with it according to the same considerations which applied to Bosnia and the Herzegovina.

Why should we hesitate to declare that all our influence must be used to promote a restoration of peace? . . . . . Agree, and agree quickly, with Servia and Montenegro is the advice that must be given with authority to the Porte by the Power that has above all others the right to influence its decisions. A pacification of Bosnia and Herzegovina is part of the work of peace. The only firm settlement of Bosnia and Herzegovina that has been suggested is that of their conversion into tributary Provinces. . . . . . The suggestion that Bosnia and Herzegovina might be administered by an Austrian Prince has been received with a degree of unanimity which at least attests its practical character. -T. Aug. 29th.

It seems a strange thing to talk about peace as impending-to apply to that great blessing the language one uses of some great danger. But let us consider the meaning of that peace with which we are threatened and we shall surely see that it is no peace at all, or a horrible peace, "full of wrongs and shames," and worse than any war. Servia is to make peace with Turkey on the footing, we are told, that the state of things previous to the war be maintained Surely, it is not too late for England still to take part in that deliverance of the oppressed which will infallibly be effected without her, and, if without her, to her detriment and disgrace. Perhaps our politicians care little for the latter; but the risk to us of an exclusive Russian influence, deservedly earned by an exclusively Russian intervention, can be appreciated by the coldest-hearted of statesmen; while cordial joint action with our old ally would secure us a friendship which we may one day want, besides commanding, as a minor consideration, the restored approval of all brave and good men.-Prof. E. C. Clark, in 7. Sept. 2nd.

Let me give a warning against any meeting committing itself to the phantom of "neutrality." The days for neutrality are passed. Mr. E. A. Freeman, in D. N. Sept. 5th.1

Those who assert most strongly this necessity of upholding the authority of the Porte speak of it as "the" policy of England, and refer to it as a tradition of the highest wisdom of the last generation. No statement can be historically more untrue. Wise men do not cripple their minds with phrases, and Lord Palmerston's intellect was too free and active to allow him to suppose that the settlement of the Ottoman Empire following the close of the Crimean War was to be perpetual. All that is permanent in the English policy in the East may be summed up in the sentence that we desire to reduce to a minimum the dis

turbance involved in each inevitable change. . . . . . There is no such thing as "the" English policy in the East, written out in

1 "Points for Public Meetings," see ante, p. 401.

detail like the book of the Law, and sealed up in some Ark of the Covenant, open to none but high priests of politics. Happily for us, this notion of maintaining all things unchanged in South-Eastern Europe in the interest of England has been disproved by events. It is, indeed, clear enough that Englishmen would run the risk of a change rather than be responsible for keeping everything as it is; but they may be re-assured. What have been deprecated as necessary evils have proved blessings. Many Englishmen looked askance when Wallachia and Moldavia were erected into the semi-independent Principality of Roumania. They thought it was the first step to the absorption of these provinces into the Russian Empire; but Roumania has shown in this contest all the jealousies of an independent State, and has proved a formidable wedge between Russia and Bulgaria. . . . . Calling intermediate States into existence along the Danube has preserved the equilibrium of the European system far better than any forced maintenance of the status quo; it has been the safeguard against Russian preponderance as well as the safetyvalve of forces that could not be for ever repressed. We can have no shadow of interest in restraining the development of this process. . . . . . If these truths had been recognised last year, we inight have prevented that terrible chapter of horrors which must now remain for ever a part of Turkish history. The trouble then extended no further than Bosnia and Herzegovina. . . . . . But now it is in the highest degree doubtful whether any settlement is possible that shall not extend to Bulgaria also. The trouble has grown. The letters of Lord Russell and the Bishop of Manchester bear witness to the feeling of the nation. We have thus had fastened upon us a tremendous problem-the extension of selfgovernment to Bulgaria-because there was too much sluggishness of mind in high quarters to do the right thing at the right moment. . . . [If Lord Derby] would know shortly what Englishmen want, it is to cease from vain repetition of the language of tradition, and to come to an agreement with the Emperor of Russia on terms of peace which the two Powers can press with irresistible authority on the Sultan and his Ministers.-T. Sept. 5th.

.....

It is hard to maintain any position in English politics which cannot be defended on the hustings. . . . . . The policy which was pursued by the present Government in the East-it has, we believe, been much modified of late, not to say abandoned-cannot be defended on the hustings. A man here and there sitting in his library may evolve many ingenious arguments in its favour, to the possible satisfaction of himself, but there is not a town in England where he could address a public meeting in the same sense without being received with a chilling silence rapidly passing into loud expressions of dissatisfaction and dissent. We do not adduce this fact as a conclusive proof that the policy of sacrificing the subject races of Turkey to the maintenance of the unrestrained authority of the Porte is bad and mischievous. Popular feeling has often erred in judgment, and may err again. But it is a fact

that no Government can neglect, and least of all the present Ministry.-7. Sept. 6th.

What, then, are we to do who believe that remonstrances can here be of no avail without intervention? At present our Government is clearly looking to the country for a policy. In a short time at the very earliest date by which Parliament could be assembled-all will be over. If we are to have any effective action, those who hold definite views must express them strongly now. They must say whether they will support Ministers in proceeding, not by way of feeble remonstrance with Turkey, but by way of strong action with Russia; if so, whether they are ready to face the contingency, which, though not likely, is, of course, possible, of a European war; whether they have counted the cost of such a war, and are willing to pay their individual share of the reckoning. Tried by such a test, much inflated eloquence will collapse and much fiery zeal will grow cold. But, unless I am much mistaken, a large remnant will stand the trial, and will bear the extra income tax, and the losses of trade, and even the sacrifice of lives worth more than any money, rather than desert the " good old cause" of freedom and humanity. Definite expressions, then, of popular feeling are what is now wanted. With such support any Ministry will find it expedient to act; without it, any Ministry may well shrink from the awful responsibilities involved. It is not a question of replacing Lord Beaconsfield by Mr. Gladstone, but of enabling the one or the other to join in vindicating the honour of England and avenging the wrongs of Christendom.-Prof. E. C. Clark, in T. Sept. 8th.

It has undoubtedly come to be true that Englishmen are now of one mind in resenting the barbarities of the Turks in Bulgaria; and it seems to be also true that they are agreed in the conclusion that Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Bulgaria must, in some fashion or other, be withdrawn from the administrative control of Turkey. The voices that were heard in opposition to this policy have ceased to argue against it, and the question which now remains open and undecided refers to the means for bringing about the end we unite in desiring.-T. Sept. 11.

Mr. Gladstone maintains that if the Turk were allowed to retain the titular sovereignty of Bulgaria and the other Christian provinces, and receive an annual tribute, but be excluded for ever from their administration, he might congratulate himself upon having made a very good arrangement. We advocated this plan of settlement a year ago, and still believe that this is the only practical and permanent solution of the question now troubling Europe.-D. N. Sept. 11th.

Our leaders are improving, the Marquis of Hartington's speech at the Sheffield Feast was a very great step in advance, and shows that he can learn from Mr. Gladstone to sympathise with the feelings, and carry out the resolve of the nation, even though in great crises he has not the same power to guide and to anticipate

them.

[Quoting his peroration 11-After that the Liberal party at least may "breathe freely," for they have a pledge that their leader will lead them where they know that they ought to go; nor is it easy to conceive that Lord Hartington can have so gravely pronounced himself on the weightiest subject of the day without previous consultation with Lord Granville. Let us hope that in the Conservative camp, too, there will be principle enough and foresight enough to see that without cutting through the strands of the policy which keeps the Conservative Government close-tied to the dead-weight of Turkish crime, there will be no rescuing the Administration from that speedy fate which overtakes swimmers who try to swim in deep waters with stones about their necks. Spec. Sept. 9th.

The election to fill the seat for the county of Buckingham, vacated by the Premier's peerage, took place on Sept. 21st. The result was expected with considerable interest. The Liberal candidate, Mr. Carington, pronounced for the "violet" policy, while the sympathies of Mr. Fremantle, the Conservative, inclined to the "red." 2

The Conservatives have, as was fully expected, succeeded in retaining the seat for Buckinghamshire so long held by Mr. Disraeli; but they have done so after a contest which has proved unexpectedly close, and it is very doubtful how far their success can deserve to be called a victory. [This] cannot but indicate the spread in the constituency of some distrust of the Government. The result, thus regarded, is probably a very fair illustration of the prevalent feeling in the country. That feeling is not one of decisive condemnation of the Government, for among moderate men great allowance is everywhere made for their difficulties. But it is one of uneasiness and anxiety; which might easily be aggravated into decided distrust. Mr. Disraeli has always exhibited a respectful appreciation of the constitutionally expressed opinion of the constituencies, and he is not likely to ignore this intimation of incipient defection. He is not, of course, the man to make a sudden change in his course merely to regain the popular vote. But it is simply, so to speak, a matter of business for a statesman that he should recognise the popular forces with which he has to deal. . . . Public opinion is in England the instrument and the only trustworthy instrument, which a Prime Minister and a Secretary for Foreign Affairs have at their disposal; and if that opinion has decidedly expressed itself in favour of one course or against another, it is a matter of simple necessity that the foreign policy of the country should be modified accordingly. 1 Ante, p. 398.

:

2 The following were the results of the polling -Hon. T. F. Freemantle, 2,725; Hon. Rupert Carington, 2,539-majority, 186. The Times (Sept. 23rd) computed that, as compared with the general election, 177 voters had deserted the Conservative side, while about 600 others, who did not then come forward, supported Mr. Carington.

Now the Buckinghamshire election is the last among many evidences that upon one most important point a change of opinion of this kind has passed over the country.-T. Sept. 23rd.

The Daily Telegraph characteristically attributed the Liberal defeat to just the circumstance which was generally regarded as accounting for the narrowness of the Conservative victory.

It is possible, indeed, that the remarkable result of a triumph for the Liberal cause might even have been attained, if greater reliance had been reposed upon the principles of reform in legislation, and the signal personal advantages of the candidate had not been compromised by what seemed to many electors in Bucks an unpatriotic programme.--D. T. Sept. 23rd.

Two articles purporting to be representative of the attitude of English working men belong to this epoch.1 We have already quoted from one of them an illustration of one of the factors of anti-Turkism. This shows a great advance in the "violet" direction since the Willis's Rooms meeting in July, when Mr. Howell stood up as the spokesman of Isolation, demanding neutrality and non-intervention on the one side and the other.3 The writer, Mr. Howell, says the working men are for making Turkey do right to the Christians, though they know full well that in the event of war they would be the first and greatest sufferers. They would still cry out "Let us do right though the heavens may fall." Not that they want war. They detest it. But they believe that if the English Government were to "put its foot down," the other Powers would act in concert with it.

The writer of the other article, Mr. Potter, says on the other hand:

The working men, even the most liberal among them, will refuse to make these Bulgarian atrocities a question between the Ministerial Ins and the Opposition Outs. If the Liberal party is to be reconstituted, and brought into effective discipline, other and very different questions will have to be chosen as a programme for a Liberal party. And the leaders of that party, as well as numbers of their following, will have to stand before the country for the purpose of carrying questions which the working men thoroughly understand and which have a direct bearing on their lives, and the interests of their lives.-Contemp. Rev. Oct. 1876.

1 Contemp. Rev. Oct. 1876.

2 Ante, p. 85.

3 Ante, p. 361.

4 But this article of Mr. Potter's does not accord with the sentiments of the Address from the Trades Unions to Lord Derby, which Mr. Potter read on Sept. 11th (post, § 5). Mr. Howell, in his article, attributes that Address to "The Workingclass Leaders," and says it was finally agreed to before Mr. Gladstone had spoken at Blackheath. He does not say whether it was so before the pamphlet had appeared.