TELE ANTI-RUSSIAN RADICALS.
SIR CHARLES DJUKTI, in the very remarkable and power- ful speech delivered at Chelsea on Tuesday,—a speech which embodies so much history and so much sagacious politi- cal criticism, that it will serve as the most valuable material for future historians,—describes this journal as conducted with a good deal of personal prejudice. Of course that is a matter upon which the judgment of those aimed at in the criticism is not worth anything, but this, at least, we think we may say,— that whether the degree of personal prejudice displayed in our columns be much or little, we never had and have none -to overcome against Sir Charles Dilke, as the present article may perhaps show. We saw, indeed, with regret in September last, when Russia, struggling with the great faults of her own administrative system, appeared to be worsted in the field, that Sir Charles Dilke's tone had reverted from that which marked his speech in the House of Commons to that which had marked the speech of the previous January to his con- stituents. It appeared to us to be an unfortunate moment to choose for such a regression, when Russia, fighting alone and unassisted the battle of the whole of Europe, was • struggling with great difficulties and encountering no slight reverses. Still we are quite convinced that Sir Charles Dilke's motive last September in resuming the somewhat hostile attitude of his criticism of nine months previously, was not in any way ungenerous, but that he was simply choosing a somewhat inappropriate moment for the renewed expression of a permanent belief ; and assuredly the admissions,— nay, not the admissions only, but the elaborate contentions, —of his new speech modify so gravely all that he has to say about Russia in the direction of mistrust and dread, that we ourselves need add but very little to his own. political criticism, to make it sufficiently clear why we think those Radicals who, like Mr. Cowen, for instance, are always preaching a moral crusade against Russia, are mistaking their function in life, and doing their best to injure the popular cause, instead of to advance it. Sir John Lubbock, again, who on Wednesday did his best to encourage the dread and hatred of Russia amongst his constituents at Maidstone, and to persuade them to attach great importance in a constitutional point of view to the inauguration of a Turkish Parliament, would, we think, be likely to profit greatly by studying Sir Charles Dilke's speech. He would find there a sufficiently eager sympathy with his own point of view to fascinate his atten- tion, but he would find also so much to rectify what we must regard as the extremely perverse view which Sir John Lubbock takes of the present struggle, that we can hardly believe he would rise from the perusal of that speech with the same prejudices with which evidently he would sit down to it. Sir Charles Mike has had the sagacity and candour to emancipate himself from many of the illusions by which the anti-Russian Radicals allow their vision to be obscured, and we should like to see all that section of the Liberal party placed under Sir Charles Dilke's tutelage. We do not indeed entirely agree even with his present and very statesmanlike view of what we have to fear and hope from Russia, but we agree with it so nearly that we would much rather see the Russophobists under his influence than under that of men who, even though their political opinions might be wider and truer, yet in consequence of sharing less pro- foundly in these prepossessions, would be less likely to command their respect. Mr. Cowen and Sir John Lubbock and their set should go to school for a time to Sir Charles Dilke.
We are quite willing to admit, and have at the proper times even strongly maintained, that the despotic government of Russia is a bad and dangerous government as compared with even the most despotic government still existing in Western Europe. We have never for a moment underrated the brutality with which it suppresses dangerous insurrections like the Polish insurrection, or the animus with which it re- gards the free publication of opinion in any way sub- versive of its own authority, or the jealousy it shows towards Churches, like the Roman Catholic, which threaten the influence of the Czar or the unity of the Russian Empire. All these are characteristics which no man with his eyes open can deny, and which, moreover, no man need deny, in order to maintain consistently that in her present enterprise Russia is nevertheless the champion of the best interests of the human race. But grant all this, and still you can- not help seeing that most important considerations are omitted by the Russophobists,—the first being that to a very great extent the cause in which a Power moves must determine, and will determine, the manner in which it acts and the principles on which it acts; and the second, that with a country like Russia, and in the present phase of Russia, the future will not be as the past, but essentially different from the past. Let us say a word, first, on the first head. We maintain, then, that Russia coming as Liberator, coming in the name of humanity and in the name of the Slavonic people, to set free a Slavonic race from in- tolerable oppression, will be a very different Power indeed from Russia coming as conqueror,—whether in Poland or in Khiva —and enforcing her rule on enemies whom she fears, and by whom her empire has been threatened. Every one may see the difference even in such a case as the policy of the United States towards the Indians on the one side and towards the .Negroes on the other. That is not so strong a case for our pur- pose as Russia's, because the people of the United States admit no kinship to 'either Indians or Negroes, while the Rus- sians boast of their kinship to the Slavonic Christians of Turkey. But in spite of their scorn for the negro, it would have been quite impossible for the United States, entering the South as his friends and as the enemies of slavery, to treat him as harshly as they have unquestionably in many cases treated the Red Indian. The avowed intention of the people of the United States was to protect the negro in the South, and they have protected him. The avowed intention of the people of the United States towards the wild Indian tribes was to overcome the difficulty they offered to American settlers as best they might, and they have overcome the difficulty without much scruple, in the shortest way that occurred to them. So it will be with Russia in the Christian provinces of Turkey. They come there as deliverers,—that is their role. And in the end every Government is likely to play more or less faith- fully the rclie it has assumed before all Europe. Sir Charles Dilke himself virtually admits this. Comparing the Russian and Turkish Governments together, he says,—" Six of one and half-a-dozen of the other,—was that, then, his belief I As re- garded the two Governments, it was. But as regarded the two peoples and their future, that convenient English phrase would form a somewhat imperfect key to his opinions. With all his anti- Russian views formed ten years ago, and repeatedly expressed, he believed firmly in the future that lay before the Russian people." And he goes on to show at length that no Govern- ment which is the Government of a great race, can possibly misuse that race as the Government of a minority can mis- use the races over which it exercises power. Now, without giving the Russians credit for that for which they certainly deserve great credit,—the relative kindliness to their enemies which they have lately evinced, and which is as different from Turkish scorn and hate as Christianity from Mahommedanisne, —the question at present is not one of how the Russians will rule their deadly enemies when they have brought them under their yoke, but how they will treat their kinsmen whom they came, urged by the most passionate popular movement, to deliver. Nor need any one fear for a moment that even if Russia established herself in Bulgaria,—which she certainly will not do,—she would rule the Bulgarians as she has ruled the Poles. A movement which is the product of a passionate national enthusiasm must more or less be governed by the tides of the sentiment which it has obeyed. No Radical who understands what popular feel- ing is, need fear that Russia the deliverer will or can act as Russia the conqueror and avenger undoubtedly has acted more than once.
But besides this, it is most essential to remember that the Russia even of to-day is no more the Russia which put down with the utmost brutality the last Polish revolt, than the Great Britain of 1877, which spends so much on the Indian famines, is the Great Britain of 1857, which put down a great mutiny with little scruple and not a little superfluous vindictive- ness. This, too, Sir Charles Dilke probably admits. He admits that the Russia of the present is no more in relation to the Russia of the future than is "chaos to the universe." And he can hardly doubt that if the Russia of the future is to be so much more than the Russia of the present, then even the Russia of the present is far better than the Russia of the past. It is to our eyes obvious enough that hardly any army which Europe has ever seen,—the German Army excepted,—has been so mild in its temper, so generous to foes, so tender to friends, as the Russian army in Bulgaria. The truth is, no doubt, that in virtue partly of her present enterprise, a softened spirit has come over the Russians ; and that this spirit will more and more mould her into a tolerant and civilised policy, no shrewd observer of human nature will doubt. It can hardly be that the emancipation of the Serfs has not already changed to a profound degree the spirit of the Russian peasant and there- fore of the Russian soldier. This war seems to show it, and the eager political currents which fill the Russian' Tribunals with trials for conspiracy seem to show that political aspirations have followed close on the heels of social freedom. It is childish to treat an empire which has done so great an act as that, as if it were liable to fall into the degradation of the outworn Ottoman caste. The empire of Alexander is not as the empire of Nicholas. And the Russia which shall have liberated Europe from the Ottoman yoke will not be as the Russia which had never done one great disinterested service to man- kind. The law of progress is at work as surely in Russia as in England. The empire has a progressive religion, a pro- gressive social standard, and the elements at least of aspira- tion for political freedom, and these are the forces to which we must trust the guidance of the Russian policy in future. Sir Charles Dilke, prepossessed as he is against Russia, deeply feels this, and we wish that he, having himself been converted, would now begin to strengthen weak brethren like Mr. Cowen and Sir John Lubbock.
Previous page
