« PreviousContinue »
The Question examined and illustrated-The Attorney-General on
Russian and Turkish atrocities—Facts and Fictions-Histori-
ing evidence rejected in fuvour of absurd surmises-Foreign Office suppressing evidence-Consular genesis of myths-Mr. Lowther after dinner - The two pictures-Lord Beaconsfield on the Circassians-Consuls writing to Order—A British Ambassador receiving presents from the Sultan-Sir H. Elliot suppressing evidence of Bulyarian Atrocities--A French Journalist's report of Bulgarian atrocities - An example of unique cruelty-Aspersions on the Servians refuted-Lord Derby's 'petty local disturbance'—Sir H. Elliot's comparative estimate of human life and British interests—Nemo repente fuit turpissimus
RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT.
Divergent policies in Lord Aberdeen's Government–The Prince
Consort on the Turks-History repeating itself—Lord Aberdeen's opinion of the Turkish Government–True meaning of the Treaty of Paris-Mr. Gladstone on Treaty of Paris in 1856 -Lord Palmerston's explanation-His policy different from Lord Derby's—Mr. Gladstone on the Eastern Question in 1858 - Great debate on Danubian Principalities-Lord Robert Cecil supports Mr. Gladstone and is denounced by Mr. Disraeli—The two policies in the Light of Events-Prince Gortchakofl's despatch on Turkey in 1860—Anglo-French Intervention in Syria in 1861 – Autonomy secured for the Lebanon—Wise and loyal conduct of Russia—Cretan insurrection of 1866–7 -Austria and all the Powers recommend a Policy of Autonomy-Lord Derby objects, and breaks up the European Concert-Outbreak of last insurrection-Lord Derby's policy de picted in consular-delegations, Andrassy Note, Berlin Memorandum, Constantinople Conference, and General Ignatieff's protocol - Turkish opinion of Lord Derby's policy : “A drumskin and wind'--Beneficial results to British interests as well as to humanity from a cordial understanding between England and Russia-How to deal with the Mussulmans of India-Coercion of Turkey means Peace-Lord Derby's Policy means War
THE EASTERN QUESTION.
We have been often admonished of late by a certain class of our political instructors that it belongs to the essence of a sound English policy to maintain—not for its own sake, but for ours—the territorial integrity and political independence of the Turkish Empire. Though not very old, I have seen so many things swept away without loss which were thought at the time to be a necessary ingredient of British policy, that I shall contemplate without dismay a fresh addition to the already abundant list of political maxims which have, happily, passed from the region of mischievous fallacies into that of obsolete phrases. I am so far from believing that the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire are necessary to the interests of England, that I hope to prove the converse of that proposition in the course of the following pages. At the same time, I wish we heard somewhat less of the interests of England.' If respect to its own material interests is to be the guiding motive of English policy to such a degree as to override the claims of humanity and of natural justice, it is obvious that other nations are equally entitled to act
on this rule. Yet those who are most energetic in preaching this doctrine of national selfishness are the very persons who vex the air with their denunciations of Russia for daring to turn to her own advantage the policy which they recommend to England as the beau ideal of British statesmanship. In an article on “ Turkish Atrocities and English Duties,' the Pall Mall Gazette of August 30 commits itself to the following doctrine :
• Was our policy in the East sound and necessary policy, as we believe, and as the Ministry believed it was? If so, it could no more be affected by the massacres at Batak and Panjurischte than by the slaughter of Christians by Mussulmans a thousand years ago. For on what was our Eastern policy founded, as it ought to remain based ? Not, certainly, upon any affection for the Turks, or any admiration of the Turkish character. It was always known that the Turks were abominably cruel in war, and corrupt in ways most revolting to Western civilisation. But our policy in the East was not rooted in “love of Turkey”any more than in “hatred of Russia," and it would be absurd to contend that it should be changed on a sudden because the Turks have shown, in a most hateful way, that they are—now as alwayslittle, if at all, better than savages. Our Eastern policy, as we have conceived it, and as the Government, we trust, have pursued it, is founded on neither likings nor dislikings of creeds and races. Its basis is shaped and established by the conditions of our national existence, and of that irrepressible struggle for empire in which we cannot escape taking part, and which embraces the whole of the Eastern and Western worlds. Are we to shift our ground in a moment from a position which we have deliberately taken up because the Turks have been guilty of loathsome cruelties in Bulgaria ? There would