Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-05-23 00:00:00

LORD DERBY AND THE. QUAKERS

THE principles of Quakerism,—we use the term
respectfully,—is every where mainly the same. At
any rate,, as regards the question of war, it is
hic et übique. It is one of the religious tenets of
the Quakers, that war is unlawful. " Because the
Christian Scriptures," as a writer on military estab-
lishments observes, " describe wars, as what they
are, as crimes or judgments, some have been led to
believe that it is unlawful for a Christian to bear
arms." And the Quakers are of that number. Not
only on that account do they believe that it is
unlawful, but because they interpret such texts as,
"be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with
good," and "if he smite thee on thy right cheek,
turn to him thy left also," to indicate that Christian
men are not to contend with, least of all to fight and
kill, one another,—quite forgetting, however, that,
for self-preservation, or for other lawful objects, it
may be necessary for individuals to unite their force,
and for this end to resign themselves to the direction
of a common will. Such, however, we say, is
Quakerism, here and every where in England, in
Ireland, in our Colonies, and in the United States of
America. When, therefore, the Premier is waited
upon, as he was the other day, by a deputation from
the Irish Quakers, for the purpose of presenting a
peace memorial, he received, no doubt, an expression
of the sentiments and feelings, on the question of
war, not of Irish Quakerism only, but of
Quakerism wherever it exists.

And to the whole body of the Society of Friends,
therefore, and, indeed; to the people at large, it
cannot but be most satisfactory to find, that Lord
DERBY is of the same mind with them on the
question of war, as it at present stands affected. Of
course the Quakers and he would differ widely as
to the 'abstract question of war—as widely as they
and the rest of Christendom do. But, as respects
the war that now prevails on the Continent of
Europe, and the policy, nay the duty of the Govern-
ment of this country with reference to it, there
would appear to be no difference of opinion what-
ever. lie told the deputation, therefore, it is stated,
that the Society of Friends in Ireland had only
done justice to the Ministers in assuming that they
had hitherto used their best exertions in endeavour-
ing to promote a settlement of the existing
differences ; and that, although at present, when
the hostile armies were almost within sight of each
other, such attempts might be unavailing, yet that
they would continue to be watchful to embrace
every favourable opportunity that might present
itself to mediate between the contending parties.
More than this, he is reported to have said to them,
that his Administration had acted with strict
impartiality between the hostile Powers, and that
by continuing to observe a similar course of conduct,
he hoped the time might come when such mediation
would be accepted,—and, more important still, that
strong as were the feelings of the Society of Friends
on the subject of war, yet that they had used no
word too strong to express his own feelings with
regard to that the . Government was resolved to
observe an entire neutrality ; and that no circum-
stance short of the absolute necessity of self-defence
would justify them in involving Great Britain in
any manner in the approaching strife. This, we
say, must not only be entirely satisfactory to the
Quakers, whether of Ireland or of England, but to
every religious denomination, and to every class of
the community.
We have said that Lora DEIU3Y'S assurance to the

Irish Quakers must be entirely satisfactory', tkii
to them, but to their English brethren also ; becatisei
although upon principle, that is in theory, they are
opposed to war and fighting of every kind and
character, yet there can be no doubt that they would
. not, in justice, altogether object to it when it came
• to be as an " absolute necessity of self-defence.',
The Quakers, with all their stern opposition to war,
would not like to have their country invaded, and
their property exposed to plunder, and themselves to
slaughter. And certainly their case is a happy one,
inasmuch as they can stand aloof, even in such an
emergency, and enjoy the blessings of national
• defence and protection, without being subjected to
• the perils of it in anywise.
But the public feeling generally is not only with
the Government, as regards the neutrality they are
determined to observe, but the necessity which they
• at the same time recognise of being prepared for
resistance, should the necessity for it arise. Self-
defence is, or may be, a comprehensive phrase. The
case was well put at a public meeting at Norwich, a
few days since, when one of the speakers said,—
"It did not follow that because this country was an
advocate for neutrality, she was for peace at any
price. Nothing was further from his sentiments
than. peace, except in such a manner as would uphold
the honour and dignity of our country ; he simply
trusted that we should maintain our shores inviolate
from the invader, and at the same time hold a
peaceful and calm attitude towards all parties."
Equally correct and patriotic was the view which
another speaker, on the same occasion, took, when
he declared,—" He did not advocate any difference
with France, but he wished our neutrality to be
strict, perfect, and dignified ; let us prepare for any
contingency which might arise, and let there be one
universal feeling that, although we deprecated war,
we would not shrink from it if we were dragged or
forced into it."
And it is satisfactory to find that at all these
meetings in favour of peace, there is one common
expression of repugnance to the character and
tendencies of the war that has now broken out.
" He was proud of the efforts of the present Govern-
ment," was the avowal of one, "in taking every
means in their power to settle, by arbitration, the
dispute which had arisen, and he was sorry their
mediation had not been accepted. Awful was the
responsibility resting on those Powers who had
refused our good offices, and who had broken the
peace of Europe." Another did not hesitate to
declare, that " he believed that the war might have
been prevented; that the Powers of Europe were in
a condition to have settled, by peaceful arbitration,
that which was now referred to arms ; and that a
settlement never could or would take place while the
tongue and pen of Italy were fettered as at present."
While another pointedly and pertinently asked,—
"Could England expect that France, after a long and
expensive military struggle, would give to Italy
what the Government of France had refused to the
French people ? Was France so free that she could
afford to distribute her freedom to other countries,"
—Questions these which can only receive one answer ;
and that one which puts it altogether out of hope
and out of sympathy among those who view the
matter calmly, and as it were, through "the loop
holes of retreat."

At such a crisis in the fate of Europe as the
present, however, our own national position is all the
happier, the surer and the safer, from the unanimity
that pervades the whole public mind upon the
question of war. The Government, the Parliament,
the people of all classes and of all parties, including
even the quakers, are all of one opinion upon it. We
do not think, indeed, that there could be any real
difference as to the duty of a recourse to arms, should
the " absolute necessity of self-defence " arise—not
even on the part of the Quakers ; and this " absolute
necessity," the Premier has declared, is. " the only
circumstance that would •justify them in involving
Great Britain, in any manner, in the approaching
strife."