ETHICS OF REBELLION.
LITTLE did we imagine that we were qualifying ourselves for the companionship of MILTON'S damned spirits, when we hazarded the assumption, that as the Canadians preferred danger and death to ton (ger submission to the British sway, they had some real griev- ances to complain of, some serious wrongs to resent. But the Standard has been at pains to illustrate by poetry and prose the enormity of what it is pleased to call " the newest, but not the least startling, discovery in morals." Positively, we should have ex- pected rather to be told that the remark was trite. Here is the passage which is supposed to include the philosophy fit for the exercise of' the metaphysical devils- " This is not the place for a detailed enumeration of the Canadian grievances; but it may be observed, in passing, that the apologists for the misgovernment which hasgoaded the colonists into insurrection, have advanced nothing sub- versive of the d priori argument in favour of their right of resistance, derived from the fact that they encounter fire and sword, and every kind of suffering, rather than submit to our sway. It is labour in vain to tell us that the Cana- dian grievances are only imaginative, or theoretical. They are of such a nature that the men whom they touch will risk their lives in the attempt to obtain relief from them."
In the Standard's ethical lecture, the cloven foot of the old Tory doctrine of non-resistance appears- " According to the doctrine laid down in the first paragraph quoted, the presumption is always in fueour of the rebel—prima fade, at least, every re- bellion is its own justification. They who encounter fire and sword, and every kind of privation, rather than submit to the sway ' under which they are placed, must be supposed to suffer grievances that are neither imaginative nor theoretical,'—a most convenient doctrine, no doubt, for rebellion ; but does it bear the test of experience? Is it clear from history that nations, parties, and individuals, never expose themselves to the dangers of fire, sword, and pri. vations,' except defensively ? Just now there is a fair exchange of fire, sword, and privation,' between the two great divisions of Christinos and Carlists in Spain. One of these parties—we do not undertake to say which—is a rebel patty : now, we beg to ask the Spectator, of what practical grievance has either party to complain ? Six years ago there was a rebellion in Bristol, with quite enough of fire, sword, and privation,' to be encountered by the rebels: what was their practical grievance ? We say nothing of 'Ireland now, because we know that the mountaineers of Sligo, and the hogtrotters of Longford, are groaning under the privations of the expectant Town.Cuuncillors of Cork and Dublin ; but what were the practical grievances of the Irish in 1641, when the only plausible excuse that the rebels could oiler for insurrectiou and murder, was the intention of the Ellp/isk Parliament (there was no rube, then) to ex- terminate them ? But if rebellion is always to he its own det■A ce, why not other crimes? Pirates and burglars expose themselves to fire, sword, and privation,' always—murderers sometimes. Are piracy, burglary, tad murder, therefore to be presumed innocent?"
It is tolerably clear from history, that the result of an insurrec- tion fixes the character it is to bear in the future at nals of na- tions. A defeated insurrection is a rebellion; a succe sful one a glorious revolution. At the present day, the oppress( rs of Ca- nada admit that the people of the United States had a justifiable cause of resistance to the Mother Country by arms : why ?—be- cause they were victorious in the contest. Had J AMES Ihe Second triumphed, does anybody doubt that the Orange party v ould have been considered just as much rebels as the Highlia.ders who went out in the '45? It sounds something like a j ke to ask whether the Spaniards have practical grievances to c mplain of. Eschewing with the Standard the question of which I arty is the rebellious faction, and esteeming the worthlessness of loth to be on a par, we are quite willing that in this instance, act ording to the general rule, the conquerors should be deemed to have the righteous cause. The Standard's historical illustrations have not been lucky. Even the Bristol riot must be charged to thi imbecility and insolence of the local authorities, who gave an ex( ited popu- lace needless provocation, and quailed when a little resolution would have put down the disturbance. But there is ju. t as much analogy between the Bristol riot and the Canadian in. urrection, as between Lord GEoara: Goa no N's row and the rev. It against " Popery, Prelacy, and Arbitrary Power," in 1685. Prudent Englishmen will say little about the Irish amass( . e of 1641. Dark and bloodstaintd is that pa *e of our history : a if oppres- sion is ever a justification of rebellion, the Irish have L d the apo- logy ever since they became subject to this country.t„ The fear even of extermination was not groundless in the days of Czoit- waLL.
It is asked whether " piracy, burglary, and murder " are to be presumed innocent, seeing that the perpetrators of these offenses
incur danger ? The reply is, that by the common consent of
mankind " piracy, burglary, and murder" are atrocious crimes; but as to rebellion very different notions prevail. Even the Standard will justify the rising of the Poles against the Russian savage, and the expulsion of JAMES the Second to make way for the Dutchman of " glorious, pious, and immortal memory." It is an unsatisfactory mode of disposing of a question, to deter- mine that the prosperous are right, the defeated wrong. But it is a puzzle to fix on any other which will meet with more general acquiescence. It it is admitted that practical grievances, of some kind or another, furnish a valid cause for resistance to the esta- blished government : the question arises, what is the sufficient practical grievance? CESAR told the friend who reproached him for putting away his wife, that the wearer of a shoe alone could tell where it pinched him ; and thus what appears a trivial evil to one person is intolerable to another. It is, however, ungracious in Englishmen to reproach the Canadians with merely factious discontent, for the chief stimulus of the Canadian insurgents is precisely of the same kind as that which Englishmen would themselves feel most acutely. Nobody believes that the Govern- ment in this country would be permitted to pillage the Exche- quer in defiance of the House of Commons : such a violation of the law has been heretofore considered, and would be held again, a sufficient excuse for resistance—nay, it would make rebellion a duty. Seeing the impossibility of laying down an infallible rule, or establishing an unfailing criterion for determining the justice or wrongfulness of rebellion,—and observing, too, that even an ex• amination of the peculiar circumstances of each insurrection, in most instances leaves the main question unsettled,—we incline to hold by the opinion, that when a large portion of the people attack their government, suffer privations of the most dreadful kind, and peril their lives in the attempt to overthrow it, their resistance is prima facie evidence of the badness of the government and (i priori proof of the righteousness of the rebellion.
Previous page
