TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE MINISTERIAL POLICY.
IT is, of course, the official thing to say that the policy of the Government was not disclosed on Thursday, because the papers on which alone it could be discussed had not been presented. In point of fact, however, there was a very distinct declaration of the policy of the Administra- tion,— a much more distinct declaration than we ex- pected on the first night of the Session. What we conceive to be clear is that the policy of Lord Derby,— the earlier policy of Lord Derby,—has conquered, and that there is a well-marked recession from the energetic language of the autumn,—we refer, of course, to the energetic language of Lord Derby himself against Turkey, and not to the energetic language of his chief on behalf of Turkey,—towards the cold indifference of spring and summer. The policy of laissez- faire is for the moment in the ascendant, and so far as it is qualified at all,—at least by Lord Derby,—for Lord Salis- bury's qualifications were qualifications in an opposite sense,— it is qualified in the direction of Mr. Disraeli, rather than in the direction of the Liberals. Every touch of a nature to show the really uppermost feeling in the thought of the speaker, indicates that the set of Lord Derby's mind is again running strongly in the direction of securing laissez-faire, as regards all the Powers, if he can, and observing it, as regards England, in any case. We must remember that in the autumn he said, as the Duke of Argyll reminded him, as much as this, —that the Bulgarians had a right to expect that "we should take steps" "such as may secure them from a recurrence" of abuses similar to the Bulgarian horrors "for the future." He now admits that we have not secured anything of the kind for them, and he protests against any step which could possibly secure it for them. Here is a definite recession. In the autumn he demanded from Turkey "re- paration for the past and security for the future." Now he is content, and even, if we may judge from his speech, well satisfied with himself, without getting either, and evi- dently has no hope of obtaining either, unless Turkey should miraculously change her nature, and give good government of her own spontaneous good-wilL Again, Lord Derby has reverted, as the Duke of Argyll also pointed out, to his old attitude of mind about the insurrection in the Herzegovina. He deeply regrets now, as he deeply regretted last year, that it was not at once effectually put down. And he deeply regrets it now, though he has since tried all that moral influence on Turkey can do to secure a remedy for the wrongs which caused that insurrection, and has signally failed. He objected, he says, to the Berlin Memorandum, because the settlement proposed required that the Porte should be" bound," while the insurgents were not to be bound by the arrangement,—which is very like objecting to binding over a man, who has tried to murder his wife, to keep the peace, on the ground that it is most unfair to bind the man without also binding the woman. Again, Lord Derby objected to any policy which would imply using coercion against Turkey. "To that policy we did not assent. We have always repudiated and rejected it. From the first, we have been on our guard against the risk of being drawn to join in any armed coercion against the Porte, which probably might have involved us in a war inconsistent with justice." Again, Lord Derby declared most emphatically, and re- iterated, that on going into Conference we had formally explained that we would not enforce against Turkey any decision arrived at, by the use of coercion, and he praised Lord Salisbury, not for the decision with which he pressed the demands of the Con- ference on Turkey, but for the skill with which he had pared down the demands of Russia. "Thanks mainly to the energy and decision of my noble friend, the original Russian pro- gramme, which there was no hope of the Porte accepting, has been out down in material points." And he pointed with triumph to the extremely small demands made at the close,—so small, he said, that the difference between what Russia then asked, and what the Porte was willing to concede,--(and the Porte, remember, was willing to con- cede nothing in the world but spontaneous reforms),—was so trivial, that it could not reasonably be made a cause of war.
Then, again, as to the Treaties, Lord Derby most emphatically asserted that we had receded in no degree from the obligations of the Treaties of 1856, though with his usual skill in mini- mising, he showed that it was hardly possible we could be expected to do anything under the Treaties of 1856,—the only Powers who could require us to act under them being Austria and France, who are not very likely to summon us to take up arms for Turkey. Then note, again, the exceptional case in which, as it seemed, Lord Derby thought it still possible we might have to go to war. "I am not saying that under all possible circumstances, such as that of Constantinople being threatened, inaction would be our duty. That is a ques- tion on which it would be quite unnecessary and wholly unwise to pledge ourselves now. But I wish to point out that in the languagb we held in May last, and which we have held throughout, we were not departing from those engage- ments into which the country has entered, but simply declining to give them a construction more stringent than they will fairly bear." It is clear from Lord Derby's declarations that the foreign policy of the country, while he has its guidance, is to be the strictest laissez-faire, but that if Con- stantinople were threatened by Russia, then perhaps that policy might be broken through, and we might defend Constantinople for Turkey against Russia. To maintain the "independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire" is as much the object of the Government as ever, though it is to be preserved only by the exertion of moral influence, except under the one contingency suggested. "We undertake [by the Treaty of 1856] to respect the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire. That is easy enough for us, who certainly have no designs against Turkey. We guarantee in common the strict observance of that engagement, that we will undertake to observe it, and to do what we can to make others observe it." And of course, should Russia propose to tear to pieces that Treaty, all the moral influence we could use to prevent her active intervention in Turkey will be used. Such is the drift of Lord Derby's policy, and it was confirmed by Sir Stafford Northcote's speech in the House of Commons. He, too, argued that the Treaties of 1856 were still in force, that no plan for the protection of the Christians of Turkey inconsistent with the integrity of the Ottoman Empire would receive our sanction ; and he read the instructions to Lord Salisbury, in which it was expressly declared that "Her Majesty's Government cannot countenance the introduction into the Conference of proposals, however plausible or well- intentioned, which would bring foreign armies into Turkish territory, in violation of the engagements by which the Guaranteeing Powers are solemnly bound ; " whence it appears that the proposals for the occupation of Bulgaria by a Belgian or any other foreign army, can never have had any sanction from Lord Salisbury. Nor did anything in Lord Salisbury's speech in the least modify the effect of Lord Derby's and Sir Stafford Northcote's declarations. It was indeed obvious that Lord Salisbury was not prepared to exclude absolutely the possibility of our intervention on behalf of the Christian populations of Turkey, under eventualities which might be imagined. While Lord Derby explained that it might become necessary to intervene on behalf of Turkey if Constantinople were threatened, Lord Salisbury hinted that it might conceivably become necessary to intervene on the other side, and denied that the Ministry were committed against such a possibility,—which of course they are not,— though with Lord Beaconsfield at the head of the Cabinet and Lord Derby at the Foreign Office, that is something like saying that they are not pledged against undertaking the conquest of France, in case that policy became necessary. Lord Salisbury's disclaimer, therefore, is only interesting as showing the opposite interpretations given by the Ministry to "that promise and potency of all forms of life" still open to them, as to all other organisms. "It is not the duty of any Foreign Minister,' said Lord Salisbury, "to announce contingent policies in this House. But I must demur to the conclusion that because he has not threatened coercion, and because he has not intimated what he should do in certain contingencies, there is any want of friendliness on our part, or of interest in the lot of the deeply-suffering subjects of the Porte." No,—no want of friendliness, or interest at all, at least on the part of Lord Salisbury. But there can be no question but that the present Ministry, in their friendliness, are firmly re- solved not to coerce Turkey under any circumstances which seem at present probable ; and to use all their in- fluence to prevent any other Power from so coercing her ; and are determined, therefore, not to redeem Lord Derby's implied engagement, as given in September last, to obtain for the Christian subjects of the Porte reparation for the past and security for the future.
Previous page
