NEW MODE OF BEATING THE FRENCH.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 101, 11 December 1852, Page 5

NEW MODE OF BEATING THE FRENCH.

[From the " Times."]

There are propositions in themselves so monstrous as to defy all argument; and there are others, equally absurd, which escape ridicule from the sanctity of the subjects with which they deal. Suppose a disputant to assert that it is rational, decorous, and praiseworthy for a grown man to stand peacefully by, while a band of soldiers cut the throats of his sons and violated the persons of his daughters. Is it not somewhat hard to encounter him according to the rules of logic ? " Sir," said a madman to a visitor of the assyluni in which he was confined,. " can you inform me, if King Darius were to win the next Derby upon a dromedary, why I shouldn't have boiled pork and pease pudding for my dinner to day ?" Suppose again the same disputant seriously to affirm that the Christian religion imperatively demands the sacrifice of our country to the first invader; to quote texts of Scripture in support of his position ; to involve in every third or fourth paragraph of the discussion names which are not pronounced without reverence by any body of Christians; it is equally clear that we cannot approach the subject in the same spirit as though we were dealing with the extravagancies of a Protection meeting or the records of an Irish deliberative assembly. We feel pretty much what any body must have felt who has listened to the religious ravings of an uneducated fanatic at Parsons-green, or upon Hamps-tead-heath. Now, both these considerations apply to a pamphlet which has been forwarded to us with the title of "The Rifle Club ; being a Manual of Duty for Soldiers, whether Regulars, Militia, or Volunteers, &c." It is the identical pamphlet from which Lord Palmerston read some quotations to the Lower House in the course of the discussion upon the Militia Bill. Our first idea, we confess, was that the Ex-Secretary for foreign affairs, in his love for a joke, had rather intended to amuse the House than to deal with a sober reality. It looked vei-y much as though he were either the victim or the originator of a hoax. A perusal of the pamphlet has, however, convinced us that nothing was more serious than the author's intention^ recommending us to adopt the principle of non-resistance. Let tbe French land, and only see what we will do with them then. The Chasseurs de Vincennes are to be made heartily

ashamed of their conduct by the mere spectacle of our peaceful demeanour. Where they looked for bullets they are to find foaming tankards of ale. Where they expected to meet with ranks of bristling bayonets they will encounter nothing more terrible than sections of moral barmaids with grave looks of rebuke upon their iaces and little tracts upon the sinfulness of war in their hands. Consider the effect of such a demonstration upon the mind of a French sapeur ! What suppressed sacres at the wickedness of his own conduct will issue from the depths of his shaggy beard? How quickly will the vivandiere of the regiment turn from the error of her ways ; cut off the supplies of grog; lengthen her petticoats ; sue for affiliation at the gates of the Folkestone Bethesda ; and begin to take a lively interest in the discussion upon the Maynooth grant? It is certainly agreeable to find that we have among us a person endowed with such a faculty of second sight as the author of this remarkable pamphlet. He writes: —" I seem to see in my mind the whole transaction as though it had already happened. An army of 250,000 Frenchmen lands in England, and the English people are so imbued with Christian principle, with the principle ' that they are to do violence to no man,' that they offered no armed opposition to the invaders. *' * * They would certainly be astonished to find themselves in possession of an unresisting country which they expected to conquer inch by inch ; and as they progressed towards the capital, and helped themselves on their march to the cakes and ale of the unresisting inhabitants, they would some of them feel ashamed of themselves as they crept like thieves into houses, and abstracted stealthily, but without let or hinderance, the stored-up food of the peasants." Let them march up to London and take possession of the capital—shut up the Houses of Parliament and Courts of Law—what is that to us ? Let the Queen be packed off to the Isle of Skye, and the mere edicts of the French President become the law of the laud. Let the Protestant churches be closed, and a whole rabblement of priests and friars be turned loose upon the people. Nothing could occur which would be of slighter importance. The peaceful Englishman would -wink at his neighbour with a pleasant wink as they passed arm in arm before any evidence of the new state of things. Their mirth indeed might be tempered with regret, for it would be a sorrowful sight to witness the spiritual backslidings of an ingenious and energetic people like the French. We could not —despite all our Christian charity—occasionally refrain from considering the red-breeched cast-away much in the same light as we now regard the m,auvais sujets of our acquaintance who drink hard, sport hard, and swear hard. Upon this ground ,we object to the author's theory. Granted that all the consequences he anticipates form our peaceful demeanour would actually ensue; granted that the French would, before five years had elapsed, sneak out of the country very heartily ashamed of their outrageous proceedings; granted that the French Govgrnment would speedily despatch an embassy laden with money bags and lachrymatories and implore us to receive restitution of all the money they had plundered, together with all the tears they had shed over their own guilt; granted that the Emperor Nicholas would take to field-preach-ing instead of field days, and that the young Austrian Emperor would wander about with him and give out the psalms; still we see one hitch in the theory—one consideration which must give us pause. Were we to adopt the course of conduct recommended, it would engender so much spiritual pride in the hearts of the English people that to our notion, even according to the author's point of view, we had better incur the contingencies of a protracted war. We should become a nation of Pharisees and " Pecksniffs." By a constant comparison of our own condicion with that of these forlorn Frenchmen we might be in most danger of a fall when we thought our footing was the roost secure—indeed we might! Then again—it is still from the author's point of view we consider the subject—we cannot but think it would be our duty to prevent the commission of such dire offences by all the means in our power. We should be bound to shoot our French brethren down out of mere regard to the health of their souls. Surely, could we be assured that any young man was about to engage in a career of violence and dissipatiou for five years, it would be a mercy that he were struck down at the outset ere his

soul had been steeped and drenched in crime. We say, then, that it would be an imperative duty upon us—for the sake of the invaders, and not out of any low consideration connected with our own safety or temporal comfort, calmly and firmly to shoot down these misguided men ere they had been able to consummate their intended crimes. Our hearts might bleed, our eyes might overflow with brine, but the thing must be done. Finally, we have a serious quarrel with the author of this pamphlet. He tells us that when remorse had done its worst upon the hearts of the poor Frenchmen, and they had sent back the fifty millions they had plundered, " the English would not accept it. So the French were done again, and all the nations of the world were astonished." We tremble at the writer's frame of mind. Is this the way in which he would welcome back the strayed lambs to the fold ? Is this his notion of Christian charity and benevolence ? No, at least we must take the fifty millions hack, send the French penitents for awhile to hear the discussions at Exeter-hall, and then have a solemn jollification in honour of their conversion.