ENGLISH POLICY FROM A RUSSIAN POINT OF VIEW.*

HERE is an eminently readable book, written in English, by rt Russian lady. This is in itself a noteworthy fact. But it is by no means the only or even the principal noteworthy fact connected with the volume. It is not only readable ; it is marked by an easy grace and a picturesque crispness of style which carry the reader over the pleasant pages of " 0. K.'' with something of the exhilarating sensation experienced in sledging over the frozen snow of her own northern clime. In the interesting preface which has been prefixed to her book Mr. Fronde says, with truth, that "'0. K.' plays with our most complicated idioms, and turns, and twists, and points her sar- casms with a skill which many an accomplished English authoress might despair of imitating." But her sarcasms and witticisms, though plentiful enough, never wound,—they only sting. And even the sting is not left behind. She makes us smart and laugh at the same time. The book, however, is not a mere brilliant intellectual display by a foreigner in a lan- guage which is not her own ; it has a very serious purpose. " 0. K." calls her book "a protest and an appeal." She is very angry with us English for our conduct on the Eastern Question, and she gives her reasons, with all the passionate re- sentment and playful pleading of a woman who has been crossed in love, yet has not quite despaired of recovering her lover. "0. K." is one of those Russians—very few now, we fear— whose perfervid love for England and the English procured for them among their own countrymen the sobriquet of" Anglo- * Russia and England, from 1876 to 1880: a Protest and an Appeal. By "0. H. r with a Preface by James Anthony Fronde, MA. London: Long:netts. 1880. maniacs;" and the edge of her disappointment at our recent policy has been sharpened by her previous admiration of us. Two 'currents of sentiment thus run through the volume; a wish to expose the selfishness, pettiness, inconsistencies, and folly of our policy on the Eastern Question ; and at the same time a strong desire on "0. K.'s " part, after she has liberated her mind, to let bygones be bygones, and help to make England and Russia friends once more. She closes her volatile with some ." last words," in which she says :— " As I look on my pages, and remember the friendly welcome which my poor attempts to promote a better understanding between England and Russia have received from some of the noblest men in both countries, I feel almost ashamed of the moments of despair and bitterness which I tried in vain to conceal. And let me say also, in parting, how gladly I shall welcome the first proof that my bitterness was a little unjust. Whatever may be the difficulties of the present, they are, I hope, but temporary ; and they have not been without some permanent compensation. Even the hostility manifested in certain quarters has not been without its uses, for it evoked a gener- ous protest which formed a new and precious link of sympathy and con- fidence between us. That sympathy and confidence may, I trust, be as an aurora, promising the advent of a new and brighter day, when the mist of distrust,' which has so long hung over us, will fade away

and finally disappear To understand why we are displeased with each other is the first indispensable step for removing the misunderstanding. Had I minced my words too much, had I shrunk from stating facts with the utmost frankness, I should not have beeu a faithful and true exponent of Russian views We both have nothing to gain, and very much to lose, by substituting hatred for cordiality, and suspicion for confidence. Nor is it we alone who suffer. Every human being between the outposts of the two Empires is more or less affected by the relations existing between England and Russia."

This conflict of emotions, which pervades the whole volume, imparts to it a freshness and a piquancy which make it very attractive reading. But it is also full of solid matter. "0. K.'s " mastery of the literature of her subject is such as very few professed politicians can rival. It is no language of exaggera- tion that Mr. Froude uses when he says that" she seems to have read every book that has been written, and every notable speech

which has been uttered, on the Eastern Question for the last half-century." And these stores of information are never dis-

played obtrusively. Her quotations and historical allusions are always apt. They invariably illustrate an argument, or point a moral or a witticism.

Once or twice, "0. K." makes playful allusion to the insinua- tion of her being "a Russian agent," which a few organs in the English Press have, with scant courtesy, thrown out against her. Her book, however, is hardly consistent with her holding any confidential relations with the Russian authorities. Some of her most pointed sarcasms are at the expense of these very authorities; and she attacks the whole realm of Russian

officialdom with such hearty good-will as may not improbably procure for her book the honour of being tabooed by the Russian censorship. She devotes a whole chapter to "The Two Russias," by which she means "official Russia and national Russia, the Russia of Moscow and the Russia of St. Petersburg."

St. Petersburg is not Russian. It is cosmospolitan. It is not vitalised with the fierce, warm current of Russia's life-blood. It stands apart." "St. Petersburg did its best to avert the war. It sneered at our Servian volunteers ; nay, if it had had its way, it would have arrested them as malefactors. Those who went first to Servia on their heroic mission were compelled to smuggle themselves, as it were, out of the country for fear of the interference of officialdom, supreme at St. Peters- burg." The authoress is certainly no respecter of persons. She lashes her own Government quite as freely and unceremoniously as she does that of Lord Beaconsfield. "In the midst of the great uprising of the nation occasioned by the Bulgarian atro- cities and the Servian war, St. Petersburg," she says, "was 'comparatively unmoved,—a mere dead, cold cinder, in the midst of the glowing warmth of our national revival." The simple fact is, that anybody who has an ordinary knowledge of Rus- sian politics would as soon think of calling "0. K." "a Russian agent," in the sense of being an agent of the Russian Govern- ment, as we should think of believing that Mr. Chamberlain or Sir Charles Dilke would go to Russia as an agent of Lord Beaconsfield. "0. K.'s " active participation in the controversy on the Eastern Question has come of two motives. One is apparent all through her book,—namely, her fiery enthusiasm on behalf of the Slays in South-Eastern Europe, coupled with a longing to see England and Russia come to such an understanding with

each other as shall lead to the pacific solution of the Eastern Question, when the hour strikes for winding-up the affairs of

the Sick Man on the Bosphorus. The other motive is only delicately hinted at by the authoress; but Mr. Kinglake has supplied the full explanation of it, in his preface to the last .edition of his History of the Crimean War. The maiden name of "0. K." is Kireef. She had two brothers,—General Kireef, now aide-de-camp to the Grand Duke Constantine; and Colonel Kireef, a very gallant officer in the Imperial Guard, who fell the first of the Russian volunteers in the Servian war against the Turks. We quote the following extract from Mr. Kinglake's eloquent description :— "The young Colonel Nicholai Kireef was a noble, whose birth and possessions connected him with the districts affected by Moscow's fiery aspirations ; and being by nature a man of an enthusiastic dis- position, he had accustomed himself to the idea of self-sacrifice. Upon the outbreak of Prince Milan's insurrection, he went off to Servia, with the design of acting simply under the banner of the Red Cross, and had already entered upon his humane task, when he found himself called upon by General Tchernayeff to accept the

command of what we may call a brigade Kireef very well understood that the irregular force entrusted to him was far from being one that could be commanded in the hour of battle by taking a look with a field-glass, and uttering a few words to an aide-de-camp ; so he determined to carry forward his men [in an assault on an en- trenched position] by the simple and primitive expedient of per- sonally advancing in front of them. He was a man of great stature, with extraordinary beauty of features ; and, whether owing to the midsummer beat, or from any wild, martyr-like impulse, he chose, as he had done from the first, to be clothed altogether in white. Whilst advancing in front of his troops against the Turkish battery, he was struck,—first, by a shot passing through his left arm, then presently by another which struck him in the neck, and then, again, by yet another, which shattered his right arm, and forced him to drop his sword. But, despite all these wounds, he was still continuing his resolute advance, when a fourth shot passed through his lungs, and brought him at length to the ground, yet did not prevent him from uttering—although with great effort—the cry of 'Forward! forward !' A fifth shot, however, fired low, passed through the fallen chief's heart, and quenched his gallant spirit."

This romantic incident, as Mr. Kinglake proceeds to describe, was in fact the match which fired the enthusiasm of the Russian people to finish the work of liberation of which Colonel Kireef was the proto-martyr. " It may be," says Mr. Kinglake, "that the grandeur of the young Colonel's form and stature, and the sight of his blood, showing vividly on his white attire, added something extraneous and weird to the sentiment which might well be inspired by witnessing his personal heroism. But be that as it may, the actual result was that accounts of the incident—accounts every day growing more and more marvellous—flew so swiftly from village to village, that before seven days had passed the smouldering fire of Russian enthu- siasm leapt up into a dangerous flame."

The body of Colonel Kireef, after having been mutilated, was publicly exposed in the town of Wicliu, and was never recovered. His oily sister, by name Olga, determined to devote herself to the cause for which her brother sacrificed his life. When "0. K.'s " enthusiasm for the emancipation of the Slays can be accounted for in so simple a manner, it is a pity to violate the laws of courtesy by the invention of reasons which seem intended to give pain. But apart from the private and personal reasons which "0. K." has for not loving the Turks, there are other reasons in the history of her country which are quite sufficient to evoke the sympathies of the Russian people for their brethren in race and faith who are still enslaved under Turkish rule. "0. K." accordingly gives a chapter in answer to the question, "Why do the Russians hate the Turks ?" "Because they know them," she replies. This knowledge, as

she proceeds to explain, is the experimental knowledge which has been written in characters of blood on the memories of all Christian races which have had experience of Mussulman rule. Russia was for two centuries as Bulgaria was but yesterday, as Armenia and Macedonia, and other lands still enslaved by the Ottoman, are still. The Rayahs are thus, as "0. K." says, "not only our [i.e., Russians'] brethren in race and religion; they are also our brothers in misfortune, united to us in the sacred com- munion of sorrow." When we talk of Russian* barbarism, it is but fair to remember its cause. A nation which has been enslaved for two hundred years is not only heavily handicapped in the race !of civilisation,—it is driven back. It was in 1224 that the Tartars fairly established themselves as conquerors in Russia. And though their power was broken in 1476, and the Russians then ceased to pay tribute—including the dire tribute of blood, in other words, the tithe of the fairest of their

children—another century elapsed before the Russians managed to get rid of their tormentors. "As late as 1571," as "0. K."

reminds us, "Moscow was burnt to the ground by a wandering

host of Asiatics." "Western Europe, which felt afar off the scorching of the storm of fire which swept over Russia, throbbed with horror." "Moscow twice suffered the fate of Batak, and nearly every city in Russia has suffered the horrors inflicted upon Yeni-Zagra." The Russians were the outposts of civilisation in the North, as Greeks and Slays have been in the South-East; and it ill becomes those who were thus saved from Asiatic savagery, to treat with scorn and contumely the enthusiasm of the Russian people on behalf of their brethren who are still in bondage. What were the fires of Smithfield in com- parison with Mussulman domination Yet the anti-Popery feel- ing still dormant among the masses of our population proves how long anation can bear in mind the memory of ancient wrongs. And the less civilised a people is, the more tenacious is its memory. Having no artificial means of recalling past impressions, a people without literature perpetuates its history by oral tradi- tion, handed on from generation to generation. The sufferings of the Bulgarians came home to the Russian peasantry with a vivid impressiveness which we find it hard, and, which the polite society of St. Petersburg found it hard, to understand. "0. K." is very happy in exposing the inconsistencies of the Beaconsfield policy against Russia. For instance :—" The great natural rampart which divides you from the terrible Afghans is pronounced by your Premier to be haphazard, and therefore it must be replaced at once by a scientific frontier. Yet, haphazard though it be, your Indian frontier, compared with that of Asiatic Turkey, is simply impregnable. But you do nothing to strengthen the latter, although it lies defence- less at the feet of our garrison at Kars." The sting of such sarcasms lies in their truth. By the Anglo-Turkish Conven- tion our frontier is, in fact, conterminous with that of Turkey in Asia. Yet the Government which has burdened us with this new frontier has done absolutely nothing to render it secure ; while, on the other hand, any movement of Russian troops in Turkistan, a thousand miles from our Indian frontier, throws all our Jingoes into a flutter of alarm.

The authoress is very severe on the neutrality practised by our Government during the Russo-Turkish war.

"Neutrality Anglaise " she regards as "very little better than war a la Busse ;" and she asks what we should have said if Russia had practised such neutrality towards us in Afghanistan. As a Russian, however, she finds her com- pensation in the blunders by means of which Lord Beaconsfield has played into the hands of Russia. The reason, for instance, why the Allies made war upon Russia five-and-twenty years ago was to destroy her claim to the exclusive protectorate of the Rayahs of Turkey, and the result of the Crimean war was to sub- stitute the united protectorate of Europe for the single pro- tectorate of Russia, or any other Power. "But that principle," says "0. K." "(the European concert established by the Western nations against Russia at the Paris Congress), has been anni- hilated by the Anglo-Turkish Convention. The work of Lord Clarendon has been undone by Lord Beaconsfield, and the Russian principles, eclipsed by the disasters at Sebastopol, have been vindicated at last by the English Government." This is literally true, as is also the following :—" There is hardly a demand that our diplomats have made for Russia that your Premier has not granted kindly enough. But the proposals which extended the area of freedom,—these he has curtailed, with the willing assent of interested and designing intriguers, who see in the dissatisfaction of these betrayed peoples the effectual in- struments for achieving in the future their aggressive designs." "The weaker Bulgaria is, the more she depends upon us, and the more absolutely she is in our power." This may seem a suspicious kind of objection from the pen of a Russian. But it will so seem only to those who cannot understand the deep antagonism on this subject between official Russia and national Russia. The former wishes a belt of weak States in the Balkan peninsula, —so weak, that they cannot stand without external support. The National party, on the contrary, aims at the creation .of a confederation of Slav States, in friendly alliance with Russia, but strong enough to protect their own independ- ence. It is the Nationalist, not the official, Press of Russia -which has criticised with such keen disappointment the division of Bulgaria. One of the humiliating fruits of the "peace, with honour," is that an Englishman can no longer resent as unjust the following patronising language from a Russian :—" Why should you distrust those rising races of the East ? They are not strong as yet, neither are they rich; but they contain the seeds of a prosperous future. Their development can be

retarded by diplomatists, but it cannot be prevented. Nation- alities that have survived the fiery furnace of Ottoman domina- tion will not perish because of the swaddling-clothes of Western.

diplomacy." Nor can we complain that hits like the following are undeserved :—

" Greece should receive Epirus, Thessaly, Crete, and the Hellenic Islands, which may, perhaps, include Cyprus, when you get tired of it." "Are you not rather inclined to approximate to Russian doctrines ? Is not your Premier exalting the Royal prerogative, and your Parliament only allowed to discuss trivialities and faits accomplis ? Your example gives moments of serious hesitation and doubts even to those in Russia who dream of a Constitution."

"0. K." assures us that Russia was not greatly alarmed by our Vote of Credit, or by the apparition of Indian Sepoys in

the Mediterranean :—" You send 6,000 Sepoys to Malta. Well and good. But in order to be able to get these 6,000 Asiatics, you have to maintain nearly 60,000 English troops in India." "It did not need the jingle of Six Millions Vote of Confidence, warranted not to be spent,' to convince us that England was rich. In fact, we thought she was so rich that she would not have needed to have gone a borrowing to raise so small a sum. Any one can borrow, even poor, dear Austria!" "0. K." con- tends valiantly that Russia has been, on the whole, the friend or champion of Liberal movements generally throughout Europe, and she places our professional " patriots " in a diffi- culty when, in marshalling her proofs, she quotes the following evidence :—" Your Queen, for instance, according to Mr. Martin, declared that the war of unification undertaken by Napoleon was brought about by the wicked folly of Russia and France.'

The Prince Consort declared, The Russians are, of course, at the bottom of the whole thing,' and mentions the suggestive little fact that Russia placed an army of 200,000 men on the frontiers to keep Austria and Prussia in check whilst Napoleon was engaged in the campaign in Lombardy." Another of her witnesses is Mr. Martin himself, whom she facetiously describes as "her Majesty's Historian-in-Waiting."

There is much else in the volume to which we should like to direct our readers' attention, but the limits of space forbid. Those whose curiosity or interest we may have excited must consult the volume for themselves. Russia has been criticised very freely in this country during the last four years. It is but fair, on the other hand, that we should learn what is thought of us by a very clever and a very indignant, but by no means an ill- natured or unfriendly, Russian. And to show that we part from "0. K." in no unkindly spirit, we will let her have that privilege which is due to her sex,—the last word. Here is her forecast of the destiny of modern Europe :—" The Future is ours ! The Germans have reached their day, the English their mid-day, the French their afternoon, the Italians their eveuing, the Spaniards their night; but the Slays stand on the threshold of the morning."