“In this,” continued the Earl, “I believe is to be found the whole secret of the movement on the part of the Emperor of Russia. He saw that it would give to these Greek Christians a status, a recognized independence, and emancipated them from the influence of Russia; he saw that the circulation of the Scriptures was giving rise to those aspirations after liberty, which religious freedom must inevitably be followed by, and his own dominions were contiguous to those in which this religious freedom was tolerated.”
The true nature of Russia’s religious movement is well pointed out by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. He is giving the Earl of Clarendon a summary of the state of the question when he arrived at Constantinople, and of the difficulties which lie in the way of its settlement. As respects arriving at an amicable adjustment of the differences he says, “The prospect in this direction would be more promising if Russia were to shew signs of being disposed to act on Christian rather than on sectarian principles. But it appears that the protection which her Government wish to exercise with so little control or limitation, is of a strictly exclusive character; and it has reached me, from more quarters than one, that, among the motives for increasing their influence in this country, is the desire of repressing Protestantism wherever it appears.”—(Blue Book, vol. i., p. 29.)
England, France, and Turkey have striven to divest this quarrel of any character of Islamism versus Christianity, and to rest it on the broad basis of justice and right. The Emperor has sought to make it a second crusade, and has used every influence in his power as head of the Church to excite the fanaticism, sectarian zeal, and religious bigotry of his people. In doing so he has shown himself capable of calling into action the most terrible of all weapons, so that therewith he can achieve his end. It was little to have been expected that a member of the most peaceful and tolerant of Christian communities should have aided him in this dreadful and iniquitous course. It is one more fatal illustration of how far men will allow themselves to be carried when once they abandon the strict path of reason, and allow feeling and prejudice to warp their otherwise sound judgment.
Before I leave this question of the “secret correspondence,” I will quote a passage from Sir G. H. Seymour, which I commend to the most careful consideration of those who think that Russia was desirous of keeping on terms of amity and justice with the Porte. The words are,—“The sovereign who insists with much pertinacity upon the impending fall of a neighbouring state, must have settled in his own mind that the hour, if not of its dissolution, yet for its dissolution, is at hand.” To my mind, it is clear in what manner Nicholas had made up his mind respecting this dissolution; and it was no fault of his if the hour is not at hand.
A few words more. One course pursued by the Peace Society is very strange. While apologising for and defending Russia, most of its public speakers and lecturers denounce France and Austria. I shall not defend either of these Powers. Those who oppose Russia on the same grounds which I do, will be slow to do that. But how can these men, opposing the present war, reconcile it to their consciences to seek to embroil us with two other powers? Is it that they only deprecate war when waged against a favourite despot, and are reckless as to fanning the flames when others are concerned? Whatever may be their reasons, it is still a strange problem—one which these gentlemen may find some difficulty in solving. Now that we are at war, let us hope that we shall not again sheath the sword until we have secured peace on such a firm and secure basis that it shall not be in the power of future squabblers about a key, a stone, or a cupola, on the one hand—nor of aggrandising and unscrupulous ambition on the other—to overthrow the peace of nations, to threaten the existence and liberties of weaker states, to interrupt the commerce of the world, and to retard the civilization of the race. For many years Russia has been the incubus of Europe. She has laid her cold grasp upon all its aspirations, and sent out her serried legions to quench in blood the budding life and reviving freedom of many states. Her name has been a terror—her presence a curse; her instruments are fraud, rapine, and destruction; her rule is based upon ignorance, superstition and slavery; and, brutal herself, she knows of only one system of governing men—a system which depends on chains, the knout, Siberia, and death! The man who lauds such a system is hardly fit to speak the tongue which Shakspere spoke; and, as he is so much of a Russian subject, it is a pity that his citizenship is not complete, and that he were a dweller beneath her mild rule—a sojourner beneath her clement skies. For him our forefathers have lived, fought, and achieved freedom in vain.
“Who would not blush, if such a man there be?
Who would not weep, if Atticus were he?”
J. A. LANGFORD, PRINTER, ANN-STREET, BIRMINGHAM.
FOOTNOTES.
[9] The Progress and Present Position of Russia in the East: an Historical Summary, Preface, p. vi.
[11a] Progress of Russia in the East: an Historical Summary, p. 153.