had brought the game to a deadlock by running through a recurring series of moves and counter-moves.

One phenomenon of Public Opinion recurred with such unfailing regularity that we can safely lay down an empirical law respecting it. Whenever there seemed a probability that Russia was about to use force to compel the Porte to relinquish its sovereignty over the Provincials, there was a sudden access of suspicion and hostility against Russia, even on the part of those who, while Russia was quiescent, admitted that the question would never be solved without compulsion.

As in adopting the simile of the spectrum we have taken red to denote the region where anti-Russism is found, we may perhaps speak of the fact that an access of anti-Russism invariably accompanied such conditions as the law of Erubescence.

If, then, we take a rapid survey of the time with which we are concerned, for the purpose of mapping it out according to the leading characteristics of the periods into which it falls, we have to begin with:

The "Incubation Period," from July 1875 to July 1876.

This was followed, as we shall see, by a period when Public Opinion was strongly aroused; and as the principal subject which it fastened on was the atrocities (the word now became a kind of technical expression) committed on the Bulgarians by the Turks, we note this as the "Atrocity Period," and mark its limits as extending from a "moment of awakening," early in July, to about the middle of September. We note further that the latter part of this period is a sub-period of violent agitation, having as its object to force the Government to adopt a "violet" policy.

Next we have a period of extreme complexity, which, on the whole, is one of Reconciliation between Public Opinion and the Government. This "Reconciliation" culminates in the meeting of the Constantinople Conference, December, 1876, and the belief that Lord Salisbury went there to promote a "violet" policy.

The "Conference Period," which followed, is one that exhibits the gradual disillusionment of Public Opinion, and an expectation on its part of a renewal of the contest with the Government, but this time in the Parliamentary arena.

The "Parliamentary Period" (February to May 1877) is marked by the failure of Parliament to give adequate expression to the desire of Public Opinion for a "violet" policy; and we note in consequence a tendency to a renewal of out-of-door agitation; but the period

ends with the announcement by the Government of a policy of "Conditional Neutrality."

The period of the "Conditional Neutrality" gives place to the "Armed Neutrality," when, on the fall of Plevna, the English Government begins to stir (December 1877). This is a period of strenuous resistance to the "red" policy; but Public Opinion is now fiercely divided. The period closes early in February 1878, with the failure of resistance in Parliament (under the influences of the capital example of "erubescence") and the breakdown of agitation out of doors.

This conquest of Public Opinion by Lord Beaconsfield brings in the Dictatorship. The particular Eastern Question of the day finds its solution in the Treaty of Berlin ("Peace with Honour," July 1878), a Janus-like treaty, with one face "violet" and one face "red.”

The triumphant return of Lord Beaconsfield from Berlin is followed by the "Presidential Period," during which Public Opinion desists from efforts to influence the course of the Executive during the remainder of its term of office. A polemic war arises, partly retrospective, partly with regard to the new developments of the Government policy in Afghanistan and South Africa. But there is little or no effort to control the Government, and no agitation proper. The polemic has reference mainly to the approaching General Election. The General Election comes (March 1880) and Public Opinion takes its revenge on Lord Beaconsfield.

CHAPTER VII.

INCUBATION PERIOD.

FIRST PHASE (TO FAILURE OF THE CONSULAR MISSION).

§ 1. Outbreak of Revolt in Herzegovina.

PUBLIC OPINION was in the condition which has been described; with regard to politics generally, dormant; with regard to the Eastern Question in particular, affected by the lingering tradition, but at the same time docile and receptive, when, in 1875, disturbances broke out, and the attention of those whose business it was to chronicle passing events for the public was thus of necessity drawn to the East. We can almost watch the very process by which opinions crystallised, so that what was vague and almost chaotic in July, by October had assumed something like the shape of one of the definite notions we have distinguished as constituting Public Opinion. To look through the newspaper files is like listening to a number of people thinking aloud, as they grope after the solution of a problem which they as yet but partially

grasp.

Very early in 1875 there was an affray between the Montenegrins and their Turkish neighbours, which was spoken of as the "Podgoritza Affair." It attracted little attention, but the comments of the Spectator are worth noticing:

[The affair] would not matter to anybody, but that the Montenegrins have the sympathies of more important people. [France is in no position to aid, England is most unwilling to fight again for Turkey. and the Sultan will in all probability yield. The result will be that Russia, Germany, and Austria will be masters in Constantinople, and will be able to secure the independence of the provinces north of the Balkans whenever occasion arises.] We have no disposition to be alarmists, and care nothing about the fate of Montenegro; but we cannot watch the present condition of affairs without a sigh over the impossibility of making Englishmen understand the danger of the position.-Spec. Jan, 23, 1875.

About the same time, Roumania, though nominally subject to the suzerainty of Turkey, negotiated a commercial treaty with the three Imperial Powers, and the three Powers had insisted on concluding it with Roumania directly, without any reference to the Porte. Through the session of 1875 Lord Stratheden and Campbell was continually bringing up this matter in the House of Lords and insisting that it was an infringement of the Treaty of Paris, and on July 26th he succeeded in raising a debate of some importance. He was followed by Lord Rosebery, who said it clearly appeared by the correspondence that Lord Derby regarded the pretensions of Roumania as quite inadmissible. He seemed to complain that Lord Derby had backed up his vigorous words by no vigorous action. Lord Derby refused to treat the matter as of any importance, but the comments of the press show that the tradition of supporting Turkey was by no means forgotten.

The Times thinks Lord Derby is right in saying the matter has no immediate significance. But as showing the tendencies which prevail in Eastern Europe the controversy is instructive.(July 28th.)

The Daily News says: The public must not make the mistake of thinking anything less than the break up of Turkey is ultimately in question. If Roumania makes commercial treaties she will make others, and so will the other vassal states.-(July 26th.)

The Daily Telegraph thinks the debate is opportune in view of the disturbance in the Herzegovina. Turkey's demand to have her suzerainty recognised is only fair and reasonable.-(July 26th.)

The Pall Mall Gazette and Morning Post say: The Holy Alliance is bent on weakening and humiliating Turkey.—(July 28th.)

Montenegro and Roumania soon dropped out of sight, but towards the end of June an insurrection broke out in Herzegovina, which soon spread to Bosnia, and attracted a gradually increasing attention.

We catch the first mention of the matter in the Times of July 14th. A telegram from Buda Pesth, dated July 11th, spoke of alarming reports of an insurrection in the Herzegovina, which, however, according to official information, were very much exaggerated. A little later it was telegraphed from Constantinople, "The disturbances in the Herzegovina are extending." 2

1 Feb. 15 and 25, March 18 and April 19.

2 T. July 21.

The news did not at first excite much attention, and the Times does not appear to have thought it worth a leader.1

The first impulse of most of the London daily newspapers was to assume a legalistic position-to stickle for the independence of the Sultan; to see in any disposition on the part of Russia or Austria to come to the aid of the Provincials evidence of some sinister design; and to test the" sincerity" of those Powers by their endeavour to make easy the way for Turkey to maintain her domination.

The Daily News speculates on the "sincerity" of Austria and Russia in wishing to avoid a "catastrophe," and hopes both Powers will impress the representatives of excited populations with the fact that they will be left unaided to deal with difficulties they carelessly provoke.—(Aug. 4th.)

The Daily Telegraph and Standard about this time say the question is, Are Russia and Austria backing up the insurrection?

The Daily News thinks the diplomatic activity in the domestic affairs of Turkey is perhaps more serious than the insurrection itself, and complains that "the three Powers consider themselves entitled to tell the Sultan how he must govern his subjects."(Aug. 21st.)

The Spectator attributes the rising to the oppressive way in which the taxes are collected, but makes the apparently legalistic comment, "Rebellion is of course rebellion, in the Herzegovina or elsewhere."-(July 31st.)

A week later we find the Spectator writing in rather a different tone. It is as if new light had come to it, while all the rest of the world was still in darkness. Hence the writer is ironical, not to say cynical. He assumes that no one in England would listen to a proposal for emancipation, and yet he speaks of it in a manner as if he would suggest that after all this is a point which might be reconsidered.

Supposing the British public able for half an hour to surrender their belief that the existence of Turkey is essential to their interests, and the Turkish Government, therefore, always in the right, they would see a scene in the Herzegovina which might interest them a little. The peasants in that province, driven mad by a form of oppression which is called gathering the taxes, but which is exactly equivalent, in slaughters, in plunderings, and in defilement of women, to subjection by an Asiatic army once a year, have risen upon the Turks and driven them into the fortresses; and as Turkey is collecting a horde to punish them, and

1 But we may note a curious allusion on July 21. Repudiating Sir Henry Rawlinson's alarmist views about Central Asia, the Times says the real danger is elsewhere. England and Russia are apt to have different views about Turkey, and may quarrel again as they have done before.