liamentary, municipal, and political meetings; municipal council meetings; local commissioners' meetings, and meetings of poor-law guardians; vestry meetings; meetings of magistrates; county, borough, and parish meetings; meetings of public charities and institutions; meetings for benevolent, educational, reformatory, and religious purposes; meetings to promote political, legal, and social reforms and improvements; meetings of mechanics' institutes, literary, and other public societies; public lectures; meetings of railway proprietors, and of banking and other joint-stock companies-these are amongst the assemblies which journalism is required to report; and, under the existing law, may report only at its own peril. Any one of these assemblies may be productive of occurrences concerning which it is of the highest moment that the public should be accurately informed: it may be held with open doors; the press may have been invited to report its proceedings; every speaker may have come to the meeting with the full knowledge that his words would be published; the speeches may concern matters about which the reporters have no special knowledge by which they could measure the veracity of the speaker; and yet, if they give currency to a libellous utterance, they are liable to punishment. No one would read a morning paper which omitted to report the speeches made by our principal speakers at political assemblies; no sane person accepts the statements made in the report of a speech on the authority of the journalist who reported it, or the journalist who published it: the statements, be they true or false, wise or foolish, are accepted as the speaker's words; and so far as they may savour of immorality, the speaker is condemned by the moral sense of the country. But whilst common sense and public opinion thus concur in regarding the printed words of a report, the law fastens the penal consequences of its libellous utterances on the reporter, and allows the guilty speaker to go scot free. This system of whipping the innocent for the offences of the guilty acts injuriously in two different ways. By inducing journalists to be more anxious for their own personal safety than zealous for the information of their readers, it lessens the number and effectiveness of the safeguards which perfect publicity affords to private character against the influence of calumnious tongues. By inspiring speakers with a sense of irresponsibility, it renders them reckless. Another question rising up is that of criminal convictions. As recently as 1856 or 1857, convicts, under sentence of penal servitude, enjoyed practical mitigations of their punishment on three important points. The labour to which they were put, in itself not immoderate, was lightened by its interesting nature, and the prospect which it carried of pecuniary profit. The culprits were engaged in industrial occupations, which often taught them some handicraft, and for success in which they were liberally rewarded. Then the mere imprisonment had come to represent "a period of contemplative seclusion," varied by cheerful work, during which time the convict was placed upon a dietary so good and plentiful, that he fared better than any honest neighbours of his own class. Nor was this all; for the duration of the penalty was shortened by an extraordinary interpretation of the law. A sentence of penal servitude for life did not mean penal servitude for life, nor anything like it. It meant, at the outside, such a confinement as we have been describing for the space of ten years, and was often not extended beyond eight. If the seclusion was found to be unfavourable to an offender's health, he was frequently released after a few months' detention; and Mr. Measor relates the case of a convict who, having been sentenced to life servitude for a crime equivalent to wilful murder, was liberated in less than three years, and allowed to return in comfort to his usual occupation in the place where his crime was committed. Good food, therefore, pleasant employment, and speedy release, were all in prospect to modify the terrible sentence of servitude for life; and Mr. Measor informs us that, according to the ideas of those days, anything like severity of treatment or labour was regarded as actually detracting from the efficiency, and destroying the ends, of punishment itself. No wonder that the "mistaken public feeling" which produced such a system was found rather damaging to the interests of the public. There was nothing in punishment to deter a ruffian from crime; and the consequence was that honest men were garotted, while thieves were thought to be reclaimed. On every one of these points, however, a change has come over our practice. The hard labour of a convict is now really hard labour; not a pleasant industrial occupation, but toilsome, dreary work, without hope or beguilement. Instead of making ladies' shoes or fancy baskets, with a share in the profits, the criminal is now put to crank, shot drill, or the monotonous strain of the treadwheel. Instead of retiring to a comfortable cell after his day's toil, he finds nothing but a wooden bed with a wooden pillow; and to this painful life there is no visible end. Formerly, the life sentence of a convict could be "brought under the consideration" of the Home Secretary, after ten years had elapsed, and in cases of illness much earlier. Now the time has been extended from ten years to twelve, and from twelve to twenty-that is to say, no proposal for the mitigation of such a sentence can be so much as entertained until twenty years of penal servitude have been endured. Truly, the punishment has been "greatly intensified." Mr. Measor calculates, indeed, that the practical severity of the sentence has, within the space of a few years, been "multiplied threefold;" nor should we be much disposed, after his explanations, to question the conclusion. Under the old system, a life-sentenced prisoner was sent upon an "enlivening passage" to Western Australia or Bermuda, with nothing to do on the voyage, and with light work, liberal rations, and attractive prospects awaiting him at the place of his destination. After serving, not his time, but only a fraction of it, "under the lax discipline of a colonial prison, with the privileges of rum and tobacco," he returned home by another pleasant sea-trip with a "small fortune"-£20, £30, or £40, earned in gaol. That was the old system in practice; and certainly the new system, with its grinding toil, its meagre diet, and its painful lodging protracted through interminable years, may fairly enough be described as three times as bad. But now, says the Times, in an able leader, though we admit the force of the contrast presented to us, and the accuracy of the balance, as struck by Mr. Measor against the advantages of the offender, we must needs ask whether the present system can be justly characterised as a second "extreme?" The old system was undoubtedly an extreme. To hold that servitude for life should mean servitude for eight or ten years; that hard labour should mean light labour; and that penalty for crime should bring a better lot with it than honest work-these opinions were beyond question extravagant. They only need stating to be recognised as extravagant now. But is it equally true to say that our present practice is extravagantly severe, because penal servitude for life really means little short of penal servitude for life; because the hard labour enjoined by the law is really hard labour; and because the lot of a criminal is really painful? Are we not rather now getting to the simple truth and reality of things? Of what use is it, for the purposes of argument, to prove that a sentence of life servitude is now three times as severe as it used to be, if the former practice offers no true standard of comparison? It appears to us that our present system deals with realities as it ought to do; and that if any modifications are required in consequence, they should be left to the judge. It is of the utmost importance that sentences should imply what they profess to imply, instead of being empty words. Penal servitude should be actually penal servitude; and if it means so much more now than it did formerly, that would be simply a reason for measuring its duration accordingly. No doubt, if a convict under a life sentence was adequately punished by the system of 1856, he would be more than adequately punished now; but that is for a court to consider. We cannot regard our system of criminal treatment as carried to an extreme, simply because it treats criminals as criminals, and executes the original sentence. 694 CHAPTER XXXIV. THE EASTERN QUESTION. IN foreign affairs Lord Palmerston's Eastern policy seems on the point of expiring. Whilst the greater or less extension of suffrage engrosses the public mind in England, events are silently working in the east of Europe, and preparing vast changes. The history of mankind consists, in great part, of struggles between races. After the struggle comes the victory of one over the other. A settlement is made, and the same process is repeated. It is useless to inquire in what proportions force and intelligence enter into the required superiority. It is compounded of both, as momentum is formed by weight and velocity multiplied. In most cases this natural superiority, once vanquished, never rises again to its old eminence. So have perished Egyptian, Assyrian, Roman greatness. So finishes, before our eyes, the once mighty Turkish empire. But this is not always so. In the great designs of Providence some nationalities do rise again, and obtain a wide influence over the world. This is the case with the Greeks in our day. But where is their power to be found? Not certainly in the small kingdom of that name, with its illustrious but diminutive capital. No; we find Hellenic intelligence and national feeling in the counting-houses of British merchants; on the shores of the Mediterranean; at Marseilles and Smyrna. Nay, it would be a curious problem to ascertain in what proportion it directs the affairs of Constantinople itself. We cannot go back to the ardent sympathy for the Hellenic cause which sent men and money to the shores of Greece forty years ago, and which triumphed at Navarino. But, subjecting men and things to the most practical analysis, it is impossible to deny the talent, the enterprise, or the lucid intellect of many Hellenes. So that, in our day, an ancient civilisation, entwined with the recollections of classic education, is coming up once again to the surface. The second half of our century has seen one great task accomplished in the unity and independence of Italy. It is probably destined to witness the accomplishment of a greater change, in the establishment of an Hellenic empire at Constantinople. For, when intelligence, wealth, and patriotism all work together, their triumph over comparative barbarism can only be a question of time; and neither the efforts of cabinets nor armies can, in the long run, prevent its realisation. Who will rejoice at, who will dread, this inevitable march of time? This In the first category must be included friends to humanity and justice; for the inner portions of the Turkish empire can never become civilised, in the European sense of the word. The traditions and practice of Islam alike preclude it. is the moral obstacle. A physical one, of scarcely less moment, is the loose constitution of the sultan's power, founded on Oriental tradition, which makes the local governors all but independent of their sovereign. Hence the empire is really governed by satraps, who are irresistibly tempted to be merciless and exacting. Hence flows a permanent stream of misgovernment from each local centre. Turkish bond-holders, and a few politicians who follow, in a servile manner, the opinions of two great public men, not considering the changeful tide of circumstances-these will regret the downfall of Turkish dominion. Two solutions are possible. The boldest and best would be, to transfer the seat of the Hellenic government to Constantinople, and, with that, all the European dominions of the sultan would form part of the new empire; or a, federation of Hellenes might be formed, but still with the city of Constantine as its centre of government. Such is the pleading of the friends of Greece. Unfortunately, there are two sides to the question. Russia will have something to say on the subject. The Journal de St. Petersbourg, of the 14th March, 1867, publishes the following letters and despatches, which are prefaced thus : "We are able to publish the following documents. They date from 1860. At that time, the situation of Turkey was such as to foretel a crisis. The HattiHoumayoun of 1856, which emanated from the initiative of the sultan, and was sanctioned by Europe, had awoke among the Christians hopes that were not realised. The more those hopes had been strong, the more painful was their deception, when they were convinced that no serious improvement was to be expected from it. The abundant information the imperial government was receiving from all parts of Turkey, had prompted it to propose to the great powers an entente between them and the Porte, in view of proceeding to a collective inquiry upon the real state of affairs. Prince Gortchacow wrote the following letters and despatches, to that effect, to the representatives of his majesty the emperor at London and Paris:"1. Extract from a Letter from His Excellency Prince Gortchacow to His Excellency Baron Brunnow, dated from St. Petersburgh, April 29th (May 8th), 1860. "We calmly wait for the answers of the great Courts relative to the Eastern question. Whatever they might be, we have the conviction of having fulfilled a duty of humanity and of political foreseeing. Our admonitions are not based upon vague information, nor upon a tendency to exaggerate the situation. It is us only who know the sum of efforts and sacrifices we have made, and are still making, to prevent the exploding of the despair of the Christian population. If Europe is wise, she will take the proper steps. I have only touched the main point of the question in our communications. As to the forms, we shall accept all that will render more acceptable to the sultan the collective action of the great powers, if such action is resorted to, provided the fundamental ideas remain identical. It is far from our intention to humiliate the Ottoman government, or to create for it new embarrassments by rendering public an European condemnation. We wish to save it from the unavoidable consequences of its errors and blindness. I am aware that, if the details of Europe's intervention were known, the explosion could be possibly hastened. We shall avoid the publicity of those details. However, we think that the fact alone of Europe resolutely concerning herself about their condition-a fact which, in principle, cannot be concealedwould be a check against a rising to arms, and a motive to induce them to endure their wrongs a little longer.' "2. Letter from Prince Gortchacow to Count Kisselew, Ambassador at Paris, dated from St. Petersburgh, May 12th (24th), 1860. "The earnestness with which the French minister of foreign affairs has received our overtures, is a proof of good-will that we have duly appreciated. "However, we were sure that the urgent necessity of our step could not escape a mind so deeply affected with the dangers menacing the Ottoman government, and with the imprudent way it increases them by the course it has adopted: we could therefore suppose that, by calling the attention of Europe to the gravity of that situation, we were evoking even the recollections of M. Thouvenel. I shall not revert to the condition I have developed in the despatch you will receive today; you will read it to the minister for foreign affairs, and give him a copy of it, should he wish for it. I hope that he will be convinced, first, that a prolongated carelessness of Europe could become a crime against the general peace (un crime de lèse-paix générale); secondly, that the existence of the Ottoman government, menaced on account of the unbearable existence of the Christians, occasioned by its acts, can be preserved but by severely punishing the guilty persons, and by following a more humane conduct towards the Christian population. I repeat that we do not aim at any exclusive interest for Russia: our wish is to preserve Europe from the eventual danger of a general conflagration; for that purpose, we openly invite her to co-operate with us in a task that no power could honourably decline as being alien to its feelings and principles. What we said to France on that subject we also said to England, Austria, and Prussia. No Court could take into consideration confidences showing any partiality whatever. You will have noticed that in my despatch, although we confine ourselves to the heart of the question, we do not adhere to any programme: and that we are ready to adopt any form likely to ensure success without wounding any susceptibilities. Duty commands us, however, not to lose sight of an important circumstance-I mean, that the desire of conciliating all ought not to be pushed to extremities, and to such an extent that Europe could jeopardise the advantages of the action to which we invite her. Here time is not our auxiliary; our opinion is, that every illusion on that subject would be dangerous. You are already aware that none of the powers we have applied to have objected to the inquiry. According to an indirect advice, the Porte alone has instructed Vefik Pacha to protest. One of the documents hereby annexed, will show you what I wrote on that subject to Prince Lobanow. We persist in our belief that an inquiry, with the concurrence of Europe, would benefit the Porte. It is only in such a character that it would give a guarantee to the Christian population; that it would tend to calm their agitation. We think that it would be possible to instruct the representatives of the great Courts at Constantinople to discuss that question with the Ottoman government, by upholding the considerations which are to its advantage. We do not pretend to say that all the information we have received is of a mathematical exactness. Moreover, we should be delighted to be convinced it possesses no foundation whatever; that would rehabilitate the Ottoman government, reassure our conscience, and dissipate our political pre-occupations; but such a proof can issue but from an European inquiry conscientiously made. As it is a question of facts, the contrary evidence ought to result from an examination made on the spot; and no cleverness could react against the convictions borne from such an examination. Moreover, the starting-point of our step lies upon numerous and painful informations that have been accumulating in our archives for some months. We are more interested than any other power in ascertaining if that starting-point is true or false. We have delayed, as long as possible, overtures the gravity of which we fully understand. We began by forwarding to the Ottoman government the text of the deplorable informations we were receiving; we earnestly solicited the Porte herself to meet that emergency in her own interest. We did not conceal from her the danger she was incurring. All that has had no other result than indefinite and illusory promises; and, finally, the nomination of a commissioner, appointed two months ago, who had not left Constantinople at the date of our latest advices. Prince Lobanow speaks to us in the highest terms of that commissioner, Soliman Pacha; but he has not yet received any instructions, and brings to his task the tribute only of his good personal disposition. Meantime, from information received from several points, we had learnt that the nullity of the results obtained, and the aggravation of the sufferings of the Christian populations, were endangering the efficaciousness of all my own efforts, and of those of our consular agents, in view to dispose the Christians to have patience a little longer. We learnt, also, that an explosion was imminent. Then I felt myself at my wits' end (au bout de mon latin); and made to Europe the overtures you know. "M. de Thouvenel wishes it should be well known at St. Petersburgh, that 697 VOL. II. 2 z |