Read by the light of subsequent events this extract from Lord Hobart's letter has a strange bearing on the present state of public feeling. That great and terrible wars should depend upon the fickle passions of public opinion is a fact which confuses all ideas of the civilisation of the nineteenth century. As yet we seem blind, or in that first stage of sight when we read our lesson upside down. The circumstances connected with Lord Hobart's letters about the Crimean War, give additional interest to the following extract from the last article he ever wrote, in February, 1872: "It is, then, in war, as now looked upon and practised by European States, that the great league for the disruption of society has found its best ally. Some twenty years ago the long repose of Europe was broken by a devastating conflict which scarcely any one, even of its surviving authors, can now be found to defend. Since then it is not too much to say that there is hardly any national passion or aspiration-whether it be pride, envy, antipathy of race, lust of territory, or love of military glory—which is not recognised as a more or less fit subject for gratification at the cost of war. The 'war path' of the Red Indian is not, to judge from language and appearances, a more familiar subject of contemplation to him than 'eventualities and complications' to modern diplomacy; by which it means the ghastly and sickening horrors described by correspondents from seats of war in words of disgust and shame. The only nation which it is the fashion to speak of as particularly culpable in this respect is France, because she fights for military fame. But from a moral point of view there seems to be no long step from the love of military fame to the love of extended empire; and for this almost every nation in Europe has either been fighting or is ready to fight. The Danish War and the are war of 1866 were made by Prussia for the sake of German unity, which is only another name for extended empire; and of these wars, which were emphatically wars of ambition, the terrible contest lately ended was the natural fruit. In that particular tragedy France was the aggressor; but neither for that nor for the present state of Europe in general is France alone to blame. For these the three Governments which in 1854 shattered a peace of forty years, with all its bright promise of permanence, and all its wealth of material and mental progress, for purposes not worthy to be placed for one instant by their side, are primarily answerable. But upon the Governments which from that moment have abandoned themselves to the beggar-my-neighbour game of fleets and armies-which have heaped tax upon tax for the purpose of enabling them at any instant to rush into conflict on pretexts of which the men of a century ago would have been ashamed -which have rejected every proposal for reciprocal disarmament—and which have apparently ceased to consider that war for any cause whatever, if only a nation which goes to war supposes itself to be in the right, can possibly be without justification,-upon these also a heavy load of responsibility is laid." Peace had not long again involved in a war, very terrible character. been signed when England was which we may call a civil war of a The Crimean War and our alliance with the head of the Mussulman world, the Caliph or Sultan of Turkey, was constantly justified by its importance to our Indian possessions. That alliance was now proved to have been powerless as regards any conciliatory influence on the mass of Mahomedans who constitute a large proportion of the inhabitants of Northern India. Mahomedans and Hindoos united in open rebellion, and the darkest page in the history of the English in India followed. That sad story can never be forgotten. Naturally among Anglo-Indians the Mutiny roused the deepest indignation against the treachery of the rebels, and consequently against natives generally. A bitterness resulted which, though dying, still exists. A wise man had to be calm in his administration of justice, and the guiltless required protection. To remember that such consideration was still due to the native races of India caused suspicious indignation, and mortified or tantalised the terrible longing for revenge which is the too frequent satisfaction of war. The Governor-General, Lord Canning, met the storm in the true spirit of wisdom, and the fury with which he was abused was disastrous. Lord Hobart could not be silent, but his words were in support of the Government representative and of the Government policy. The following letter appeared in The Times of December 3rd, 1857, the morning that Parliament met: "SIR, “As a rule the English nation is just and generous towards those who serve it well. Admirable as have been the courage, patience, and self-devotion of the small band of heroes who on the soil of India have won for themselves and their country imperishable fame, they have not, and will not, have any reason to complain that they are not appreciated by their countrymen. Havelock, Outram, Nicholson, Neill, Greathead-it will be long before the light of well-merited popularity which surrounds these illustrious names will have ceased to shine. But unquestionably cases do occur in which the national judgment in regard to the conduct of public servants is strangely and signally at fault. In the present instance why is it, while the attention of the world is fixed in astonishment and admiration on the successful stand made by our country men in India against odds which appeared desperate, the head of the Executive Government of that country, the prime mover and controller of these events, has received from the unthinking unthinking clamorous censure, from the more thoughful and influential, cold indifference (at least), the damnation of faint praise? Lord Canning had scarcely assumed the government when he found himself placed in circumstances of difficulty unexampled in history, of peril more tremendous, responsibility more anxious than perhaps have ever before beset the tenure of great power. Of the mode in which he has met those difficulties, of his tone and bearing in that great extremity of danger and adversity, of the details of the measures which he has taken to encounter that terrible crisis, we know but little. One thing we do know that he has been completely successful. Without the aid of one bayonet from England, in the midst of a tumult of social disorganisation and dismay, the great Indian Mutiny has been crushed; for what remains is not to resist, or conquer, but to perish. One other thing we know that in the presence of a popular frenzy, blind to all considerations of policy as well as of mercy, Lord Canning, fortunately for England, retained his prudence and selfpossession, and forbore to disgrace and endanger her dominions in the East by confounding the precept and decisive repression of revolt and execution of justice with the gratification of a ferocious and undiscriminating revenge. "In the letter of 'A Civilian,' published in your paper of to-day, the following passage occurs: The other serious danger is lest our present violent feeling against the Mahomedans should drive to despair that great section of the population, and induce a really general Mahomedan revolt, as dangerous as the great Mutiny.' "The danger is not only serious, but one which, were it not for those features of Lord Canning's policy which have been so censoriously or so coldly considered, it might by this time have been impossible to avert. That for these great services Lord Canning will, sooner or later, receive his due meed of praise, I cannot doubt; that he should not receive it now is sufficiently unaccountable. It seems impossible that the nation, actuated by mere caprice, or following the key-note struck by the Europeans of Calcutta under the combined influence of pain and exasperation, will long continue to withhold from the man on whom the chief responsibility has rested, and who would have borne the chief share of the odium consequent on failure, the approbation and gratitude due to his successful encounter with a peril which seriously menaced the power and prestige of England, but which, by the manner in which it has been met, has materially improved her position among the nations of the earth. "6, Eaton Place South." (Signed) "HOBART. The Globe, which was the Government organ of that day, considered that this letter had "rendered a service, by giving that word in season which at times of excitement recalls our treacherous memory to the standard of good sense," and in the evening Lord Hobart had a private note from a Cabinet minister who said, "I must write one line to tell that I was delighted with your excellent letter in The Times of December 4th." In 1861 the Foreign Office had applied to the Board of Trade for some one capable of investigating into the condition of the Turkish finances, and of advising some system for their better administration. The mission was offered to Lord Hobart. An offer of such political importance would in itself have had great attraction, more especially to one who so keenly loved travel, and to whom the routine of official life in a subordinate position was becoming a very trying necessity. Mere personal ambition was entirely absent from his character, and he decided to undertake the work only |