Peace by treaty is only a cessation of
violence for a reformation of sentiment. It is a substitute for a
principle that is wanting and ever will be wanting till the idea of
national honor be rightly understood. As individuals we profess
ourselves Christians, but as nations we are heathens, Romans, and what
not. I remember the late Admiral Saunders declaring in the House of
Commons, and that in the time of peace, "That the city of Madrid
laid in ashes was not a sufficient atonement for the Spaniards
taking off the rudder of an English sloop of war." I do not ask
whether this is Christianity or morality, I ask whether it is decency?
whether it is proper language for a nation to use? In private life
we call it by the plain name of bullying, and the elevation of rank
cannot alter its character. It is, I think, exceedingly easy to define
what ought to be understood by national honor; for that which is the
best character for an individual is the best character for a nation;
and wherever the latter exceeds or falls beneath the former, there
is a departure from the line of true greatness.
I have thrown out this observation with a design of applying it to
Great Britain. Her ideas of national honor seem devoid of that
benevolence of heart, that universal expansion of philanthropy, and
that triumph over the rage of vulgar prejudice, without which man is
inferior to himself, and a companion of common animals. To know who
she shall regard or dislike, she asks what country they are of, what
religion they profess, and what property they enjoy.
Pages:
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154