Mr. Free

man's way

of "doing right."

what is right? Lord Beaconsfield and Mr. Gladstone, the Pope and Dr. Cumming, the Czar and the Sultan, all unquestionably endeavour to do what they conceive to be right. It is not the end, but the means, as to which they differ; and it would be as monstrous to accuse them of knowingly and deliberately striving to do what is wrong, as it would be to accuse Mr. Freeman of wishing to set the world in flames in order that a Russian despot should rule over the Bulgarians rather than an apathetic and incapable Turk. Yet this is what, however involuntarily, his schemes for a regeneration of the East amount to. He would risk a war which would deluge all Europe with blood, and cause incalculable misery to future generations, in order that some six millions of Bosnians and Bulgarians may have the questionable advantage of trying to rule themselves, with the certainty, in the very probable event of their failing to do so, of falling under the iron rule of Russia. Such (as will appear in the sequel) is Mr. Freeman's way of "doing right;" it is not Lord Derby's way, nor, as may be safely asserted, is it the way that

would be approved by the great majority of Englishmen.

Messrs. Gladstone, Lowe, and Stansfeld, who The "bag and baggage" may be ranked together as the disciples of Mr. policy. Freeman, but whose views, fortunately for the political reputation of the Liberal party, are not shared by its responsible and sober-n.inded leaders, such as Lord Hartington and Mr. Forster, hold that the only possible remedy for the grievances of the Turkish Christians is to be found in the extermination of the Turks, "bag and baggage," from Europe, much in the same way as the process of "stamping out" was prescribed as the last resource for checking and eradicating the cattle plague. This is simply to advocate one kind of atrocity as a means of preventing the repetition of another. A crusade with Christianity and civilisation as its war-cry, would bring in its train at least as much suffering to the Turks as has been endured by the Eastern Christians, besides which it would inevitably lead to terrible reprisals in all countries where Mahometans and Christians live side by side. Mr. Gladstone might perhaps think that such a

с

result, so far as it would only affect "the antihuman species of humanity," is not to be deprecated; but even granting that philanthropy is not to be extended to Turks, it would surely be not only most unreasonable and impolitic, but inhuman, to expose the Turkish Christians to a fate far worse than the present one, even leaving out of the question the contingency of a massacre of our own countrymen in India, arising, like the mutiny of 1857, from a religious motive.

Since the publication of his pamphlet on "The Bulgarian Horrors," in which the above proposal, as it was understood at the time by the principal London newspapers which commented upon it, was made, Mr. Gladstone has attempted to explain that what he meant was, not that the whole Turkish population should be expelled, but only the Turkish officials, civil and military. But this proposal really involves the other; for if the Turks were left at the mercy of a hostile race which for the first time was allowed to taste the intoxication of power, their position would become so intolerable that they would be obliged

to leave the country. On this point it will be instructive to quote the testimony of a well-informed correspondent in the Times, of Nov. 9, who says: "I can hardly conceive anything more ridiculous than the attempt to inflict representative institutions on the masses of the Christian provinces. To do so will be simply to throw the whole administration of the different States into the hands of unprincipled adventurers who will, in the pursuit of their exclusive and personal interests, alternately, and as it suits their purpose, truckle to the Porte and to the ecclesiastical authorities, and use the unfortunate natives simply as tools and steps by which to rise to wealth and power It is individual responsibility which requires development in Turkey, not fantastical theories of so-called 'self-government.' Once give to this responsibility a practical reality, and the faith or race of the individuals to whom is intrusted the task of government is immaterial. For my own part, I would rather see a Turk as a Governor than a Perote Christian. I think he could be better c 2

an English

Russia.

trusted, and that his instincts, as well as his capabilities, are of a higher class."

So much for the plan of ameliorating the condition of the Christians by improving the Turks off the face of the earth. But there is another aspect of the policy of the philanthropists which has been urged by Messrs. Freeman, Gladstone, Proposal of and Bright. These gentlemen plead for an alliance with English alliance with Russia, on the ground that she alone of all the Great Powers, actuated solely by humanitarian principles, has espoused the cause of the Turkish Christians. What was her real object in doing this is a point which will be considered later. But it is strange indeed that politicians who profess to be solely guided by principles of humanity should select Russia as their ally in promoting such a policy,-Russia, whose whole history is replete with proofs of her utter disregard for such precepts. There is no intention here of holding up the Russians, as Mr. Gladstone has the Turks, to public reprobation as "anti-human specimens of humanity;" there are few, if any, nations whose history has not been stained by acts which are