LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
MR. SEEBOHM ON THE EASTERN QUESTION.
[TO TRE EDITOR OF VIE "SPECTATOR.")
venture to suggest that the time is come when the nation has a right to expect from its political leaders a plain statement of what they want to accomplish in the East. If more definite views were expressed by statesmen of both parties as to the practical result desired to be attained by a Conference, not only would the nation understand better what it is about, but possibly also the difficulties in the way of the meeting of the Conference itself might more easily be conquered.
I am not one of those who regard the Treaty of 1856 as torn into shreds,—as having utterly failed at the point of its trial. Unwise as the war which preceded it probably was, and unhappy, in the light of subsequent events, as the attempt to treat a bar- barous as a civilised Power has proved, I yet cannot but hold that the interposition by the Treaty of a European concert be- tween Turkish incapacity and Russian ambition was a step gained for international civilisation, too valuable to be lightly reversed now.
By Clause VII. of the Treaty, the Powers bound themselves to respect the settlement thereby made, and to treat any breach of it as a matter of general interest. And by Clause VIII. they engaged that in case anything should arise between any one of them and Turkey which should endanger their relations, oppor- tunity should be given for the mediation of the other Powers, before resort to force.
The European concert thus established has not wholly failed. A breach of the settlement by Turkey occurred. It was made a matter of general interest. Before proceeding to force, Russia did give the other Powers the opportunity of mediation. The Conference at Constantinople was held, and probably would have succeeded, had any other than Lord Beaconsfield been at the bead of the English Government. But the unfortunate fact was that Turkey, misled by illusions, refused to accept the result of the Conference. Whereupon the other Powers stood aside, and left the quarrel to be fought out between Russia and Turkey. And it is plain to see that their neutrality involved the logical result that any renewal of the European concert must inevitably be based upon the status quo after instead of before the war. The war is over, and the preliminary Treaty of San Stefano signed. And now the practical question to be decided is whether the con- cert of Europe is to be re-established or not.
I think the wisest men of all political parties would unite in the conclusion that it ought to be renewed, unless, indeed, we wish to revert to Lynch law in the East, to abandon the independence of the Danubian Principalities to the chapter of accidents, to hazard an unseemly scramble for the spoils of Turkey, to sanction an im- moral seizure by one nation and another (our own included !) of whatever may seem needful to preserve the phantom of balance of power in the East, all which, if not ending very soon in war, would at least create a new and far more gigantic Eastern Question for future generations to deal with than that which troubles us now.
I assume, then, that the object of a Conference ought to be to discuss and modify, so that they may be sanctioned, the changes resulting from the war,—the independence of Roumania, Servia, and Montenegro, the limits and constitution of the new Bulgaria, and other still Turkish provinces, as well as any questions, if these should be raised, respecting the Straits or the Suez Canal ; and,
then, having, if possible, arrived at, by mutual concession, if not entirely to mutual satisfaction, a new settlement, to re-establish with regard to it a European concert in the spirit of Clauses VII. and' VIII. of the Treaty of 1856, viz. :—The mutual engagement of - the Powers,—(1), that they will individually respect its terms, and: consider any breach of them a matter of general interest ; and (2), that should any question arise between any of them endangering their relations, opportunity shall be given for the friendly media- tion of the other Powers, before resort to force.
Now if the re-establishment of a European concert on the basis- of a new settlement of Eastern Europe be what is really aimed at, is it needful and is it wise to humiliate Russia by demanding the formal submission of the Treaty of San Stefano to the Con- ference as the one needful preliminary to its meeting ? Would- it not be far better to follow the precedent of 1856, to- draw up and agree upon a "Project of Preliminaries," enume- rating the matters to be discussed and settled, and ending with a clause like that adopted in 1856, stating that the Powers re- serve to themselves the right, which belongs to them, of proposing, in the interests of Europe other conditions, in addition to those specially enumerated ? Would not every right and every point of international honour be saved by such a procedure, and would it not be an inestimable advantage, in the interest of a permanent settlement for permanent peace, that Russia could enter the Con- ference upon such terms as these, without reproach and withOut humiliation ?
There is but one objection which occurs to me as likely to be urged against this proposed reconstruction of a European concert- on the Eastern Question. It is that when future occasions arise, the attempt to avert war by a future Conference may be no more successful than it has been now. But there are two important considerations which justify better hopes for the future. The first is that Turkey, after recent experience, will probably think twice before again rejecting the united counsels of Europe. The second is that, happily for England, Lord Beaconsfield is not likely to be the perpetual Prime Minister of the Queen.—I am, Sir, &c.,_
F. SEEnoilm.
Previous page
