o many
unthinking people reason enough why the country should be favored with
a taste of war. We are constantly declaring that England is not a
military nation, and yet no statesman is ever so popular for the hour
in England as the statesman who fires the people with the passion of
war. Many a minister, weak and unpopular in his domestic policy, has
suddenly made himself the hero and the darling of the moment by
declaring that some foreign state has insulted England, and that the
time has come when the sword must be drawn to defend the nation's
honor. Then "away to heaven, respective lenity" indeed! The appeal
acts like a charm to call out the passion and to silence the reason of
vast masses of the population in all ranks and conditions. Even among
the working-classes and the poor--who, one might imagine, have all to
lose and nothing to gain by war--it is by no means certain that the war
fever will not flame for the hour. There are seasons when, as Burke
has said, "even the humblest of us are degraded into the vices and
follies of kings."

[Sidenote: 1738--The patriots' war-cry]

War had no fascination for Walpole. He saw it only in its desolation,
its cruelty, its folly, and its cost. At the time which we have now
reached he looked with clear gaze over the European continent, and he
saw nothing in the action of foreign Powers which concerned the honor
and the interest of England enough to make it necessary for her to draw
the sword. But, unfortunately for his country and for his fame,
Walpole was not a statesman of firm and lofty principle. He was always
willing to come to terms. In the domestic affairs of England he
allowed grievances to exist which he had again and again condemned and
deplored, and which every one knew he was sincerely desirous to remove;
he allowed them to exist because it might have been a source of
annoyance to the King if the minister had troubled him about such a
subject. He acted on this policy with regard to the grievances of
which the Dissenters complained, and, as he always admitted, very
justly complained. Much as he detested a policy of war, he was not the
minister who would {149} stand by a policy of peace at the risk of
losing his popularity and his power. Much as he loved peace, he loved
his place as Prime Minister still more. It is probable that his
enemies gave him credit for greater fixity of purpose in regard to his
peace policy than he really possessed. They belie