Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

great affairs to see any big thing come off without putting themselves in evidence. Prince Bismarck used to do this by the diplomatic machinery of the empire which he did so much to create. Being no longer able to control ambassadors, he inspires editors, and his Hamburg organ announced, in reply to the conclusion of the Franco-Russian Alliance, that in 1888 he had concluded a secret agreement with Russia, which was concealed from the knowledge of Austria, to the effect that each Power would preserve a benevolent neutrality in case the other were attacked. This agreement was kept secret by the special request of Russia, but when Russia in 1890 endeavoured to renew it, Count Caprivi declined, with the result that Russia, being rebuffed at Berlin, inade friends in Paris.

The

There is no reason to doubt the accuracy Debatable of this story, nor is there anything in

Land

of Europe. compatible with the Triple Alliance in the making of a separate agreement with Russia. The only puzzle is why Caprivi refused to renew a treaty which accorded so well with German interests. Bismarck declares that, although Germany did not mention the fact of the agreement to Austria, there is nothing in the Triple Alliance, which is strictly defensive in its nature, to prevent either Austria or Italy concluding a similar treaty with either Russia or France. This no doubt is true, and that only brings up the question with more insistence than

[graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small]

ever-why should not this alliance afford a basis of a third alliance, which would include both the others? If such an alliance were formed, we should have made a considerable advance towards the realisation of the great idea of a federated Europe. All the Powers are agreed in maintaining the territorial status quo, and that might well become the basis of the federal union. This, however, would probably be resisted by the Powers who are dissatisfied with the distribution of certain selvages of territory adjoining their dominions. For instance, Denmark wishes to obtain the Danish speaking district of North Schleswig, to which indeed she has good claim by treaty. France wishes to recover Alsace-Lorraine. Italy has certain provinces lying to the north of Venice which she regards as forming part of Italia Irredenta, while Russia would be very, glad to see Austria turned out of Bosnia and Herzegovina. These are practically the only selvage questions that are in dispate. Is it quite inconceivable that, say, at the end of the century, the Powers might agree to declare these selvage provinces as a debatable lind, all rights to which shall be reserved and held in abeyance for a period of ten years, during which the existing arrangements should be guaranteed by all the con tracting Powers? This may seem chimerical, but in view of the rapprochement between the autocratic head of the Greek Orthodox Church and the French Republic, on the basis of the retention pro tem. by Germany of Alsace and Lorraine, it does not seem to be entirely outside the range of political possibility.

A Network

of

It is curious to notice how many agreements, secret and otherwise, either exist Alliances. or have existed quite recently in Europe. To begin with, there is the Triple Alliance between. Germany, Austria, and Italy. There is the FrancoRussian Alliance. There is an Italian-Russian treaty concluded by M. de Giers when he was at Monza, by which Italy promises Russia that in any action taken under the provisions of the Triple Alliance Italy will confine herself to strictly defensive action. Then there was until 1890 a secret agreement between Russia and Germany, by which each agreed to observe reciprocal neutrality in case they were attacked by any other Power. Then there is-or there is reported to be- a triple agreement between Austria, Italy and England, by which the three Powers agree to act together in the Ottoman Empire, an understanding in virtue of which Austria and Italy prepared to support the action of Lord Salisbury when, at the beginning of his Administration,

he proposed to coerce the Turk by a naval demonstration at Constantinople. There is besides these the Anglo-Turkish Convention, by virtue of which, as long as we continue in occupation of Cyprus, we are bound to defend the Sultan against any Russian attack upon his eastern frontier. There is also an old treaty between England, Austria, and France, entered into on the eve of the Crimean War, guaranteeing the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire; but this would have been regarded as practically superseded had it not been referred to by Lord Rosebery as being in existence. Add to this an alleged private treaty between Russia and Denmark, that in case of war between Russia and Germany, Denmark will act as the ally of Russia in consideration for the restitution of North Schleswig. If, therefore, the peace of Europe is not sufficiently guaranteed, it will not be for want of leagues and alliances.

Lord

It is the existence of such agreements, Rosebery's together with a mass of cther underDeliverance. standings, not yet revealed even by the indiscretions of Friedrichsruh, which led Lord Rosebery to speak as strongly as he did at Edinburgh, in opposition to the proposal that England should, single handed, endeavour to force the Dardanelles · and coerce the Sultan. Lord Rosebery's speech was a revelation to the country of a hitherto unsuspected vein of passionate moral fervour that recalled in some of the passages of his speech reminiscences of the greatest efforts of John Bright. As a piece of lofty and absolutely conclusive reasoning, addressed by an expert to a great popular audience, it takes rank among the greatest performances of any English statesman in this generation. Mr. Forster's famous speech at Bradford in 1876, when he returned from his visit to Constantinople, and Lord Derby's memorable deliverance when he left the Cabinet of Lord Beaconsfield on its surrender to the Jingo frenzy in 1878, are the only two recent utterances of English public men that can be mentioned in the same breath with Lord Rosebery's speech at Edinburgh. But for genuine eloquence, and, above all, for the ringing note of intense personal passion, Lord Rosebery's speech threw the others far into the shale. Lord Rosebery, while stepping down from his pedestal of titular Leader of the Liberal Party, achieved by this speech a much higher position than he had occupied before among the personal forces which mould the destinies of nations and direct the policies of empires.

The Real

Lord

In this speech we have the real Lord Rosebery, in the vices of his virtues Rosebery. and the defects of his qualities. The speech would have been better without the passing jibe at the internal Government of Russia, with which, as Lord Rosebery himself admitted, we have nothing to do, but which revived at once in the Russian mind the old objection to the Liberal Chief on the ground of his Semitic connections, and his too great friendship with the Bismarcks. It would also have been better, if only for the sake of taking away occasion from those who desire to find occasion, if Lord Rosebery had remembered how fierce a storm of moral indignation had raged round Lord Derby's use of the words "British interests." The introduction of a single phrase of half a dozen. words in the following passage would have drawn the sting of almost all the denunciations that have been hurled against their author :

From Kladderadatsc'.]

What are

"Interests distinctively British" is a British phrase that is quite wide enough to Interests? cover everything which any of our Crusaders could desire. Lord Derby on a memorable occasion declared the first and greatest of all British interests was peace, and the second, it may be fairly maintained, although Lord Derby did not say it, is the maintenance of good faith, and the honourable discharge of those obligations into which we have

It is assumed by those who assail Lord Rosebery that by "distinctively British interests" he meant solely material interests, than which nothing could be further from the mark.

[blocks in formation]

LORD ROSEBERY'S RETREAT.-FROM A GERMAN POINT OF VIEW. This noise can't be borne any longer.

Some of you belong to a generation which has grown up almost ignorant of the horrors of war. You seem to have forgotten, you who preach resolute and isolated action, what these horrors are; but you in this city at any rate can remember that old legend of the ghastly phantom that appeared over the Market Cross before the battle of Flodden. and that summoned in awful tones King and Lords and Knights and Commons to appear within forty days at the Judgment Seat in another world. Flodden was bad for Scotland, but a European war in which we were engaged would transcend twenty Floddens. That angel of death who appeared-or was said to appear-in Edinburgh before Flodden would appear in every hamlet, every village, every town of the United Kingdom to summon your sons or brothers,. the flower of your youth and manhood, to lose their lives in this European conflagration. I do not say that I am unwilling to draw the sword in a great and necessary cause. I have myself, while a Minister, incurred the risk of war (hear, hear). I do not believe that any British Minister, with reference to the vast interests consigned to his charge, can avoid the risk of war. But I say that any Pritish Minister who engages in a European war, except under the pressure of the direst necessity, except under interests directly and distinctively British, is a criminal to his country and his position.

As a

matter of fact,

Lord Rosebery on

[graphic]

one famous occa-
sion imperilled
the peace of
Europe by the

vehemence with
which he main-
tained as Foreign

Secretary the absolutely nonBritish interest of the port of Batoum. The besetting sin of Lord Rosebery, in the eyes of those who have assailed him most, is not a desire to narrow the category of distinctively British interests, but to

extend it and make it so exceeding broad that there is hardly any quarrel in the world which could not be brought within its scope.

Mr.

Lord Rosebery's speech was described by Gladstone's the Daily Chronicle, with a licentiousness Policy. of misrepresentation happily rare in the English press, as an attack on Mr. Gladstone. The description was so monstrous, that in order to give it any colour, the report of the Chronicle's own representative at Edinburgh was mutilated so as to make his description accord with the editorial calumny. His speech was in no sense an attack upon Mr. Gladstone, but it was a very effective demolition of Mr. Gladstone's policy. The fact is, Mr. Gladstone's policy on the Eastern Question has been useful and right in so far as it has helped to bring this country into line

with Russia. The moment Mr. Gladstone's policy tended to antagonise England and Russia it became powerless for good, and Lord Rosebery performed a public service by setting forth with unexampled vigour and emphasis the perils to which Mr. Glad stone's policy would have exposed us. In a subsequent speech at Colchester, Lord Rosebery added what ought to have been included in the Edinburgh address, namely, that his objection to isolated action against Turkey on the part of England was based upon information which he had every reason to regard as authentic; but that if his information was wrong, and he was mistaken in believing our single-handed intervention would light up the flames of a European war, then by all means, he would say, act on Mr. Gladstone's advice and take singlehanded action against the Sultan.

The Policy

Immediately after Lord Rosebery's speech, of the a great demonstration was held in St. Government. James's Hall, attended by some hundred mayors and addressed by various personages, all of whom spoke with eloquence and passionate indignation concerning the atrocities committed by the Assassin. The note of the meeting was unquestionably in favour of war, and the roof would have gone off St. James's Hall with the roar of exultation which would have greeted an announcement by the Chairman that a declaration of war against Turkey had been launched by Lord Salisbury. But the Government, speaking through Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, made it abundantly clear that they had no intention whatever of taking any such action. Their policy is to maintain the European Concert and, if possible, to make it effective. The chief thing that paralyses the European Concert is distrust of English policy. It sounds too mad for words, but unquestionably at this moment a very large proportion of the keenest political observers in Europe, especially in Russia, are absolutely convinced that the Armenian agitation in this country has been got up for no other reason than to enable John Bull to grab Constantinople. It is very hideous, no doubt, and very terrible, but after all we are being paid out in our own coin. Twenty years ago the English public, headed by the English Government, was under the sway of just the same mad delusion about Russia.

[blocks in formation]

however, had not seen fit to avail themselves of it. His action in removing the matter from their control was due to many causes, of which the last was the position of the quasi-antagonism to Mr. Gladstone's policy which he felt himself bound to take up. His decision was received by his colleagues with sincere. regret, and by the country with no small measure of dismay. If the duty of a Liberal leader is to lead, it is not the duty of a Liberal leader to shrink from the responsibility of leadership merely because its exercise would involve him in opposition to the opinion of any individual Liberal, no matter how important that individual might be. There is no doubt whatever that had Lord Rosebery made his speech as Leader of the Liberal Party, the whole of his followers, with very few exceptions, would have claimed it as defining the only possible policy for the Party. If, on the other hand, there had been any serious manifestations of dissent, he could have. resigned if need be. But to resign before you have ascertained whether your Party will follow you, merely in order that you may speak your mind in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility, is not a course which commends itself to the sober judgment of the English people. Lord Rosebery has shown himself by his speech to be a greater man than he was believed to be even by his friends. He would have shown himself to be a greater man still if he had made his speech while retaining the leadership of his Party.

The

Liberal

It is an open secret that the relations between Lord Rosebery and his political Leadership. twin in the House of Commons for some time past have been considerably strained, if indeed it may not be more truthful to say that they had ceased to exist. Sir William Harcourt's position as Leader in the House of Commons, in which the brunt of the political combat is fought out when the Liberal Party is in possession, naturally gave him an ascendency with the Party that hardly harmonised with the titular position which Lord Rosebery occupied. At the same time nothing, so far as the public are aware, had occurred to accentuate the difference between them. So far as the public could perceive, there has been no line of cleavage between the policy which they have recommended in their recent speeches. Even on. the Eastern Question Sir William Harcourt's address to his constituents was by no means out of accord with the speech which Lord Rosebery delivered in Edinburgh. Lord Rosebery, however, probably does not feel strong enough to

play the role of a really independent force in the country unless freed from the shackles of government by Cabinet. This kind of democratic Cæsarism may be better than government by committee; but it is our misfortune, or at least our fate, to live under a system of government by committee, to work which properly it is necessary for a leader to possess both courage to assert his own views and take his individual initiative, at the same time that he recognises the right of his colleagues to be consulted before they are saddled with responsibility for policies from which they may wish to dissent. The question of loyalty, upon which a good deal has been said, not to much purpose, is quite as much due by the head of a Cabinet to his colleagues as by his colleagues to the head of a Cabinet. Possibly, however, a sojourn in the invigorating atmosphere of absolute independence may enable Lord Rosebery to feel that, onerous as the shackles of cabinet government may be, they are not so embarrassing as to be incompatible with the free expression of individual convictions.

The

The November Cabinets will have begua before these pages reach the eye of the Policy of the reader, and Ministers will have comOpposition. menced to discuss the legislation they intend to propose next Session. This, of course, is fit and proper, but it unfortunately does not as yet seem to be regarded equally as a matter of course that the Liberal leaders shall also meet in private Cabinet to decide what line of policy they will pursue. In the present breakdown of Parliamentary machinery the Opposition has acquired a voice almost equal in authority to that of the Administration, nor is the potency of that voice in the least affected by the fact that the majority against them may be 10, 50, 100, or 150.

Both leaders of the House, Mr. Balfour and Sir William Harcourt, have come to the conclusion that it will be henceforth impossible to pass any important measure of any length or complexity without the assent of the Opposition. A fiercely opposed measure can only be carried by the guillotine which terminates all parliamentary discussion. Ministers, therefore, will be more and more compelled to consult the Opposition as to what measures they should put on their programme of legislation. But that implies that the Liberals themselves should have a coherent policy which the leaders should formulate. The habit of each Opposition chief playing his own game off his own bat without any consultation of his colleagues should be abandoned as an anachronism. If the other plan were adopted, it would at least be

something to know that all the members of the late Administration were on speaking terms-an assurance which is sometimes lacking to their devoted followers. It is obvious that the first question

The

Education Bill before the Cabinet will be what shall of 1897. be done about education. I quote elsewhere from

Sir John Gorst's remarkable articles on this subject. They should be read in order to appreciate Sir Michael Hicks-Beach's not less remarkable speech in opposition to the plan which the Minister of Education deems the best. Sir John is in favour of Rate Aid, therein being in accord with the North Country Churchmen. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach will not hear of Rate Aid, which he says would be irregular and uncertain, and would be extremely unpopular with the ratepayers. Last season he consented to allow Voluntary Schools a grant of 4s. a head from the State by means of choking a deficit which Sir John Gorst estimates at from 15s. to 20s. a head. Bishop Temple, and the Churchmen who act with him, put forward as an alternative a grant of 6s. a head all round for Board Schools and Church Schools alike. In deciding this momentous question as to subsidy, it is to be feared that Ministers may drop the only two items in last year's Education Bill which were of really national importance, viz., the raising of the age of compulsion by one year, and the provision made for improving and extending our system of secondary education. It would be well if Liberal leaders could make it clearly understood that on these two points they would facilitate the passage of any Education Bill, while reserving for themselves the utmost liberty to oppose the clauses which provide for increasing the grants of publie money to schools which are outside of public

control.

The

the Archbishop.

The mention of Bishop Temple brings us Death of by a natural association of ideas to speak of the changes that have taken place in high places in the Church of England. Dr. Benson, the late Archbishop of Canterbury, died suddenly when at prayer in the church at Hawarden, where he was on a passing visit to Mr. Gladstone, on his return

from Ireland. Dr. Benson had suffered from seasickness, which had affected his heart, occasioning him so much suffering that nothing but the necessity of returning home would have induced him to face the Irish Channel. He was in excellent spirits, however, and spent the Sunday morning, after partaking of

« PreviousContinue »