Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Vol. 66, No 409, November 1849Various
History
Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Vol. 66, No 409, November 1849
Various
England -- Periodicals; Scotland -- Periodicals
We had not the good fortune to be present on that occasion; but, from
the accounts contained in the morning papers, it must have been an
assemblage of a singularly motley kind. There was a considerable muster
of Radical members of parliament; the Financial Reform and the Peace
Associations were respectively represented; Lord Nugent and Mr Milnes
stood forth as delegates from the Bards of Britain; Julian Harney and
Mr G. W. M. Reynolds headed a numerous band of Chartists; and Lord
Dudley Stuart, as a matter of course, was surrounded by a whiskered
phalanx of Poles, Hungarians, Italians, Germans, and Sicilians, each
one striving to look more patriotically ferocious than his neighbour.
The first sympathetic resolution was moved by a Quaker, and seconded
by no less a person than Richard Cobden, who had only been prevented
from attending the previous debate in the House of Commons by a
swan-hopping expedition on the Thames.
Then it was that Mr Cobden first favoured the world with some
economical views, so exceedingly novel and startling, as to excite,
even in that audience, unequivocal symptoms of incredulity. He set
out by laying it down as a general rule, that every separate state
ought to be left to the management of its own affairs, without the
interference of any foreign power whatever. "If," said he, "this had
been a question simply between Hungary and Austria, I should not have
appeared here to-day, nor indeed would it have been necessary for any
of us to have appeared here to-day. So long as the Hungarians were
left to settle their affairs with the government of Vienna, they were
perfectly competent to do it, without the interference of the citizens
of London." This is intelligible enough. So long as central governments
are merely fighting with their own dependencies, there is no room at
all, according to Mr Cobden, for interference. It matters not which
side prevails: they must be left wholly to themselves. This doctrine
could not, we think, have been very acceptable to the Poles; since it
amounts to an entire admission that Russia has a right to deal with
them at her pleasure; neither is it altogether consistent with our
ideas, or interpretation of the law of nations. But it is Cobden's
view, and therefore let it pass, to him, then, it mattered nothing
whether Goth or Hun prevailed--it was the intervention of Russia that
peremptorily called him to the platform. Now we must own, that we
cannot understand this sort of reasoning, though it may possibly be
suited to the capacities of a Manchester audience. If, as many people
no doubt conscientiously believe, Austria was trampling upon the
liberties of a brave and loyal people, not only justice, but humanity
demands that our sympathies should be enlisted on their side. We cannot
acquiesce in a doctrine which would have left the Greeks (lamentably
small sense as they have shown of the benefits of liberty) to toil on
for ever under the grievous yoke of the Ottoman: nor are we prepared
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account