Irtttrs in t4t altar.
THE DEBATE ON THE PRINCIPALITIES.
Laurtemney, Cardt1,10th May 1858.
Bra—I trust that I may still continue to enjoy, under the new manage- ment of the Spectator, the privilege so often granted me by its late vene- rated Editor, both of occasionally putting forth in its columns my notions on the questions which may from time ''to time arise, and even now and then of disputing the views taken in the editorial portion of the paper. I have been so long an amateur contributor to the Spectator, that 1 cannot address my first letter to its new Editor without expressing my best wishes for its success under its new management, a wish pretty well equivalent -to hoping that that new management may be in effect a continuation of the old. I cannot let slip this opportunity of expressing my own deep debt of gratitude to the memory of Mr. Rintoul for the iiia.lyepporteeities-whith he has allowed me of arguing all sorts of points in the pages of the Specta- tor, even though my views often happened to be altogether at variance with his own. I trust there is nothing obtrusive or egotistical in thus putting forward the private feelings of an individual correspondent, to whom the " Editor of the Spectator " ought perhaps to be nothing more than a poli- tical and literary abstraction. But a nine years' connexion of this sort does certainly generate feelings which carry one a little beyond mere conven- tional formalities; and, though I had never the pleasure of more than one personal interview with Mr. Rintoul, yet long before his death I had learned to look upon him in the light of a friend and a counsellor. With thus much of preface, I will address myself to the subject on which I wish this week to trouble you, one indeed of my own old themes, that of the Roumen Principalities. I see that the views expressed in your own leading article do not, much more than those of your contemporary the Saturday Review, altogether agree with my own. I will not, however, attempt directly to answer either ofyou, but rather to set down the reflec- tions which occurred to me upon reading the debate, before seeing the article in either payer.
To my mind the question is simply this—Shall the influence of England on the Continent be openly employed to support national rights and free institutions, or shall it be perverted into an instrument for patching up the usurpations of Raisers and Sultans by means of secret diplomacy ? Again, is the House of Commons to have or not to have a voice in determining the foreign relations of the country ? Mr. Gladstone, Lord John Russell, Mr. Roebuck, and Lord Robert Cecil, maintain the cause of constitutional free- dom, Mr. Fitzgerald, Lord Palmerston, and Mr. Disraeli appear as the ad- vocates of secrecy and tyranny, alike in England and in Roumania. Mr. Gladstone has indeed only a minority ; but what a minority ! According to the Saturday Review, Mr. Gladstone's only justification is to be found in the division-list. I accept the test. Mr. Gladstone has just told us, in his Homeric studies, that deciding by a majority is only after all a rough and imperfect way of settling matters. He has certainly found it so in this case. He has-the quality, while his opponents have the quantity. In his 114 I see the names of nearly every Independent Liberal and of several In- dependent Conservatives. In the official 292 I see simply the present and late Cabinets with their respective tails. Mr. Gladstone leads out a very large proportion of the genius, the eloquence, and the honesty of the House. Sir W. Jolliffe and Colonel Taylor hand in a list in which, beyond the two immediate official coteries, one cannot see a single name which carries with it the slightest authority. The two lists speak for themselves. I will only mention two names more particularly. I am glad to see that Lord Gode- rich and Sir F. Baring have forsaken the bad company in which they found themselves on the Conspiracy Bill, and have returned to the honourable position which they occupied in the division on the Bowling piracy at Canton.
The line taken up by the present and late.Governments is, in fact, the
Conspiracy Bill over again. Are we to shape our policy, at home or abroad, at the bidding of foreign despots ? The only difference is, that it is this time not Louis Napoleon, but Francis Joseph and Abdul-Medjid to whom we are required to bow down. Lord Palmerston is of course ready, cap in hand. When did he ever miss a chance of betraying a nation or of cringing to a tyrant ? He is, in fact, tyrannie ipsie tyraunior. So odious to him is the least spark of freedom, that when his very master, the " great and illus- trious Emperor," occasionally strays into the path of a liberal policy, he is at once ready at hand to recal him into the right way. Despotic France was, from a fairly intelligible policy, favourable to Rouman rights. Con- stitutional England, in sheer hatred of freedom, has made the tyrant cast off his momentary character of demagogue. The Raiser and the Sultan have never strayed from the orthodox path of oppression ; to them, there- fore, his Lordship's allegiance never wavers, and the inconstant occidental potentate must be brought back to their worshipful company by the Minis- ter of "liberal" England. There was certainly something singularly cool, even for the speaker,
when Lord Palmerston, after the speeches of Mr. Gladstone, lord R. Cecil, and Mr. Roebuck, ventured to tell the House that the debate was going on in perfect ignorance of the facts. Certainly all the ignorance which I can see in the debate was to be found on his •own _side. In lir. Fitzgerald it probably was sheer ignorance, when he thought that admitting the claims of the Principalities was equivalent to a dismemberment of the Turkish empire. 'Very likely he had looked at a map and had seen the word "TUT- key go as far as the Pruth. Lord Palmerston one cannot let off so easily. When he says much things, we know very well what they are, though it would not be Parliamentary to give them their right name. I at least have not forgotten who it was that told the electors of Tiverton that the real or imaginary poisonings and the like of Commissioner Yeh "had" taken place
before Fir.John Bowrizig's attack. When the same person affects to mock at the distinction between sovereignty and suzerainty, .1 know how to attri- bute it to the same cause. The independent electors of Tiverton and the independent followers of Hayter are willing to accept anything, true or false, which their chief may like to tell them. Popidus cult decipi et de- For a general view of the case of the Principalities I would venture to re- fer to a letter of mine, printed in the Spectator for 27th November 1857, at page 1164 of your last volume, as also to some remarks by another of your correspondents, whose writings I always read with advantage, at page 1241. It is briefly. this. The Principalities are no part of the Ottoman Empire' they are simply connected with it by a dependent alliance. The proposed union under an hereditary prince would in no wise interfere with the terms of that dependent alliance, as contained in the ancient treaties. In short, the rights of the Porte will be in no possible way infringed by the union and surely, if those precious rights are preserved, the people of the Prinialities may be allowed in other respects the right of settling their own a airs, and the plighted faith of Europe, which recognized that right, may be preserved inviolate. So think Mr. Gladstone and Lord John ; so do not think Mr. Disraeli and Lord Palmerston. That Lord Palmerston is really ignorant of the difference between suze- rainty and sovereignty, it is impossible to believe. When he raised a tri- umphant laugh among his own followers by pointing out that the treaty of 1460 recognized the Sultan as supreme over the Prince of Wallachia, he must have known that the laugh was really the other way. It is the essence of the relation of suzerainty, that it is entirely a relation between princes not between peoples. In 1460, the feudal relation was fully understood throughout Europe, and the relations between Turkey and Wallachia were constructed accordingly. Wallachia became a commendatory fief of the Porte. Its Prince became, in all external matters, a liegeman of the Sultan. In all internal matters, he remained an independent sove- reign, ruling according to the laws of his country. There were then Dukes of Burgundy and Britanny, standing in exactly the same relation to France, and countless Princes standing in the same relation to the Emperor. Doubtless the idea was not strictly carried out in either case. In Western Europe the vassal aspired to an external independence, in Eastern Europe the suzerain aspired to an internal sovereignty. Charles the Bold did not scruple to fight against his liege lord ; while Sultan after Sultan usurped the power of appointing and deposing the Danubian princes. But the theory is precisely the same in either case. The overlord is, as Lord Palmerston says, supreme over his vassal. That is the very distinction. The vassal prince owes a duty to his suzerain, tribute, military service, whatever may be the terms agreed upon. But to the subjects of the vassal, the suzerain is nothing. When Charles of Burgundy invaded France he was personally a traitor, but his native soldiers were only discharging the duties of loyal sub- jects. How was it that William the Conqueror preserved England from being divided like Gaul or Germany ? Simply by requiring an oath of alle- giance from the vassals of his vassals ; that is, by making himself sovereign as well as suzerain of the whole realm.
Whatever rights the Sultan had over the old elective princes, he will re- tain the same over the new hereditary one. He will lose nothing but the opportunity of making merchandise of the office of prince, which was all along a flagrant usurpation. Therefore the talk about the union under an hereditary prince being a dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, is simply nonsense. In so talking, Mr. Fitzgerald was probably dis- playing his own ignorance, while Lord Palmerston was doubtless practising upon the presumed ignorance of his hearers. There is no kind of incon- sistency in those who approved of the Russian war contending for the union of the Principalities. As far as I could make out the objects of that war, it was waged for the "Integrity and Independence of the Ottoman Em- pire." Now that integrity and independence is in no way compromised by a purely internal change in the governments of its vassal states. The Rus- maninvasion of the Principalities was a casus belli on the part of Turkey, because the feudal relation is a reciprocal one, and, if allegiance is owed by the vassal, protection is owed by the suzerain. As Lord R. Cecil said, Eng- land ought to repel an invasion of the Ionian Islands. But, in theory at least, those islands are no part of the British Empire, but a separate Re- public under its protection. So the republic of Andorra is no part of the dominions of France, but it pays France a tribute as the price of that pro- tection which so loyal an ally as Louis Napoleon would doubtless extend in the case of any aggression on the part of Spain. It really moves one with indignation to see the cold, heartless, brutal way in which the wishes and prayers and rights of an oppressed nation arc treated as nothing before some fancied calculations of remotely possible consequences. The union of the Principalities might or might not damage or profit either Russia, Austria, or Turks —I neither know nor care whether it would or would not—I am not gifted with prophecy, but I be- lieve I know something of common honesty. The union of the Principali- ties under an hereditary prince is righteous in itself, and the faith of Eu- rope is pledged to it. When will our diplomatists learn the simple rule of action, to do justly and to leave consequences to God ? As for the usual talk about fettering the hands of plenipotentiaries, Par- liament assuming the functions of " Government," and so forth, I can only say that as those are the very things I want to see done, I do not regard them as any objection to Mr. Gladstone's motion.-I want the diplomatic repre- sentatives of Engfand, if we must have any diplomatic representatives at all, to carry with them, at least on such an occasion as this, some in- structions from the Commons of England as well as from the little Cabal which calls itself the " Government." It is poor satisfaction when a Derby or a Palmerston only contemplates the sacrifice of a people to be told that it is too early to interfere, and when they have accomplished the iniquity, to be then told that it is too late.
[We are very glad to give insertion to the letter of the Spectator's es- teemed correspondent. But if he will examine our remarks on Mr. Glad- stones motion attentively, he will see that our principal objection to it was that it was not a well-considered step in that direction of diplomatic reform, and greater purity of international action, which we quite as much as our correspondent, desire.—En.]
Previous page
