The Press. — London, England, 1855-03-10 00:00:00

THE PRESS. gether out of the question that England should go to war in defence of the Sultan, and that an Austrian alliance for maintaining the independence of Turkey was not advisable, the Emperor Nicholas informed Count Lieven of the grati fication which the study of that speech had given him, and declared that Lord Palmerston mast be regarded as one of the greatest of English orators. On the conclusion of the war between Turkey and Russia (1829), Lord Palmerston was of opinion that Turkey should have been in duced " to make timely concessions to the just " demands [of Russia] to avoid a contest which " must end in her humiliation."—February 5, 1830. Early in his career as Foreign Minister he Wended Russia from the charge of being the aggressor in her wars with Persia and Turkey : reality to counteract " the privileged frontier of Rues's in the Black Sea," as stated in the third, and only important, condition of the four points, that our army is now encamped before Sebastopol. When the secret article of the above treaty—closing the straits of the Dar danelles—became known, France and England protested against it, sent a squadron to en force their remonstrances, and declared that they would consider the treaty as if it had never been made. To this Russia replied that she would consider the protest as if never made. The squadion did nothing. Let us hear on this point Lord Palmerston's apologist, the author of " Foreign Policy" : It was in vain that we blustered after the treaty of Unkiar Skelcssi had come to light. It was in vain that we at last set to work to get ships ready for sea, and, in concert with France, sent them to the seen cf action. It was in vain that after Count Orloff had triumphed, and the Russian forces had quitted Constantinople, taking the treaty away with them, that an English fleet sailed to the Dardanelles, from the Dardanelles went to Smyrna, and from Smyrna returned to Malta. Oar economical re formers had been gratified. Our Ministers had been praised for their carefulness of the public money. We had saved two millions. We had lost Turkey. England could ,only send a state paper when Russia sent line-of battle ships. The blame of this economical imprudence must princi• pally fall on the Ministers. It is no excuse that they yielded to the wishes of their supporters, or even to a majority in the House of Commons. But Lord Palmerston, as Foreign Secretary, ' was surely most to blame. And if it be admit ted that he committed so grave an error, what becomes of the sagacity and vigour which are sometimes claimed for him? Instead of armed action to repel the menace of Russia, Lord Durham, our ambassador to St. Petersburg, was sent to his post, vie. the Black Sea, in a British man-of-war, to force the passage of the Dardanelles. But this project was carried out in the spirit of a timid trickster. We quote again from the pages of " Foreign Policy" : Lord Palmerston tried the experiment again when the Earl of Durham was proceeding to Russia. He took the route of the Black Sea. He was received with great courtesy by the Sultan, but found that the prohibition was still resolutely enforced. A Russian man-of war, with her colours proudly flaunting in the breeze, saluted the vessel which carried the English ambassador, and which had not a single gun on her decks to return the courtesy. All the artillery of the English ship had been landed at the Dardanelles, or had been stowed away in the hold. The virtue of submission on the one side, and the vice of arrogance on the other, could scarcely be carried further. But beneath even this depth there was a lower deep. When the Earl of Durham approached Odessa, not a shot was fired in honour of the presence of the English am bassador. On his remonstrating, the governor atfinneel that it was all amistake ; but such omissions never happen by mistake. It was one of those petty insults which the sovereign of a great empire seems to dehght in offering. Such repeated indignities as England re ceived at this time would in any other age have inevitably masa war. These are the admissions of Lord Palmers ton's panegyrist. The mischief of the treaty had been sufficiently demonstrated. The su premacy of the Black Sea was secured to Russia. But luckily there was a chance of escape from the consequences of this treaty without actual war. The act was to last only eight years, and one would have thought that it would have been the aim of an English statesman to have guarded against its renewal. Lord Palmerston thought otherwise. By the treaty of 1841, the obnoxious article was not only renewed but made perpetual. In his de fence Lord Palmerston said that the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi was virtually abrogated, as Turkey was now placed under the protection of the five powers, but the fact remained that four powers out of the five were excluded from the Black Sea, which was given up to that fifth power, the natural enemy of Turkey. The present war is a practical commentary on the wisdom of that treaty of 1841, which Lord Palmerston took so active a part in negotiat ing. Our space warns us for the present to end, but we purpose returning to the subject. Now, having given some attention to the circumstances which led to these two wars, 1 am bound to say that Russia was the aggressor in neither of them ; and although the result of the Persian war was an aggrandisement of her power, it was not a result of her own seeking, So strongly did the British Government of the day feel this td be the case, that although we had a treaty with Persia which bound us to give her succour in case of war with Russia, that succour was not given, for we contended we had a right to judge of the causes of the war, and that as Persia was the aggressor she had no title to our assistance. Again, in the Turkish war, Russia was not the aggressor. These passages are important as showing the sentiments of Lord Palmerston at the time, and how totally they were opposed to the real interests of England and the actual facts of the period. Of all statesmen of his day, Lord Palmerston has unquestionably done roost to forward the aggressive designs of Russia, and to foment her pride. A few months after he became Foreign Minister the Porte applied for the assistance of England against Mehemet Ali, pointing out the danger of Russian interference should England refuse. England did refuse, and Russia did interfere, Turkey paying the penalty in the shape of the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi. It was by Lord Palmerston's positive refusal of assistance to Turkey that she was thrown into the arms of Russia. The first application made by the Porte for assistance through her agent, Mr. Maurojanni, having failed, Namik Pacha was sent with greater powers. He offered to defray the ex pense of a naval force, and he promised, more over, the grant of certain commercial privileges to British subjects in Turkey. His mission was also unsuccessful, and the Porte was then constrained to accept the aid of Russia, for which she paid so dearly. After Russia had gained her object, England came forward to afford her " moral support" to Turkey. We give Lord Palmerston's own statement of the transaction : His Majesty's Government did not comply l with the d ae mand of the Sultan for na val assistance, yete mor assistance of England was afforded, and the communica tions made by the British Government to the Pacha of Egypt, and to Ibrahim Pacha, commanding in Asia Minor, did materially contribute to bring about that arrangement between the Sultan and the Pacha by which that war was terminated.—House of Commons, 17th March, 1834. Why, then, it may be asked, did not Eng land afford her moral assistance earlier? Why was Russia allowed to extort the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi from Turkey, which converted the Black Sea into a Russian lake ? Why did England reject the offer of commercial privi les made by the Sultan? Let Lord Palmers tonge a nswer I On the 11 th of July, 1833, he said : No doubt if England bad thought fit to interfere the progress of the invading army would have been s e topped, and the Russian troops would not have been called in. He further said, in allusion to the partition of Turkey : We have a double security ; in the first place, in the good faith of the Emperor of Russia, and secondly in the doubt I entertain whether it enters into the policy We of Russia at present to accomp lish this object. . . . have interests in common with Russia. . . . We wish to be on friendly terms with Russia, because the conse quences of war may be nearly as disastrous to the con queror as to the unsuccessful power. At a later period, in 1810, he said : Oxf J. W. Parker ord Essays. Contributed the University. London by Members It is impossible for a n y Government to have acted with more honour and good fa ith in an y matter than the Russian of : Government has acted with the other powers in respect to Turkey. I feel bound to say this from a thorough know- and Son. ledge of the facts of the case. It is not just to impute to di s s en t een remarked that if a man inclined to that power that her present conduct has any tendency what • and radicalism was sent to Oxford he crer inimical to the integrity of the Turkish empire. would be converted into a Tory and high- To the treaty of Uukiar Skelessi may be churchman within a few weeks. As d ate trg lirectly referred the present war. It is in hold of Toryism, Oxford has of been MARCH 10, 1855. underrated, and its education has been looked upon as a sure preparation for the most bigoted resistance to the claims of progre ss. Self-educated—that is, uneducated —agitators have shown that the study of the classics hinders men from taking a part in dative life, and that only the people who have not studied are fit for practical purposes. We shall not stop to confute this error: but certainly during the last few years the atmosphere of Oxford has entirely changed. There is much more regard for the present, more modern literature, more discussion of the politics of the day. No frequentei of wine-parties talks about Aristides, under pain of a tine. Sir James Graham is more frequently mentioned in debates than his prototype, Proteus. Even the reading-men who are " cramming " for a double first are glad to have the opportunity of relaxing their minds during some portion of the day. Oxford has not been eclipsed in scholarship by Gower-street : she still turns out men of no moderate attainments; and all fathers will allow, on the other hand, that the university gives her young meu ample time and opportunity for amusement. There have been many attempts at Oxford during our recollection to make some decided literary movement. The " Tracts for the Times," originating among fellows of the university, had caused such a sensation throughout England that it was considered incumbent upon modern Oxford to emulate its ancestors. A work of that kind, however, was considered too stupendous, and young men generally confined themselves to the imitation of another species of publication, which, though far lighter, had yet met with much success — the "Art of Pluck." The Oxonian booksellers windows are surfeited with volumes of this class, in verse or prose, from the "Rime of the Ancient Bacoalere" to the " Adventures of Mr. Verdant Green." Numerous endea vours have been made to start a monthly magazine. These always failed, and, in gene ral, deservedly. But the present undertaking is so very different, and promises so highly, that we feel hardly justified in classing it with the abortive attempts of undergraduates and the miserable fun of the Verdant Greens. The " Oxford Essays:" are the work of some of the younger fellows in the university. The writers do not belong to any set, and in the preface they disclaim the intention of advo cating " any particular set of opinions, thee " logical, social, or political. Each writer is " responsible for his own opinions, and for " none but his own ; and no attempt has been " made to give a general unity of thought to " the publication. The tie that unites the " different contributors is not that they think " alike, but that they belong to the same " university." We find no attempt here to revive Tractarianism ; no bitter attacks on dissenters and the Parliament that gave them admission to the university ; no fierce Toryism, and not so much Aristotle as we might have expected. But we are glad to find some dis cussion of Oxford studies and general learning, subjects which men whose forte lies in teach ing might be expected to handle with most advantage. The massive thought of the work is the more pleasant as contrasted with the threadbare sentiments of most modern writ ings. Here we have men young, vigorous, of schdarship, and of expanded views, instead of writers who cram for their learning in the British Museum, and whose views are so narrow that they have no scruple at borrowing those of every one else. We cannot speak too highly of Mr. Seller's essay on " Lucretius and the Poetic Characteristics of his Age." To an earnest appreciation of the beauty of this author as a poet and philosopher, Mr. Seller adds such a thorough knowledge, not only of the works of Lucretius, but of his life, disposition, and character, as inferred from his writings, and of the light thrown on the times in which he lived by each simple tsx pression, that he enlists all our sympathies with his subject. The following passage on the harmony of the Latin poet strikes us as possessing no ordinary power : We find in his poem that the hexameter verse has made great advances since the days of Ennius. This change may be ascribed to the rapid progress of an energetic age, rather than to the efforts of any one individual ;for we find in Catullus the Latino exh o f a ameter different moulded kind from into great perfection and beauty, ug