awaits England should she persist in cancelling from her external policy that principle of liberty which was the source of her power, and still inspires her internal life. [He traces the attempts to find a guiding principle of international action after Catholicism had lost its influence. Of these attempts the most important is that which looks to the balance of power.] All of these systems -the issue of the materialistic idea-were foredoomed to perish in impotence, anarchy and crime. . . . At the present day, the nations, as if in despair of finding any remedy for the ever-recurring conflict, are inclining, under the guidance of England, to the theory of non-intervention, a theory which is founded upon no principle, but is the negation of every principle hitherto accepted (intellectually at least) by humanity—the unity of God and of the moral law, the unity of the human family and of the aim set before us all, the fraternity and association of the peoples, and the duty of combating evil and promoting the triumph of good.1

It is clear that immediately before the recrudescence of the Eastern Question the inclination in England was to regard the tendency to the aggregation of great States on the lines of Nationality, if not with actual complacency, yet as one against which it was in vain to struggle, and which could be no more than regulated.

To understand the aspirations and ideas of Russians we must endeavour to put ourselves for the moment in their places. What Russia urgently needs is first of all a settlement of the allimportant Slavonic Question, of which the Eastern Question is but a part. It is most desirable that this subject should be thoroughly comprehended by Englishmen, and that we should rid ourselves of the ordinary schoolboy view of the question-that of great, strong, cruel Russia bullying poor weak inoffensive Turkey. -Fraser's Mag. Oct. 1875.

Viewed in the light of such a doctrine, the claims of the Provincials to be emancipated from Turkish rule, and to be constituted in some form or other into States of Slav Nationality, was a legitimate one, the satisfaction of which would tend to the tranquillity of Europe. In this last aspect we get an affinity with the notions yet to be spoken of which point to the preservation of the peace of Europe as the great end to be accomplished. We note, too, that this notion treats Russian impatience of Turkish oppression as a natural, nay, commendable, feeling. It sympathises with it so far as to admit its claim to be satisfied.

The Continental doctrine of Nationality, as a general principle

1 "Letters on International Policy," translated in the Fort. Rev. April, 1877. apare a letter from Mazzini, T. Feb. 8, 1876.)

applicable to all cases, probably has not very much vitality in England. It was said in Italy that England was incapable of dealing with the East because she did not understand Nationality. But in this special case, no doubt there were those who recognised its appropriateness. On the other hand, a somewhat revolutionary flavour was associated with it, and in so far as anything like PanSlavism was supposed to be involved it is probable that the idea of any connection between the Eastern Question and the doctrine of Nationality operated rather to increase suspicion of Russia. There was a tendency to despise the Slavonic enthusiasm of race, even among some who thoroughly believed in its genuineness.

It is a strange instance of the force of national jealousy, that Englishmen, who understood and applauded the career of Garibaldi, should sneer at the Russian enthusiasm for the Christians of Turkey. But inasmuch as the Russian people are far more religious, or rather more theological, than the Italian-are in a far lower state of civilisation, and thus more liable to the stupid fanaticism of race . . . we have every ground for believing that their sympathy with their brethren across the Danube is of a more passionate kind than any we have seen in Italy.-F. Harrison, Fort. Rev. Dec. 1876, p. 721.1

On the other hand Mr. Freeman, in an article in which he examines into the foundation of the notion of race, regards this sentiment as far less primitive.

The plain fact is that the new lines of scientific and historical inquiry which have been opened in modern times have had a distinct and deep effect upon the politics of the age... Ethnological and philological researches have opened the way for new national sympathies, new national antipathies, such as would have been unintelligible a hundred years ago.-Contemp. Rev. March, 1877.2

SF.-The Open Sore must be Healed.

In passing from the wish to help an oppressed people, whether because they are conceived of as bound to us by ties of blood or of religion, or from a simple humane feeling, to the notion that to set up Slav Nationalities would ultimately tend to the benefit of Europe, we seem to be leaving the region of what has been called sentiment for the region of diplomatic calculation. In the remaining notions of anti-Turkism we shall find that this characteristic

1 "Cross and Crescent." Compare with this the introduction to the first volume of the sixth (Cabinet) edition of Kinglake's Crimean War, dated Dec. 20, 1876. "Race and Language," reprinted in Hist. Essays, Third Series.

is more marked, and that the emancipation of the provincials from Turkish rule is pointed to, not so much for the sake of the provincials, as for the sake of other people. This notion, so far as the ultimate end is concerned, has much in common with the view presently alluded to as "Order," but it differed in its conception of the appropriate treatment. "Order" was content that the malady should be suppressed by driving the symptoms inwards, while the notion we are considering, regarded as an element of anti-Turkism, was a conviction that nothing short of an heroic remedy would go to the root of the evil.

Obviously things cannot go on as they have done. Europe cannot tolerate such open sores as these chronic insurrections in what might be some of her fairest lands. The grim resolution of the Herzegovinians to perish or flee the land to a man rather than yield again to the Turk is itself enough.-A. J. Wilson, Macmillan's Mag. Dec. 1875.

The dangers of the status quo are now at least distinctly greater than the dangers of action. . . . The arguments that the Ottoman rule is abominably evil; that whilst it remains unchanged and controlled, Eastern Europe must continue in a hopeless ferment; that Russia must certainly open war unless it is controlled; that the existence of this rule is practically the work of ancient and continuing interferences these arguments would seem now to overpower the risks of entering on a course of which no man can foretell the end, of proclaiming the doctrine that evil governments are to be controlled by foreign neighbours. . . It is idle any longer to dream of the status quo in Turkey as a guarantee for the peace of Europe, for it is become its principal disturbing cause.-F. Harrison, Fort. Rev. Dec. 1876.1

This notion seems to involve the assumption that Turkish government in the provinces could be abolished without a serious disturbance, which is directly contrary to the notion we shall have to speak of presently-that Turkey, if pushed too hard, would raise a Jehad.

§ G.-The Concert of Europe.

Closely connected with the last is the notion which saw the path of safety in collective action by the European Powers as the alternative to the otherwise inevitable single-handed action on the part of Russia. By preserving the "Concert of Europe" it was thought the danger of serious conflict would be averted, either with the Ottoman Power, or among the supporters of rival schemes

1 "Cross and Crescent."

for dealing with it. Turkey, it was said, would not resist the collective pressure of Europe. Hence the importance of maintaining the European Concert, and the unwillingness in many quarters to embark England in any course of pressure except jointly with all the other Powers of Europe. This notion assumed importance in the position taken by some of the leading members of the Opposition.

There are various forms of external foreign intervention, some more effective in the opinion of many and some more stringent than others; but what I think we ought to keep in view, and the great distinction which we ought to bear in mind is, that intervention of the mildest kind by any single Power is fraught with the greatest possible danger to the peace of Europe, but that intervention even of a much more stringent character, if made by the unanimous consent of the whole of Europe, although it too may have its dangers and difficulties, is still a far less dangerous course to be adopted. Lord Hartington.1

There is another aspect of this notion, that namely, which welcomes any collective or judicial European action as an approach to "The Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World."

The more judicial the proceedings of the Six Great Powers, the more beneficial will be their operations. Nay, it may be hoped that at this crisis the basis may be laid for an International Tribunal, which shall mediate authoritatively in the future quarrels of European States. If this end can be won, the present affliction may become an auspicious beginning of a wiser and happier conjunction.-F. O. Newman, Fraser, Oct. 1876.2

While, as it thus appears, there were those to whom the "Concert of Europe" was welcome, not merely on account of the object it was to attain in this particular instance, but because it seemed to be a step towards the international organisation destined to exist "When the war drums throb no longer, and the battle flags are furled," there were others to whom this "Concert of Europe" seems to have been obnoxious as being hostile to national independence.

Hatred of the "Holy Alliance" was, as we shall see, an important element of the anti-Russian view. There appear to have been some who saw in the attempt to bring about the "Concert of Europe "a taint of the Holy Alliance, and an approach to the state of things of which Canning's biographer speaks in the following passage.

In short, a new era had commenced in the history of the world-a system of governing Europe by congresses, instead of by 1 Speech at Keighley, Nov. 3, 1876.

2 "Cause and object of the Crimean War."

7

separate and independent governments was established. A scheme. was formed, and actually begun to be put in operation, to destroy throughout the globe the just freedom of the people.-Stapleton's Canning, vol. i. p. 62.

Russia was regarded as the moving spirit of this revived coalition, and it was assumed that the almost preternatural cunning attributed to her diplomacy would ensure for her the practical dominion of Europe.

Shall we support the scheme for establishing an extranational Government of Europe, or shall we fight to preserve our liberties?-Lord Robert Montagu.1

Thus in "anti-Russism" we find factors antithetical to the "Concert of Europe." We meet, too, with another instance of the farreaching consequences of the acceptance or rejection of the doctrine "The Turk is non-European"; for this dread of a revived Holy Alliance taking upon itself to keep in check and manage the affairs of all the European peoples, had no application to the Eastern Question except in the eyes of those who refused to recognise the essential difference between Turkey and the other countries of Europe.

§ H.-The Provincials may be made a Barrier against Russian

Aggression.

In this, the last of the notions of anti-Turkism, we get the first distinct appearance of anti-Russian feeling. We make acquaintance with the idea of Russia as the bugbear of Europe. In this instance the idea takes the specific shape of the belief that Russia is a Power naturally inclined to aggression, who must be deprived of all opportunity or shadow of an excuse.

Nothing can be clearer than this, that the more reason we have, or believe we have, for suspecting the ultimate designs of Russia, the more prompt we ought to be in admitting all reasonable demands that may be put forth by it. The way to check Russia's unreasonable demands is to anticipate and admit all that she can fairly claim. It is undeniable that the Government of the Czar is more than justified in insisting upon the necessity of Turkey giving security for the accomplishment of the reforms promised by the Porte.-7. Oct. 23, 1876.

The opportunity, too, which the state of the Christian, and especially of the Slav, populations affords Russia for ostentatiously displaying sympathy, and so increasing her influence in those England and the Eastern Question, p. 316 (compare p. 326).

1