THE END OF THE DEBATE.
THE Division on Monday shows just this,—that a clear majority of the present House of Commons is willing to support the Government, in spite of its acknowledged failures in diplomacy, so long as it does not fight for Turkey. There is a section of the House, undoubtedly, represented by Mr. Chaplin and Lord Elcho, and enjoying the strong sympathy of Mr. Hardy, which, whether from hatred of Russia, or a per- verse view of "British interests," or an instinctive sympathy for a dominant caste, would, after all that has passed, still fight for the right divine of the Osmanlis to misgovern their half of the ancient Roman Empire at their will. There is another section, probably more numerous, and certainly a. fourth of the House, led by Mr. Gladstone, with Mr. Courtney for mouthpiece, and supported by an immense section of opinion out of doors, which would employ the immense strength of this country to terminate, either through a Euro- pean arrangement or by the direct exertion of force, the governing power of the Osmanli caste,—a power which they, hold to be fatal, so far as it extends, to the progress of the world. But the immense majority of the House desire above all things to abstain from action in the Eastern Question while the fate of Turkey is in the balance. Some of them hope in their hearts that Turkey may be successful. Some of them would gladly see Turkey overthrown as rapidly, as completely, and as disgracefully as the Second French Empire was. A very great number look forward to certain contingen- cies in which it might be necessary for Great Britain, for her own interests or in the general interests of mankind, to take up arms. But the majority are for the present content from all these motives to remain quietly watchful of the Govern- ment, provided that the Government does not call upon them to take up arms for Turkey. Day by day as the debate went on that reason for their acquiescence became clearer, and the Ministerial perception of that reason became more defined. Nothing could be wider apart from Lord Beaconsfield's re- peatedly expressed desire to defend the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire than the speech of the Home Secretary, with its clear announcement that the Government would defend British interests, and that British interests were limited to certain strategical and clearly defined points ; and nothing further even from Mr. Cross's definition than Sir Stafford Northcote's speech, in wind- ing up the debate from the Government side. Mr. Cross had stated that we should defend Constantinople and Egypt, thus giving the Pashas a guarantee that happen what might, they would be held personally unaccountable, that the shells would never fall among their palaces, that the geographical advan- tage which enables them to oppress so many millions to their own profit would permanently remain theirs, but the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer still further narrowed the range of "British interests." He repudiated, it is true, any coercion of Turkey with more than necessary warmth. He spoke of the sorrow with which "any generous mind" would employ harsh language to Turkey with an unction that, all the circum- stances considered, was not a little provocative of laughter. He repeated that Turkey was still not past all hope of reform, with an iteration which was as vexatious as it was tiresome. But he declared the neutrality of the Government—the anxious neutrality—extending to the arrest of a Turkish ship building in a British dockyard—with a decision which, from that point of view, leaves little to be desired. He carefully and em- phatically repudiated hostility to the Government of Russia, and acknowledged, first among official speakers, that the Emperor sincerely desired peace, and had been forced to war by the unanimous opinion of his people. And he not only
defined the interests of Britain in the East as her interest in keeping open the direct route to India, "whatever that route might be," but he indicated, not obscurely, that in the last resort the "direct route" was the route through Egypt and the Suez Canal. "Our road to India, whatever that road may be, is of great importance to us. It is of great importance that that road should be kept open and safe. It is not a question of the invasion of India by great marches to be made from places at an immense distance, and through a very difficult country, with I do not know how many horses and cannons,— these are not the points we have to look at ; but you have to look to keeping open the direct line to India itself, and see that it is not blocked or stopped. And we do attach very great interest to the vigilant protection of the Suez Canal, and to Egypt itself in a minor, but still in an important degree. It is impossible to say what points may possibly be challenged. We must wait and see. Of course, my right honourable friend did not pretend to give an exhaustive list, but he indicated in a clear and distinct manner that our direct road to India should above all things be preserved." In other words, the only British interests for which we must fight, and fight at once, are paramount influence in Egypt and control over the Suez Canal,—interests as completely and heartily acknowledged by all British enemies of Turkey as by the Tory Government, or for that matter, by Lord Bury himself. We are to remain neutral, unless Egypt is threatened,—that is the final utterance of the Leader of the House of Commons, when summing up a debate which, from first to last, through those five weary nights, was strictly a debate upon the policy which, war having been de- clared, it behoved the British Government to pursue. We do not say Sir Stafford Northcote would not fight for Constanti- nople. In all human probability, if the alternative were the Russian possession of that city, with its historic claim to domi- nate the Eastern Empire, he would fight. But at present, speaking on behalf of a Government which his colleagues say is quite united, he only affirms that England must protect by force, if need be, her Egyptian route to her Asiatic Empire. That is the programme at which the Government, after five days of debate, have arrived ; that is the programme on which the division was taken, and that is the programme on which 354 Members of the House recorded their willingness to support the Tory Administration. It is not a programme we can approve, for we hold that it places the East too completely at the mercy of Russia, that it was for the two Asiatic Powers, England and Russia, to have settled this great question in com- bination, but it is one that attracts a vast body of English support, and completely justifies Mr. Gladstone. It differs radically from the policy proposed by Lord Beaconsfield. It differs radically from the policy foreshadowed in Lord Derby's despatch, and defended with such heat and acrimony by Mr. Hardy, and it differs radically from the policy the madder Tories would have compelled the Government to adopt. And that such a difference has become possible has been due, not wholly— for deep honour must be due to a wiser section within the Govern- ment itself—but in great measure to Mr. Gladstone's action, to the evidence which he elicited that the body of the people were determined no longer to support an effete and op- pressive despotism. We are not speaking only of the demonstrations of the great cities. The evidence is still more flagrant in the changed tone of the majority within the House itself. We have scarcely heard of "the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire," have hardly been told of our obligations to "our ancient and faithful ally," have been spared nearly all assurances that Turkey was a Power in rapid process of "regeneration." All serious speakers who advised war, or the kind of "watchful- ness" which means war, have advised them, honestly or dishonestly, in consideration of British interests alone, and have been careful to repudiate all complicity with Turkish misgovernment, and any accusation of a wish to maintain things as they are. The soberest men in the House- men who, whether by party bias Liberals or Tories, are, like Mr. Walter, almost typical representatives of the solidly con- servative side of the English character—while upholding neu- trality, regretted that coercion had not been employed, and severed themselves for ever from the Ottoman cause. The change is immense, and the debate which we have deliberately called "the great" one, because it will prove a turning- point in the history of English connection with the East, has revealed the change to the world. The danger of war is not over, never can be over while Lord Beaconsfield holds the reins of power and Orientals remain in Europe, but the danger of war for Turkey, which was imminent and burning, is now and for the present at an end. The Eng- lish people have not yet grasped the situation. They do not yet see how shamefully they are evading their responsibility for the Christians of the East, do not yet realise what the domain is which the fall of the Sultanet would bring back to civilisation ; but they have recognised one danger, have recoiled from the tempter who would have persuaded them to interfere by arms on behalf of the debasement of mankind. It was not for war, but for neutrality, that the House of Commons pronounced on Monday by the largest majority of our time.
The result has been the more remarkable, because the front Opposition Bench never repaired, even in the last nights of de- bate, its original error ; never straightened its knees against "society," never gave even a sign that it perceived its true line of duty. Mr. Goschen over and over again held the Government to a policy of "absolute neutrality," and denied in so many words that the logical result of the Liberal agitation was the coercion of Turkey. He might, he hinted, have approved of coercion at an earlier stage, though in that earlier stage he never bestimd himself to educate the people to that duty ; but now the only course was to sit quiet, and when the war was over, revive the European concert, till Russia alone would not be able to regu- late its results. And Lord Hartington, though he did for an instant rise to a loftier height, and almost seem as if he were about to plead for aid to the Christians of Turkey in their effort to form autonomous States, and did refuse to consider Russian misgovernment as on a par with the misgovernment of Turkey, soon drooped away, declared that the country would support a policy of neutrality, and asserted that if Russia were defeated and the Turks left to govern by the sword as they pleased, then "this weary work and these weary strugglcs will have at some future time to begin again," thus repudiating as it were in advance any obligation to take up Russia's broken sword, and compel the Turks to grant the freedom which alone, in those circumstances, as he admitted, could prevent a renewal of the struggle. He and his colleagues, taught by the sudden response of the Liberal electors to Mr. Gladstone's call, have indeed voted for resolutions which condemn Turkey, but they have done nothing to guide the nation on its true path,—active assist- ance to those who are shaking down a Government which alone has prevented the Eastern Empire of Rome from advancingpari passu with the Western half. Lord Hartington admits that the forces of human nature and the forces of human progress are against Turkey, and refuses, even for India, to resist them, but of the conception that their business is to aid those forces, and to clear the way for their advance, neither he nor his col- leagues exhibit one single trace. The whole work has been done by Mr. Gladstone in their despite, and if it succeeds, they can only mourn, as at the close of a second splendid speech—in which he implicitly advocated coercion—he mourned, "Would God that in so holy a work England had taken her proper part !"
Previous page
