THE

EDINBURGH REVIEW,

APRIL, 1842.

No. CLI.

ART. I.--Die Deutschen Voelker Persoenlich betrachtet.--(The German Nations considered as Individuals. 2 vols. 8vo. Tubingen: 1841.

THE

HE local nature of the work which we have prefixed to this article, has led the writer into details comparatively uninteresting to a British public; but the subject which he has partially treated is one of great and advancing interest. We agree with him, that the great and permanent bodies which now constitute nations, have assumed, in their mutual relations, an individual character; and that while, under the influence of their increasing intercourse, the mere external peculiarities of the inhabitants of different countries are becoming obliterated, peculiarities in the public conduct of those countries are becoming more marked. The manners of an Englishman and a Frenchman differed much more in the seventeenth century than they do at present. But the conduct of the two countries as nations, their behaviour towards each other, and towards other independent communities, was then much more governed by similar causes than it is now. In fact, until within a very short period, the conduct of a nation, as a nation, depended principally on the accident of the character of the king, or of the minister. cession of warlike kings made Denmark a military power; a suc

VOL. LXXV. NO. CLI.

A

cession of quiet half-witted sovereigns reduced her to political nullity. Under Richelieu, France was intriguing and ambitious; under Fleury, she was careless and pacific. But now, that in almost every country the people interfere in public affairs, often direct them, and almost always influence them, the conduct of a nation must always be affected, and often is governed, by the general disposition of the millions who constitute it: it becomes a permanent reflection of the national character, and is tinged with all the peculiarities with which climate, race, religion, institutions, and past history, have coloured that character. In former times, the conduct of a nation could be best predicted by considering the feelings and habits of the individuals who presided over its councils. The principal elements of such a calculation are now drawn from the character of the people itself. Our ancestors at one time feared the ambition of Louis, and at another relied on the courage of Frederic. We dread the ambition of France, and rely on the prudence of Prussia.

The most remarkable exceptions to this rule are to be found in Russia and Austria. The conduct of each of these empires has often appeared to depend on the peculiarities of an individual. The death of Alexander, and the succession of Nicholas, altered the whole tone of Russian politics-they are still affected by the personal dislike of Nicholas to Louis Philippe; and the prudent and pacific behaviour of Austria, is mainly attributable to the wisdom of Metternich. But this is accounted for when we recollect, that Russia and Austria are the empires least affected by the popular voice. In both of them, as far as foreign relations are concerned, the people are nothing-the government is every thing. On the other hand, in the three great countries which enjoy the most popular institutions-the British Empire, France, and the United States of America-the character of the government for the time being has, under ordinary circumstances, little influence on the public conduct of the nation. A vain, or a rash, or a litigious, or a procrastinating minister, may indeed bring either of them into difficulty; but if the nation do not share his faults, he will be driven from power, and a successor appointed for the express purpose of retracing his steps. Of course, we do not mean to affirm that the public conduct of any of these communities is uninfluenced by the personal qualities of the statesmen for the time being in power; especially if those qualities are, as was lately the case in France, and perhaps in the United States, an exaggeration of the national peculiarities; but we affirm that those qualities, though not positively, are comparatively unimportant. In short, that whereas formerly the character of the minister determined the conduct of the

nation, now the character of the nation determines the conduct of the minister,

For the purpose both of estimating the future prospects of the civilized world, and of deciding what ought to be the course of our own policy, it is therefore important to consider what are the characteristics by which these three great powers are distinguished in their public conduct towards other civilized states; in order that we may ascertain the chances of peace, and the means by which it may be promoted-and the chances of war, and the means by which it may be averted. We use the words 'public conduct,' because it is only as respects their public conduct that nations can be treated as persons. The enterprises of individuals, unsanctioned by their government, do not commit the nation. It is the duty, of course, of every government to do all that it can to prevent any of its subjects from injuring those of other governments in person or in property; but its public character is not affected by aggressions, though made by its own subjects, if it do not directly or indirectly sanction them, either by conniving while they are planned and executed, or by allowing the perpetrators to remain unpunished. In fact, for the purposes of this discussion, we identify nations with their governments. It is possible that if the opinion of the people of England could have been taken, it would have been found unfavourable to our treatment of Denmark in 1807, and again in 1813. It is possible, nay it is probable, that the majority of the people of France may have disapproved of the invasions of Spain by Napoleon and by Louis; and that they may now disapprove of the intrigues with which their diplomacy is harassing her. But a nation, when considered as an individual, must be judged by her acts; and her act is what is done in her name, and by her authority, We should be grieved, indeed, if the majority of educated Englishmen, or the majority of educated Frenchmen, could act as their respective governments have acted. We use the words towards other civilized states,' first, because that part only of the public conduct of a nation affects the practical questions which we are considering; and secondly, because unhappily such is public morality, that the mode in which a nation treats barbarians, or even semi-barbarians, is no evidence of the mode in which it would be likely to treat a civilized community. estimating the public character of France, therefore, we do not advert to her relations with the African tribes; and in estimating that of America, we do not allude to her treatment of the Indians. In estimating that of England, we shut our eyes to all that she has done in Hindostan or Cabul.

In

The qualities which principally mark the conduct of a nation, in its intercourse with other civilized nations, are pride, vanity

using that word to signify the desire of admiration—ambition, fear, resentment, sympathy, and justice; and the influence of these motives depends partly on the degree in which they are felt, and partly on the causes from which they originate. Different nations may be equally vain, but one may desire to be admired for her power, another for her civilization, and a third for her integrity; and others are to be found who, like Austria, seem utterly careless as to the opinions of foreigners. Again, two nations may be both timid; but one may fear the evils of defeat, the other the evils of victory. One surrounded by more powerful neighbours, may be in constant dread of invasion; the other may feel that her comparative force secures her from attack, but that a war, though it be successful, will ruin her finances. Under such circumstances, timidity would lead the former to contract alliances, in order to secure herself from aggression; the other to avoid them, in order to lessen the chances of being dragged by her treaties into a contest.

We now proceed to consider in detail the public character of the three great nations which we have mentioned, beginning with France.

The circumstances under which France has been placed, have been, in most respects, eminently unfavourable. Until the Revolution, the French people had no influence on the policy of their country. It was dependent sometimes on the will of a king, sometimes on the intrigues of a court, and sometimes on the caprice of a mistress. A dispute between Louis XIV. and Louvois, about a window, occasioned the devastation of the Palatinate. A well-timed visit by Horace Walpole to Fleury, rendered France for twenty years the ally of England. It was the casting voice of Madame de Maintenon that decided whether France should violate or respect the treaty which excluded the Bourbons from the Spanish succession. At length the power which the crown had abused for centuries passed to demagogues, whose influence depended on their popularity, and whose popularity could be maintained only by satisfying the desires, or flattering the prejudices, of the new sovereign-the people. From their hands it was extorted by a soldier more intent on conquest, and more unscrupulous as to the means of obtaining it, than any of the public enemies with whom Europe has had to struggle since the times of Attila. The great object of Napoleon was to seduce the people, by gratifying the passions which are strongest among uneducated politicians vanity and ambition. His talents, his habits, and his inclination, led him to offer military glory to the one, and extension of territory to the other. Never were these intoxicating bribes so profusely supplied. Of course, for this purpose all treaties, all engagements, all faith, and all law, public and private,

were to be disregarded. On no other condition could the empire of the French be stretched from the Vistula to the Guadalquivir. It was his business, therefore, while he inflamed and perverted their ambition, to stifle their feelings of morality and justice. In both attempts he was equally successful. His boast, that millions joined in his views, was, unhappily for those millions, well founded. The misfortunes of the latter portion of his career, though not quite so mischievous to the national character as his earlier successes, still helped to deteriorate it. He taught the French to submit to defeat. He taught them to welcome humiliation ;-to receive with acclamation sovereigns twice forced on them by foreigners. The degradation of the early period of the Restoration, was followed by still more corrupting successes. The government of the Bourbons has wanted only power to teach lessons as demoralizing as those of the Empire. The invasion of Spain, in 1822, was as fraudulent, as unjust, and as rapacious as that of 1808. The only difference was, that Napoleon endeavoured to render Spain a dependency of France, under his brother; and Louis to throw her bound under the feet of a descen'dent of Henry the Fourth.' In fact, of the two pieces of injustice, monstrous as they both were, the last was the more oppressive; for Napoleon came as a reformer-his success might have regenerated Spain. The Duke of Angoulême was the restorer of tyranny.

We will now consider the national character which has grown up under such influences. If the picture be unfavourable, no one will be surprised when he reflects on the education which the nation has received.

Among the most striking qualities of France is her pride. One of her most acute and most philosophical statesmen has proclaimed from the tribune, that pride, nourished by the victories and triumphs of more than two hundred years of war, is now the only remaining link that keeps her in a social state.* We should differ from M. de Tocqueville with great diffidence, whatever the subject were, and as to the character of his own country we yield implicitly to his authority. But though military pride be the absorbing sentiment, not merely the ruling but the despotic passion of France, her glories in war are not the only objects on which she dwells with complacency. She is proud also of her power, of her influence, and of her civilization. Her power is formidable, but it is probably not superior to that of Russia; it certainly is inferior to that of Germany, when Germany can be combined. She believes it to be a match for all Europe. Her

*Speech of M. de Tocqueville in the Chamber of Deputies, 30th Nov. 1840.