The New York herald., 1878-02-25
Englsnd Relation to Continental
Ware. "-


nent of Europe in early times and down to
a recent period in prosecution Of an aristo-
cratic or dynastic purpose. Those wars
which fixed in the growing conceptions Of
the nation the notion that all foreigners
were Frenchmen and that the Frenchman
was the natural enemy Of the Englishman-
the wars summarized by shakespeare, and
that have furnished oil English fiction, his
tory, oratory and politics with such ex-
trenely we'll used names as Crecy: Poictiers
and Agincourt all those wars were fought
in upholding the quarreis of the princes
. who owned what is now the English people
They were dynasti, wars in the very mar
rowest sense. Indeed, it is rather loose
use of words TO say that these wars were
waged by the English on one side and the
French on the other, as is commonly done
in order that victory may be scored alto
gether tor England in those cases where the
battle was won by the side on which some
English fought They were wars in which
French princes seated on the English
throne disputed with French princes
seated on French throne their
rights or claims mostly in regard to
French provinces, and the combatants,
while all Frenchmen on one side, were in
great Part Frenchmen on the other side also,
but assisted By Engishmen who came as
adventures in the suite of the wearer Of an
English crown, or of one who fought for the
rights of such sovereign. That the victories
of Englishmen and Frenchmon combined
over Frcnchmen alone were all claimed for
Englishmen is only an anticipation of what
has occurred in later times, as in regard to
the battle of Waterloo. That was battle
won by Russians, Brunswickers, Neither
landers, &c. with some little help from the
English but no one ever heard from any
English source OF any part Of the battle but
England's. As that is put fortn as Eng
lands victory only, so in the ordinary
chronicle the Norman, Poitevin and
Angevin wars are all sturdily recounted as
the wars of England in France. But the
real interests Of the English nation, or of
any part of the habitants of England, save
n few mobiles Immediately around the throne,
were as little involved in those wars as the
interests of the United States would be in
filibustering conflicts in Mexico or Cuba.
Later wars that supplied even more
splendid names to English chronicles, and
whose glories are more legitimately English
and which more grievously drained English
veins and purses were quite as little waged
in the interests of the English nation,
though they were less narrowly dynastic
~, oho
other interests than those Of the people Of
England that made England "a Continental
Power" in the da s OF Blenheim, Oudenarde
and Malplaquet. 1t has been always rather
the fact that English sovereigns were
men Of foreign countries, than the attrac-
English armies on Continental battle fields,
and as the French princes led to the French
wars SO. a Dutch family involved England
in all the dispute over the possession of
the Spanish Netherlands and the war of the
Spanish succession, and German race
of princes in the whole series of
German dynastic quarrels down to the
time of the coalitions Of German
princes against the French Revolution.
Those writer's who point to England's rela-
tion to Continental wars rs a glorious evil
dence OF her towering prestige in other
days neglect the fact that England figured
in Continental wars always as q dependency
of some Continental Power in the French
wars as an appanage of Normandy, Gui-
enne or Poitou in the Dutch and Spanish
wars through the house of Orange, and in
Germany as supporting the quarrels of
Hanoverian princes. But that England
was made part of the German coalition
a against the French Revolution was the most
fragrant of dynastic outrages, and the most
impudent violation OF the rights of the ma
tion ever practised by government In
that time were committed far greater crimes
against the English nation than those for
which Charles l. was decapitated but
Charles is still pilloried as tyrant and
Pitt is held up as a model of vigorous and
craftsmanship.
1t became war in Europe for the exist
ence of thrones in the old style and the sup
preston of the rising people; or tor the ex-
istence of the people in new conditions
with the occupants OF thrones AS executives
of the national will. That was precisely the
quarrel of the "Great Rebellion" also; yet
in this quarrel, fought out not merely in the
British Parliament and in few savage
skirm ishes in half dozen English counties.
but all over Europe, England always fought
on the side of the thrones and in favor of
the divine right of princes to sit on the
heads OF the people. England, that in the
modern world had first declared the
existence of the people, had first
fought for that rational form which
government has since assumed in all
civilized countries and tends to as
sumo in all countries in proportion as they
are civilized; England, whose people had
risen to the height, sublime for those days.