small cantons of Switzerland—a great contempt for the rights of the weak, and a ready ally of revolution against liberty. This opinion is amply con firmed by the deep sympathy he has since shown for some ideas and some institutions, of the popularity of which no one before 1618 would have dared to dream. The English people have been, it must be confessed, his but too faithful accomplices. But, regarding our internal state, the author unhesitatingly declares that England exhibit s no sign of decay, that "she is not disgusted " with her institutions, so prolific of good and "of glory." He comprehends the varied cha racter of English life, and, in contrast to the trimness of continental order, compares it to a vast and flourishing forest, where, in the midst of apparent confusion, there is vigour, strength, and beauty. He thinks lightly of our Crimean disasters which have been so much magnified on the Continent. "The genius of foresight had un " doubtedly no seat in the Cabinet" ; but he conceives it would have been impossible for our army, after so long an interval of peace, to have avoided some errors or escaped disaster. " That universal law of publicity " which prevails in England is, he acutely supposes, the source of much of the mistake of foreigners in estimating its condition. They suppose society to be disorganised, because its activity is too bustling for their eye to follow. This idea is admirably illustrated : The first impression of an inexperienced person, or of a child. entering a large manufactory, is to wonder how one can breathe—how order can be maintained in the midst of so crowded a population, of such constant motion and unceasing noise—how the mind and the nerves can bear the racket of those whirling wheels, grinding saws, creaking screws—with the discordant whistle of the engine, the nauseous smell of grease, the blinding clouds of smoke; and yet all goes on smoothly, all comes right, all succeeds; and out of this apparent confusion—this deafening din—this swarm of men, come master-works of ingenuity, mechanism, and industry—the arms and instru ments which insure the victories of our soldiers, or the prodigies of elegance and taste which serve to adorn our wives and daughters. Such are, however, always and everywhere the real condi tions of life, of true life, of busy life, the only life worth living for! That activity which is the strength of indi viduals, is also the strength of nations—habits of danger, constant effort, liberty of motion. Who has ever dreamt of life with a constant shade over the eyes, and with cotton in the cars, and no support but a staff held by the hand of a master ? When I see a man in that condition, I pity and respect the infirmities of old age, but I do not admit it to be a fair sample of human existence ; and when you show me a whole nation, not only fallen into this state, but boasting of it as the most perfect form of society, I fly from it at least in heart and mind, and my spirit takes its flight to those happier regions (too rarely to be found ) whose people have long since emerged from the swaddling. clothes of infancy, without yet thinking of laying them selves down on the bed of decrepitude. While contending that democracy is steadily advancing in the world, M. de Nlontalembert supposes that it is of two kinds: that which " recognises the laws of honour and equity, " which has confidence in the power of truth " and of justice, which only requires, to insure " their triumph, liberty to assert them ;" and that democracy which is jealous, rancorous, furious,—whose genius " consists in contest " ing and destroying all the superiorities which " arise out of the nature of things." It is to the latter kind of democracy that the author supposes a certain party in this country to belong. The noble passage following is not less remarkable for its truth than its elo quence : English literature begins to applaud power obtained by violence, and it seems to envy those nations who have sacrificed their public rights, their history, and their honour to brute force incarnated in individual men. This abject devotion to human idols under the name of heroes—this hero-worship, as it is now called—this adula tion of triumphant violence has found an eloquent advoa 279 eate in Mr. Carlyle, whose admitted talent deserves to be mentioned as having more than any other attempted to deprave the public mind in England, and to iestroy the prestige of her ancient institutions. After having traves tied the history of the French Revolution in the Rabelais style, where the atrocities of the actors and the innocence of the victims are confounded and laughed at with a revolting and disgusting buffoonery, Mr. Carlyle tried to impose on England a sort of Cromwell-worship, to begin with. He has many admirers and many copyists. A number of periodicals have become the echo of his doc trine. This adoration of Force--this kissing of the iron hand—is nothing but a consequence —apparently paradox ical, but profoundly logical—of the spirit of democracy cleverly grafted on the interests and the passions of the moment. It may help to explain certain recent pheno mena of popular admiration in England which have astonished the world. Some languishing poets make themselves the organs and partisans of this admiration and of this sickly envy, in some elegies which contrast strangely with the national pride which inflamed the poets and prose writers of the last century in all ranks of society. We remember that in the reign of Louis XIV. the French refugees in England published a protestation, entitled, " The Sighs of Enslaved France for Liberty " In our time, if the verses and prose of those panegyrists of revo lutionary reform were deserving of so great an honour, we might form a miscellany of complaints, entitled " The Sighs of Free England for Slavery. It is not only for the meridian of France that the Eng lish Radical journals, such as the Daily News and the Examiner, vaunt the blessings of a despotism so new, just, and intelligent as ours ; even on questions of their own domestic policy, we find this revolutionary school invoking, in contradiction to the old institutions of England, the gradual development of bureaucratic and centralisation—a pernicious system which they know full well must infal libly undermine and destroy all the traditional strength and the independence of their country. We might even men tion more than one democratic writer who has lately addressed to Royalty direct and explicit invitations and provocations to the Crown to shake off the yoke of parlia mentary control, promising it the help of the democracy, recommending a union of the Crown and the people, to arrive at a revolution like that of Denmark in 1660. It is especially to Prince Altert, the Queen's husband, that these provocations are addressed. This fine passage, worthy of our own Burke (whom M. de Nlontalembert resembles in some striking particulars), was written before the scheme was made known for destroying the independence of the House of Peers, by a stretch of the Prerogative in the interest of Liberalism. In our author's judgment, the aristocracy of England would subsist froth the constitution of English society, even though the House of Peers were subverted : But this house remains at bottom what it has long been, and what it ought to be, the bond between the past and the present—the living archives of the Constitution—the image of national tradition—and at the same time a check on the sometimes too rapid movements of the machine of government. Its part remains very important; and—the reverse of Lord Chatham's case—the contemporary exam plea of Lord Liverpool, Lord Melbourne, and Lord Derby, show that public men may become the head of the Govern ment, and remain there after having quitted the House of Commons, or even, like Lord Aberdeen, without having ever belonged to it. But, once more, it is not there that resides the vital force of the aristocr►cy ; and I will even go so far as to say that if the House of Lords were to be again suppressed, as it was under Cromwell, the external form of the English Constitution would undoubtedly be altered in its composition, but its essence would remain the same, and, above all, its aristocratic character and the aristocratic spirit of the nation would not be changed. The aristocracy is everywhere powerful in England, be cause there is everywhere a feeling of independence and of energy, and of personal estimation, which is the essence of the aristocratic principle, the principle of nature and com mon sense, that gives power to those who appear to deserve it most, and are found to execute it best. That is the true meaning of the word aristocracy—government by the best. To the prevalence of entails he thinks may be mainly traced the stability and freedom of English institutions : If Radicalism was synonymous with liberty, if it was not, unfortunately, in England as everywhere else, the snare, the obstacle, the reef on which liberty runs the risk of being wrecked, how could one understand its aversion to an order of things so favorable to the maintenance of the political rights of a great people, so inaccessible to the usurpations of either ministers or monarchs? Here lives, in truth, the principle of that legitimate activity, that fruitful and intelligent liberty, that the English emb ody in the name of self-government. Thanks to it., they may leave to the great public powers—the Crown and the Par liament—the plenitude of sovereign legislation, and the care of directing all higher political interests at home and abroad, without thinking themselves thereby obliged to abdicate the management of their own interests, or the profession of their own free convictions within their own proper circle, and without ceasing to keep an active and jealous eye on the general march of the Government. Thus, moreover, has been effected the marvellous alliance which combines in the minds of all Englishmen a pro- found respect for the rights of legal authority with the sentiment of true personal dignity and of the highest degree of individual liberty. • • • • • • The revolutionary storm will be no serious danger to her till that fatal day, if ever it should come, when het public opinion shall declare itself against entails and pri•