THE EXPLANATIONS.
AT last we have from Ministers themselves, historically and offi- cially, a statement of the war, its progress thus far, the position to which it has brought us, and so much us Ministers already foresee, or think it discreet to tell, of its future progress. For it will be continued, and this it is important to bear in mind. The Duke of Newcastle says, " It is the resolution of this country, to prosecute the war, and I confidently approve that resolution. Lord John Russell says, " I never have been able to get anybody to tell me how we are to effect our object except by a long and protracted war"; and it must be brought to " a just and honourable and glorious termination." War was declared on the 29th of March, and in April Government sent instructions to Lord Raglan; the objects then being, to defend Constantinople, to defend the line of the Balkan, and be ready to attempt to strike a blow at some vital part of the Russian empire. The war continued to turn upon the Russo-Gallic dispute about the Latin Churches throughout the stage which dictated the military action down to the expedition Item Varna. At its commencement, therefore, the war was one for the repulsion of Russia from Turkey. Considering the species of pressure which Russia had put upon the Porte, the blow at the Crimea constituted an essential part of the Allied policy ; and, as the Duke of Newcastle said, "from the first the invasion of the Crimea was contemplated." It may be said that in the early stage our pro- ceedings were quite successful. The siege of Silistria was raised, and Russia was driven from the Principalities ; but no approach was made towards securing a material guarantee that her aggres- sion upon Turkey would not be renewed. In order to that end, as Lord Aberdeen says, it is necessary to destroy the fortress of Sebastopol. The destruction of that fortress, therefore, constitutes a substantive object on grounds of general policy, as well as the next blow to be effected in the prosecution of the war. We are still contemplating that difficult but essential move in the game. What next ? On this point we have nothing definite or intelli- gible,—unless the just and honourable peace which is to be the end of the protracted war constitutes the next object. Between the razing of Sebastopol and that distant object the field of view is vacant or dark.
There are, indeed, intermediate objects which are not andis- cussed ; and the distribution of the discussion is too remarkable to be overlooked. Lord Derby, Mr. Disraeli, and their coadjutors, hinted dislike of the Austrian treaty, and appeared in fact quite anti-Austrian in their views. Lord Carlisle, however, took a part doubled in the House of Commons by Sir Robert Peel, and objected to "notions" of extorting peace "upon extreme conditions," and "accompanied by subversive changes " ; and be appealed to the " calm, sober, conscientious feeling and mind" of the country. The Duke of Argyll gave greater distinctness to the same ideas. The war, he said, might be entered upon with two views : one, holding " that the object of this war was some such vague one as had been mentioned on various platforms out of doors—some ob- ject of warring against despotic governments, and of supporting what were called oppressed nationalities' "; but the Duke was sure not one of their Lordships held this view : and if they did not adopt it, " they must heartily embrace the other, namely, that the only and single object of the war was to resist the progress of the dominion of Russia in the East of Europe." The Duke of Argyll is a Cabinet Minister, and we find another Cabinet Hamster touching upon the same subject, but from quite a different point of view. Lord Hardwicke had hinted the assumption, that in alliance with Austria we must support her in Italy, in Poland, and in Hungary, of course as against the people. Lord Aberdeen repelled this assumption : " The noble Earl may make himself perfectly easy on that score, as no engage- ment of such a description has ever entered into our minds or exists." In like manner, the Duke of Newcastle repels the idea of bringing the war to a close until it shall "assure for a series of years the repose, the civilization, and the prosperity of those coun- tries of Europe which have been so unfortunately plunged into war by the pride and ambition of the Emperor of one great nation." "I assure your Lordships that we look to prosecute this war, if we continue to possess the confidence of Parliament, with firm re- sorve and unflinching perseverance. I do not understand what is Meant by moderate counsels.' I say we are prepared to prosecute the war with firm resolve and unflinching firmness." This presents a rather remarkable distinction of views. The Duke of Argyll rejects as absolutely untenable the idea of sus- taining the "nationalities." Lord Aberdeen repels as inadmis- sible the notion of being pledged to assist the power that puts down. the nationalities. The Duke of Argyll repudiates " subver- live " ideas; the Duke of Newcastle does not understand "mo- derate" counsels. It is not a distinction of mere words : we know that the Duke of Newcastle would as readily agree with genuine moderation as any man in the Cabinet ; but he applies the word as a received nickname for a compromise between the principles of absolutism and those of generous freedom. If we accept the po- sitive statement of the Duke of Argyll, the ulterior object to be discerned beyond the razed walls of Sebastopol is only the curbing of the power of Russia in the East; as if that power were not equally mischievous, or more so, in Scandinavia and in Germany ; as if it were not equally open to be assailed in the Baltic as in the Euxine, in Poland as in the Principalities. But the very prin- ciple upon which the Duke rests is inconsistent with the inference naturally suggested by the negative asseverations of the Duke of Newcastle and Lord Aberdeen.
Our inference is, that the Cabinet, although united upon the im- mediate or next object of the war, is not united upon the ulterior object—the object after the next ; that the next move, in fact, con- stitutes an open question in the Cabinet. There is, then, no plan. We have no respect for the Opposition nonsense which accuses Ministers of living from hand to month. Ministers represent the country. After Reform, after the system established in 1815 has been turned inside out, and after we have learned to know it in its results, we have discovered that England cannot cooperate in the action of Absolutist Governments; but we have not yet familiarized our ideas to a counter policy, or learned how to shape it inde- pendently of the mere adventurers who chatter about " nationali- ties," and urge England to depart from her constitutional path. Ministers have no plan—but who has a plan" Has Lord Grey, who makes the complaint, a plan for the'reduction of Sebastopol or the Crimea ? Has Mr. Disraeli a plan, at which the country would not laugh, for coercing presumptuous Russia and erecting a healthier influence in its place ? No; after many years of headlong plunging into peace, we have plunged into war, which we re- fused to think about ; thus we are driven to work out a problem in acts, and to design, while in the prosecution of the work, a theory, a plan, and an execution.
Previous page
