The Sun.
London, England, 1853-10-21 00:00:00

~,~
,~ ~

LONDON, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1853.

The orations of two such gifted speakers as
'RICHARD COBDEN and JOHN BRIGHT, with the racy
interlude of Sir C. NAPIKR'S manly defence of his
profession, and his opinion on the great subject of
the day, must have been read with abundant in-
terest by thousands. Whether we agree with the
speakers, or differ from them, it is equally impos-
sible to be uninterested in the striking illustra-
tions, the vigorous and earnest pleading with
which they advocate their cause. For ourselves,
we are free to confess that the long columns of
small print have sustained our attention through-
out ; nor would. we, in candour, deny that they
have been instructive also. We may go much I
farther ; we may acknowledge that it would be
difficult to impugn the resolutions of the Confer-
ence. Those who, in a Christian nation, have the
charge of the young, ought certainly to imbue
their minds with the principles of the Gospel of
Peace. Arbitration between disputing nations
would be as rational as between individuals—
standing armies are fearfully costly, and simul
taneous reduction of them by all nations would be
n most desirable achievement----intervention iu the
domestic affairs and quarrels of other nations is
unjustifiable, and this country should hold itself
free from alliances by which it is required of us.
All these propositions have but to be enunciated
to insure general approval. Since the days of
CASTLEREAGH, no one would trouble himself to
attack them. The last one it is absolutely in our
power to carry out in its integrity, and unless
Belgium be an exception, or Greece, and neither
is so in reality, we have acted quite in accordance
With it since the peace. The two preceding ones,
however, are of quite a different character. One
outstanding nation of the higher class would, of
course, prevent the possibility of simultaneous mu-
tual reduction of armaments, and very much im-
pair, therefore, the chief material advantage of
international arbitration. It is not easy to bring
an audience of individuals to unanimity, much less
an audience of nations. Suppose the Three great
Powers of Western Europe to be gained over by the
arguments of our Peace orators, and suppose them
willing to reduce their military establishments to
what was thought necessary to retain in quiet the
disaffected portions of their present domains; sup-
pose, too, the reduction a real one, that skeleton
regiments were not retained, and that the great
body of operatives should not be trained for a few
years to military service, as a vast reserve or land-
wehr ready to be summoned forth at a moment's
notice. Suppose all this done by France, Austria, and
Prussia, yet who can believe that Russia, with its
fraudulent and ambitious Emperor, would for a
moment consent to reduce its vast army to the
standard of domestic necessity ? The reduction
proposal always appears to us like the admirable
one of the young mouse in the fable, to bell the
eat—the Bear in this case, if our readers prefer
it. Who could force an ambitious Power to keep
down its forces ? Without a kind of mutual police
surveillance, it could extend their numbers se-
cretly ; and innumerable pretexts, like these of
the younger CYRUS, could always be found to
maintain troops for specious purposes, capable of
being combined for mischief at the desired season.
Not, however, to dwell on these resolutions, it
uPPears to us that, throughout, the sp
looked,eakers over-
or but passingly touched, the most im-
portant general fact of all, that the States of
Europe do form a community, no member of
which can with safety be permitted to trample on
the rights of the other. It may indeed be alleged
that this has been done. Cracow, Hungary,
Switzerland, pied:
a of
in violation
.nt
fwhatont' 4re"
may be cited as in-
stancesorowo unprincipled members
hate dared
however, with
.confessed rights. It is
just the same,
We
hazhlithe individuals who
compose society.
vbuffered some right
to be invaded with imp theayv e cunning or
the audacious ; but, though we nob thought
all things worth the cost of litigation,dissolve, we should
think the community itself
andforbearance
LY-n ch -
all,
rather we
law or club-law the sole arbiter, if
went beyond the extent of what, after
know to be but a kind of low prudence
than wisdom. We do not deem ourselves safe
unless the public law be omnipotent, if invoked.
Now, we profess ourselves utterly unable to see,
also, how any community of States can be safe
except on a similar principle. Unless interna-
tional law be so enforced by the honest majority
that the trespasser shall know that he will bear the
obedience which the others
any dis
penalty of what limits can
may think worth punishing,
be set to powerful ambition ? We do not
doubt that it is the interest of the nations
to watch, very differently to what they have
N done, over the independence of the weaker
Each would im-
• 1 *E42 even the weakest.
"' s. • 04E) and reform itself best from within and by
,
iwi.'idicie,example of others. Conquest, if permanent,
rarely fails to lower for ages the character of the
conquered. If, however, we cannot prevent pil-
'Tering and purloining, what will become of Europe
(Was • .
xt We tolerate open highway robbery aud bux-