Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

knowledge of the qualities of the Turk; and we have had in our hands, if we had chosen to use it, perfect power to restrain the animal from acting according to his odious and detestable nature.” This is a very telling way of putting the case, but

, it happens to be entirely inconsistent with the facts. In what sense can it be said that Turkey is in our keeping? Her position in the public law of Europe is defined by the Treaty of Paris, which (Article 7) declares the Ottoman Empire to be an independent State, and places its independence and integrity under the guarantee of all the European Powers. Next, as to our being "aware that the dog is a fierce dog." It may be true that we have for many years had “ a thorough knowledge of the qualities of the Turk;” but that knowledge certainly did not show us that Turkey is an aggressively savage Power, in

any way like “a fierce dog which flies at everybody who comes near and tries to tear them to pieces.” This would be an admirable description of a Power which, ever since it has been an Empire, has pursued an incessant career of aggression and conquest, but it certainly cannot apply to a declining State whose efforts have during the

term "

last two centuries been almost exclusively directed to the defence of its own possessions.

If Mr. Lowe's meaning is that Turkey treats its subjects like a fierce dog, the simile would apply to most despotic States; and his moral would point to our becoming the champion of all distressed nationalities—a policy of which, however chivalrous and philanthropic, Mr. Lowe can hardly be supposed, even by the wildest stretch of imagination, to be the advocate. Finally, as to our

power to restrain the animal”-unless Mr. Lowe means by the

power,le droit du plus fortit has already been shown that the ninth Article of the Treaty of Paris deprives us of the right of exercising such power.

The Crimean war was fought, not for the purpose of assisting the Sultan to oppress his Christian subjects, nor for that of defending them against him, but simply in order to protect our interests in the East against the aggression of Russia. That object, it must be confessed, was Were the

results aimed but imperfectly attained.

We certainly shut out at by the

Crimean war Russia from the Danube by depriving her of a por- attained ?

E

ܪ

tion of Bessarabia ; * but the articles of the Treaty of Paris forbidding Russia to keep ships of war in the Black Sea, which were at the time regarded as the most effectual protection against Russian ambition, have ceased to exist. The high-handed way in which Russia repudiated these provisions in 1870 was deservedly condemned by the united voice of Europe, yet it must be admitted that a first-class Power could not be expected to submit for an indefinite period to so humiliating a restriction of its natural development. The truth is that although Russia was beaten in the field, no sufficient precautions were taken to prevent the recurrence of such a state of things as made it necessary for us to make war upon her in 1853. Her military power, which was then almost crushed, is now far greater than it was at the time of the Crimean war ;

her communications with South-Eastern Europe are enormously improved, and she has successfully employed the interval during which she has been reorganising her political and military system, in securing a most powerful and extensive influence over the Slavonic subjects of the Porte.

[ocr errors]

* See the Treaty of Paris, Art. 20 (Appendix).

enter upon

that war,

disturbances

The fruits of the Crimean war are, it

may

be said, as good as lost; not because it was a mistake to

but because we did not push our victories to a more practical conclusion. It may be well at this point to consider the Origin and

progress of allegation of the Slavophiles in this country that the present the conduct of Russia towards Turkey has been in the East. actuated solely by motives of humanity, and by the community of race and religion between herself and the Turkish Slays. What has been the conduct of Russia throughout these Eastern troubles ? It is a notorious fact that for years before the Herzegovinian insurrection broke out, there have been Russian committees, both in Russia proper and in Bucharest, which have been engaged in fomenting revolutionary outbreaks among the Christian populations of the provinces of Turkey; Russian agents were incessantly at work in those provinces, and though it may not have suited the policy of the Government of St. Petersburg to produce a general rising, their efforts brought about partial insurrections, keeping up a smouldering flame of hostility between Turks and Christians that only required the stronger breath of official Russian

manner

we

interference to fan it into a vast conflagration. That these risings were not the result of Turkish oppression, is shown by the fact that the Christian populations of Epirus, Macedonia, and Thessaly, who were treated in precisely the same by their Turkish rulers as those of Bulgaria and Herzegovina, have remained perfectly quiet since the Crimean war. The insurrection in Bulgaria which was the cause of the " atrocities” of which

have heard so much, was preceded by numberless other Bulgarian risings; these, however, were suppressed with comparatively little bloodshed, simply because the rest of the Turkish Empire was then at peace, and the fanaticism of the Mahometan population had, as yet, not been artificially aroused. But the bankruptcy of Turkey, and the imbecility of her ruler, evidently seemed to the astute Muscovite statesmen to afford a propitious opportunity of precipitating the dissolution of the Empire. Servia and Montenegro were encouraged to make

to

upon their Suzerain ; Russian agents swarmed in Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Herzegovina, and Russian officers and soldiers, though remaining in the

war

« ZurückWeiter »