Page:Diplomacy and the Study of International Relations (1919).djvu/24

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

2

Diplomacy and the

Question from 1876 to 1878, when, like many others, he was charged with making ‘political capital’ (as it was termed) out of the evil deeds of the Turks and the sufferings of Christians. In a speech he made in 1876 he blamed both Palmerston and Russell; and no Liberal, he said, objected to his censure. But, the moment he began to blame Lord Derby, a Tory shouted, ‘No politics’. Worst of all, Mr. Freeman had to submit to being called by the enemy ‘philanthropist’, whereas he was only ‘talking politics’ and putting questions they could not answer.^[1]

↑ ‘By those who were opposed to Freeman's views on this question, he was denounced as “an itinerant demagogue”, “an agitator”, “an hysterical screamer”, “a philanthropic enthusiast”, “a sentimental, unpractical politician”, and the like. . . . He replied to the charge of being a sentimental and unpractical politician by retorting it upon his adversaries’ (see ‘Sentimental and Practical Politics’, Princeton Review, March 1879). ‘The really unpractical men were those who took no account of national sentiment, which was one of the strongest factors in national life. In the wise words of Guizot, “the instinct of nations sees further than the negotiations of diplomatists”. {{… It will be noticed that in this, as in all other political controversies, Freeman brought every question to the touchstone of morals. He did not ask in the first instance whether any proposed course of action was likely to promote British interests and power, but whether it was honourable, straightforward, and just.’ Stephens, [[Life and Letters of Edward A. Freeman (1895), ii. 119-120, 121. On December 9, 1876, Freeman spoke with Gladstone and others at St. James's Hall, London, in protest against Turkish oppression and against Britain interfering with the work of emancipation, whether that of Russia or of any other Power. Dealing with the argument that the interests of this country, and in particular her dominion in India, would be imperilled, if a Russian ship of war should enter the Mediterranean, he said, ‘Well, if it be so, let duty come first and interest second, and perish the interests of England, perish our dominion in India, rather than that we should strike one blow or speak one word on behalf of the wrong against the right.’ Freeman was at pains to refute the assertion that he had said ‘Perish India’. See Stephens, op. cit., ii. 113, and Thompson, op. cit., i. 361, note, ii. 129-36, especially 133, 135.

[1] ‘By those who were opposed to Freeman's views on this question, he was denounced as “an itinerant demagogue”, “an agitator”, “an hysterical screamer”, “a philanthropic enthusiast”, “a sentimental, unpractical politician”, and the like. . . . He replied to the charge of being a sentimental and unpractical politician by retorting it upon his adversaries’ (see ‘Sentimental and Practical Politics’, Princeton Review, March 1879). ‘The really unpractical men were those who took no account of national sentiment, which was one of the strongest factors in national life. In the wise words of Guizot, “the instinct of nations sees further than the negotiations of diplomatists”. {{… It will be noticed that in this, as in all other political controversies, Freeman brought every question to the touchstone of morals. He did not ask in the first instance whether any proposed course of action was likely to promote British interests and power, but whether it was honourable, straightforward, and just.’ Stephens, [[Life and Letters of Edward A. Freeman (1895), ii. 119-120, 121. On December 9, 1876, Freeman spoke with Gladstone and others at St. James's Hall, London, in protest against Turkish oppression and against Britain interfering with the work of emancipation, whether that of Russia or of any other Power. Dealing with the argument that the interests of this country, and in particular her dominion in India, would be imperilled, if a Russian ship of war should enter the Mediterranean, he said, ‘Well, if it be so, let duty come first and interest second, and perish the interests of England, perish our dominion in India, rather than that we should strike one blow or speak one word on behalf of the wrong against the right.’ Freeman was at pains to refute the assertion that he had said ‘Perish India’. See Stephens, op. cit., ii. 113, and Thompson, op. cit., i. 361, note, ii. 129-36, especially 133, 135.

[1]