The Sun. — 1853-10-21 (London, England)

ROLAND FOR AN OLIVER. Supported Power, may thus augment its offensive resources by Mr. W. Lacy and Miss C. Leclercq. till it is competent to the subjugation of the territories or the liberties of the remaining nations, and, are we to behold the commencement and coLtinuance of this process without interposing, and best at the outset, the whole strength of the community of nations ? Are we to leave each nation to fight by itself the battles of its indedependence with the universal foe ? The divisions of tue Grecian States were the strength of PHILIP • of Macedon ; TAerrus exults that the same circumstance placed the tribes of our forefathers in the power of the Romans, dune singuli pug nant, says he, universi vineuntur ; indeed, it is but the dictate of common sense, and of all history, that a disunited and apathetic Western Europe must speedily become " all Cossack." Even suppose, however, that the duty of England and France were less clear in the present painful emergency than we hold it to be, our Peace friends are still bound to show us where they would place that compulsory power which should enforce the decision of their arbitrators. The disgrace of violating solemn treaties Mr. COBDEN speaks of as the punishment of the unmanageaule nation. Why, in the name of common sense, what disgrace can be greater than that now incurred by Russia ? Yet deceit, fraud, low chicane, and burglarious violence, all exposed in the face of the civilised world leave that Power as unabashed as ever. The consciences of nations and their ambitious Governments, like the consciences of corporate bodies, are of well known robustness. Success, the indemnity for too much individual crime, is notoriously the indemnity for political crimes. Russia, for instance, if successful in the present case, would soon, instead of blushing for it, glory that she had outwitted Western Europe, and robbed the Turk. There must we conceive, therefore, even in fair theory, be always sufficient disposable force in the hands of the nations to uphold the law of nations against the attempts of any nation to break it. In practice we are quite confident that statesmen will never feel secure on any other footing. We have always felt, too, that by far the strongest case, irrespective of consequences to the balance of power, is the claim of weaker nations on the help of the strong. Suppose, for argument's sake, that the Divine precept " not to resist evil" should be interpreted as literally as Mr. JOHN BRIGHT or Mr. JOSEPH STURGE desires--suppose we, in consequence, all felt bound religiously to abstain from self-defence by force, it would be quite another question whether we were to abstain from defending against violence our helpless wife or child. We hold that, in every honourable mind, the instinct that impels to protect weakness is of a nobler, more sacred, and more imperative kind than that which bids us protect ourselves. If the most elevated Christianity teaches us to bear much evil patiently ourselves, it does not teach us to bear patiently the sight of others' wrongs. It rather summons us to hazard our lives for their deliverance. We have never seen this argument fairly met by the peace men, yet it is a most important one. Few of them will deny the duty of dying, if needful, in defence of our country's liberty; hardly second to this, not second in the noblest minds, is the duty of risking everything rather than see a weaker nation's liberties murdered before our eyes. We cannot wish for our own country a more honourable, and, as we think, a more Christian mission in Europe than that of the protection of the weaker States. Not of the despots against the peoples, but of the liberty of the States themselves ; and especially their liberty to settle their own domestic quarrels, as we did in the times of the Commonwealth and of