The fruits of the Crimean war are, it may be said, as good as lost; not because it was a mistake to enter upon that war, but because we did not push our victories to a more practical conclusion.

progress of

disturbances

It may be well at this point to consider the Origin and 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 Slavs. 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

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

service of their Government, were allowed to join the Christian armies against the Porte. It is impossible to deny, in the face of these facts, that the conflict now waged in Turkey is not the result of a spontaneous national or religious movement, but is simply due to the action of Russia, working for her own ends upon the natural antagonism between Christian and Turk.* Such being the case, it is evident that any political sympathy with the opponents of the Porte is misplaced, and that the cry about the Bulgarian atrocities, which for a time was so popular among a certain class of

*Writing on this subject, a Russian radical paper, the Nabat, of Geneva, says: "A government steeped in the blood of the Poles dares to speak of Slavonic fraternity; the very men who have exterminated language and nationality in Poland, Little Russia, and the Caucasus, now come to us with the doctrine of nationality on their lips. ... Those who have shot down and tortured the Polish Catholics, merely because they wished to pray in the same fashion as their forefathers had prayed before them, who had desecrated and shut up churches, now speak of the Christian religion as endangered by Mussulman fanaticism. More colossal hypo

crisy than this cannot be imagined.... For years past the Russian Government has been carrying on an agitation in Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Herzegovina; Russian spies have been distributing Russian gold, with which they stimulated the unfortunate Slavs to insurrection."

Why Russia wants Con

pseudo-political religious enthusiasts in this country, has simply played into the hands of Russia.

Why should we go out of our way to ascribe stantinople. the underhand machinations above set forth to

humanitarian influences, when the lessons of history and the present wants of the Russian nation clearly point to their true cause? The removal by Peter the Great of the Russian capital from Moscow to the vicinity of the sea at St. Petersburg showed the importance which Russia attaches to a sea-board; and her history ever since has recorded her incessant efforts to develop her naval power on the south. As has been well observed by a writer in the Manchester Guardian, Russia is now in possession of the whole coast of the Black Sea from the south of the Caucasus to the neighbourhood of the Danube; some of her largest rivers fall into that sea, and her most flourishing commercial ports, with the second of her naval arsenals, are on its shores. The Black Sea, in a word, is the natural maritime outlet for onehalf of the European territories of Russia. But the road from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean,

the East, or the Atlantic, lies through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, which are commanded by Constantinople. It is obviously the interest of Russia, therefore, that the Turkish capital, which is the key of the Black Sea, should be in her hands. But this is not all. The possession of such a country as Turkey, with unrivalled and still undeveloped resources, would give an extraordinary impetus to Russian industry and commerce; it would enrich her middle classes, extend her territory, multiply her population and her military forces, add to her revenue, and secure for her policy a most powerful influence on the affairs of Europe, by enabling her to become a first-class naval

Power.

It is no disgrace to Russia, under these circumstances, that she should aspire to the possession of Constantinople. If, frankly abandoning the petty subterfuge of a humanitarian crusade on behalf of the Turkish Christians, she plainly declared that her object was to remove an obstacle to the natural development of her power and the promotion of her interests, it would not lie in the mouth of any great European State to blame her.