History of the war in the Peninsula and in the south of France from the year 1807 to the year 1814, vol. 5Napier, William Francis Patrick
History
History of the war in the Peninsula and in the south of France from the year 1807 to the year 1814, vol. 5
Napier, William Francis Patrick
Peninsular War, 1807-1814
This passage is, by the younger Mr. Perceval, pronounced to be
utterly untrue, because bark is only _one medicine_, and not
_medicines_; because there was no raging deadly general pestilence in
France at the time; and because the measure was only retaliation for
Napoleon’s Milan and Berlin decrees, a sort of war which even Quakers
might wink at. What the extent of a Quaker’s conscience on such
occasions may be I know not, since I have heard of one, who, while
professing his hatred of blood-shedding, told the mate of his ship
that if he did not port his helm, he would not run down his enemy’s
boat. But this I do know, that Napoleon’s decrees were retaliation
for our paper blockades; that both sides gave licenses for a traffic
in objects which were convenient to them, while they denied to
unoffending neutrals their natural rights of commerce; that to war
against hospitals is inhuman, unchristianlike, and uncivilized, and
that the avowal of the principle is more abhorrent than even the
act. The avowed principle in this case was to distress the enemy. It
was known that the French were in great want of bark, therefore it
was resolved they should not have it, unless Napoleon gave up his
great scheme of policy called the continental system. Now men do
not want Jesuit’s bark unless to cure disease, and to prevent them
from getting it, was literally to war against hospitals. It was no
metaphor of Mr. Whitbread’s, it was a plain truth.
Oh! exclaims Mr. Perceval, there was no deadly raging general
pestilence! What then? Is not the principle the same? Must millions
suffer, must the earth be cumbered with carcasses, before the
christian statesman will deviate from his barbarous policy? Is a
momentary expediency to set aside the principle in such a case? Oh!
no! by no means! exclaims the pious minister Perceval. My policy is
just, and humane; fixed on immutable truths emanating directly from
true religion, and quite consonant to the christian dispensation;
the sick people shall have bark, I am far from wishing to prevent
them from getting bark. God forbid! I am not so inhuman. Yes, they
shall have bark, but their ruler must first submit to me. “Port
thy helm,” quoth the Quaker, “or thee wilt miss her, friend!” War
against hospitals! Oh! No! “I do not war against the hospital, I see
the black flag waving over it and I respect it; to be sure: I throw
my shells on to it continually, but that is not to hurt the sick,
it is only to make the governor capitulate.” And this is the pious
sophistry by which the christian Mr. Perceval is to be defended!
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account