MR. STILLMAN ON SIGNOR CRISPI.
[TO THE EDITOR OF TI3E "SPECTATOR.]
suppose no author has the right of a reply to his reviewer ; opinion is free and irresponsible; but surely the author has a right to correct misstatements of the contents of his book, and the known character of the Spectator en- courages me to believe that reasonable remonstrance will not be refused a place in its pages. Your reviewer (Spectator, July 15th) says : "Mr. Stillman actually places the ex-Premier of Italy on a higher level than Cavour." My book says : "With all his disadvantages, Crispi stands next to Cavonr in the history of the making of Italy." Your reviewer says : " One of the chief titles to Crispi's fame is the Triple Alliance." My book says : "With the conclusion of the Triple Alliance he had nothing to do." And I have shown in "The Union of Italy" that the Triple Alliance was entered into by Crispi's political opponents when he was in a hopeless opposition, and that one of the probable causes of his fall in 1895 was his decision to denounce it ("Francesco Crispi," p. 220). Your reviewer says : "Mr. Stillman admits that perhaps the chief charge against him [Crispi] is that he is too big for Italy, that he would commit the country to responsibilities which the majority of her most thoughtful citizens do not desire to assume." There is not one word in my book to justify the passage italicised. In the opinion of many people Crispi was "too big for Italy," because Italy was too timid and too apathetic for a resolute Government, determined to maintain its position and individuality, but I have shown that Crispi never favoured committing the country to responsibilities out- side of her territory, except when he urged co-operation with England in Egypt, he being in the Opposition ; and I have shown (" Francesco Crispi," p. 210) that in the prepara- tion for the fatal campaign (made fatal by treachery, not by his conduct of it) of Adowah, so united was the country in support of the policy followed that the Order of the Day approving it was proposed by the bead of the Opposition, and only opposed by the Extreme Left. It was his strong internal policy which Italy could not follow.
With one or two exceptions, all the reviewers in England of my book have chosen to ignore what is the main motive of it, —the fact that the guiding principle of Crispi's foreign policy was close adherence to England. This no French Govern- ment ever forgave, and this, in truth, is the reason of the
failure of Crispi. Had he accepted the French proposals in 1893 to abandon the understanding with England he would probably have been Prime Minister of Italy to-day. May I add a final word in indignant denial of your reviewer's asser- tion "Both Crispi and his biographer stand out as con- sistent enemies of France " ? I have absolutely no political enmities, but if to criticise the conduct of a Government is enmity, the Dreyfus affair shows England's enmity to France, which we all ktri .v to be a non sequitur. In my judgment of the conduct of k ranee towards Italy I stand precisely where the general English public stands in reference to the Dreyfus case. I regret and deplore the action of misguided French Governments in both cases, but I am no partisan of any party or nation, not even my own. I pity France profoundly, and I know enough of Crispi's opinions to say with absolute confidence that he is no more her enemy than I am. The absurd legend to the contrary goes with the creation of the
Dreyfus syndicate.—I am, Sir, Sze., W. J. STILLMAN. De(pdene, Prialley Green, July 18th.
[We publish Mr. Stillman's letter, but we cannot admit that he has any grievance against our reviewer, who based his judgment on the general effect of Mr. Stillman's study of Signor Crispi.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
