The Methodist Quarterly Review
1866

ART. VI.-LIBERALISM IN EUROPE.
The difficulties in writing contemporary history are as great to-day as they ever have been. Nor have the improvements in communication, and in the diffusion of information by rail-roads, the telegraph, and the press, made it easier to judge accurately of particular events, and of leading public characters, or of the single elements of current history, than it was in the times of our revolutionary forefathers, or in the age of Columbus or Pericles. Opinions are now formed more rapidly, but probably not more correctly. True as this is of the great mass even of critical thinkers, it is to a greater degree so of the general public. The diversity of opinions about the characters of measures and of men in their own land is greatly increased when we pass within the confines of another nation, with another tongue, and with prejudices based upon ancient antipathies of race and radically different social order.

That honest journalists, looking necessarily from their peculiar standpoints, should give a certain coloring to their writings and see significance in events not admitted by their opponents, is but what may be justly expected. But, as a rule, the journalism of the day is corrupted to a fearful degree by personal passion, party spirit, national prejudices, or pecuniary interest. And, again, no class of writers have done more to spread and confirm party divisions and the prevailing misapprehensions of each other by neighboring lands, than those travelers who pass rapid]y through them, whose observations thus must be of the most hasty and superficial kind, but whose correspondence is written in a graceful or brilliant popular style, and is all the more valued because it claims to be impartial. Most readers have neither the capacity, time, nor inclination to examine these conflicting statements and sift out from them the truth concerning the events transpiring in other lands.

The history of our late rebellion furnished a most striking example of the difficulties a public in a foreign land labors under, in forming a correct opinion of great movements in other nations. Young countries always know more of the old lands, from which they have been colonized, than the old countries do of the new. But yet an extraordinary ignorance has been displayed by the writings and conversation of even the most learned men of the most learned nations of Europe concerning the antecedent American history, the merits of questions at issue in the contest, or the relative strength of the parties engaged. To this ignorance was added the confusion introduced by an active body of Southerners, who made gigantic efforts to mould European public opinion by their private inter-course in society and the publication of books and pamphlets. Disloyal Northerners wrote for the European press.* Correspondents were sent from Europe to America, to write down the North and write up the South. ** To give their correspondence a more insinuating character, it often contained "pictures of American social life." These were, at times, published in religious and family papers, and made Americans abroad burn with indignation, even more than the perverted presentations of our political life. The result was that the most cultivated classes of the most cultivated lands of Europe had very confused and erroneous views of American politics or society.

* During the last Presidential election we met, in London, a Mr. N-----, of New York, who was employed by the Standard and Herald to write editorials upon American affairs, and also the "Letters from Richmond" and other parts of the South that graced the pages of those journals.

**The "New York Correspondent" of one of the leading conservative papers in Berlin was a retired major who lived in Potsdam, sixteen miles Berlin.

On the other hand, many of the most entertaining letters and books of European travel published in America excite the greatest indignation when reread or republished in Europe. And the letters of the "Paris Correspondents" upon the state of Europe often excite surprise and laughter, and would excite indignation had they any bearing on critical diplomatic relations.

It is thus, with a full knowledge of the difficulties of the task, that we attempt to present in our short article a view of the principles, divisions, present condition, and apparent tendencies of the liberal party in Europe. We expect in some, perhaps in many parts, to fall short of a true picture. But we shall, in all modesty, attempt to present the parties so true to the life, from their own statements and those of their enemies, that all honest-minded and well-informed partisans will recognize the portraits. Without adhering rigidly to any system; we will first approach the subject geographically, and then treat of some of the most marked characteristics of the general party divisions.

We will go first to the land where an Asiatic civilization has crowded upon European soil, and whose social and political institutions were crystalized during the latter parts of the middle ages, and have remained fixed during the changes that have swept over Western Europe. The Sultan of Turkey, his cabinet and foreign ministers, and a few other persons of rank, earnestly desire to see the modern sciences and arts introduced throughout the Ottoman empire. They are making especial efforts in Constantinople to establish popular scientific and artistic journals, and to introduce into the schools modern textbooks. They believe modern science and culture as compatible with the Mohammedan religion, as was the brilliant Arabic culture from the seventh to the seventeenth centuries. The great mass of the Mohammedan priests and people as yet resist this movement, as an insidious but effectual undermining of the religion of the Prophet.

The other nationalities in the Ottoman empire-which, by the way, are treated by the government with a liberality not found in any non-Mohammedan country-are in a condition with reference to progress very similar to that of the Turks. A few leading spirits are endeavoring to introduce reforms and new life. But the masses are wedded to the traditions and the ways of their fathers. The spirit of enterprise that pervades the faculty of the Armenian College at Smyrna is worthy of imitation in any land. Among the Greeks of Asiatic and European Turkey, a few merchants support by their money and influence the institutions of the nucleus of their future political hopes at Athens. But the great mass of Armenians, Greeks, Bulgarians, and Albanians are as stationary as they were four hundred years ago. In Asia Minor the true party of progress is the Catholic Church-this enemy of progress in Western Europe.

In Wallachia, which the believers in the near approach of the reign of Antichrist think will form the fifth toe of the right foot of the great image to be formed from the restored Roman empire, there is at present a most active political life. Prince Couza, by a coup d' etat d la Napoleon, has broken the power of the Wallachian feudal aristocracy, but apparently only to increase his own, and to establish a dynasty on the throne. He is trying to head a national movement, and to persuade the eleven millions of Wallachians who inhabit Wallachia, Moldavia, Transylvania, Bessarabia, and a few adjoining lands, that he is to be their Victor Emmanuel, and Wallachia is to be their Piedmont. A similar position exists in Servia, except that the prince there has no constitutional assembly to oppose him.

In that other and vaster empire to the north, that unites Europe and Asia, covering nearly half of both, and whose government is also more Asiatic than European, political life can hardly be said to exist. The ancient and powerful aristocracy have for a long time brought pressure upon the emperor for a constitution similar to the "Magna Charta" that king John granted to his barons. An anti-aristocratic liberal party can hardly be said to exist in Russia. However, the emperor, by the emancipation of the serfs, and inaugurating a system directly the opposite of the English, has flanked the aristocracy, and commenced to elevate the peasants and not the nobles.

This project of freeing the serfs, and thus weakening the power of the nobility, was one of the immediate causes of the late revolution in Poland. That movement was essentially aristocratic, and the aristocracy of Poland retains yet some of the offensive features of feudalism that have been long since laid aside in Western Europe. And yet to gain strength in the late revolution, the leaders offered most liberal conditions to all who would join them. But the movement was never a popular one with the peasants. In Hungary the feeling of nationality pervades more deeply all classes of society. Feudalism is, however, as deeply rooted there as in Poland, and more deeply than in the rest of Europe, except England. The leaders of' the opposition in Hungary desire the restoration of their separate constitution, and do not look for immediate independence, from the Austrian crown.

Passing thence to the other stronghold of conservatism, in the southwest corner of Europe, we find that Spain is barely commencing to awake to the fact that we are in the nineteenth century. The introduction of railroads, and thus, by communication with the rest of Europe, of foreign manners and ideas, united with the excitable character of the Spaniards and the stinging rule of the present queen, are all preparing a powerful party, who will act with the very small but very active nucleus of Spanish liberals when another year of earthquakes shakes the nations of Europe. But at present "most Catholic Spain " is one of the most faithful adherents of the traditional conservative policy of the Romish Church.

Trimming off these lands, in which liberalism as an active agent in the world's politics cannot be said to exist, we come to several nations where liberalism completely controls the local politics, but where the small size of the countries, or other causes, prevent them from exerting a very powerful, or at least a direct influence on the destinies of Europe.

Greece, that land of ancient democratic traditions, after two thousand years of suffering from the oppressions of the Romans, the still more oppressive corruptions of the Byzantine empire, and the later hard rule of the Turks, has been true to the spirit of liberty that drove the ancient "?????????" from their thrones, and has but lately sent her incapable, perjured, and feebly despotic king back to his father's house beyond the Alps. The present boy-king is of very liberal feelings, but is in danger of being surrounded and controlled by the "copperheads,'" as their papers call the conservatives, and of thus suffering the same fate as his predecessors. Almost the entire Greek population are extreme republicans in principles. A king was only accepted, because, from a lack of a genuine political life, from a want of true self-sacrifice among the leaders, and from the influence of foreign intrigue, they felt compelled to accept temporarily a ruler of royal blood. The Greeks desire absolute liberty and equality before the law in all except matters of religion. They are almost unanimous in supporting a State Church, and in giving other religious persuasions but little liberty, and none at all in proselyting. The Greeks have, without exception, been most enthusiastic friends of the Union during the whole history of the late rebellion.

The resistance of little Switzerland to foreign oppression has become a proverb in history. Within her own borders, however, her jarring cantons, by their long feuds and continual strifes, have presented a picture of Europe in miniature. And until these feuds were - allayed, by the adoption of her present federal constitution, (modeled after that of the United States,*) the government of these cantons was as aristocratic as that of the Venitian republic. And even now the ancient families look with an evil eye on those who took the power from their hands. Nor has the reformation of the statute-books been complete. The Jews suffer yet under many legal disabilities, and full religious liberty is not yet obtained. A large part of the Swiss press and people were against the North till the very close of the rebellion!

* Adopted by the personal suggestion and under the personal influence of our ate distinguished embassador, Hon. Theodore S. Fay.

FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XVIII.-17

Passing down the Rhine to where it enters sluggishly into the North Sea, we come to neat, sluggish, mercantile Holland, which is never mentioned in European politics. Its government is good and liberal. The radical party never gets out of sight of the last end of the political movements of the day.

The stirring little semi-Gaulic neighbor to the west is about evenly divided between the conservative, or ultramontane Catholic party, and the liberal, almost radical, republican party. This last is in the van on all the political questions of the day. By constant activity they keep a majority in the Parliament. As the late king rather sympathizes with them, they have only to keep a sharp eye on the intrigues of the opposing party, and on the wily leopard in Paris. They have been the firmest and most outspoken friends of the Union during the whole of the war.

All Scandinavia is so liberal that there is there but little more than the form of monarchical government. Most especially is this true of Norway. The late war has given the small aristocratic party in Denmark a temporary lease of power, but they can do nothing against the deep-seated political feelings of the country. All hereditary titles of nobility have lately been abolished in Denmark. In Sweden there is more class distinction in the population than in the other sister lands. In all three there is a lack of due religious tolerance. Last year full religions liberty was granted to the Methodist Episcopal Church in Denmark-a privilege not yielded to any foreign Church since 1748.

We come now to Italy, France, Germany, and England, the four great lands of modern European culture, learning, and refinement, and the battle-grounds of liberalism against conservatism, of aristocracy against democracy, and of despotism and class-distinction against liberty and equality.

Italy has needed to look but little beyond her own history to guide her in the late great movement for independence, national unity, and civil liberty. The wrongs and Oppressions of ages of misrule by foreign nations had stung her to exasperation. The monuments of the glory of Etruria, of ancient Rome, and of the medieval republics, stood daily before the eyes of her humiliated citizens. The contests of these turbulent republics, whereby the foreign enemy was enabled to enter and drain for centuries the riches of her cities and fertile plains, stood as a warning that was never forgotten during all of the late struggle. And Italy stands today a powerful, united, armed, free state ; with more of true political and religious liberty and equality than exist in any other important state in Europe. Happily the aristocracy mostly sided with the deposed governments and were swept away with them. And at present the government party in Italy would be called radical in England. It is united against privileged classes in society, but is composed largely of those who consider a limited constitutional monarchy to be the ideal of human governments. To these are added a large number of republicans, who support the present government as the best to be had under the circumstances, and who see in divisions only the return of the foreign oppressor. A small "codino " ("copperhead") party oppose the government on all questions, and favor a return of the old regime. Another and far more powerful opposition is made up of uncompromising republicans. Probably, if the present royal family were all dead, and the question were submitted to the people without outside pressure, a large majority would go for the establishing of a republic in Italy tomorrow, and would sustain it too. The dangers at present menacing "free Italy " are the enormous expenses incurred to keep the army on its present "peace".(!) footing, and above all the Napoleonic system of official corruption, that is creeping into the administration, is rapidly alienating the republicans, who are mostly self-sacrificing, incorruptible men-like their leaders, Garibaldi and Mazzini.

In France, the restless pioneer in all political movements of Europe, the spirit of liberty that has been active since the end of the last century, has never had more zealous champions than at the present time. By the first revolution, feudal aristocracy was swept away beyond the hope of recovery. The succeeding upheavals of the last fifty years have not given time for new divisions of classes in society to be formed.. Per-sons of all grades have equal rights in the letter of the law. The forty-five per cent. of the whole population who cannot read or write are almost wholly under the controlling influence of the Ultramontane or conservative party of the Catholic Church, as are perhaps another five per cent. of the educated classes. Another portion of the faithful Catholics accept the dogmas as infallible, but disregard as much as they choose the personal authority of the priesthood. Without the support of a strong and ancient feudal aristocracy, and representing no great popular principles, the emperor, having risen to power by perjury, maintains his place only by official corruption. His warmest supporters (friends he has none) will desert him as soon as they see the star of his power declining. The history of modern civilized nations gives no parallel to the corruption that he has introduced into the government of France to-day. And the whole array of civil and military officials will do everything to check inquiry into their official conduct, or eject them from their positions, until they see a new movement is sweeping the emperor from power, and then they will swing their hats the highest of all for the new movement, be it Orleanist, legitimist, or republican. But, besides the Catholic and governmental parties, there remains a strong party, of unknown force, who are in principles the most advanced liberals of Europe; at least they number in their ranks two thirds of the learned, thinking minds of France-of those master-spirits who move public opinion. Burning with rage at the brilliant despotism that holds their beloved France in chains, they are awaiting quietly the next turn in events, which will enable them to do wisely and permanently what they have tried thrice to accomplish-to give France a liberal government. The hope of the liberals lies in their intellectual strength, their moral purity, and their aggregation in the Capital and those ganglionic centers of the national life, the provincial cities. With these in their hands, the rural districts will fall into the line by their very vis inertiae.

Passing from France to the laud of her jealous neighbors across the Rhine and in the center of Europe, where action is as sluggish as thought is rapid and talking is profuse, we find liberalism and conservatism distributed in very uneven proportions in the thirty-four different states of Germany. The defeat of Solferino was the new birth of the liberal party in Austria. In no part of Europe has absolutism been more encroached upon during the last five years than in that prince of despotic states. The same is, to an extent, true of Austria's pet poodle; Bavaria. With less of direct despotism, that paradise of beer-drinkers has many more medieval feudal restrictions upon trade and enterprise than its more powerful eastern neighbor. In Wirtemberg, and especially in Baden, the government is more generous, and the liberal party is stronger and more active. But in all south Germany the liberals are in the minority. The peasants are less educated and more under the power of the clergy, Catholic and Protestant, (both of which are arrayed on the conservative side on all political questions throughout Germany,) than they are in the states north of the Main. Of the smaller states of north, or rather central Germany, Saxe-Coburg is almost the only one in which the government gives the liberal party any active influence in the politics of the day. Most of the others are virtually as absolute as Russia. In several, as Nassau, the Hesses, and the Mecklenburgs, many of the offensive features of feudalism remain. In Mecklenburg the nobles have the right to flog their peasants, and they use it too. The natural result is a great emigration from these small states to America, or to those neighboring lands that are more generously governed. Hanover and Brunswick are as retrograde as most of the smaller states. Saxony, during the late war with Denmark, has played the liberal, but only to head off Prussia in its schemes to absorb Schleswig-Holstein. The free cities were known in medieval times as aristocratic republics, in distinction from the petty monarchical despotisms of the three hundred and more other German States. This character they retain to a great extent to this day. They are neither h form nor spirit pure democracies. The ancient families form social circles as aristocratic and exclusive as the nobility at Berlin or London.

Prussia is to-day the representative land of Germany. Here industry, learning, culture, religion, rationalism, benevolence, profligacy, liberalism, aristocracy, despotism, and military organization, reach their highest German development. On test-questions; the Church, (Protestant and Catholic,) the nobility, and the government officials are on the conservative side. The liberals claim four-fifths of the learning-the master-minds-and a majority of the voters. They claim also, as in France, to control the capital and the great provincial towns. Should another contagion of revolution sweep over Europe, it would break out first in Paris and next in Berlin. But the organization of the Prussian army is such that, almost without exception, the officers, being nobles, would be on the side of the government. And the government trusts in its really extraordinary discipline, and in exciting an antagonism between the army and its citizens, to suppress any outbreak. The liberals assent to the aggrandizement of Prussia, "with the hope of some day sending off their king and raising the standard of German unity." Other liberals hope to see the future king of Prussia the emperor of Germany, with a liberal and effective constitution and parliament.

Leaving for the present Great Britain, where the conditions of political life are essentially different from those on the continent, we will proceed to look at the divisions, principles, and prospects of the liberals in Germany, France, and Italy. There is so much solidarite between them that a single classification will hold good, indeed, for all continental countries. With a thousand minor divisions, they fall into three grand classes: the constitutional monarchists, the republicans, and the socialists.

The first class, composed of the more cautious or timid portion, who fear sudden irruptions and violent changes, and are bound by ties of tradition and antiquity, consider the highest ideal of human government to be a constitutional monarchy, in which the reigning monarch is a zero, only occupying the place of sovereign but divested of his power. The English monarchy is their ideal. But, unlike England, this party will have no aristocratic privileged classes, but would give equal political rights to all, and open the gates of official appointment and promotion to all persons of talent. They would have a parliament elected at short intervals and the government conducted by a ministry nominated by the sovereign, but to be confirmed by the Parliament and answerable to them for its acts, and subject to removal by them. In this way they think would be gained all the advantages of a hereditary monarchy and an elective republic. There will be a settled, irremovable line of sovereigns, with no turbulent changes of rulers; there will be all the social dignity of an ancient dynasty and a brilliant court ; and the voice of the people will really control the government. The constitutional monarchists include, in Italy, the governmental party, and nearly one half of the whole population; in France, the legitimists and Orleanists, (who have both learned wisdom by adversity,) and a small portion of the government party ; and in Germany a small part of the government party, with a numerical majority of the liberal opposition.

The second division of constitutional liberals includes those who consider the republican form of government ,essentially as embodied in the Constitution of the United States, to be the most just and the best form. With them are numbered, almost without exception, those liberals who have been in America, and that very small number who, at home, have carefully studied and understood the contents and practical workings of our Constitution. A much larger number argue philosophically that such must be the true form of government. In Italy, that land of so brilliant republican traditions, this party includes two thirds of the opposition, and some who support the government against their theoretical views. They number on the whole not far from one half of the whole population. In France, this party retains great vital power, in spite of the failures that have as yet attended its struggles. It would be impossible to estimate with any accuracy its numbers, but it is supposed by many well-informed to include more than half of the French liberals, and a large share of the thinkers of the country. Its real influence would be greater in a crisis than its present avowed numbers would indicate. In Germany, nearly the same is the case. Many of the leading thinkers and writers in history, philosophy, and criticism, and some prominent deputies, are thorough-going republicans. But among the masses their adherents are few in number. The peasant is loyal to his king.

The number of socialists is small ; but they include some of the most acute, active, and brilliant minds of the age They are looked upon by most classes as harmless theorizers, and. they have really but few followers among the masses. They consider themselves as much in advance of the mere republicans, as the republicans consider themselves in advance of the constitutional monarchists, or as these do of the absolutists. They consider an absolute monarchy, with a feudal order of society, as embodying all the evils possible to human government ; and their socialism to avoid all the evils and to embody all the good possible for the human race to realize in government. And they foresee the time, in the dim future, when the system will be universally adopted. Their representative leaders were the late Prudhon in France, and Lasalle in Germany.' To understand well their position, we must transfer ourselves to the continent of Europe, where the offices as well as the powers of the government are much more extended than with us. There the state not only controls the diplomatic relations with foreign nations, the maintenance of public order and security at home, the army and navy, the support of the poor and unfortunate, the collection of the public revenue and the direction of the post, as in America ; but all these interests are controlled in a more direct way than with us, and with a feeling of more central authority ; the theory being that the rights of government originate with the rulers, not with the ruled. But also, in Europe, the state retains to itself many other powers. It holds and cultivates as a source of revenue large national (or royal) domains, especially of forests and mines. It reserves to itself certain monopolies, as the production of salt and tobacco. The whole educational system, from the most elementary school to the universities and the academies of science are under its control. It supplies the funds for their support, names their officers, and nominates, removes, and promotes the instructors, at pleasure. It enters into the religious education of the people ; requires all to be baptized and confirmed before they can be married, enter any business, or take any office. It supports at least a State Church, and nominates its pastors. It appoints and promotes all lawyers, judges, and physicians. It controls industry, and reserves to itself the right to interfere whenever and to whatever extent it may choose. It restricts the press when it wills. The socialists hold that the state-not the monarch, but the embodied will of the people-should have all these rights, and should also absorb within itself all the remaining rights of property ; that the individual can no more possess or inherit property than a monarch can claim or inherit a throne, (Ia propriete' c'est le vol;) for all are born into the world with equal natural rights with respect to property as well as to government. The individual is thus to be swallowed up in the state, and is to receive from the state such a position as his talents most fit him for. They argue, also, on the mere ground of success, that if the post is better conducted by the state than by the individual, so would merchandise and manufacturing be. They say that the principles of the American republic could not be carried out in the days of the Magna Charta ; and that their principles, though just, cannot be carried out to-day ; but that the world progresses rapidly now, and they will soon be appreciated and applied. One thing at least that they say is true-that they are not appreciated now. For beyond the circle of the brilliant writers who hold and advocate these views, there are very few, in the ranks of active business men, or in the lower classes, who will listen to any such a reorganization of society. They are attempting by unions and journals to familiarize the minds of the laborers with their views. Their present practical proposition is to get the laborers who wish to enter business, or to expand business already established, to ask loans from the state as their right, since the government gives loans and subsidies to railroads and other" enterprises of rich men." This is their present way to solve the critical "social problem " in Europe of the "contest between labor and capital."

(It may be well to allude here in passing to another attempt to solve this social problem, to release labor from the tyranny of capital in Europe, (this expression sounds strange to us here where the laborers command the position and get what wages and conditions they like, and the capitalist cannot help himself,) under the leadership of the distinguished Herr Schulze-Delitzsch. This active man has organized throughout Germany hundreds of these "trades unions," the purpose of which has been, not merely to assist each other in trouble, but also to gather funds, to be loaned to such of their own number as have good credit and need to make loans for expanding their business. The effect of this has been so beneficial upon the German laborers that a year or two ago the members of the unions, by small contributions, raised a magnificent testimonial to present to their benefactor.)

All the classes of continental liberals have made it a leading principle to break away from all political authority which is merely traditional. They carry the same principles into another field, or, as they say, into another branch of the same field. They recognize in Luther a great reformer, who attacked and crippled the authority of the Romish Church-a traditional authority. But they consider Luther as only the John the Baptist 'of the great reformation which is to come, which shall dethrone not only the Catholic, but also the Protestant Church, and all forms of Christianity. They see in the history of Christianity only a long and dark array of traditions based upon superstition and prejudice, of bloody religious wars, of social and political fends, of imposition by an ignorant or hypocritical priesthood upon the consciences and property of the deluded and defrauded masses, and of a clergy used, by despotic governments 'for spies and for a spiritual police. With every shade of difference of philosophic view-from theists and advocates of a "beautiful religion of reason and nature alone," to Materialists, who consider the "spirit only a chemical product of the brain, which will' perish with it "-the liberals, almost without exception, agree in opposing evangelical Christianity. From this enmity to Christianity are excepted, of course, the strong catholic element of the present government party in Italy, and a very small fraction of the liberals of, France and Germany. It is but just to say also that the public moral character of the leaders of the liberals is, as a rule, as free from reproach as that of most professing Christians,* while for generous open-hearted benevolence they often surpass far the European Christian. This is indeed their religion. Americans who were abroad during the war will bear testimony how, as a rule, they were so much more warmly and sympathetically treated, during the hours of darkness of our national misfortune, by the unchristian liberals than by Christians, either Protestant or Catholic. The few marked exceptions to this on the part of the Christians were all the more marked because so rare.

* The unfortunate end of Lasalle by a duel two years ago was one of the few exceptions to this.

In the eyes of these antichristian liberals, America inherited from bigoted, puritan England a great curse to her progress in civilization, in the deep religious sentiment that has hitherto marked her history. But "in a free country free views will ultimately prevail," and they look forward with hope to the future. From the vast tide of emigration from Europe to America, they see it to be only a question of time when at the polls 'they will control the elections, mould the legislation, and, by the importation of their literature and the immigration of their men of science and art, they will remould the whole social feeling and national character. Some of them think that Prussia will share the fate of Florence under the Medici, and that her most brilliant period of culture will soon pass ; that it is useless to resist the bayonets, and that in the interest of liberty " it is better to go to America and there build up a great free nation, that by the very might and majesty of its presence will overawe the despotisms of Europe. To avoid present troubles, and not seeing indeed any cause for anxiety in the future, the governments of the German states are very glad to have the troublesome spirits get out of the way. The influence of this great and increasing immigration upon the future of our country is a subject worthy the deep attention of all American patriots.

The views and feelings of a portion of even these German liberals toward America is very different, since victory has rested on the banners of the Union, from what it was during the weary years of our suspense and disaster. America had the sympathy, undivided, deep, and sincere, of the liberals of France and Italy during the whole of our contest. But in Germany that pride, if not arrogance, of opinion which unfortunately so often characterizes really great and learned men, led many of the cultivated liberals to think that they understood America much better than did the Americans themselves. These saw in the war a legitimate result of the possession of individual property when not restrained by armed force as in Europe, ("the North was making the war to rob the planters of their rich estates I") or an example of the inability of Christianity to restrain the passions of its followers ; or another of the sad examples of history where two peoples, blinded by hate and by antipathies of race and climate, rush madly to each other's destruction. Some said that both parties equally sinned against the principles of free government, the South by keeping slaves, and the North by forcing a people against its will. Again, others said-with reference to the proposition propounded by a few most noble northern patriots, to take away the state government from the states and reduce them to territories, or "to conquered provinces," and which proposition was presented as the sour policy of the government-" If in a free government a rebellious province loses all its constitutional rights, what can we liberals oppose to the course of Austria and Russia in taking away the constitutions of Hungary and Poland ? " Thus many liberals were very lukewarm in their sympathy for America. But the noble virtues developed by the war ; the incredible philanthropy shown by the people for the army ; the mighty military prowess of the young republic, culminating in its victory over the gigantic rebellion ; the magnanimity shown to a fallen foe, unparalleled in European history ; the rapid return of civil law ; and the quiet return of the vast army to the pursuits of peace, have not only drawn the wavering liberals back to their admiration of America, but have sent a feeling of uneasiness and dark foreboding for their own future through all the aristocratic classes and despotic governments of Europe.

Differing as they do in the foundations and principles of their faiths, the Catholics and Protestants of the continent occupy essentially the same ground on all political issues. Their whole influence is conservative, and they join hands against their common enemy, the infidel liberals. The majority of the German Protestants see in liberals, in any country, only a pack of chained hyenas, who, as soon as set loose, will rush upon society, repeat the scenes of 1792 and 1848, and keep up a perpetual anarchy, for very love of it. They thus keep the liberals from ever attending their churches, (they would as soon make a social call upon a leper as upon a German republican;) they delight the liberals for the food they furnish them for their hostility to Christianity ; and they drive Christians with liberal politics over to the enemy. They consider the late civil war in America a fearful but logical example of the necessary result of democratic institutions. Some of the evangelical writers in Germany, most read and most loved in America, were outspoken in their opposition to the Union. The republicanism of the old Puritans is a mystery to them.* Of true religion in America they think there is but little.

* Last winter an English Independent preacher, who had lived many years in Germany, sent an article to a leading religious paper, advocating republicanism from the Christian standpoint. Such firebrands of the devil were not admitted to tile columns of a Christian paper.

That this should be, to a great extent, the position held by the Catholics, is but in accordance with their usual history. But throughout all Italy the majority of the Catholic population are liberals. The lower priesthood are about equally divided. The higher orders are mostly conservative. But among the higher orders there is an important number, headed by such as Father Passaglia and Cardinal d'Andrea, (with still others secretly sympathizing with them, but who dare not show themselves,) who are clamorous for the pope to lay aside his temporal power, and who are conscientious liberals. In France the same feeling is making great headway among the clergy. Count Montalembert and Archbishop Dupanloup are the most powerful and active advocates of it. (The North has had no more steadfast and able defenders in Europe than these two most worthy men.) The party who are advocating full religious liberty and separation of the Church from the State, are gaining powerful adherents even under the very shadow of the Vatican. They say: "The Church suffers from its connection with the State. She is made its servant, spy, and police. She is placed by the state under restrictions, especially with reference to the education of the clergy, and then is blamed because her clergy are inefficient and uncultivated. The holy Catholic Church rose, through three centuries of persecution from the state, to be the religion of the ruling nation of the world. She has risen in spite of the state, and now she does not ask the favor of the state." And among the surprising changes that appear in the kaleidoscope of history, may be the spectacle of this party rising to power in the Catholic Church, and this be the first of' all the Christian Churches in Europe which shall demand separation from the state. This party further say that "in the interest of our holy religion we must insist on full religious liberty. Where there is liberty the Church of God must prevail." The rapid progress the Catholic Church has made within the last thirty years in England and America, and the magnificent plans the Church has laid for the future in both these countries, gives them reason to believe that by adopting a similar course they will flank the liberals in Europe also.*

* A remarkable passage occurs in a work which lately appeared in Berlin, entitled "die Deutschen in Amerika." Speaking or the religious future of America, the author says it will lie in the hands of the Catholics or the Methodists. These two bodies are the largest in numbers, are growing the most rapidly, are the most zealous, and have the most organic power, and they will eventually be the contestants for religious supremacy in the United States. The views of the author certainly are deserving of careful attention by those who are considering at present a union of all the Methodistic bodies in the United States.

In England the relations of the political parties and of the divisions of society upon religious questions are altogether different from those on the continent. That boasted cradle and home of constitutional liberty is, in all the elements of political progress, far behind Italy or Belgium. It may indeed be doubted whether it is ahead of France or Prussia. Certain it is that if the military rule, the restriction of the press, or the trampling upon the rights of the Parliament, that are practiced in Prussia, were at tempted in England, there would be a revolution tomorrow On the other hand, if in Prussia only members of the national Church could be professors or students in the universities or gymnasiums ; if the electoral privileges were so limited and so unjustly distributed ; were the taxes so unevenly divided as in England, the cool, patient Germans would have also a revolution tomorrow. In no other enlightened country is the feeling of class-distinction, the respect to high birth, so profound and so widely extended through all grades of society as in England. Among the non-noble, middle classes, who are spurned and kicked from the social circles of the aristocracy as much as the poor white trash are from the parlors of the planter, there is not one in a thousand who would not consider it the happiest circumstance of his life to receive a title of nobility, or to have a sister or a daughter married to a lord. It is thus that the nobility is constantly replenishing and enlarging its ranks. A poor, penniless second son of a noble marries the daughter of a rich merchant. He gains wealth, and she social position. The moral and intellectual character of the nobility is thus kept to a very high standard, for an aristocracy, by constantly drawing on the best materials of society. The Church of England draws from the dissenting Churches in the same way. It is more "respectable " (and that means something in England) to belong to the Established Church ; and as the constant accessions from the pious ranks of the dissenters have kept it pure in doctrine and practice, conscientious scruples against joining it disappear. Especially is this the case where the father was a non-conformist from principle, but the children have grown up subject to the social influences around them. In England, too, it is "respectable " to belong to and to attend Church, especially the Established Church. Thus with more open and brutal vice than can perhaps be found in any country on the continent, there is in England more vital piety than in any continental land, and a high moral and religious sentiment exists and must be bowed to in all public movements.

The influence of England in its restless, meddling foreign policy has been as often, perhaps more so, in favor of wrong and oppression as for humanity and liberty. In speaking of the internal politics, one has to use quite different terms, or the same terms with quite different meaning from those we give them when speaking of the continent. The radicals, represented by John Bright and Richard Cobden, hold essentially or practically the ground of the constitutional monarchists on the continent. The present whig government is called liberal. But in the elections for Parliament last year it was impossible to tell wherein they were more liberal in principle than the tories. The tories charged the government with weakness, time-serving, and double-dealing in its foreign policy, and seemed very anxious to get into power. But on all practical questions of reforms, and progress in civil liberty, and of the diminution of the enormous privileges, there was as much unanimity as there was lately with us, between the Republicans and Democrats, in "supporting President Johnson." Not having suffered the temporary (but merely temporary) horrors of a revolution since the days of Cromwell, this England, which three quarters of a century ago was in the advance guard, a pioneer among the nations of Europe in civil liberty, has already been overtaken by most, surpassed by many, continental states. In the contest of aristocracy and rank in society against practical democracy, she has fallen behind most states ; and there is every prospect that she will be left far in the background by her bolder neighbors.

Proofreading, HTML conversion, and other modifications by Brandon Boyd.

© Copyright 1999 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes or mirrored on other web sites, provided this notice is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686.
Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.