Page:Once a Week Volume 8.djvu/352

344 lawyers was sure to be so severe that the parliament leaders went to town to check their proceedings, and support any judge who might be faithful to his trust. Judge Reeve was one who deserved their support; for, when the assizes came on, he refused to try any man concerned in the riot as for a capital offence, considering the disorder of the time. He would have no hand in shedding any man’s blood for the doings of the day, he declared; but he would punish for mischief-making by imprisonment. The two risings yielded only one victim to the gallows; and the King and his advisers decided among themselves that all obligation to the law was now at an end, and that they must rule by the strong arm. The Lord Deputy went to work afresh in Ireland; the archbishop called his own creatures together in what he called synods, and ordered them to levy contributions from the clergy at his dictation; and the King took his own affairs into his own hands, as he said. It had come to be a measuring of forces between him and the leaders of the Parliament; and the latter had enough to do during that fearful summer. Mr. Hampden and Mr. Pym took a lodging together in London; and there were the plans laid for checking the career of the King’s evil counsellors. There was delivered, by safe hands, the correspondence from all parts of the country which related new grievances, or showed how the preparations for a final demand of a parliament were going on; and thence issued forth encouragements to all good citizens, in and out of office, to hold to their duty in the day of the nation’s trouble. In the consultations held there, and in all places to which he was summoned, Mr. Hampden was as prepared in judgment, and as ready in feeling, as if he had had no interests beyond those of the public: but those who knew him best were aware that he wept through many an hour when others slept; and it was the remark of the lightest among his acquaintance, that from the day of his daughter’s death he had scarcely been seen to smile.

Hermits in town or country—in dim libraries or in the sunny mountains—are apt to profess to have outlived the possibility of being surprised at anything: but there is one thing which even old Hermits may be found wondering at,—as I can testify for one. The misleading power of a false analogy is curiously proved by certain incidents of our time: and the extent to which the mistake has spread, and the influence it has had on the temper of international intercourse, are facts which the most experienced observer need not be above wondering at.

In a passage of his political writings, De Tocqueville once said, in an incidental sort of way, that it did so happen that the view which England takes of any new phase of the world’s affairs, is always that which coincides with her own interest. Some two or three years ago this passage turned up in some political disquisition of the day, and we have since never heard the last of it. Reactionary parties in Germany repeated it to each other with a scornful laugh, when we were speaking as we ought, and not as Lord Russell did last autumn, on the Danish question. The Americans taunted us with it (before their own revolution was declared), in relation to the war in Italy. The French press quotes it against us in regard to our conduct in the Mexican business. The Confederates acted upon it in assuming, without doubt or misgiving, that England would support secession because she must have cotton; and the Federals reckoned on our help on the double ground of our need of corn, and our interest in an anti-slavery policy. We are now certain to hear the old story over again in connexion with the affairs of Poland. Everybody who may be disappointed at our not rushing to arms immediately on behalf of Poland, will quote De Tocqueville’s saying,—without its context, and without considering whether it is true,—that the convictions of England happen always to coincide with her interests; so that, as is usually added, nothing generous or lofty is to be looked for from England.

I will not dwell on M. de Tocqueville’s share in this characterisation of England. I might show, by presenting a letter of his to Mrs. Grote, published in his Remains, what it was precisely that he thought of us when his expressions took this turn. But my present business is with the remarkable extent to which a false analogy has misled shallow critics of English policy in many countries of the world.

The false analogy is in speaking of England as an individual, morally bound, as individuals are, to self-sacrifice for the benefit of others. The distinction between any government, responsible to the people governed, and an individual, responsible as a member of the human race, is lost sight of, and a wholly wrong view of international relations follows of course. This happens partly through the differences between some governments and others. For instance, where a nation commits the whole conduct of its policy to a single ruler, as in Russia, and yet more conspicuously in France under the Empire, the analogy is not altogether false. The Czar and the Emperor stand for the Russian and the French people: and in the latter case the representation is the most true, because the French people have chosen to commit their conduct and their destiny to a despot who acts upon his own ideas and from his own will. At the other extreme, again, the analogy is not altogether false. A self-governing people like the Americans, who constitute their own legislature and executive, can do what they please in any question of foreign policy, can take any side and act upon any notion that gratifies their passion, or fulfils their conviction of the moment. The case of a constitutional state like England is radically different. Britannia is all very well as a personification; but there is not in our islands any single mind judging of the world’s affairs, in order that a single will may take a part for its own gratification,—whether of conscience or imagination or interest.

When our neighbours speak of “England,” they are speaking of the government: and what is our government? It is a group of trustees of