« AnteriorContinuar »
employing her troops and her ships in a manner worthy of the motives which are supposed to inspire the advocates for rational liberty and peace in Europe ; but to make France a direct party to the intervention of Europe in the struggle of the Cross against the Crescent, and to peront her at the same time to go on increasing her army and navy, would be little less than madness.
In a recent discussion in the Chamber of Peers, Marshal Soult declared that so far from recommending the increase of the army, it was his intention to reduce it to the greatest possible extent consistently with the safety of the country. This is a satisfactory pledge as far as it goes, but unfortunately there is a great differ, ence of opinion in France as to what is or is not a sufficient standing force for national security. Even Marshal Soult's estimate on this subject goes far beyond what can reasonably be conceded by other powers. And his estimate is infinitely under that of a powerful party in the Chamber of Deputies. This party, indeed, powerful as it is over public opinion, or that wild feeling in France to which the name of public opinion is given, does not hold the reins of government, nor is it in a majority in the Chamber, but commotion or intrigue may again give to it preponderance, and it is not safe to permit the present government to go on preparing the way for such a faction. The army in France is on a much more extensive footing than can be required for the maintenance of internal tranquillity, so far as it can be maintained by an armed force ; for is there not an army of police in France, and is there not a danger that in the event of serious commotion, a large standing army, siding with the populace, would restore to power the republican leaders who lately threatened to propagandize Europe? There must be some more positive understanding between the French cabinet and the powers of Europe, as to a reduction of the army, than the speeches of Marshal Soult in the Chambers. In the Chamber of Peers, where the advocates of peace are in a large majority, he naturally uses language which has a tendency to tranquillize and to secure votes ; in the Chamber of Deputies he is another man, for there the peace party is not so strong, and he takes care not to pledge himself in so positive a manner to reduction. The struggle in France, however, is not so much for military as for naval supremacy. The internal state of the country, the number of fortresses to be garrisoned, and the necessity of keeping up a supply for Africa, where the French are every year decimated by disease, fatigue and privation, form a plea, such as it is, for keeping up a large military force. There is no such plea for the clamour for the increase of the navy, and yet this is the burthen of all the speeches in both Chambers whenever the position of France in Europe is under discussion. The minister of marine, in replying to a remark of Count Tirlet on the 18th June, that France was infinitely inferior to England in the means of steam warfare, instead of boldly saying, that, considering the number of her colonies, and the extent of her commerce, France had as many war steamers as England, and quite enough for her purpose, asserted, without reference to any such consideration, that the actual number of war steamers of France was greater than that of England; whereas, the truth is, that, power for power, that of England is nearly double. Was the minister of marine ignorant of this fact ? Certainly not, but as he had not nerve enough to say, that the steam navy of France was quite as extensive as it ought to be, considering her rank as a maritime country, he preferred getting rid of the reproach by an unfounded assertion. This assertion, answered by figures, what has the minister to urge against augmentation ? If the finances of England were in so prosperous a state that she could afford to build, two additional war steamers for one that the French might build, she might permit the French to go on building, although she would be increasing her own naval force with no other object than to keep France in check; but she cannot do this, and therefore has a right to demand that the naval force of France shall only be in proportion to her actual wants, or, at any rate, in proportion with that of England, as indicated by the extent of the colonies and the mercantile navy of each country. If Europe is to remain at peace, every nation must have its forces on a peace footing, otherwise there will neither be peace nor security.
Art. IX.-1. Vier Fragen von einem Ost Preussen. (Four Questions
by an East Prussian.) 2. Erörtungen über die dier Fragen. (Remarks on the Four Ques
tions.) It is long since any book has excited so great a sensation in Germany as the little pamphlet entitled “Four Questions." It was usbered mysteriously into the world, and has been rigidly suppressed. The author, Dr. Jacobi, of Königsberg, we believe, has been brought to trial for the somewhat indefinite crime of “offending majesty" (beleidigter Majestät). He has met with great sympathy from the inbabitants of the province, a subscription of eighteen thousand dollars having been raised in his favour. We have read the pamphlet with attention and in an in partial spirit. It does not contain one-twentieth part of the violence of the leading articles in the most temperate of oor political journals. We are aware that it would not be fair to institute a comparison, since, owing to the freedom of discussion in our country, perfectly harmless matter bere might suffice to excite a flame in Germany. A weekly English periodical described the work as containing revoluticnary principles. Nothing can be more unjust. The work is written in a manly and forcible tone; it contains observations on the ministers and bureaucracy of Prussia, written in no friendly spirit, on the trutb of which we do not profess to decide. Nay, it would seem, from the pamphlet which we have placed second on the list at the head of this article, that the extracts from the documents on which Dr. Jacobi founds many of his reasons for discontent, are not correct. But the statements of this commentator must be received with great caution; the evident joy with which he anticipates the condemnation of his opponent, proves him a prejudiced witness. The “Four Questions" demand only what the Prussians bave a right to ask. The late King of Prussia, after the happy deliverance of his country from French tyranny, promised to grant his people a constitution. Stein, a name never to be mentioned without respect, and Hardenberg, were favourers of the measure. Later events, and probably the suggestions of a neighbouring power, may have contributed to alter the intentions of the king, and the people, strong in love to their sovereign and respecting his many excellent qualities, did not press the subject. But the promise had been made, and was never recalled either by the late sovereign or by bis present majesty. It is the perfornance of this promise, made with all the solemnity of a law, and the execution of which was only deferred by the difficulties and delays of the necessary previous arrangements, tbat the author of the “Four Questions” reclaims : and in doing so, he is strictly within the letter of the law. For the sake of Prussia herself, we hope he may be acquitted; for if he be condemned, few indeed will be the strictures which will be admitted to pass free. With respect to the manner in which the book was published, we feel reluctant to make any observations, as we believe the matter is still under examination ; we must therefore leave it to the proper authorities.
The present King of Prussia deservedly bears a very high character. He is universally spoken of as a man of a highly cultivated mind, great
knowledge of business, and of a most amiable disposition. His liberal patronage of learning and the arts deserves honourable mention. Within ibe short period of a year be has collected in bis capital many of the men most eminent for genius and talent. Yet with all this, strange to say, his popularity has confessedly declined. We regret that the timid policy of his advisers should have led to the prosecution of Dr. Jacobi. We are of opinion that the accusation of treason cannot be maintained ; the manner in which Dr. Jacobi speaks of the king is uniformly respecte ful, and tbe majority in the provincial diet proves that he speaks the sentiments of thousands of his neighbours. The tone in which he speaks of the ministers and public officers is not friendly-it may be party coloured--but the event bas sufficiently proved that confiscation and probibition but increase sympathy for the accuseda
Since writing the above remarks, we learn from tbe German papers tbat the king, who intends to make a journey in the autumn to Breslau in Silesia, bas declared bis intention of not accepting any extra public mark of respect from the magistracy or corporation of that city. In the communication of the minister, in which he announces the royal displeasure, be alleges as a reason that his majesty views the directions which the electors of that city had given to their member at the provincial diet, to vote in favour of the constitution, as open opposition. The most recent accounts from the Rhine, where the provincial diet has just commenced its session, apnounce that this province shows the sentiments of Königsberg and Breslau.
We are bound in justice to add, that in the recent sessions of the diets which have just been closed, the king has shown a sincere desire to render these meetings more extensively useful. Whether he wishes to prepare the people gradually for the introduction of greater political freedom, or whether he thinks that political development is not necessarily connected with any definite constitution, in the English sense of the term, time must show. The public attention in Germany is at this moment directed with some interest to the opening diet of the Rbine provinces, which bas only commenced sitting after the conclusion of most of the other provincial assemblies. The inhabitants are said to be strongly attacbed to a liberal form of government, and the king will then be in possession of the wishes of the people, communicated by such organs as the present constitution of Prussia allows.
Art. X.-Moritz, Herzog und Churfürst zu Sachsen. Eine Darstellung
aus dem Zeitalter der Reformation, von Dr. F. A. von Langenn, &c. (Maurice, Duke and Elector of Saxony. By Dr. von Langenn.)
Erster Theil, mit Moritz's Bildniss. Leipsic. 1841. The principal features in the life and character of Prince Maurice are familiar to the English public from the impartial account of Robertson. The part which this prince, undoubtedly the most able of those who figured at this period of the Reformation, played in the affairs of Germany, is prominent, and bis actions stand before tbe world so strongly marked, that we can hardly expect any new light to be thrown upon the actions themselves. All that we can possibly hope for is, that, by a diligent investigation of the archives, the motives by which this extraordinary and able prince was influenced may be somewbat more clearly developed. Maurice appears as one of the most singular epigmas in bistory. Scarcely of age when he came to the government of his own dominions, he renounced the league of Smalcalden, although most sig. cerely attached to the Protestant religion ; involved in differences with bis kinsman Jobn Frederic, he usurped his throne when he had been deprived of bis possessions by an arbitrary and unjust decree of Charles the Fifth. Such conduct might seem to justify the extreme abuse and distrust of the Protestants, when lo, be rises as the champion of the Protestant cause, and the emperor narrowly escapes being the prisoner of his former confidant. He died in battle at the age of thirty-three, having reigned twelve short years ; nor, when we consider his character and abilities, does the remark of a Saxon historian seem improbable, that had he lived, Germany might have been spared many of the horrors of the thirty years' war. Providence, bowever, had decreed otherwise.
In order to attain a just opinion of the character of Maurice, we must judge bim not according to abstract notions of right or wrong, but according to the temper and colouring of the times in which he lived. In the short notice to which we must confine ourselves, we shall select bis difference with his kinsman John Frederic, as the most intricate and interesting feature. For historians are pretty unanimous respecting his defence of the Protestants against the emperor and bis league with the French. The patriotism of recent writers bas occasionally taken fire at his union with that people, but we must not forget that Maurice, who bad Jived on terms of intimacy with the emperor, was better acquainted with tbe resources of that monarch tban many of the other German princes. And the event proved that the alliance was entered upon more with a view to frighten the emperor than to allow the French a prominent part in the affairs of Germany.
But in his differences with the elector, his conduct at first sight appears open to great suspicion, nor does Dr, von Langenn, who writes with impartiality, acquit Maurice of ambition. There are two points of view, which must not be lost sight of in considering this period of the Reformation, the former of which bas naturally escaped the attention of foreign historians; we mean the question of territorial supremacy, and the different view of the Reformation entertained by the Protestants. In both these respects the characters of the two princes presented a distinct contrast with each other. The dominions of the Saxon princes had been divided into two parts about half a century before the period of which we are speaking ; the elder, according to Saxon law, making the division, and the younger choosing which of the proposed parts he might prefer. To prevent the possibility, or ratber to augment the difficulties of intestine feuds, many important subjects had been left common to the two lines (of Albert and Ernest). Yet this very measure, as might easily have been foreseen, but bastened the civil war. It seems an established fact, that John Frederic had allowed himself rights