Mr. Forster spoke at Bradford on the following day, and
advocated a policy even more precise and vigorous than Sir Henry James. He held that there was no danger of Russia's taking Constantinople, but if any such danger there was, it was even more the business of Germany and Austria than of England to prevent it. Prince Bismarck had said that no Pomeranian ploughman ought to risk his life in this quarrel,—probably be- cause he knew that Constantinople was in no danger,—but whether that were so or not, certainly no Bradford artisan or Dorsetshire labourer should risk his life for this cause if the Pomeranian plough- men were held excused from all responsibility for it. In other words, though Europe might properly unite to forbid a Russian occupation of Constantinople, it is no duty of England's, acting alone. Again, as to the Dardanelles, it is no duty of ours to shut them up on our own behalf only. How could we reason- ably say, "Our ships shall always have a right of passage through the artificial strait of Suez, but Russian ships shall never have any similar right of passage through the natural strait of the Bosphorus'? "If we take that ground," said Mr. Forster, "we should have no support from any Power in Europe." Mr. Forster would go to war—even in a time of commercial distress— to discharge the duty of England, but it was not and could not be the duty of England to defeat Russia in order that we might make ourselves responsible once more for Turkish tyranny. There were no efforts within the pale of the Constitution which he would m t make to preserve his country "from this calamity and crime." nere is no uncertain ring in that.
Previous page
