The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-01-11
English Opinion. Of the War.

British orators in Parliament az well as
British newspapers represent the present war
as one in which civilization is engaged on one
side against barbarian On the other. They de
pict the Gear as the genius Of the latter and
claim for the Western Powers the title Of
champions Of enlightenment and progress
They likewise represent that, whereas they are
lighting for the extension of freedom, their
enemy combats for the maintenance of 1espot-
selves they have rightto American sympathy,
and assume an offended and angry toae be
cause it has not already been vouchsafed to
them.
There is good deal Of Misrepresentation
here. The British, like most other nations,
are too apt to fancy themselves in the right
under any and all circumstances, and to believe
when they have q quarrel that their cause is
not emily righteous and just, but humane,
liberal, generous, enlightened and religious,
when in point Of fact, the scales Of right are
70 nicely balanced that it is hard for neutral
to Judge between them and their adversary. 1t
is only within the last few years that English
men have allowed themselves to be convinced
that they were all wrong in the American war,
and very far from right in the wars against
Napoleon. Eighty years ago the merchants Of
Londan were severely reprimanded by the
Court for withholding their sympathy from the
armies sent to suhjugate the colonies; and
forty and fifty years ago, stray writer or
speaker who ventured to deny England's right
to crush Napoleon was Immediately clapped into
the stocks. Now it is John Bright who 10 mob
bed and burnt in efigy it is the United States
whose "sympathies with barbarian and despot
ism" are complained Of and groaned over in
St Stephens and elsewhere.
Let us look into this. The allies call Russia
a despotism; and such assuredly it is. From
the days of Peter the Great, the Cars throne
has been despotic; and with the exception ofa
few years at the beginning ofthe reigns Of Al
exander and Nicholas, it has been more than
despotic, it has been tyrannical. But what is
France but despotism? Napoleon III. has
quite as much of his own way as Nicholas; and
the Russian people seem to have quite as large
share in the government of MuscOvy as the
French in that of France. No man pretends &C.
riously that France Is not despotism; and
none who have thought over the coup d'etat,
and the other measures of the imperial govern
ment can deny that it has been and may be still
desp0tism Of q cruel and most tyrannical or.
der. Wherein then lies the difference between
Nicholas and Napoleon, Russia and France? If
England is try ing to break down one despot.
Ism, che is helping sustain another; one at
least counterbalances the other. We say no.
thing for the present Of the despotic features in
the British constitution: the House of Lords,
the rule forbidding generals to notice the
bravery Of common soldiers, the hereditary
the privileges Of classes, &c, &c.
though they should be taken into account if
Russia is to be placed beyond the pale Of ma
tions in consequence Of her depotism; the case
Of France, so magnifcently eulogised in the
British Parliament, is enough to settle the pre-
sent case. If England is entitled to
our sympathy because she sombats despot in
Russia, she has right on the same principle
to our hatred because she allies herself with
and sustans despot in France. What IL
meritorious in the one is compensated by what
Is reprehensible in the other: and the position
Of England is just the same a. if Nicholas were
a republican President or o constitutional
monarch.
Next, as to civilization. Admitting all that
is said by Briti,h writer's to be true-Russia
aims at the conquest Of Constantinople, the dis
perslon Of the Turks, the overthrow Of Mahome-
tsnism, and the erection Of Russo-Greek en-
pire on the ruins of the Porte. England aims
at the defence of the Turkish empire, the main
tensnce Of Islamism, the repression of the
Greek power. Which Of these two plans tends
most directly to help civilization? Surely not
that which seeks to prop up a system, social,
religious and political, which Of itself is totter-
ing to pieces; which by universal testimony
is incapable offurther developementor adapta.
tion to the demands Of the present day; whose
leading features are female debasemept, intel
lectual sloth, sensual indulgence, popular iguo-
rance: but rather that which seeks, now that
Islamism has had its day, to sweep away its
mouldy ruins, and to replace them by young
and vigorous social and religious system, full
Of sap and promise for the future, and suscepti.
ble-as is shown at st. Petersburg-of re-
ceivirg the imprint Of the highest forms Of
civilization. England misleads herself and
tries to mislead others by regarding the
war as contest between herself and Russia,
comparing her own institutions with those Of
Muscovy, and arguing as though the question
to be decided by the war was whether England
should become despotic or Russia LIBERAL This
is all misconception and error. Eogland's in.
stitutions are 10 more involved in the war than
ours. 1t is Turkey, not England that is at
stake; Glamism, not Professionalism; the Sultan,
not Parliament; seraglios and pashalics, not
free assemblies and an unshackled press II
the allies conquer, the net result Of the war will
be the maintenance Of the Sultan's government