CHAPTER VII.

THE RUSSIAN BUGBEAR.

Ir may seem presumptuous to characterise as 'superstitious' a sentiment which dominates the minds of so

many able men. But that mental capacity affords no protection against an unreasoning prejudice is a fact so well attested in the annals of British statesmanship as to dispense me from the necessity of any argument in self-defence, save only a few historical illustrations.

So rapid has been the progress made by this country during the last half-century that it is hard to realise that so late as that date the legal estimate of human life was only 40s. And when merciful juries refused to convict, and the severity of the law was thus found to defeat itself, what remedy did the wisdom of Parliament propose and carry? Did it abolish capital punishment for theft altogether? By no means. No member of the Legislature was as yet bold enough to suggest so great an innovation. The British Parliament screwed up its courage so far as to raise the value of human life from 408. to 5l. Nevertheless juries refused to be conciliated by this rise in the price of the article. In the year 1831 one jury tested the effect of returning a verdict according to the evidence by convicting a prisoner, whom, at the same time, they recommended to

mercy. The victim of their experiment was hanged in spite of their recommendation; and other juries, being warned by the example, persisted in finding prisoners ' guilty of stealing to the value of 4l. 19s.,' thus frustrating the ferocity of the law by what was called 'perjured verdicts.' 'I hold in my hands,' said Lord Suffield in the House of Lords, in the autumn of 1833, 'a list of 555 perjured verdicts delivered at the Old Bailey, in fifteen years, for the single offence of stealing from dwelling-houses; the value stolen being, in these cases, sworn above 40s., but the verdicts returned being to the value of 398. only.'

When Sir Samuel Romilly began his noble campaign against those atrocious laws, he was denounced in even more violent terms than those to which Mr. Gladstone has lately been exposed. In 1810 he introduced and with difficulty passed through the House of Commons a bill to repeal the statute of William which made a theft in a shop, to the amount of five shillings, punishable with death. But the bill was defeated in the House of Lords by a majority of three to one, the majority including an Archbishop and six Bishops, and every lawyer in the House. Some of the speeches delivered on that occasion by noble and learned Lords, of great eminence, are made ludicrous by the contrast between prophecy and fulfilment. I trust,' said Lord Ellenborough, then Chief Justice of England, that your Lordships will pause before you assent to a measure pregnant with danger to the security of property. The learned judges are unanimously agreed that the expediency of justice and the public security require there should not be a remission of capital punishment in this part of the criminal law. My Lords, if we suffer this bill to pass, we shall not know where to stand; we shall not know

whether we are on our heads or on our feet. My Lords, I think this, above all others, is a law on which so much of the security of mankind depends in its execution, that I should deem myself neglectful of my duty to the public if I failed to let the law take its course.' Lord Wynford, a distinguished Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, declared that if the law were repealed, the people of England could not sleep in safety in their beds.' Again and again, year after year, did Sir Samuel Romilly carry his bill through the House of Commons, but only to suffer defeat in the House of Lords by overwhelming majorities, led by the most distinguished members of that august assembly.

Now let the reader just reflect that about half a century ago the whole of the judicial bench of England, and the most learned and able members of the House of Lords, resisted the abolition of a law which made theft to the amount of five shillings punishable with death, and this on the ground that life and property would be rendered so insecure that the people of England would not know whether they were on their heads or on their feet;' and then let him say whether intellectual talent and moral integrity are a necessary protection against grotesque delusions. The juries all over England, who refused to put such an atrocious law in force, deficient as they may have been in learning and mental power as compared with the galaxy of brilliant intellects to whom they were opposed, had nevertheless all the foresight and all the statesmanship on their side.

In the same way I believe that all the statesmanship is at this moment on the side of those who laugh at the stupid and irrational craze about Russia, and advocate cordial co-operation with that Power as the best

guarantee for the safety of British interests not less than for the equitable settlement of the Eastern Question. Is England to be for ever the victim of these paralyzing and undignified panics? It is but a very few years since France occupied in the minds of able men, like Lord Palmerston, the place which Russia now occupies in the minds of those who admire the foreign policy of Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Derby. We all remember the implacable opposition of Lord Palmerston to the Suez Canal on the ground of British interests.' His hostility blinded him even to the commercial advantages of the undertaking. Even on this ground,' he said in 1831, 'there is something to be said against the scheme, because it was demonstrated by a Dutch engineer that, owing to difficulties of navigating the Red Sea, in consequence of coral reefs, prevailing winds, and intense heat, the navigation round the Cape would, except with regard to very powerful steamers, be cheaper and shorter than through the Canal.'

Not less blind was he to the feasibility of the enterprise. He succeeded in actually persuading himself that the scheme would never succeed as a private speculation, and that consequently the whole thing was, at bottom, a profound piece of Machiavellian craft on the part of the Emperor of the French, having for its object the occupation of Egypt and the interruption of our communication with India. The passage is so instructive, in the light of recent events, that it deserves to be quoted:

'I understand that there is scarcely one among the French engineers employed who would not, if he told the truth, acknowledge that the ship canal could not be made without an amount of money and a period of time far exceeding all the calculations hitherto made,

and that, if accomplished, it never could be made to pay interest on the cost incurred. It may safely be said, therefore, that, as a commercial undertaking, it is a bubble scheme, which has been taken up on political grounds, and in antagonism to English interests and English policy.

'Well, then, we come to the last point, namely, the political objects of the enterprise; and these are hostility to England in every possible modification of the scheme. It requires only a glance at the map of the world to see how great would be the moral and military advantage to France in a war with England to have such a short cut to the Indian seas, while we should be obliged to send ships and troops round the Cape. Thouvenel proposes, indeed, that the passage of ships-of-war should be forbidden as at the Dardanelles; but I presume he does not expect us to receive such a proposal except with a decently suppressed smile. Of course, the first week of a war between France and England would see 15,000 or 20,000 Frenchmen in possession of the Canal, to keep it for them and shut for us. But then, moreover, so strong a military barrier between Syria and Egypt would greatly add to the means of the Pasha for the time being to declare himself independent of Turkey, which would mean his being a dependent of France; and lastly, if the Canal should never be made, the French company are to have a large grant of land in the centre of Egypt, and would establish in Egypt a colony whose complaints against the Egyptian Government, well or ill-founded, would give the French Government pretences for interfering in all the internal affairs of the country.' 1

open

1 Ashley's 'Life of Palmerston,' vol. ii. pp. 326-7.