THE MORALITY OF DESTRUCTION.

Colonist, Volume II, Issue 190, 16 August 1859, Page 2

THE MORALITY OF DESTRUCTION.

' ( From the Saturday Review.) ■ ' There are few more curious problems than that which was raised by a letter which appeared iri the Times from Dr. Lardner, describing, certain ne\vly-invented chemical compounds, which it was said might be made available for warlike purposes on a scale altogether frightful to think of. It is possible, we are told, to charge shells with gases which, if they came in contact with the atmospheric air, would immediately evolve in all'directions clouds of white arsenic and prussic acid,* to the certain death of all wlio breathed them. It ia possible, by similar means, to set fire to an army, a fleet, or a town, as you might light a lucifer match. It is possible to go half a mile to windward of an army, and by the help of a few bottles of poisonous gas, convert the wind into an agent of destruction as deadly as that which destroyed the host of the Assyrians, All these things, it seems, we can do. Why, it may be asked, should abstain? We are by no means prepared to answer the question. It is one which, to our apprehension, has never yet received a full, and satisfactory answer} but it involves difficulties which are at least curious, and .which may be instructive. Assuming that the object of war is to inflict the maximum of injury on the enemy, to destroy hi 3 resources, and to cripple his strength, "can any principle be suggested which is to restrain'us from any and every means to this end ? Population is a great element of strength. So is wealth. So are all natural or artificial advantages. Are we, therefore, justified in doing our utmost to destroy all these things in an, enemy's country? Would it be right to burn the towns, to slaughter men # women and children, to desti-03*, if possible, the ports, to cut thedykcs by which rivers are damned up, and to lay the country under water—iii si word, to exterminate/human society and all its results from the face of the earth'? Such consequences are of course monstrous and indefensible, nor can they even' be stated without a certain ' horror; but it is not so easy to say. why' they are monstrous* They are surely legitimate ap*plica-> tions of the principle which we have laid down, and if that principle is true, the conclusions would seem to follow inexorably. .The only escape from them lies, in the belief that the principle itself ou which they depend is not. tenable; and the universal sentiment of mankind—a sentiment which is deepened by the growth of all kindly and wise feelings—seems to favor this view ofthe case. Expe* rience alone can fully shew what are the objects of war,and whatare the means hy which'they can be attained in the most effectual and least objectionable manner; but .we may confidently assert that in modern times mutual extermination is not the object which belligerent nations propose to -themselves. If, during the last war, Russia had suddenly ceased to exist, we should have felt that'the occurrence was lamentable, and similar sentiments would probably have been excited in Russia, if such a fate had overtaken France or England. Ifc is no doubt an inexact, andon many grounds a very objectionable,, way of speaking, to say that all 'European nations form one society which has its laws like any other body politic, for where the te is no» common superior there can be no law in the strict sense of that word. But the employment of such expressions, inexact and inappropriate a3 they'are, may be tolerated as a mode of conveying the truth, that tlie existence of a variety of independent nations is a benefit to each individual nation, and that in wars between them that benefit ought, not to be lost sight of. The strength of this feeling is measured by tlie gradual elaboration of an indefinite but powerful sentiment as to the extent to which hostilities may be carried. The sentiment itself has existed to some extent from very early times, hut it varies in a very remarkable manner according to the temper of different countries and different generations. The humanities of war are exactly like the conventional standard of'politeness. As you may say, " I cannot," but must not say, " I will not," so you are quite at liberty to cut a man into shreds with a shell, to blow him up.and bury him alive in a mine, or to run a bayonet into any part of his body which may, come in your way; but you mupt nqt poison the water which he drinks," nor force him to surrender by threatening to hang-his wile or shootjils children* or even by burning his private property, unless it happens to be on board-ship. The difference is merely conventional; it rests on no plain principle whatever; but the -analogy of politeness conclusively proves that it isnot on that account im materia 1. Indeed/questions of-degreer (which are often rriosfc important) must always be solved, if at all, by the i experimental and conventional process. .Why is it right to hang a murderer, and not right t« burn him alive? Why may you transport a man for life, and not cut off. liis arms and legs? .Why may you express indignation at-an insult, and not spit in the -face of the man who insults you ? Simply because,the dislike of society at large to violent measures has risen so high on-tlie social thermometer and no higher. t The question is one of compromise between opposite impulses, and not 1 one of principle at all. . . It ought, however, to be observed, that as there 1 are such things as good and" bad manners, so,'there are such things as sensible and.foolish compromises ; and we own that in respect to war, the one at present in force appears to us to bp not a very wise one. If you put liquid fire into & hollow rifle bullet, aud fire it into a tent, whereby the men inside will be either- smothered or burnt, it does seem a little absurd to bo squeamish about putting poisonous ga'4 into a glass bottle for a similar purpose. The most sensible compromise that we can suggest is, that the'distinction between combatants and non-combatants—which^ is in principle perfectly groundless, though practice has proved its great convenience—should be^. taken as ■ the governing* principle in all military "matters* Lejt it be understood that actual physical force shall only bo applied to combatants, bu^ that on them it shall be exerted iv its most decisive form*. " Strong be the arm and shaTp the blow* And short the.pang to undergo.". Let contending parties fight with-every weapon which science can supply—with pQ.sonc.as aa well

as with explosive gases, with fire in its new shapes as well as in its old ones. In writing thus, we believo that we recommend what is substantially the most1 Immune course, but we are by no means disposed to divide as mciv prejudice the reluctance which many people would fool to adopt it. Systematic slaughter is so horrible a thing that if^in ■carrying it out, there are modes of procedure whichare detested and avoided by the common sentiment "of mankind, we could only look upon the cff.ct of sre i a feeling as being,' for the time, so much clear gain for the world. So long as it listed, it ■would bo at woist a generous and not unfortunate inconsistency—producing, in its encouragement i>f kindly feeling, far more good than the harm it "would produce by causing imperfections in the execution of a task which, however necessary js the most frightf jl t;ibk in the we.l 1. It may bo quite true that by refusing or neglecting (o poison twenty men on some particular occasion, it might .be made necessary to shoot fifty or sixty more tli'an would otherwise have been,shot at some subsequent time; but the consequence would not be an obvious one, and the agents in the one case .would "possibly fuel themselves cowardly murderers, whilst^ m the other, they would only feel that they had done their duty. 'There aro things "more precious than life and limb, and so long as in . ;'point of fact a general sen'iment condemns particular methods of destroying people's lives, it ought to be carefully respected. We feiir it is a mere romantic dream that war will ever be subjected to a 'reducfio ad absurdum,' and that armies will be incapacitated from fighting, because certain and universal destruction would 'be the consequence of an engagement, but few speculations can be so curious as the inquiry which this dream suggests. What would become of. human, society,' if {he lives of millions were at the mercy•oif'lany. one who chose to take *them ? Suppose a man was to take his stand in the middle of Trafalgar Square, and announce to the, passers-by that, being absolutely desperate he had provided himself with a large bottle of the gas which Dr. Lardner describes—and that, unless ho received an adequate ransom in a certain time, he would break it on the payment, and put to death every person within half a mile of him. "Or, to vary the supposition, suppose for some days explosions of such bottles had taken place in "Various parts of London, and had caused many deaths, and an advertisement were to appear de- • manding that so many thousand pounds should be deposited in such a place as the only conditionon which the plague could be stayed, how would "the demand be resisted ? Or, if we suppose the invention Applied not only to war, but to politics, how could any government be carried, on? AH governments rest ultimately upon physical force, even the best and freest, and 4he great, guarantee of all good government Ties in the fact that common sense shows the necessity of upholding authority by the strong Tiand, if need requires it. Our own Government is the strongest in the world foi* certain purposes, simply because almost every man in the country would support it in effecting those purposes, if his ;aid were called for. All this would be at an end, if individuals were suddenly to become physically stronger than the rest of the world. No more frightful state of society, if indeed it could be palled by that name, can be imagined than one in which any one might, by the aid of a little chemical skill and a small quantity of apparatus, change the whole condition of human affairs by.producing effects compared with which war, pestilence, and famine are sjight evils. No very wonderful combination of circumstances would be necessary to 'bring history to a close by one enormous act of suicide, and murder. There would be a sort of 'Stupendous irony about such a climax which is not unpoetical. The day after the catastrophe, , when the sun would rise on empty streets, drifting • ships, and silent fields, with a broken bottle in the as the eau.ce of the catastrophe, would perhaps be even more grotesque than tremendous, if any one were left to witness it.