However, it appeared by the Blue Books presented to Parliament at the opening of the Session of 1877 that on January 2nd, 18771 Lord Derby told the French Ambassador that as long ago as the summer before he had warned Musurus Pasha that the Porte must not expect material assistance from England in the event of a Russian war.

On Feb. 13th, Mr. W. E. Forster asked how it was that no such despatch appeared in the Blue Books of the year before, and Mr. Bourke replied there was good reason for the omission at the time. Thereupon, the suppressed despatch in which Lord Derby informed Sir Henry Elliot of this part of the conversation, was published as a separate Parliamentary paper.2

What was the "good reason" for the omission? Was it that Lord Derby was desirous that Turkey should not count upon English assistance in order that Turkey might not assume a defiant attitude, and at the same time desirous that Russia should suppose the assistance would be given in order that Russia might be deterred from interfering?

But on the assumption that it had been throughout this period the determination of the English Government not to interpose in the event of Russian interference, it was hard to understand a despatch which Lord Derby addressed to Sir Henry Elliot on Sept. 5th.

It is right that you should be accurately acquainted with the state of public opinion in England on the subject of Turkey. Any sympathy which was previously felt here towards that country has been completely destroyed by the recent lamentable occurrences in Bulgaria. [The accounts have] roused an universal feeling of indignation in all classes of English society, and to such a pitch has this risen that in the extreme case of Russia declaring war against Turkey, Her Majesty's Government would find it practically impossible to interfere in defence of the Ottoman Empire. Such an event, by which the sympathies of the nation would be brought into direct opposition to its treaty engagements, would place England in a most unsatisfactory and even humiliating position, yet it is impossible to say that if the present conflict continues, the contingency may not arise.Turkey, i. 1877, No. 159.

A few days earlier (Aug. 29th) Lord Derby had sent a telegraphic despatch to the same effect. The despatch of Sept. 5th 1 Turkey, ii. 1877, No. 126.

2 Derby to Elliot, May 25th, 1876; Turkey, iii. 1877. However, the description which was given to Sir Henry Elliot of the "warning," does not represent it as quite so explicit as it appears in Lord Derby's description of it to the French Ambassador.

duly appears in its place in the bulky Blue Book presented at the beginning of the session of 1877, but for some reason or other, the despatch of Aug. 29th was not included among those papers. It was published a little later in the session as a separate paper.1

Possibly the concluding passage of Sir Henry Elliot's despatch of Sept. 4th was written by way of protest against the tendency manifested in this message from Lord Derby. It is a passage which may be regarded as the classical exposition of the "red" policy, and it identified Sir Henry Elliot with that policy in an unmistakable way.2

§ 3. Opinion Begins to Crystallise.—(Willis's Rooms Meeting.)

But after all, the Blue Books seem not to have been studied very critically nor to have aroused much attention. In fact the new ideas were making such rapid progress that men seem to have regarded the papers as referring to a past phase of the matter, since which much had changed. Still, the light thrown upon the past attitude of the Government was not such as to commend it.

Thus with renewed misgivings as to the intentions of the Government, and a growing conviction of the inadequacy of mere negation to the exigencies of the time, men were casting about them for guidance, and guidance was coming here and there. A great mass of new opinion was now being brought to bear for the first time upon the Eastern Question. The sentiments of the vast number of persons who had hitherto had no special knowledge and had given no particular thought to the matter had now become "Public Opinion." Everybody was now an ardent politician, and nearly everybody was agreed that something or other must be done for the Provincials if they were exposed to the chance of suffering such things as had been described.

The formation of a committee of members of both Houses to watch the course of events, and the holding of a meeting at Willis's Rooms, as well as the increasing number of letters and leaders in newspapers and articles in the magazines, all helped on the crystallisation of Public Opinion lately so amorphous. In the process which was going on the "violet" notions, as distinguished from the mere negation of the "red," were rapidly taking shape. And the signs also point to the nascent conviction of Public Opinion that it must make some extraordinary effort to organise itself if it D. N. July 27th.

1 Turkey, vi. 1877.

2 Ante p. 313.

wished to make itself felt in determining the policy of the country.

Lord Russell addressed a letter to Lord Granville, in which he urged that the time had come when Canning's policy of 1827 ought to be revived and made applicable to Servia. [Communicated to T. July 4th.]

[After Lord Derby's reply, those who sympathise with the Christians] have no longer to urge Government to be neutral . . It appears to me that at the present stage nothing more can be asked of Government except the use of its influence to stop inhumanity. . . . No doubt the time might come, as I trust speedily it may, when the insurrection grows so wide and general as to afford evidence on which as a nation we may act.--Mr. Boyd Kinnear, in D.N. July 20th.

What objection can we have to the autonomy of Bosnia and the Herzegovina? Why do the Sclavs in North-western Turkey always finds us their bitter foes? Why do we do our utmost to drive them into the arms of Russia, when they would greatly prefer our friendship to that of their powerful and absorbing neighbour.... The policy of England is clear. It is indicated by common sense and common humanity, and it is set forth in the letter of Lord Russell to Lord Granville. We should invite the great Powers of Europe to join in a treaty by which the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be placed under a European guarantee. In accordance with the wishes of their respective inhabitants, Bosnia should be joined to Servia and the Herzegovina to Montenegro.—Mr. H. Labouchere, in D. N. July 24th.

It seems that there is a chance-and only a chance that the affairs of South-Eastern Europe may be debated in the House of Commons next Monday. If that chance breaks down, what is to be done? Will honourable members endure to be kept a little longer from their grouse for the sake of their country and of mankind? Or will it be left wholly to the people at large to speak the mind of England at a crisis than which there have been few more momentous in her later history? The plain question is this, If Russia should make war upon the Turks, will England again make war on Russia on behalf of the Turks? That is the question for the Parliament and people of this country. On that question we are left wholly in the dark by all the Ministerial utterances. Lord Derby expressly reserved the case of the war spreading beyond its present range. . . . Then comes the question, If this very probable thing does happen what will England do? Are we again to fight on behalf of the barbarian oppressors of SouthEastern Europe? That is the plain question. Nobody supposes that Lord Derby wishes for war. To go to war would be to do something, and to do something might forfeit that reputation for wisdom which Lord Derby has gained by a vigorous course of doing

...

and saying nothing. But how about Mr. Disraeli? What Mr. Disraeli may think fit to do under any given circumstances, no one would be so rash as to guess beforehand. But so far as there has been any rule in Mr. Disraeli's policy, it has been to take up something which Liberals have started, and sometimes to carry it to a length which few Liberals had thought of. Liberal Governments had their Reform Bills; so Mr. Disraeli had his Reform Bill also. A Liberal Government once unhappily had a Russian war; so Mr. Disraeli may think it the right thing to have a Russian war also. Anyhow, if there is the faintest chance of another war with Russia on behalf of the Turk, we cannot be wrong in letting the mind of England be unmistakably known on the point. I have no wish to see any advance on the part of Russia. I wish the people of South-Eastern Europe to carve out their destiny for themselves. If the New Rome, free from either Turks or Russians, can be kept as the common centre of South-Eastern Europe, that is doubtless the best thing that could happen. But it is a very far-reaching policy which can take in schemes so elaborate as that. The immediate question is, if Russia comes to the help of the revolted Sclaves and their Servian and Montenegrin allies, is England to hinder her? To that question England ought with all the speed that may be, to make her answer.-Mr. E. A. Freeman in D. N. July 19th.

The rising desire to see the influence of England thrown actively in aid of the Provincials, in other words, the coming to the front of the policy we have called "Emancipation" as a factor of Public Opinion, is marked by the meeting held at Willis's Rooms, on July 27th, a meeting promoted by Mr. Lewis Farley and the League in aid of Christians in Turkey. The chair was taken by the Earl of Shaftesbury. A letter of sympathy was read from Earl Russell. The key-note was struck by the third resolution, moved by Mr. E. A. Freeman, which, reciting the notorious abuses of Turkish rule, and repeated failures to fulfil obligations, alleged the hopelessness of any permanent settlement of the Eastern Question which did not confer on the inhabitants of the Insurgent Provinces the full rights of self-government. Other resolutions were moved by Mr. Arthur Arnold and by Mr. George Dawson of Birmingham.

Not the least striking and vigorous of the contributions afforded by this gathering was the opening speech of the chairman.

Lord Shaftesbury said:-Surely it is high time for the kingdoms of Europe to interfere and declare that Turkey is a spectacle disgusting to humanity and wholly unfit to exercise rule and authority. (Cheers.) Gentlemen, it has been asserted, and, perhaps, it will be so still, that the existence of Turkey is essential to what is called the balance of power. I doubt it; and were it so, I should hesitate to

maintain even so good a thing by the sacrifice of so many millions of the human race. The balance of power would be far better maintained by clusters of flourishing, vigorous, and civilised communities, in the place of ignorance, spoliation, and ferocity. Thus far I believe that I speak the sentiments of many. Now I venture to speak only for myself when I say that, looking at the present state of things, believing that the future will be much more terrible than the present, being deeply convinced that the rule of the Ottoman Porte is utterly beyond remedy (applause)—utterly incorrigible (applause)-I, for one, would rather in view of the interests of the whole commonwealth of mankind see the Russians on the Bosphorus than the Turks in Europe.1 (Cheers and cries of "No.")-Willis's Rooms, July 27th.

The strong leaning shown towards an active "violet" policy provoked a protest from the standpoint of Isolation.

Mr. Howell wished to say a few words on the position of the working man in relation to this question . . . He was afraid some of the speeches they had heard had gone far beyond the resolution. The position he adopted with regard to this meeting was this: neutrality and non-intervention on the one side and on the other . . . They would have enough to do to prevent the Government from drifting into a war in support of Turkey. . . . We did not interfere to put down slavery in America, and he did not see why we should interfere to put down slavery in Turkey . . . It behoved every one to stand up for neutrality, and avoid provoking interference even in favour of the Danubian Principalities. Lord Derby deserved a certain amount of the praise that was given to him. He was slow to move in any direction. But we had to deal not merely with Lord Derby, but with a man of mystery, whose sentiments would, as a rule, from the very course of his life, go with Islamism, instead of with the Christians.-Willis's Rooms, July 27th.

The progress which the "violet" notions were making appears by the newspaper comments.

So

1 This was sometimes garbled into a wish to see the Russians at Constantinople. See Lord Elcho at Winchester, post, chap. xii. § 1. Similarly, after the St. James's Hall Conference in December, the exclamation "Perish India! was fathered on Mr. Freeman. Mr. Freeman writes:-"The story about 'Perish India!' is a remarkable instance of the way in which falsehood will take root and live, and seemingly get believed in the teeth of all contradiction." He goes on to name a great many occa sions on which the contradiction had been published (D. N. April 30th, 1879.) again Mr. Gladstone, after the publication of his pamphlet in September, was credited with a proposal to turn the Turks, "bag and baggage," out of Europe, and on various occasions protested against the misrepresentation. In the columns of the Daily Telegraph, the Earl of Shaftesbury's expression became metamorphosed into, "Better the Russians in Constantinople than another year of Tory rule." The Telegraph does not indeed attribute this phrase to the Earl of Shaftesbury, or to any particular person, but quotes it as the watchword of a party, and connects it with "perish India" and bag and baggage." (See D. T. Jan. 11th and Feb. 13th, 1877, post, chaps. xiv. and xv.). These persistent misrepresentations were probably not without effect, and suggest the reflection that epigrammatic phrases are sometimes double-edged weapons.

66