MR. GLADSTONE AND THE LIBERALS.
sra JOHN LUBBOCK, and the miscalled leaders of Oppo- sition—call them rather obstructors of Opposition—who are giving him their support, are making a fatal mistake in moving the "Previous question," by way of shelving Mr. Glad- stone's motion for next Monday in relation to Eastern affairs. The truth is that they have mistaken pusillanimity for prudence, and a craven fear of incurring unpopularity by laying down a policy for the future which would favour the great enterprise of Russia, for a magnanimous support of political rivals. Yet there is nothing at all in any one of Mr. Gladstone's resolu- tions to embarrass the Government, unless it is bent on plung- ing us, sooner or later, into a war for the protection of Turkey. And if it is bent on so disastrous a course, Liberal leaders of any courage and capacity would be eager to risk the danger—if a danger it be—of unpopularity, and to welcome the bitterest reproaches of narrow and short-sighted patriots, rather than not speak out and speak plainly as to the consequences of so mad a crusade, in so evil a cause. For months back the leaders of Opposition have carefully emulated the shilly- shally of the Government. But now they are even surpassing them. Every week the policy of the Government becomes more coherent, the anti-Rtu38ian spirit waxes, and the anti-Turkish spirit wanes. But as the danger grows, the spirit of the Opposition dwindles. And now, when, if Lord Hartington had had the heart of a true leader, he might have united all the conviction and energy of his party in defence of a policy more sincerely and profoundly Liberal than any policy which has been open to that party since Mr. Gladstone first led the House of Commons, he shrinks back into the ignoble frigidity natural to a temperament which never accounts any policy important enough to deserve a risk or justify a sacrifice. It was not thus that the Opposition of fifty years ago advocated the cause of Russia, and condemned those counsellors of George IV. who advised the King to describe the battle of Navarino as an "untoward event." The Lord Holland of that day discerned more clearly what was needful for the peace of Europe than the Lord Granville and Lord Hartington of this day. As the popular cause has gained in followers it has lost in leaders, and now, with a great issue before us, we find no one amongst the avowed chiefs,—no one but Mr. Gladstone, who has resigned to less worthy successors the right to lead us,— to speak the thoughts of the Liberals, and to tell the nation how impossible it is that England can gain in the end by lending her countenance to an effete dynasty and to the supremacy of an exhausted and emasculated caste.
We are aware that Sir John Lubbock and his official friends may try to represent the shelving motion he is to propose as, on the whole, friendly to Mr. Gladstone's purpose,—as one tending to prevent its being formally disapproved, rather than as one tending to its defeat. But that is the sort of plea which will deceive no one, hardly even themselves. Mr. Gladstone's resolutions are too long and complicated, but their drift is very simple. They say in effect that the Turks have lost all claim to our help, and that our endeavour in relation to the Christian provinces of Turkey, ought now to be to get Europe to return to the policy pursued in 1826 and 1827 in relation to Greece,—Greece which was before that period only one df the Christian provinces of Turkey, and by the policy of Europe was then set free from the Turkish yoke. Now, if the front Opposition Bench are really unfavourable to such a policy, they must have changed very much for the worse in the last few weeks. But if they are favourable to it, what can be the meaning of doing all in their power to assure the country that it may safely leave itself in Lord Derby's hands, confident that if the intereitts of the Empire require the adoption of a policy similar to that of Mr. Gladstone, Lord Derby will certainly adopt it I If any of the Liberal chiefs entertains that idea, we can only say that it does exceedingly little credit to his good-sense. The obvious facts of the case pro- claim in the plainest possible terms that if the country wishes to see any part of Turkey liberated from the oppres- hundred millions sterling, and leave us in a paroxysm of paci- sion of the Ottoman Porte, nay, does not wish to see that vile yoke rivetted afresh upon the -Christian provinces by the help of the British power, it has no time to lose in making its feelings known to the Government, in a form as un- mistakable and emphatic as possible. To say to Lord Derby what the calm acceptance of the "previous question" by the country would say,—' Go on judging for yourself, and what- ever you decide we shall be quite ready to accept in faith,'— would be sheer imbecility in any one who did not desire to see the Russian policy hampered by every means in the power of the British Government, and probably enough Turkish policy buttressed by English aid and money. For what are the facts of the case ? The Queen has, it is true, just issued a proclamation of neutrality in relation to the war now begun, but even that proclama- tion is, as the pro-Turkish English journals have been very careful to show us, distinguished from the similar proclamation of neutrality issued in 1870 by a very signifi- cant omission. • In the proclamation of 1870 was contained a clause in which the Government declared in the strongest possible terms its purpose not to side with either combatant. That clause (a part of Clause 5) is omitted in this proclamation, a very impressive hint, of course, that the Government has not decided, except for the present moment, to remain neutral between the hostile States. And if there be any question of interference at all, no one, we suppose, will venture to say that the interference is likely to be indifferently on either side, according to the turn which circumstances may take as events develope. The policy of the Government has changed steadily within the last eight months, but it has changed in but one direction. The policy of September is a thing of the past ; nay, the policy accepted at the Conference is a thing of the past, and has been succeeded by a policy as different from it as the British policy of 1853-4 was different from the British policy of 1826-7. Lord Derby, who in September was dictating the most peremptory and severe demands to Turkey,—who even in January was demand- ing guarantees from her which he could not get, and temporarily withdrawing his .Ambassador,—was last week apologising for Turkey, on the ground that she had always been convinced that no concessions of hers would in any case satisfy Russia, and was declaring his own personal conviction that whatever guarantees for the future Turkey might have conceded, Russia would immediately have rejected, simply because Turkey was prepared to concede them. Again, Mr. Hardy, who in February, though prepared to say that coercion was then unjustifiable, and that it would be an unwarrantable blunder then to tear up the Treaty of 1856, was most careful in his reserves as to what it might be right to do in future, was ten days ago blustering about British interests as the be-all and end-all of our true diplomatic aim, in a way that made every reasonable man shudder for the vulgarity and selfish- ness of English statecraft. Worst of all, Sir Stafford Northcote, who in February had been so emphatic in his eulogy on Lord Salisbury and his policy at the Conference,—Lord Salisbury, who told us that the only leverage we had against the obsti- nacy of Turkey was the fear of Russia,—descants now on the responsibility of Russia for the failure of the Conference, alleging that by her martial preparations she irritated the self-love and evoked the sensitive pride of the Ottoman Porte. Every change, then, that we can note in the attitude of our Government is a change in one direction,—a change hostile to Russia and favourable to Turkey,—a change in the direction of reproaching Russia, and of apology to Turkey,—a change towards suspiciousness to the Northern Power, and towards sympathy with the Oriental Power. Now, as the mis- called leaders of the Liberal party perfectly well know that this is so, what folly can be greater than to do all in their power
to induce the country to acquiesce in this change, unless indeed they approve it, and wish to see it steadily progressing? They know, as every one knows, that a Government which cannot even restrain its tongue while negotiations are still going on, whose suspiciousness endangers its neutrality before any army
is in motion, is not likely to show the highest self-restraint and reserve when war is actually proceeding, and when news comes perhaps of victories won and changes actually im-
minent which were formerly the mere possibilities of the future. To trust absolutely any Foreign Secretary who could speak as Lord Derby spoke on Tuesday week, for keeping us out of a quarrel with Russia and dangerous entanglements with Turkey, is to display either the weakness and credulous- ness of an almost childish imbecility, or the pro-Turkish sym- pathies and anti-Russian antipathies of the Tory party and
Press. If ever the country is to speak out so as to save us against this danger, it must be now. Three months ago would have been far safer, but now at last the limit is reached at which it would be simply criminal for those to acquiesce in the drifting policy who do not also approve of it. If the country is not to speak now, it might just as well "for ever hold its peace."
When, in 1829, Lord Palmerston fought in the House of Commons for the independence of Greece, the situation was as like that of the present day as it is possible for a situation preceding ours by half a century of rapid development to be. The Czar Nicholas, who had not long previously mounted the throne, had not then shown himself to be the unscrupulous and ambitious monarch he displayed himself in 1853. But the Czar was in many respects more formidable then than his son is now. First of all, there was no great German Power to restrain him, as there is now,—a consideration of the first importance. More- over, the Czar was a young man of ambitious character, while the present ruler of Russia is a middle-aged man of much ex- perience in misfortune. Further, both Italy and Greece had then to be made, whereas both Italy and Greece are now king- doms capable of acting as respectable counterpoises to the Pan-Slavonic propaganda. All the considerations which make Russian conquest seem dangerous now were present in far greater force then. Yet then Lord Palmerston boldly pressed that same duty of acting with Russia, to restrain and regulate her, which Mr. Gladstone advocates now. The late Sir Henry Bulwer (Lord Dolling) evidently had his doubts as to Lord Palmerston's prudence, and in his "Life" of his friend com- ments not very approvingly on his courage in taking this course, reporting his characteristic remark that "England is strong enough to brave consequences," with the criticism that that is "a theory which has its inconveniences as well as its advantages." Yet we can all see now that Lord Palmer- ston was right,—that if he had not done all in his power to get Greece established and strengthened, the South-East of Europe now would be in far worse peril than it actually is ; and that if Greece had been made stronger still, if Thessaly and Epirus had been given to her as well as the Morea and Greek Rumelia, we should be in a far better position now for the solution of our present Eastern Question. Liberals who can see this, and yet shrink from accepting Mr. Gladstone's resolutions, deserve to be accounted, so far as regards their foreign policy, little better than Tories, and that is the position which Lord Hartington and his colleagues seem anxious to earn for the front Liberal bench. If the policy of 1826-9 had been carried further than it was, Greece might have been a second Piedmont in 1854, and a second Italy at the present time ; and if the policy of 1826-9 bo followed now, and followed out to its proper consequences, we shall in all probability avert many further imbroglios, which Lord Derby is doing his best to prepare for future Foreign Ministers and future Par- liaments of Great Britain. If Lord Hartington and his col- leagues persist in their intention to support Sir John Lubbock, we can only say that the best chance for the Liberal party is to rid itself of the dead weight of leaders who cannot lead, and replace Mr. Gladstone, whether he will or no, in the old position which he ought never to have deserted. These are not the times in which we can afford to be led by men without bold hearts and clear heads.
Previous page
