Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

MR. BRIGHT ON THE "BALANCE OF POWER."

notwithstanding this circular, whatever the note really meant, it would have been just as binding upon Russia as any other note will be that may be drawn up and agreed to at the end of the war. Although, however, this note was considered inadmissible, negotiations were continued; and at the conference at Olmutz, at which the Earl of Westmoreland was present, the Emperor of Russia himself expressed his willingness to accept the Vienna note-not in the sense that Count Nesselrode had placed upon it, but in that which the ambassadors at Vienna declared to be its real meaning, and with such a clause as they should attach to it, defining its real meaning."

It will of course be seen that this explanation is founded on assumptions directly contrary to the declarations then and subsequently made by ministers who, like Mr. Gladstone, were in a position to know what had actually transpired, but Mr. Bright had come to entirely different conclusions, and having made up his mind that his interpretation of Count Nesselrode's intentions was the right one, went on to argue:-"It is impossible from this fairly to doubt the sincerity of the desire for peace manifested by the Emperor of Russia. He would accept the note prepared by the conference at Vienna, sanctioned by the cabinets in London and Paris and according to the interpretation put upon it by those by whom it had been prepared-such interpretation to be defined in a clause to be by them attached to the original note. But in the precise week in which these negotiations were proceeding apparently to a favourable conclusion, the Turkish council, consisting of a large number of dignitaries of the Turkish Empire-not one of whom, however, represented the Christian majority of the population of Turkey, but inspired by the fanaticism and desperation of the old Mohammedan party-assembled; and, fearful that peace would be established, and that they would lose the great opportunity of dragging England and France into a war with their ancient enemy the Emperor of Russia, they came to a sudden resolution in favour of war; and in the very week in which Russia agreed to the Vienna note in the sense of the Vienna

83

conference the Turks declared war against Russia, the Turkish forces crossed the Danube and began the war, involving England in an inglorious and costly struggle, from which this government and a succeeding government may fail to extricate us.

"The course taken by Turkey in beginning the war was against the strong advice of her allies; but notwithstanding this, the moment the step was taken they turned round again, as in the case of the Vienna note, and justified and defended her in the course she had adopted in defiance of the remonstrances they had urged against it." Lord John Russell had contended that Turkey was fully justified in declaring war. Mr. Bright declared, "I should say nothing against that view if Turkey were fighting on her own resources; but that if she was in alliance with England and France the opinions of those powers should at least have been heard, and that in case of her refusal to listen to their counsel they would have been justified in saying to her, 'If you persist in taking your own course we cannot be involved in the difficulties to which it may give rise, but must leave you to take the consequences of your own acts.' But this was not said, and the result was that we were dragged into a war by the madness of the Turk, which, but for the fatal blunders we have committed, we might have avoided.”

"This 'balance of power' is in reality the hinge on which the whole question turns. But if that is so important as to be worth a sanguinary war, why did you not go to war with France when she seized upon Algiers? That was a portion of Turkey not quite so distinct, it is true, as are the Danubian principalities; but still Turkey had sovereign rights over Algiers. When, therefore, France seized on a large portion of the northern coast of Africa, might it not have been said that such an act tended to convert the Mediterranean into a French lake-that Algiers lay next to Tunis, and that, having conquered Tunis, there would remain only Tripoli between France and Alexandria, and that the 'balance of power' was being destroyed by the aggrandizement of France? All this might have been said, and the government might easily have

plunged the country into war on that question. But happily the government of that day had the good sense not to resist, and the result had not been disadvantageous to Europe; this country had not suffered from the seizure of Algiers, and England and France had continued at peace.

"Take another case-the case of the United States. The United States waged war with Mexico a war with a weaker state-in my opinion an unjust and unnecessary war. If I had been a citizen of the American Republic I should have condemned that war; but might it not have been as justly argued that, if we allowed the aggressive attacks of the United States upon Mexico, her insatiable appetite would soon be turned towards the north-towards the dependencies of this empire-and that the magnificent colonies of the Canadas would soon fall a prey to the assaults of their rapacious neighbour? But such arguments were not used, and it was not thought necessary to involve this country in a war for the support of Mexico, although the power that was attacking that country lay adjacent to our own dominions.

"If this phrase of the 'balance of power' is to be always an argument for war, the pretence for war will never be wanting, and peace can never be secure. Let any one compare the power of this country with that of Austria now and forty years ago. Will any one say that England, compared with Austria, is not now three times as powerful as she was thirty or forty years ago? Austria has a divided people, bankrupt finances, and her credit is so low that she cannot borrow a shilling out of her own territories; England has a united people, national wealth rapidly increasing, and a mechanical and productive power to which that of Austria is as nothing. Might not Austria complain that we have disturbed the 'balance of power,' because we are growing so much stronger from better government, from the greater union of our people, from the wealth that is created by the hard labour and skill of our population, and from the wonderful development of the mechanical resources of the kingdom which is seen on every side? If this phrase of the

'balance of power,' the meaning of which nobody can exactly make out, is to be brought in on every occasion to stimulate this country to war, there is an end to all hope of permanent peace.

"There is, indeed, a question of a 'balance of power' which this country might regard, if our statesmen had a little less of those narrow views which they sometimes arrogantly impute to me and to those who think with me. If they could get beyond those old notions which belong to the traditions of Europe, and cast their eyes as far westward as they are now looking eastward, they might see a power growing up in its gigantic proportions which will teach us before very long where the true 'balance of power' is to be found. This struggle may indeed begin with Russia, but it may end with half the states of Europe; for Austria and Prussia are just as likely to join with Russia as with England and France, and probably much more so; and we know not how long alliances which now appear very secure may remain so; for the circumstances in which the government has involved us are of the most critical character, and we stand upon a mine which may explode any day. Give us seven years of this infatuated struggle upon which we are now entering, and let the United States remain at peace during that period, and who shall say what will then be the relative positions of the two nations? Have you read the reports of your own commissioners to the New York Exhibition? Do you comprehend what is the progress of that country as exhibited in its tonnage, and exports, and imports, and manufactures, and in the development of all its resources and the means of transit? There has been nothing like it hitherto under the The United States may profit to a large extent by the calamities which will befall us; whilst we, under the miserable and lunatic idea that we are about to set the worn-out Turkish Empire on its legs and permanently to sustain it against the aggressions of Russia, are entangled in a war. Our trade will decay and diminish; our people, suffering and discontented as in all former periods of war, will emigrate in increasing numbers to a country

sun.

THE "BRITISH INTERESTS

whose wise policy is to keep itself free from the entanglement of European politics-to a country with which rests the great question whether England shall for any long time retain that which she professes to value so highly-her great superiority in industry and

at sea.

"This whole notion of the 'balance of power' is a mischievous delusion which has come down to us from past times; we ought to drive it from our minds, and to consider the solemn question of peace or war on more clear, more definite, and on far higher principles than any that are involved in the phrase, the 'balance of power.' What is it the government propose to do? Let us examine their policy as described in the message from the crown, and in the address which has been moved to-night. As I understand it we are asked to go to war to maintain the 'integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire, to curb the aggressive power of Russia, and to defend the interests of this country.

"But what is the condition of that empire at this moment? I have already described to the house what it would have been if my policy had been adopted-if the thrice modified note of Prince Menschikoff had been accepted, or if the Vienna note had been assented to by the Porte. But what is it now under the protection of the noble lord and his colleagues? At the present moment there are no less than three foreign armies on Turkish soil: there are 100,000 Russian troops in Bulgaria; there are armies from England and France approaching the Dardanelles to entrench themselves on Turkish territory and to return nobody knows when. All this can hardly contribute to the 'independence' of any country. But more than this; there are insurrections springing up in almost every Turkish province, and insurrections which must from the nature of the Turkish government widely extend; and it is impossible to describe the anarchy which must prevail, inasmuch as the control hitherto exercised by the government to keep the peace is now gone, by the withdrawal of its troops to the banks of the Danube, and the license and demoralization engendered by ages of bad government

[blocks in formation]

will be altogether unchecked. In addition to these complicated horrors, there are 200,000 men under arms; the state of their finances is already past recovery, and the allies of Turkey are making demands upon her far beyond anything that was required by Russia herself. Can anything be more destructive of the 'integrity and independence' of Turkey than the policy of the noble lord?"

This then was the position taken by the man who may be said to be in absolute opposition-representing a minority, as he himself implied, too insignificant even to be called a party; but he and the coadjutor who stood by his side in this as they had stood together in a question where they at last had the country at their back, were not among the men who were likely to yield to a compromise.

There was, as we have since seen, a good deal of force in the objection that we were undertaking to repress and to curb Russian aggression. These were catching words; they had been amplified in newspapers, and had passed from mouth to mouth, and had served to blind the eyes of multitudes wholly ignorant of the details of this question. If Turkey had been in danger from the side of Russia heretofore, would she not be in far greater danger when the war was over? "Russia is always there. You do not propose to dismember Russia, or to blot out her name from the map and her history from the records of Europe. Russia will be always there-always powerful, always watchful, and actuated by the same motives of ambition, either of influence or of territory, which are supposed to have moved her in past times. What, then, do you propose to do? and how is Turkey to be secured? Will you make a treaty with Russia and force conditions upon her? But if so, what security have you that one treaty will be more binding than another? It is easy to find or make a reason for breaking a treaty when it is the interest of a country to break it."

But Mr. Bright could not let the question of "British interests" alone. "How are the interests of England involved in this question? This is, after all, the great matter which we, the representatives of the people of England, have to consider. It is not a question of

sympathy with any other state. I have sympathy with Turkey; I have sympathy with the serfs of Russia; I have sympathy with the people of Hungary, whose envoy the noble lord the member for Tiverton refused to see, and the overthrow of whose struggle for freedom by the armies of Russia he needlessly justified in this house; I have sympathy with the Italians, subjects of Austria, Naples, and the pope; I have sympathy with the three millions of slaves in the United States; but it is not on a question of sympathy that I dare involve this country, or any country, in a war which must cost an incalculable amount of treasure and of blood. It is not my duty to make this country the knight-errant of the human race, and to take upon herself the protection of the thousand millions of human beings who have been permitted by the Creator of all things to people this planet.

"I hope no one will assume that I would invite-that is the phrase which has been used-the aggressions of Russia. If I were a Russian, speaking in a Russian parliament, I should denounce any aggression upon Turkey, as I now blame the policy of our own government; and I greatly fear I should find myself in a minority, as I now find myself in a minority on this question. But it has never yet been explained how the interests of this country are involved in the present dispute. We are not going to fight for tariffs, or for markets for our exports. In 1791 Mr. Grey argued that, as our imports from Russia exceeded £1,000,000 sterling, it was not desirable that we should go to war with a country trading with us to that amount. In 1853 Russia exported to this country at least £14,000,000 sterling, and that fact affords no proof of the increasing barbarism of Russia, or of any disregard of her own interests as respects the development of her resources. What has passed in this house since the opening of the present session? We had a large surplus revenue, and our chancellor of the exchequer is an ambitious chancellor. I have no hope in any statesman who has no ambition; he can have no great object before him, and his career will be unmarked by any distinguished services to his country.

"When the chancellor of the exchequer en

tered office, doubtless he hoped, by great services to his country, to build up a reputation such as a man may labour for and live for. Every man in this house, even those most opposed to him, acknowledged the remarkable capacity which he displayed during the last session, and the country has set its seal to this

that his financial measures in the remission and readjustment of taxation were worthy of the approbation of the great body of the people. The right honourable gentleman has been blamed for his speech at Manchester, not for making the speech, but because it differed from the tone of the speech made by the noble lord, his colleague in office, at Greenock. I observed that difference. There can be no doubt that there has been, and that there is now, a great difference of opinion in the cabinet on this eastern question. It could not be otherwise; and government has gone on from one step to another; they have drifted-to use the happy expression of Lord Clarendon to describe what is so truly unhappy-they have drifted from a state of peace to a state of war; and to no member of the government could this state of things be more distressing than to the chancellor of the exchequer, for it dashed from him the hopes he entertained that session after session, as trade extended and the public revenue increased, he would find himself the beneficent dispenser of blessings to the poor, and indeed to all classes of the people of this kingdom. Where is the surplus now? No man dare even ask for it, or for any portion of it.

"With regard to trade I can speak with some authority as to the state of things in Lancashire. The Russian trade is not only at an end, but it is made an offence against the law to deal with any of our customers in Russia. The German trade is most injuriously affected by the uncertainty which prevails on the Continent of Europe. The Levant trade, a very important branch, is almost extinguished in the present state of affairs in Greece, Turkey in Europe, and Syria. All property in trade is diminishing in value, whilst its burdens are increasing. The funds have fallen in value to the amount of about £120,000,000 sterling, and railway property is quoted at about

GLADSTONE ON THE RUSSIAN WAR.

87

£80,000,000 less than was the case a year | plored the war, and that all his calculations

ago.

"But we are sending out 30,000 troops to Turkey, and in that number are not included the men serving on board the fleets. Here are 30,000 lives! There is a thrill of horror sometimes when a single life is lost, and we sigh at the loss of a friend-or of a casual acquaintance! But here we are in danger of losing and I give the opinions of military men, and not my own merely-10,000, or it may be 20,000 lives, that may be sacrificed in this struggle. I have never pretended to any sympathy for the military profession; but I have sympathy for my fellow-men and fellowcountrymen, wherever they may be. I have heard very melancholy accounts of the scenes which have been witnessed in the separation from families occasioned by this expedition to the East. But it will be said, and probably the noble lord the member for Tiverton will say, that it is a just war, a glorious war, and that I am full of morbid sentimentality, and have introduced topics not worthy to be mentioned in parliament. But these are matters affecting the happiness of the homes of England, and we who are the representatives and guardians of those homes, when the grand question of war is before us, should know at least that we have a case-that success is probable, and that an object is attainable which may be commensurate with the cost of war."

No wonder, we might almost say, if Lord Palmerston felt restless and took the first opportunity of letting so hard-hitting an antagonist have it back; but it was to be deplored that on the occasion already referred to "the Tipton Slasher," as his lordship was sometimes nicknamed by the lower satirists, after a once famous pugilist, did not hit fair. Probably Palmerston would have said that he took so entirely different a point of view that he would not attempt to controvert the statements of his opponent, who had misapprehended, if not misrepresented, the circumstances which alone would explain the situation.

It may be noted that Mr. Bright spoke differently with regard to Mr. Gladstone. He knew, as we have said, that he at least de

were upset, and his hopes of achieving a great financial measure were frustrated by it. But Mr. Gladstone could give no practical support to Mr. Bright's arguments against interposition, and it was too late for such moral support as he could show to be of any immediate avail. In fact there has been no more emphatic, and perhaps unanswerable reply to Mr. Bright's contention than that given by Mr. Gladstone, part of which has been already noted.

"The design of the Crimean war," he wrote in 1878, 66 was in its groundwork the vindication of European law against an unprovoked aggression. It sought, therefore, to maintain intact the condition of the menaced party against the aggressor, or, in other words, to defend against Russia the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire. The condition of the Christian subjects of the Porte in general was a subject that had never before that epoch come under the official consideration of Europe. The internal government of a country, it may safely be laid down, cannot well become the subject of effective consideration by other states except in cases where it leads to consequences in which they have a true locus standi, a legitimate concern on their own particular account, or on account of the general peace. In the case of Greece an insurrection growing into a civil war, and disturbing the Levant, had created this locus standi; and the interference of the three powers, led by Great Britain, had redressed the mischief. No like door had been opened in the other Christian provinces of Turkey. The dispute upon the holy places in 1853 had very partially opened it when Russia demanded for herself exclusively an enlarged right of intervention on behalf of the Oriental Christians. It thus became necessary, in determining the policy of the future, to take notice of the condition of the subject races. The greatest authorities, and pre-eminently Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, believed in the capacity of the Porte by internal reforms to govern its subjects on the principle of civil equality. The resolution, therefore, was taken to pursue this end, but without that infringement of the Porte's sovereign rights which Russia had

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »