TOPICS OP THE DAY.
WAR WITH SPAIN AND FRANCE.
'ume are appearances as if it were intended to prepare the pub- lic mind in this country for a speedy declaration of war by the British Government against Spain and France. The signs, in- deed, of such a purpose are not very trustworthy—they may be nothing more than journalism guessing at eventualities ; yet one feature in the case is remarkable. In the two principal papers of
• London has been published, in close paraphrase, what is all but a threatened declaration of war against the Spanish and French Governments. The anticipatory versions of a forthcoming Speech from the Throne are scarcely less dissimilar. Extracts from both will be found in another column. Both, it will be seen, call for sympathy from the French Opposition ; both call for resistance in Spain to the Government of that country, upon Narvaez to take the lead in resistance ; both imply the threat that if those efforts to prevent the marriage without foreign intervention or bloodshed should fail, resort will be had to some ulterior coercion. One journal devotes many words in the attempt to coax " this adven- turous soldier," Narvaez, into an enterprise which, it is averred, would " retrieve the past." The other promises him, " fighting for the best cause," a nobler fame than that of " Blucher or Bolivar "1 Either this duplicate composition is traceable to some common origin, or the principal Whir newspaper has for once been the exemPlarfollorved by the Leading Journal patronizing the Whigs. The pretext for the threatened war is, that the Montpensier marriage is a breach of the treaty of Utrecht. We will not stop to inquire whether it is so or not ; though doubts readily suggest themselves. The fundamental basis in that treaty was the fear, that if France and Spain were to become united under one crown, the joint empire would be so formidable as to subjugate all Europe. " C,essante cause, cessat effectus ": such a fear at this day would be the shadow-dreading of madness. Louis Philippe, if he were the same in nature as Louis Quatorze, is not the once absolute Grand Monarque; Spain has no longer the show of power that it had under Philip. Spain and France were never more remote from union than at this moment—oil and water not more so. But if they were conjoined, Spain would in no way add to the strength of France. Spain can neither conquer nor be conquered. If we fear France, we could not desire a more potent diversion of her strength than the nominal possession of the neighbouring kingdom. Algiers would be nothing to it. In losing its use, the treaty of Utrecht has lost its virtue ; .a fact not long since dis- covered by the British Government. What interest has England then in this anticipated renewal of 1840 ? In spite of many differences in the juncture, the resem- blance to that time is most observable. In 1840, Lord Palmerston was in office, and this country was, with much vapouring—nay, something more tangible than vapouring—hurried to the verge of a war with France, about a third nation : in 1841, Lord Pal- merston went out of office, and the war-threats subsided : in 1846, Lord Palmerson is again in office, and again we have threatened war. We are explicitly told that there no longer exists " the now broken spell of the entente cordiale." Who has broken it—who wished to break it—who always grudged its ex- istence ? Not certainly the people of this country : they do not grudge Louis Philippe what Is evidently the object of his search —a rich bride for his fifth son, to whom the French Chambers will allow no " dotation."
What is to be the practical sequel—what advantage is the British Government to take of any of the circumstances imagined by those who call for resistance ? If there were a Carlist rising, and Montpensier were to aid his sister-in-law, is it expected that Lord Palmerston would send auxiliaries to Don Carlos Luis? Is it to be supposed that he, in this quarrel, would drive from her throne his quondam protegee, and help to wrench the sceptre from the hand of Ferdinand's daughter ? Or would he go to war in aid of any other rising? Is it war that is meant, or only words? The question is begged, that the English people would counte- nance hostilities. We are told that no "vulgar considerations," of commercial treaties to wit, would weigh with the so-called "nation of shopkeepers " ; as if the English people were, by an- ticipation to be shamed to acquiesce in a state of relations like that of 1840, with its unpleasant material results. Then our officials bullied, and then the "nation of shopkeepers" had to endure the practical consequences, in the commercial hostility of France. Is the anti-commercial bullying to be renewed at a time when the chief Ministerial paper of France indicates so novel and so cordial a disposition to follow our example in liberalizing the commercial policy of the nation ? Is there any lurking wish to mar that signal tribute to the example set by Sir Robert Peel? Let this matter be distinctly understood. Let not the public be led away by ambiguities. There are some among us who, whether taking instructions from Lord Palmerston or desiring to anticipate his wishes, would attempt to cajole the public into the belief that we ought to go to war about this matrimonial affair, and that the English people would sanction a war of interven- tion. That is not true. The country will not concur in the loss and cost of war, for the abstract " right" of strangers, even if that were undoubted ; and those who drag upon us new "untoward events" will be held responsible. It is due even to the gaily-daring Viscount, that he should not be misled by misrepresentations like this. And at all events, let his colleagues—let the Premier, look to it.
Previous page
