are, for the most part, in close sympathy with one another, are generally desirous of overcoming the narrow prejudices which are often mistaken for patriotism, are sincerely eager to assimilate the better institutions of other countries, and are eminently favorable to every form of political and commercial union between their own States, and States in the enjoyment of more advanced institutions than those at home.
The bearing of these unquestionable facts on the tendency to War in modern society is obvious enough. The mere fact that it is impossible for a modern civilized State to go to War, or at least to maintain a War, unless the Government can so far conciliate a popularly-constituted Assembly as to procure the necessary supplies, has the effect of launching the vital topic of how the War arose into the field of public discussion of the most serious and responsible kind, and also of making every War, in reality as well as in form, to be waged by the whole people, acting through their freely elected representatives, and not by the Government alone. These two facts cannot but have a most decisive influence on the frequency and on the duration of Wars, though the character of the influence may undoubtedly for a time be somewhat ambiguous. It is no doubt true that where a Government can shift its responsibility on to a large political Assembly, in which its own influence is at once concealed and overwhelming, it may be more ready to engage in a hazardous War than where itself must bear the whole onus of responsibility from first to last. It is also true Through the passion for War is easily stirred in a nation, yet — that the War-fever can be very easily roused in a country, and in no way can the rhetoric of daily journals and platform orators be turned to more successful and pernicious use than in that of creating a maddening fanaticism for War. A partially civilized people is perhaps quite as warlike as the most bellicose of Governments.[1]
- ↑ The following remarks of the Duke of Argyle may here be appositely quoted: "It is always in the power of any Executive Government to get the country into a position out of which it cannot escape without fighting. This is the terrible privilege of what, in the language of our Constitution, is called the Prerogative. It is, in reality, the privilege of every Executive, whether of monarchial or of popular origin. I am not one of those who are of opinion that it could be lodged elsewhere with advantage, or even with any safety. The majorities which support a strong Government in power are invariably more reckless than the Ministry. In this Eastern Question, wrong and injurious as I think their policy has been, it has been wise and moderate as compared with the language of many of its supporters in both Houses of Parliament. I have too vivid a recollection of the difficulty which was experienced by the Cabinet of Lord Aberdeen in moderating within reasonable bounds the excitement of the country, to place the smallest confidence in any scheme for checking, through some popular agency, the action of the responsible advisers of the Crown. They are always, after all, through a process of 'natural selection,' the ablest men of the party to which they belong. Except under very rare conditions, they are more disposed, and are more able, to look all round them than any other body in the State." — The Eastern Question, from 1856 to 1878, and to the Second Afghan War. By the Duke of Argyle. Vol. ii. p. 519.
