ページの画像
PDF
ePub

the contingencies inseparable from them; and it would be more advantageous to Turkey to grant the Greeks absolute independence, than to accept them.

We will here ask,-why do the three powers give to Turkey a share like this in the nomination of the Greek authorities? What benefit can she draw from it? If she have the smallest right to it, she must, of necessity, have an equal right to share in the general government of Greece. It is, we think, the most preposterous provision that folly ever blundered upon. To her it is utterly worthless, and it must be a source of perpetual animosity and strife between her and Greece.

The people whom the piratical powers thus render independent, do not possess anything worthy of being called a government. They are divided into conflicting, unprincipled factions, and they are in a great measure lawless. It is almost matter of certainty, that the elements for forming a reasonably efficient government, do not exist among them. To what an extent they have carried piracy, is sufficiently known ; and his Majesty's Ministers have solemnly proclaimed to the world, that their government is unable to prevent their piracies. If Turkey submit to the conditions of the treaty, how is her tribute to be paid? How is the exercise of her veto to be enforced? How are the Greek pirates to be suppressed? Who is to establish a government in Greece? How is Turkey to act, and how is she to be treated, if her Greek tributaries, and feudal vassals, attack, or are attacked by, other nations? Nothing exists in Greece which can be relied on for paying the tribute, allowing the exercise of the veto, respecting the rights of other states, and discharging the obligations which the treaty would impose on her.

That the conditions of the treaty are to Turkey what we have statedthat they are of the most insulting, injurious, and degrading character,that they are such as she should reject with scorn, if she have any alter native to compulsory acceptance-will be confessed by all men, save him whose grovelling soul never felt the holy glow of British pride and inde

pendence. These conditions are placed before her, with a demand for an immediate armistice. The three lawless nations command her, at the moment when she has subdued the Greeks, to cease hostilities, and to abandon Greece, with the absurd reservation we have named; and they threaten to acknowledge Greece as an independent nation, if she refuse. This they call an offer of mediation!

It might have been expected that even an "offer" of this kind would be made according to the regular forms of diplomacy; but no, it was graced with the company of a huge fleet of British, French, and Russian ships of war. Why was this fleet sent? The treaty represents that Turkey had a right of refusal; and it binds the three powers from taking any part in the war, in case of her refusal. Why then was this fleet sent? It could only have been sent for offensive purposes for purposes flatly at variance with the terms of the treaty.

This fleet, on its arrival, is put under the command of a British admiral. The treaty says, the "offer of mediation" was to be made to the Porte; and every one knows that the Turkish generals and admirals had no independent character, and could not disobey the Porte: it might therefore have been expected that the offer of mediation" would be left solely to the care of the regular ambassadors and the Turkish government. The lawless powers and their agents were, however, determined that their atrocious proceedings should not display one redeeming speck of honour and fair dealing. The British Admiral-we regret from our souls that we are compelled to call him one

discovers that it will utterly disgrace his own great talents to content himself with acting as a mere admiral; he blazes out into an ambassador-a sovereign, holding despotic authority over the subjects of Turkey. He takes into his hands the "offer of mediation;" deems the opinion of the Turkish Government a thing of no consequence; commands the Turkish commanders to receive orders from him; and then destroys the Turkish fleet.

We need add but little to what has been said of the battle of Navarino, for the country has already pronounced its verdict. This verdict is-the three

piratical powers, in this battle, were guilty of a most outrageous violation of public law, and it has imprinted an indelible stain on British honour. We will, however, glance at a few of the circumstances connected with it.

The Admiral gives a "protocol of a conference" which he and his brother Admirals held-in these jack-ofall-trades times, even Admirals must have their protocols-in which the Admirals say, they "met before Navarino for the purpose of concerting the means of effecting the object specified in the said treaty, (the treaty of the three powers,) viz. an armistice, de facto, between the Turks and Greeks." Now, according to the treaty, the ambassadors of the three powers were to demand an armistice of the Turkish Government, and this Government was to have the right of refusal; no compulsion was to be resorted to. What right then had the intermeddling Admirals to take any steps for "" effecting" an armistice? The protocol says that Ibrahim Pacha, after consenting to a "provisional suspension of hostilities," violated his engagement, "by causing his fleet to come out with a view to its proceeding to another point of the Morea." His doing this was, it seems, an act of hostility! Now the term "provisional" evidently proves, what, in truth, no man can doubt, that Ibrahim's engagement was a conditional one; every one must be sure that the agreement imposed obligations on the Admirals as well as on himself; and every one will admit that their violation of their engagements released him from his. Why, then, have not the terms of this armistice or agreement been published? It may be regarded as certain, that the Admirals would stipulate to him that the Greeks should likewise suspend hostilities. Did the Greeks do so? No. They have never yet suspended hostilities. While the admirals acted thus to the Turks, they suffered the Greeks to continue the war without molestation. If ever the truth appear, we suspect it will be found that it was not the "boasted Ottoman," but the three blustering admirals, whose word of honour was basely sacrificed.

It was not to be expected that Ibrahim would hold himself to be bound from hostilities, while the Greeks were suffered to continue them. Such an "armistice" was in exact keeping

with the whole conduct of the lawless piratical powers, but it was not one calculated to bind even a Turk. His refusal gave mighty offence to the admirals; and they resolved to "take a position with the squadrons in Navarino." This position was taken with hostile intentions, and the taking it was an act of hostility. The Turkish fleet would only have acted on the defensive, had it fired on the allied one, to prevent its being taken.

66

The British Admiral, in his dispatch, says, he gave orders that, in taking the position, no gun should be fired, unless guns were first fired by the Turks." He says further, that the battle began, because a boat, sent from the Dartmouth to one of the Turkish fire-ships, was fired on by the latter with musketry. He does not say that the boat bore a flag of truce; neither does he state why it was sent to the Turkish vessel. His silence on this important point is alike suspicious and reprehensible. The Morning Post gives the following explanation on this point, as from authority: "The Dartmouth chose to place herself about thirty yards from the Turkish firebrig. The pinnace of the Dartmouth was manned, with orders to take possession of the fire-brig. The first lieutenant, Mr Smith, with two midshipmen, (Harrison and B. Smith,) and fourteen picked men, went in her ; when in the act of boarding the Turkish brig, the first lieutenant and Mr Harrison were wounded, and midship man B. Smith killed, by being blown up; two of the men were also killed. The Turks, after a short fight, fired their brig, and jumped into a boat alongside. Lieut. G. W. H. Fitzroy, and eight men, were then sent in the Dartmouth's cutter to tow the brig clear of the Dartmouth; he attacked the Turkish boat, in which there were about 18 men; he was shot dead by the Turks in the boat, and brought alongside the frigate. The fire-brig was then towed clear of the Dartmouth, and afterwards went down when within 30 or 40 yards of the Turkish frigate, in the attempt to tow her on the Turkish frigate."

It must be remarked, that the Admiral is wholly silent touching the sending of the pinnace. The boat he alludes to, is the cutter sent under Lieutenant Fitzroy !

The Morning Post, we say, states

that it gives these particulars from authority. We ask our readers to compare them with the Admiral's dispatch, and more especially with his assertion, that he ordered no gun to be fired, &c.

The Morning Post, on the same authority, says further-" Was the action at Navarino the first open act of hostility committed by the British fleet against the Turkish ships? Do the Ministers not know, that, in the Gulf of Patras, the signal was made by the Dartmouth-The fleet are much scattered, and some may be cut off?' Do they not know, that, in consequence, a firing commenced about four o'clock in the afternoon from the British squadron, which was kept up for nearly two hours, without the Turks returning a shot?"

"Do they not know, that about ten of the Turkish brigs were cut offthat the next morning the Asia, the Talbot, and the Dartmouth, boarded Turkish brigs, which they found full of provisions, for the relief of the Turks at Patras?"

"Do they not know, that their vessels were towed as far as Zante?"

"Do they not know, that at this very time Lord Cochrane was at sea,

AND HAD CAPTURED FIVE OF THESE TURKISH VESSELS?"

We are inclined to believe that the truth of all this will, in due time and place, be properly established. These proceedings have been resorted to under the mask of offering mediation, and demanding an armistice; they have been resorted to under a treaty which pretends to bind the contracting parties from taking any part in the war between Turkey and Greece. We need not dilate on their atrocity, neither need we shew what hideous pollution they have cast on the British flag, the uniform of the British navy, and British honour.

Russia has an intelligible motive. She is pursuing this career of crime and infamy for the sake of territory and power. France is not without such a motive. She is aiding to crush the British empire in India; and she has doubtlessly an understanding with Russia that she shall have her full share of Turkish territory. But Britain is doing it only for her own destruction. She is aiding to rob and

destroy an old, faithful, and valuable friend, without the smallest provocation, and with the certainty that it must bring upon her gigantic inju ries of every description.

If this abominable treaty had not been concluded, peace would have been established before this time between Greece and Turkey; and the peace of Europe would have been preserved. This treaty is not only perpetuating the war between Greece and Turkey, but it is involving Europe in general war. At the moment when we write, Turkey refuses the "offer of mediation;" her fleet has been destroyed without the least provocation; and for this the lawless powers are all to make war on her. This sequel to their guilt is worthy the commencement. Such a war must, however, be entered into by other parties. If Austria expect to preserve her Italian possessions and her existence, she must be neither a neutral, nor the ally of the piratical powers. This country, with a sinking revenue, with taxes which her destructive policy has rendered almost insupportable, with nearly all her great interests in a state of decline and suffering, must plunge into war to fight against herself, and conquer her own ruin. In such war she must receive no protection from public law. Public law exists no longer; she has assisted in its solemn annihilation. She must be attacked on all points, by all the means that lawless power and rapacity can employ.

There are yet men in Parliament who value their country's honour as their own; and who feel that they are disgraced and degraded in her disgrace and degradation. Such men, in the approaching session, will purge themselves from the stain which these atrocious proceedings have cast on them and their countrymen. They will re-echo the nation's voice, and protest in the nation's name against all participation in the iniquity. They will call for inquiry, and, we trust, punishment. Farther than this, we hope they will do their utmost to take the charge of the honour and interest of their country from the hands of Ministers, who have done so much towards blasting the one, and ruining the other.

THE CAUSES OF THE DECLINE OF THE BRITISH DRAMA.

"Why, this was known before
Not to them all.".

Coriolanus.

the stomach waxed weak, the peppering grew stronger. At last the patients could digest nothing, and retain little. It was in vain, like the King of Prussia in his dropsy, to set disease at defiance, and eat "hot eel-pies."—" E'en dismissing the doctor don't always succeed." Hydrothorax and pthisis supervened, and the sisters are now gasping under the triple evils of ill taste, ill cooks, and too much money. As for their applications to the quacks to tap or bleed them, it would be mere

water would soon accumulate again, putting aside the risk of mortification or hemiphlegia; and this is the medical account of the matter. Under a critical system, the three causes of the decline of the English Drama range under three heads,-Ill Taste, Ill Criticism, and Monopoly-Ill taste as to the drawing of character, Ill criticism as to style, and Monopoly as to representation.

IN the treatment of things trite there is a peculiar difficulty. The decline of the British Drama has been so evident-so notorious and palpable to any one who has lore enough to compare the healthy productions of our ancestors with the rickety offspring of modern times-that one feels inclined to apply for a solution to physical causes alone, leaving out moral considerations as too evanescent to account for effects so glaringly obtrusive. Melpomene, in short, is in the last stage of a consumption, with strongly putting them to useless pain. The hectic symptoms; and Thalia in a tabes, inclining to the dropsical. This is the best account that can be given of the matter; and if Doctor Paris or Mr Abernethy is of a different opinion, let him publish his bulletin accordingly. In the history of the complaint there is nothing new. The prognosis is easy enough. The sisters were respectable and amiable spinsters in Queen Elizabeth's time. They unluckily for themselves got into habits of familiarity with that insinuating debauchee, Charles the Second. From him they learned to take more stimulus than is proper for well-educated young ladies. They talked French, kept late hours, and company none of the most reputable. Such conduct could only have one end. Loss of character kept pace with increase of style, until, in a series of years, both got into that equivocal situation, to which less delicate minds might perchance be inclined to apply a term too coarse for the pages of this Magazine. Ill-got affluence is never permanent. Overgrown incomes were followed by overgrown establishments, and overgrown establishments by all manner of luxury. The consequences were soon evident. Great houses and multitude of servants brought many guests and many tastes. Everything was gradually turned topsy-turvy. The old plain household economy was exchanged for high French dishes, drams, and extravagance. A bloated body soon became the sure argument of a depraved appetite. False appetite is but the forerunner of dyspepsia. As VOL. XXIII.

Most men are, some time or other, induced to read occasional sermons, or moral discourses, or philosophical dissertations, or treatises on ethics, or something in some shape or other, pretending to treat of the human mind or character. Now, be the books good or bad, everybody will recollect that they all agree in one point, and that is in a general bewailment of the "inconsistency" (as they call it) of human nature. They com plain that there is always something (call it infirmity, or what you will) which contrives to set a man's doings by the ears with each other, and seems to take a delight in making him go to buffets with himself, and contradict himself to his own face. This is all very well, and very true-and as the drama professes to be an imitation of human nature, one of course looks to find the same thing there, better or worse pourtrayed, as may happen. Hearing, as one does, such a loud talk from all manner of theatrical people-authors, players, critics, managers, scene-painters, and candlesnuffers, about " holding a mirror up to nature," and "veluti in speculum,

E

[ocr errors]

and suchlike phrases, one naturally looks to see, at the very worst, a bad imitation of this self-same inconsistency, which the moralists have been making such a fuss about. Not see ing this, one naturally, as the next step, inquires about it-the which inquiry lets us into a bit of a secret, viz. that stage character is one thing, and human character another-a fact, which if a man happens to be of a consider ate disposition, has an effect upon him pretty much like that produced by suddenly running his nose, in the dark, against a post-a sort of diruption of his preconceived ideas, a sudden break of the strata, which, whe ther he be metaphysician or geologist, is not a little embarrassing. In such an unexpected strait what can a man do, but even take to his books, and try "the faculties" again? Accordingly, he reads, from Longinus downwards, all manner of critical dissertations, the jet of which is to take him by both elbows, and, pinning them close down to his sides, make him wheel, at once, to the right-about, so that the "Nasum aduncum," which just before looked due west, turns directly the other way,-plain east,point-blank to the opposite quarter of the compass.

Instead of the inconsistency of the human character, he now hears of nothing but its consistency. He is told of this and that (at every turn,) outraging that or the other-of keeping of propriety. In plain terms, he learns, that though Elwes the miser, in real life, used now and then to do generous things;-though even Garrick himself was, at times, liberal, until he got frightened by the ghost of a farthing, which met him at the door of a snuffshop,-nevertheless, your stage miser is to think of nothing but his money. Were he to show a tittle of generosity, be the occasion what it might, the critics would at once arraign him of inconsistency. They would tell the author he absolutely knew nothing of what they, in their jargon, call "preservation of character." No, forsooth! it would not be "in keeping." It would be a violation of " colouring, of costume, of probability "-Psha! In like manner, though, in reality, your Cromwells were kind-hearted men to their relations and familiars; and your Napoleons beloved by their servants, military and civil, yet all

this is to go for nothing in a theatre. Your stage heroes and tyrants are to be heroes and tyrants out-and-out; to the world, as well as their valets-de chambre, talking nothing but "fire, smoke, and bounce"-lapping blooddrinking gin and gunpowder ;-in short, perfect crystallizations of hardheartedness. After the same rule, your stage lovers are to do nothing but sigh, to have nothing in their mouths but "Ah, me!" nothing on their stomachs but wind, nothing in their pockets but billets-doux. Your stage mothers are, evermore, to have an infant in one hand, and a white pocket-handkerchief in the other. Your stage ruffians are to be ready, at a minute's notice, to stab, rob, and ravish man, woman, and child, without provocation or remorse. Your stage fops are to be, ad infinitum, silly in stays, puppyish in pantaloons, and blackguard in buckskins; and your stage jockeys, all the three at once, in a swell hat, Belcher handkerchief, white upper toggery-boots, spurs, and a switch.

This is poor work. Whoever has had observation enough to mark human nature, even in her commonest phases, must know, that even to the most purblind metaphysics, this sort of "consistency" is mere stuff. The fact is, that nine times out of ten, humanity is the reverse of consisten cy, in the common acceptation of the word, and now and then so in any sense of it. There are few general rules which are true of human conduct; so few, that, on reflection, one is astonished there should not be more. The best explanation, indeed the only one, is to account for actions by arguing from passions, opposite in their nature, but co-existing in the same individual. Of these, sometimes one, sometimes another, has the mastery; for, as to the doctrine of a "ruling passion," that, whatever Lord Bolingbroke might think of it, is mere nonsense. It is contradicted by all experience. If men's doings were regulated by one wire, we should have much less trouble than we have. The truth of the matter is, that there is no such thing as a predominant passion in this sense. The strongest passions of men are perpetually opposed, neutralized, and turned aside by others.

He who feels himself entangled in the meshes of some besetting sin, every now and then, like a blue-bottle in a

« 前へ次へ »