THE SCANDINAVIAN ALLIANCE.
Set—The championship of peace in your columns has of late been trans- ferred from my:hands to those of Sir Arthur Elton ; who, I am also well pleased to find, is continuing his labours in the form of a second series of "'Tracts for the Present Crisis." The general question I do not wish again -to reopen ; but I am anxious to make some remarks on the new aspect given -to affairs by the alliance concluded between the Western Powers and the King of Sweden and Norway. Au alliance with Sweden and Norway, a guarantee of Sweden and Nor- way against Russia, is something totally different from an alliance with Austria or a guarantee of Turkey. It is as against the Scandinavian king- Alms, and against them alone, that Russia can really be considered as dan- gerous. A Russian aggression against Turkey and a Russian aggression against Norway are two.as utterly opposite things as can be conceived. In the former case, it is hard to see how liberty or civilization could suffer by what would be at worst a transfer of nations from a despot whom they hate to one on whom, whether wisely or foolishly, they look with greater favour. In the latter, every inch gained by Russia would be a clear loss to both ,civilization and liberty. All things go by comparison : as against the in- truding tyrants of Thessaly and Bulgaria, Russia may be regarded as a de- liverer; as against the free people of Norway, dwelling on their own shores and mountains, she can only be classed with the old invaders of Marathon and Morgarten, with the-modern oppressors of Rome and Milan. Most of the provinces conquered by Russia have lost nothing, some have actually gained, by their subjection. To the old Milesian sites on the Euxine Russia Nis restored a prosperity which we think it highly creditable to destroy. From ;Poland she has at least taken nothing, because Poland had nothing for her to take. But for an inch of " gamla Norge " to fall under the power of a foreign despot is a wholly different matter. Russia represents civilization in the South and barbarism in the North. If she really threatens the inde- pendence of Norway, or even of Sweden, a nobler cause cannot be imagined than that of the mauve warriors who should resist her : it might even be the duty of other nations to take a part in such a struggle. clo not love any guarantees, because a guaranty is pledging ourselves be- forehand, when we do not know under what circumstances fulfilment -may • im.demimded. I would not pledge ourselves beforehand to assist Norway in every war against Russia, or Switzerland in every war against Austria. :his just conceivably possible that a war might arise in which the despot might be in the right and the free etate in the wrong. I of -course hold aioaintervention to be the rule, and the exceptions to be so very rare that they- cannot be defined beforehand. Consequently, I would guarantee no state whatever. But to guarantee Sweden and Norway, is certainly a very different thing from guaranteeing " Turkey." To guarantee " Turkey," to me seems simply infatuated wickedness. It is guaranteeing the slavery of ilatiORS who would doubtless prefer liberty to any foreign despotism at all, Nut who of the two prefer the foreign despotism which we keep out to that :under which we force them to remain. It is merely guaranteeing the odious
remacy of race over race, of religion over religion, and that of the In-
ldel the Christian, the barbarian over races who are only so far uncivilized as he has made-them so. To guarantee Norway, is to guarantee the external independence and the internal liberty of the noblest na- tion and the freest country in Europe ; it is to ally ourselves, not with barbarian intruders, but with brethren of our own blood, our own faith, all but our own'language ; it is paying back some debt of expia- tion to brethren whom we have deeply wronged. To guarantee Norway against any Russian aggression, is undoubtedly to guarantee the cause of justice and liberty ; my only doubt is whether we ought to guarantee any state-miler any circumstancee whatever. The strange thing is, that we never thought of the claims of our brethren till a strange combination of -circumstances converted them into indirect supports of the common,enemy of God and man. If we guaranteed Sweden andNorway from any oral love ofjustice and liberty, from any special love to those two noble gdoms, why did we not guarantee them long ago ? But a-Scandinavian alliance seems never to have been thought of till it could be converted into a support of a Turkish alliance. The freemen of Norway owe our sudden interest in their welfare not to their own claims, Nut to their incidental connexion with the claims of Ottoman tyrants. The Rolled natiowin Europe is only valued so far as it can give assistance to the vilest.; the most democratic of _kingly states is only thought of so far as it ten serve .ita.a prep to the throne of a barbarian despot.
`That the aim of the treaty is not to support Sweden andNorway, but merely to obstruct Russia, is clear from its terms. Russia, it seems, desires an At-
lantic which would be practically supplied by a slip of coast on the Tarang.er Fiord. Now if Russia endeavours to obtain this slip of coast, or any other Norwegian or Swedish possession, by forcible or fraudulent means, 'there is a clear case for Scandinavian resistance conceivably for English interference. Otherwise it is hard to see why Russia may not have an At- lantic port, ffshe can obtain one by fair means,. just as much as Englandmay have Mediterranean or Pacific ports. Supposing Russia offered a fair aqui- valenti—suppng she offered all the formerly Swedish and Norwegian terri- tory which she possesses,— common sense would dictate the exchange ; at all events, it would be a of for Sweden and Norway only whether it .did so or not. But the King cif Sweden and Norway binds himaelf not only not to cede, but not to ,ange an atom of territory. Without the con- sent of France and England he and his people may not exchange thatsingle haven for all Finland.and Livonia. And by what considerations would er- mission or refusal on the part of France and -England be dictated ? question would weigh most ? Will it benefit Sweden and Norway ? or will it injure Russia ?-0m. tardy remembrance of our Northern brethren suffi- ciently supplies the answer. When I speak of a cession of Finland, I would have it distinctly under- stood—first, that I would counsel no such measure except in answer to the wishes of the Fins themselves ; secondly, that in no case outi Finland to be incorporated with the kingdom of Sweden. People in land do not generally understand the relations between the Swedish and Norwegian kingdoms. They fancy that they form one state, if not that Norway is a subject province of Sweden : whereas, in fact, their only connexion is that the same person is King of Norway as well as King of Sweden. The whole government of both is quite distinct. The Norwegians, whom we so wick- edly handed over like sheep to a foreign master, were so far conquered as to admit him as their King, so far victorious over him as only to admit him King on their own terms. In the teeth of much jealousy on the part of the Swedish oligarchy, they have ever since preserved intact their then newly- formed democratic constitution. Now, if Finland were to be incorporated with Sweden, that kingdom would have far too great a preponderance over ' Norway, and the liberties of the latter might be in jeopardy. Let King Oscar, if you will and the Fins will, be King of Sweden, Norway, and Fin- land, as three distinct kingdoms, but not King of Sweden and Norway with Finland forming an integral portion of the former. Best of all, could all the Scandinavian kingdoms be united into one great federation on the same terms as Sweden and Norway now are. Let German Holstein be left to its own devices, and " Denmark to the Eyder " be united as the third or fourth member of a perfectly equal alliance. The Czar has eventual claims on the Danish kingdom. Let the Danish Parliament pass an act of settlement excluding them, and settle the crown on the King of Sweden and Norway. The idea is neither new nor is it unknown in Scan- dinavia itself. I would refer to some powerful letters, signed " A Norwe- gian," which have recently appeared in the Times. Denmark, as yet, keeps aloof from us. No wonder. Our two piratical attacks fifty years back, our betrayal of her to Prussia eight years back, will not be forgotten in a moment. We are singularly unlucky in-making friends for Russia, and then turning round and abusing them for becoming so. This rational mode of proceeding we have pursued towards Greece in the South ; apparently we are about to follow the same line of policy with Denmark in the North.
Meanwhile, as if to show how little the Scandinavian treaty is caused by zeal for justice or national independence, we rejoice in a renewed prospect of winning to our side the bitterest enemy of both. We fight for the rights and independence of nations, typified by Francis Joseph King of Hungary and Lombardy we fight for liberty, typified by LouisNapoleen Bonaparte ; we fight for enlightenment, progress, and civilizationt embodied in the pa- ternal ruler of Macedonia and Herzegovina. Into this goodly alliance he would fain see the stout bonder of Norway enter. Times are indeed ..e,hanged since English and Norwegian axes formed the fiercest impediment to the Frankish host, when renegade Crusaders paved the way for that Moslem domination which we rejoice to maintain within the city of the Caesars. I ain, Sir, your obedient servant, E. A. F.
Previous page
