MORAL FORCE: 
 
 REPLY TO AN ADDRESS 
 
 ENTITLED 
 
 PHYSICAL FORCE. 
 
 BY A WORKING MAN. 
 
 LEICESTER: 
 
MORAL FORCE, 
 
 The publication of an address advocating Physical 
 Force, as a means of obtaining Political regeneration, 
 by a townsman whose well-known abilities and ma¬ 
 tured judgment entitle him to our regard, has sug¬ 
 gested the following remarks in support of a more 
 pacific mode of agitation. 
 
 The object of the address is two-fold. With the 
 advocacy of Physical Force is blended the illustration 
 of the cowardice, hypocrisy and imbecility, of those 
 who question its expediency and deny its power. In 
 order to furnish a glowing contrast to this traitorous 
 apostacy, the Author of Physical Force has ransacked 
 the history of the world, for examples of noble daring, 
 and successful resistance to oppression. The long 
 array of instances is overwhelming. To shame the 
 degeneracy of the nineteenth century the records of 
 past times seem to have yielded up their treasures. 
 The long extinct states of Greece, and the model 
 republic across the Atlantic, have alike contributed 
 their quota of illustration to his bellicose pages. To 
 enter minutely into the investigation of each event 
 thus adduced, would be tedious and unprofitable. A 
 less searching analysis will be sufficient, to detect the 
 misquotation of some, the misapplication of most. 
 
4 
 
 That, in a few instances the use of Physical Force may 
 have appeared productive of good results, is no argu¬ 
 ment for its universal application. Strange would it 
 be, if four thousand years of the world’s history should 
 fail occasionally to present the phenomenon of good 
 resulting from evil. 
 
 With a regard to chronology which contrasts with the 
 seemingly capricious selection of most of his illustra¬ 
 tions, the Author of Physical Force points first to 
 Greece. He describes, in glowing language, the strong 
 emotions which throb within his breast, while perusing 
 the glorious exploits of the Greeks at Marathon, 
 Thermopylae, and Salamis; and triumphantly asks 
 whether “Moral Force, with the united power of 
 Poets, Historians, and Philosophers, could have driven 
 back the Persian invaders ?” 
 
 Certainly not. But one all-important element in 
 this warfare seems to have been forgotten. The glory 
 which hallows these splendid instances of valour arises 
 from the fact, that the actors were prompted by patriot¬ 
 ism, to resist the aggressions of a foreign foe. Had 
 the same heroism been displayed in a civil war between 
 two classes of its citizens, in any of the states of 
 Greece, History would have recorded it unwillingly. 
 
 It may, however, be well to remark, that there was 
 a time in the annals of Greece, when the words of an 
 orator were more powerful than the weapons of war, 
 and when the name of Demosthenes awoke in the 
 breast of the Macedonian tyrant, a sense of dread 
 which all the armies of Athens would have failed to 
 arouse. 
 
 Let us then hear no more of Marathon, Thermopylae 
 and Platsea. Let these noble names be kept in their 
 classic purity, free from the Physical Force nonsense 
 of the present day. When an invasion threatens our 
 coasts—when our nationality is endangered by the 
 assaults of enemies from without, it will be time 
 
enough to gird up our loins in defence of our fire-sides, 
 and search in the History of Greece for precedents of 
 valour. Till then, “may the shades of Miltiades, 
 Leonidas, Aristides, and Themistocles rest in their 
 Elysian felicityand woe light on the heads of those 
 who take their hallowed names in vain. 
 
 The History of Rome is next appealed to, and as 
 not a single instance of the “ lofty sentiment or stern 
 self-devotion with which its annals teem,” is brought 
 forward, I may perhaps be permitted to supply the 
 void. Did the Author of Physical Force forget that 
 the city of the seven hills was founded in violence ?— 
 that its first king was a fratricide?—that its first 
 matrons were snatched by brute force from the de¬ 
 fenceless Sabines ?—that the wars of its early com¬ 
 monwealth were earned on solely for the sake of 
 aggrandisement? Could he forget that, as natural 
 consequences, the deeds of its manhood were consist¬ 
 ent with the sanguinary pastimes of its youth ?—and 
 that its old age was accompanied by calamity and 
 horrors—by invasion from without and tyranny at 
 home ? Fit meed for such a career ! The selection 
 of Roman worthies with which we are favoured is 
 curious enough. We have the names of five warriors, 
 not one of whom died or suffered in defence of great 
 principles. One of them, Camillus, led the armies of 
 a hostile state against his country, solely to gratify his 
 personal resentment. A second has rendered his name 
 notorious by the ravages he committed in the Cartha¬ 
 ginian territory in the first Punic war. A third— 
 Scipio the conqueror of Hannibal—is entitled to no 
 higher place in our regard than that of a successful 
 soldier; with the exception that his services wore 
 unrewarded by his country, his career presents many 
 points of resemblance to that of the Wellington of 
 our own times. Hannibal’s Zama was Napoleon’s 
 Waterloo. 
 
6 
 
 Amongst these five worthies we search in vain for 
 the name of one, whose pre-eminent qualifications 
 should have given him a prominent place there,—the 
 name of Cataline; the singular boldness of whose 
 designs, the uncompromising zeal which he displayed 
 in endeavouring to effect them, and the unscrupulous 
 nature of the means he invoked, should certainly ren¬ 
 der his memory and example dear to the enemies of 
 peace and order in all succeeding ages. 
 
 It is pleasing to reflect, that nearly all the great 
 names in Roman History are those whose triumphs 
 are written in more peaceful characters. The pacific 
 Numa, and the good king Tullius, were regarded with 
 feelings of reverence even in the stormy times of the 
 Republic; while the names of Spurius Cassius, Lici- 
 nius, and Decius, are invested with a charm denied to 
 the deeds of a Clodius or a Sylla. Augustus is in¬ 
 debted for his subsequent renown, less to the devasta¬ 
 tions of his youth, than to the peaceful consolidation 
 of his vast empire. 
 
 The political privileges of the Roman people were 
 acquired gradually, and from the first secession to 
 the Sacred Hill, and the establishment of the Tribu¬ 
 nate, to the struggle for the Agrarian Laws of Tiberius 
 Gracchus, they were obtained by moral force and 
 mutual concession. 
 
 The dark ages are very properly passed by without 
 note or comment, and the defence of Vienna against 
 the Turks, by the Poles, in 1683, is the next instance 
 adduced. It appears to me that this example may be 
 disposed of in a similar manner to those dragged up 
 from Grecian History. No one disputes for a moment 
 the inadequacy of Moral Force, and the utter impo¬ 
 tence of argument, to repel the attack of arms. Had 
 the Poles remained inactive, their existence as a nation 
 would have been threatened. Motives of self-interest 
 roused them to action. But because the Poles took up 
 
7 
 
 arms against a nation of marauders—aliens in blood, 
 language, and religion—are we, in the nineteenth cen¬ 
 tury, to resort to arms against a class of our own 
 countrymen, for the sake of obtaining by force the 
 privileges which must ere long be conceded to right ? 
 Of the absorption of Poland, and the cruelties practised 
 on its ill-fated inhabitants, there can be no difference 
 of opinion. But it must not be forgotten that to de¬ 
 stroy is much easier than to create. The restoration 
 of their nationality would be a poor recompense for 
 the cost in blood and treasure of an European War. 
 
 We come now to the history of our own land; and 
 the revolution of 1645 supplies the first illustra¬ 
 tion. Apart from all considerations of the policy which 
 suggested its application here, it will be well to notice 
 the very wide difference between those times and the 
 present, which is at once apparent. It must be re¬ 
 membered that in the seventeenth century there was 
 no outlet for public opinion; no free press, as at pre¬ 
 sent, to spread through all classes the truths of social 
 and political advancement. It is very much to be 
 questioned, moreover, Avhether the cause of liberty was 
 aided by the convulsive struggles of that memorable 
 civil conflict. The powerful commonwealth which 
 sprang from the ashes of the monarchy, was doomed, 
 after a few short years, to feebleness and decay. It 
 left no mark, stamped as it were, on the brow of the 
 constitution; and when the great man, Cromwell, was 
 removed from the Protectorship, no master spirit could 
 be found to take the reins of Government, which had 
 just fallen from his hands. 
 
 This flirtation with Republicanism only rendered the 
 restoration of monarchy, in the person of the Second 
 Charles, more dear to the people. In the profligacy 
 which characterized his reign and times, we cannot 
 fail to discern the natural re-action from the extreme 
 austerity of the Iconoclastic sway. Still, far be it from 
 
8 
 
 me to detract from the glory due to those who fought 
 and bled in that civil strife. Whether they ranged 
 themselves beneath the banner of King or Common¬ 
 wealth, they are equally entitled to our esteem. Whe¬ 
 ther Royalist or Republican we should cherish their 
 memory. The former, it is true, were misled; but it 
 was in a noble and generous spirit. It was truly said, 
 “ It was not for a treacherous King or an intolerant 
 Church that they fought, but for the old banner which 
 had waved in so many battles over the heads of their 
 fathers, and for the altars at which they had received 
 the hands of their brides.” The chivalrous spirit of 
 self-devotion which characterized the deeds of the Roy¬ 
 alist, is as worthy of our reverence as the stem patriot¬ 
 ism which has immortalised the names of Hampden, 
 and Sidney, and Fairfax. Pity it is that the best blood 
 of England should have been shed to so little effect, 
 and that after an interval of two centuries, we should 
 be again recommended to try the same means which 
 before so signally failed—that we should be urged again 
 to appeal to the God of Battles in defence of our civil 
 rights. 
 
 Why the rebellions of 1715 and 1745 are brought 
 forward to support the cause of Physical Force, 
 it is difficult to discover. They appear to me to 
 be instances of its failure. The only argument to 
 be deduced from them would be, that Physical Force 
 is ever liable to miscarriage in its attempts, and that 
 the justice of the cause, in whose defence it is enlisted, 
 is no guarantee for its successful application. 
 
 The acquisition of the territory of India was un¬ 
 doubtedly effected by the sword; and, as the natural 
 result of such a mode of procedure, the sword can 
 alone retain it. The same mighty empire might have 
 been acquired and retained by a more pacific agent. 
 Penn used no violence in taking possession of Pennsyl- 
 
9 
 
 vania, and held his broad lands on the same peaceful 
 tenure. 
 
 The American war of Independence is an instance 
 of the use of Physical Force which demands a more 
 careful investigation. That it was used successfully on 
 that great occasion, and that its results have been on 
 the whole beneficial, does not at all affect the abstract 
 question of the sufficiency of moral power to procure 
 political rights. The case, although it presents some 
 features in common with the present agitation for a 
 fuller representation of the people, bears in reality but 
 little resemblance to it.' Perfectly true it is that we 
 are but partially represented ; but the Colonists were 
 not represented at all. True it is that our aristocracy 
 are unfavourable to the cause of progress. But in 
 those days, even the People’s House, in spite of the 
 eloquent pleadings of the most powerful of modern 
 orators, rejected by immense majorities the conciliatory 
 policy which he advocated. 
 
 A reference to the three revolutions of France con¬ 
 cludes the long array of historical illustrations, with 
 instances unhappily chosen. What, may I ask, did the 
 world or France gain by the deposition and murder of 
 Louis? Let the anarchy—the desolation—and the pro¬ 
 fanity which followed answer: the power of one tyrant 
 was abolished to establish the greater tyranny of a 
 thousand. France may indeed be said to have 
 
 “ got drunk with blood to vomit crime, 
 
 And fatal have her Saturnalia been 
 To Freedom’s cause, in every age and clime.” 
 
 What did the world gain by the overthrow of legiti¬ 
 macy in 1830 ? Let the rotten system of Louis 
 PhiUppe, with its petty intrigues and its universal cor¬ 
 ruption answer. What advantage the world may reap 
 from the last throe of France it is impossible to predict. 
 Whether the great agitated question of capital and 
 
10 
 
 labour will receive a satisfactory solution, must be left 
 to the future to decide. Meanwhile, with our best 
 hopes for the success of the young republic, we may 
 be allowed to express our fears, lest the violence 
 which presided over its birth should accompany it 
 throughout its existence. The attempt to overawe a 
 deliberative assembly, and its partial success, augurs 
 badly for the existence of that liberty of speech and 
 action which should ever belong to the representatives 
 of a free people. 
 
 The Author of Physical Force surely forgot the cause 
 he was advocating, when he presented to us an instance 
 of the effects of “ the unhallowed power” of Physical 
 Force in the acquisition of our own Colonies. I am 
 obliged to him for suggesting an illustration in which 
 the only advantages resulting from its use have been 
 “an annual expense of £2,600,000. without one penny 
 of benefit in return.” 
 
 History tells us, then, that the use of Physical Force 
 by the people, is equally injurious with its employ¬ 
 ment by governments. It tells us that the greatest 
 of our privileges have been obtained by the instru¬ 
 mentality of Moral Force alone. For one instance of 
 the successful application of the former, it furnishes us 
 with a hundred illustrations of its failure. We might 
 advert in passing to some changes of no mean signifi¬ 
 cance which Moral Force has effected within the re¬ 
 collection of the youngest. The repeal of the Test and 
 Corporation Acts, and the abolition of the^Corn-Laws, 
 will suggest themselves at once. And it requires no 
 great foresight to predict that Universal Suffrage will 
 ultimately be gained by the same mode of agitation. 
 For an instance of the utter incapacity of Physical 
 Force to check or control opinions, no stronger case 
 can be adduced than that of the Society of Friends. 
 To violence of every kind, unscrupulously employed, 
 they presented the firm front of passive resistance. 
 
11 
 
 They trusted alone to the certain spread of Truth, nor 
 were they deceived. Physical Force retired baffled 
 from the contest, and left them free. 
 
 The Author of Physical Force expresses his deep- 
 rooted abhorrence to the shedding of blood. He says, 
 
 “ for more than half a century I have been the stedfast 
 advocate for abolishing the punishment of death for 
 all crimes without exception.” A difference of opinion 
 on political questions can never be deemed a crime, 
 and yet on the very next page he gives it as his sober, 
 earnest, and deliberate advice, that men should arm in 
 order to obtain what they deem their rights. The 
 murderer and the felon, according to his humane code, 
 should still be allowed to breathe the vital air of God’s 
 earth. Sanguinary vengeance should overtake those 
 alone whose misfortune it is to hold adverse opinions. 
 
 It may be said, that the possession of arms does not 
 necessarily imply their use. But to have and not to 
 use is a childish policy; and besides, the mere posses¬ 
 sion of arms would cease to overawe, the moment it 
 became known that their use was interdicted. 
 
 That “ the joint possession of a vote and of arms for 
 defence constitute the sole distinction between the free¬ 
 man and the slave” is an assertion too monstrous to be 
 for a moment entertained,—it needs no refutation. 
 Without the possession of either of these essentials, I 
 most decidedly am not a slave, and I entertain a vague 
 idea that I am as free as is compatible with the many 
 ties which society has necessarily bound around me. 
 
 The Author of Physical Force, however, deems the 
 possession of arms as insufficient; he pays due homage 
 to the power of Moral Force, and tells us that the 
 Moral Force of great bodies who are known to possess 
 the means of self-defence is irresistible. True, but its 
 power would be in no degree diminished by the 
 withdrawal of its pugnacious ally. I am at a loss to 
 know how the possession of arms can add to the 
 
12 
 
 strength of an argument. The author seems to hold 
 up for imitation the example of Mahomet, who went 
 about the world trying to convince with the sword, those 
 whom he failed to convert with the Koran: a mode of 
 proceeding which in the present day would be found 
 extremely unpopular. I protest against the unnatural 
 alliance. Let each system stand or fall on its own 
 merits. 
 
 There is little fear of England remaining stationary 
 while the nations of Europe are progressing, although 
 the Throne still exists, and the aristocracy are undis¬ 
 turbed. The friends of liberty ought rather to view 
 the continuance of existing institutions, as the pledge 
 and assurance of future progress. The reaction which 
 follows revolutionary movements is always to be 
 dreaded. A time of quiet naturally suggests itself as 
 the fittest for effecting organic change. 
 
 Independently of the lessons which History teaches, 
 I have other reasons for urging the rejection of Physi¬ 
 cal Force as a means of obtaining popular rights. 
 
 The want of connexion between the means em¬ 
 ployed, and the end sought, is an insuperable barrier 
 to its successful application. The abstract right to the 
 suffrage can have no affinity with matter, and can 
 never be governed by material laws. All the Physical 
 Force in the universe, however applied, cannot add a 
 single argument in its favour, or detract an iota from 
 its merits. Its power is equally impotent to persuade 
 or to convert. If then, we can neither increase or 
 diminish this great right; if it is utterly impossible 
 to influence it, in any way whatever, by material 
 agencies, is it not irrational to suppose that violence 
 can be successfully employed in its acquisition? We 
 may rest assured that the more eagerly we pursue it 
 by such means, the more easily will it escape us ; like 
 the vainly grasped shade of Creusa of old, 
 
 “ Par levibus ventis volucrinue simillima sonmo.” 
 
13 
 
 But apart from the question of the natural unfitness 
 of Physical Force, as a remedy for the ills of the. 
 people, I contend that its use is inexpedient. If its 
 power be once felt and acknowledged as supreme and 
 over-ruling, there will be no limit to its sway ;—it will 
 be invoked on the slightest pretext and for the most 
 trivial cause. The comparative cost of the two modes 
 of agitation, is also worthy of consideration. The 
 waste of money, labour, and life, attending the use of 
 violence, should not be overlooked; and surely presents 
 a marked contrast to the costless operations of its more 
 pacific rival. Admitting, however, that the desired 
 end could be obtained by Physical Force, and at such 
 a cost, we shall find the fleeting nature of its results 
 a further argument against its use. Nothing is more 
 certain in its operations than the law of reaction, and 
 it will generally be found that that reaction will be 
 proportioned to the violence which occasioned it. 
 History teems with instances of this. The word is 
 constantly on the lips of the chief actors in the last 
 French Revolution. They know its power and dread 
 its effects. The very men who yesterday clamoured 
 for the republic, may to-morrow raise their voices for 
 the restoration of monarchy. Nor would an English 
 Revolution, effected by the same agencies, lead to more 
 permanent results. A revolution accomplished by 
 moral force alone, can present no such eccentricities. 
 
 It may be argued that a majority of the men of 
 England are in favour of the use of Physical Force. 
 I deny that such is the case. But granting that it 
 were so ; still, its use would be most inopportune, at a 
 time when the middle-classes are not indisposed to 
 listen to the voice of Reform. Why should a course 
 of action be adopted, whose only effect would be, to 
 enlist the influence of property and education against 
 the popular cause ? 
 
 We may rest assured of the fact, that the rights of 
 
14 
 
 the people are no baubles to be snatched by the hand 
 of violence. Reason can alone effect the change. 
 
 I enter my protest farther against the use of Physi¬ 
 cal Force, because it is a retrograde movement, and 
 can only retard the civilisation of the world in its 
 onward march;—because it recalls the spirit of the bar¬ 
 barism of earlier times, to an ai’ena from which its 
 contests have been long dismissed. We no longer 
 need an assemblage of armed Barons to enforce our 
 claims. We have abandoned the restrictive policy of 
 the Feudal ages, and can we consistently cherish its 
 leading characteristic ? 
 
 If it be lawful in an argument like the present to 
 appeal to the dicta of Revelation, I would ask whether 
 the whole tenor of Scripture is not opposed to the use 
 of Physical violence, in whatever cause employed? 
 Whether it does not ill accord with the divine precepts 
 of him who came to bring peace on earth, and whose 
 life and works constitute one continued homily on the 
 same glorious theme ? It is distinctly said that they 
 who use the sword shall perish by the sword. “ Thou 
 shalt not kill” is a commandment as binding now, as 
 when it was first graven on the tables of stone at 
 Mount Sinai. 
 
 The testimony of Revelation, then, is strongly op¬ 
 posed to the use of violence. It is to be hoped that it 
 numbers but few advocates, and that their day is gone 
 by. There are signs around that should lead us to 
 expect that the world is fast approaching that period 
 in its history, when the convulsions of hostile strife and 
 Physical violence shall no longer find a place on its 
 pages; when men, less intent on the acquisition of 
 the transitory and the unreal, shall apply themselves 
 more earnestly to the solution of the great questions of 
 life; and cherish in their minds that love of the good 
 and the true, whose light, dimly discernible in times 
 
15 
 
 of old, shall at length break upon the earth in un¬ 
 clouded brightness. 
 
 It behoves us to remember, that the use of violence 
 can only impede this progress, and delay its final tri¬ 
 umph. To assist its cause there is need of personal 
 exertion and individual care; lest the attainment of 
 our liberties should be unaccompanied by those higher 
 qualifications, which can alone guarantee their con¬ 
 tinuance, and without which their possession would be 
 of no avail. 
 
 T. BURTON, PRINTER, IUTJURKET, LEICESTER.