NIHILISM AS AN INTERNATIONAL QUESTION.
PROFESSOR MARTENS, Herr Windthorst, and, indeed, almost all who discuss the international treatment of Nihil- ism from their point of view, seem to us to overlook one-half the subject. They all endeavour to prove that it would be right for the European States to put down societies formed to assassinate Monarchs, and, of course, are able to claim an easy dialectic victory. It is quite right to put down attempts to murder, and as a monarch is, after all, a man and a brother, attempts to kill him are attempts to murder. It is oven more right to put down attempts to massacre the innocent, and modern attempts on Kings usually involve such massacres, a fact which those who speak of these attempts as political are far too ready to forget. It is, moreover, a duty in- cumbent on civilised States to put down private war, and to forbid persons within their jurisdiction to make forays into the territories of their neighbours. That duty is clearly recognised by all States, and has, in our own time, been acted on by Monarchical Governments like the Prussian and Aus- trian in the Polish case, and by a Republican Government like that of the United States, in the Fenian case. Nobody denies the rectitude of that course, and it may be fairly argued that a conspiracy to kill a monarch for political reasons is a conspiracy to wage private war on him, and may, therefore, be put down, like a conspiracy to send out an expedition. There is no moral objection whatever to prevent any Government from helping to preserve the life of Czar Alexander or Kaiser William, if it can be preserved. Nor do we see any solid ob- jection to prosecuting journals which openly incite anybody to commit murder, whether on monarchs or anybody else. We pro- secute newspapers which incite to larceny, or to lechery, or to treason ; and there is no question that murder, whether it be the heaviest of all crimes or not, must always be treated as the heaviest. We see an objection to a Government prosecuting the Trumpet of Assassination, or the like journal, because we see that such action violently prejudices a jury towards acquittal ; but if a foreign Government likes to prosecute, it should have as much help from the Courts as any individual would have.
But when those propositions are stated, the case is not covered. The question remains still for politicians whether Governments have the power to lend each other this aid, —whether it is possible, without a violent denial of justice, to suppress societies intending assassination, and whether it is expedient, by putting down printed incitements to murder, to make those incitements much more for- midable. We doubt it very greatly. In the case of an expedition against a friendly State, there is always evidence, a visible corpus delieti, D. band of armed men, or a store of arms, or a ship, and the Government can seize these with a safe conscience ; but how is it to seize a " Society of Assassins "? They may be as guilty as possible, but how, unless they aro utterly foolish or treacherous to each other, is the Govern- ment to know what they are talking of, or to punish them for intending mischief to a friendly potentate ? There is nothing in political murder, more than murder for jealousy or greed, to justify a State in dispensing with evidence and trial ; and how are either to be obtained ? We will take the extreme kind of case which Professor Martens believes to have occurred, but which we believe to be reported with the view of perplexing policemen, that a Society has met, say, in Belgrave Square, has considered the demerits of the Emperor of China, has resolved that he be executed, and has intimated that resolve to Chinese agents sworn to obedience in all things. That is the most extreme case conceivable, and to what does it amount ? To this,—that certain persons, in conversation with one another, have expressed a resolve to compass the murder of the Emperor of China. How is a Government to obtain evidence of that sufficient to ensure a conviction ? They may all have been bragging, or have repented as they walked home. A Government cannot dispense with trial altogether, or arrest men because it suspects that when certain persons talk gravely together the planets are in a malefic
aspect towards the Emperor of China. Nor would any altera- tion of the law within reason enable the Home Office to act effectually. Suppose Sir W. Harcourtauthorised by statute to arrest suspected assassins on private information, and what would be the consequence ? That every person suspected or disliked by the incriminated extremists would be denounced, that the Government would always be arresting the wrong men, and that the real plotters would be safer and more formidable than ever. M. Martens says assassins who fly ought to be surrendered, and he is quite right ; but so they are, like any other murderers, whenever evidence is obtainable. What he really wants is that intending murderers should bo arrested, and how is a Government to prove intention To surrender immigrants without evidence, merely because Russian or Ger- man police want to have them, is impossible, as impos- sible in their ease as in that of any other criminals. The argument against suppressing journals is still stronger. It may be perfectly right and moral, and as we con- tend is so, to suppress a paper which incites to murder ; but it is of no use whatever. The disease is only driven in. If the conductors of the journal intend mischief, and are not merely letting off choleric steam—which, we may add, is their usual mental position—they instantly adopt one of two devices. They either continue their incitements in a form intelligible to their readers and to nobody else, or they use lithography instead of printing, and circulate far more dangerous articles as letters or in parcels, which articles are read aloud in little smokinkrooms. The former method is practically unassailable, and when the rebels belong to the educated classes, most effective ; while the latter has been tried, and tried successfully, against the strongest and most despotic Governments, and that of Russia in particular. No Government can open all letters, nor can any free State punish Herr Abraham for describing the deportation of an innocent family, by order of the Czar, to Siberia, which may be a much stronger incitement to murder than any con- ceivable burst of bloodthirsty eloquence. This fear of assassi- nating journals is a customary illusion of politicians, who absurdly exaggerate the effect of printed matter. How many journals did the Holy Vobme take in, or what newspaper urged on Ravaillac, Ankerstriim, or Damiens ? There was not a Royalist newspaper loft in France when Charlotte Corday killed Marat, and every newspaper Booth could have seen was devoted to Mr. Lincoln.
There is, finally, another argument against a league of States for the suppression of Nihilism, which is very rarely produced, but which is, we are convinced, well worthy the consideration of all threatened monarchs. Are the Kings sure that the best way to defend themselves is to deprive intending assassins of the hope of escape ? Our impression is that it is the worst way ; that the Kings are never in such deadly danger as when their adversaries know escape will be impos- sible, and make their attempts with a resolve either to be arrested or to commit suicide. It is because of the Russian indifference to escape that Russian assassins are so formidable. Men who. are looking over their shoulders when they fire never hit anything, and assassins' who believe escape pos- sible are always looking over their shoulders. If the world were turned into a prison for regicides, and no regicide could escape, no man would attempt regicide unless he was prepared either for execution or suicide, and the chances against the Kings would. be multiplied fivefold. It is men of the martyr temperament whom the Kings have cause to fear, not men who will run a certain risk, but who never surrender the hope that they may get away. If it is just to hangri murderer at all, it is just to hang the murderer of a king ; but we have a strong suspicion that it would be much wiser in kings to leave their enemies a chance of escape, which makes their hands unsteady with hope,—and to punish by long terms of imprisonment, and not by execution, about which real fanatics do not care. At all events, they will do well not to close all doors, and so make it a matter of indif- ference to assassins whether they throw bombs from a dis-
tance, or wait till they can drop them between their victim's legs. " The world," says Gibbon, was " a safe and dreary prison for the enemies of the Caesar; " but how many Camara, ,not Autonines, died in their beds ?
Previous page
