Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

"I know her to have labored in the opposite sense.

"Schisms, heresies, false and wild speculation, civil and religious discontents, conspiracies, outbreaks, revolutions, these have been the familiar weapons for her use and profit, for at least twenty years previous to the great French Revolution down to the present hour. I repeat with confidence that the corruption of Europe has, more than any other department of activity, been pursued without cessation, and with scientific judgment, by the power to which we were complacently condescending to impart what we thought a boon, our polish, our civilization.'

"By sufficient research you will find that she it was who ripened the seeds (certainly of themselves sufficiently vigorous) of 'the' French Revolution. I am myself personally cognizant of some portion of her share in various subsequent convulsions. But it is vain to enter into such a subject by any ordinary correspondence.

"Permit me to send you a miserably meagre outline of some only of its branches. It is a paper very slightly modified and curtailed from one which I drew up for

ago.

[ocr errors]

some time

If

This, sir, is a very serious and weighty subject. It lies at the very root of modern events, and is the key of history for many years. If I am wrong, how greatly and how perversely so! right, how fatal to Europe and to more than Europe the error that interior despotism and a high tone of absolutism are a guaranty that the great Russian power is a defence to us of order and of traditions? If we think so, while she is in reality industrious and inventive on the other side,-while she is in reality laboring for the dissolution and mutual collision of states,-she is mistress of the game, and can scarcely fail to work out of it her objects of national ambition.

'There is, sir, only one element tending to mould events which Russia has not taken thoroughly and justly into calculation. She has not believed in, and therefore not appreciated as an element, the Church of God. She has not believed in the supernatural working for the Chair of Peter,-using insignificant instruments,-turning the moments of the Church's apparent defeat into the occasions of her success.

'But for this, were it only the human material of opinions, passions, forms of government, conspiracies, armies, the press, and all the rest, Russia would be right in all her hopes, her immense designs would be very far from insanity. And it is not that Catholics any more than others see and understand her; it is simply that God's good providence must in the ecclesiastical field secure her defeat, though whether before or after the further downfall of nations, I in no degree pretend to calculate.

"I will not enter into the question of the justice or injustice of her present attack on Turkey. Most sure I am that it is unjust, but it must rest undiscussed. Nor will I touch on the question

whether the Turk is at present the power against whom the Church and the State of Christendom have to be specially on the alert, or whether his past and present sins directly concern us in the same way, and to the same degree, with those of Russia; whether it is the Turk or the Russian who is braced to deeply laid designs against the independence of states, against the security of Rome. against the order and the strength which do not oppose vast aspirations for dominion; for I know that the most perfect exposition of these topics would give but a barren result in the way of convincing a mind which had honestly set itself to the contest with revolution, and at the same time fancied that Russia had hitherto been a fellowlaborer in the same cause. The erroneous sympathy would practically prevail over all logic and all facts.

The line upon which

"Allow me to suggest one consideration. you have entered is in opposition to what I knew of the thoughts of many of the best Catholics and wisest men. It is in opposition to that of most worth naming in Rome, I may almost venture to say of the Holy Father himself. It is in opposition to that of the majority of the French Bishops and a vast number of the clergy,—I should suppose of far the greater number. It is thoroughly in opposition to that of the Bishops of Austria and Prussia. But you are in the same line with the ultra Protestant and ultra Russian organ of Berlin, the Kreutz-zeitung, — with that of the precisely similar organ in Holland,-with that of the extreme revolutionists of Italy, France, and Spain. That all these should take the line which they take is no surprise to me. That the true leader of the Greek schism should stir heaven and earth against the Latins' is natural, -that he should try to weaken and corrupt that Europe which otherwise would be tenfold too strong and too clear-sighted and upright for him, all this is natural; it is natural, too, that the other enemies of the Latins' and of the existing order of the state should be his instruments and allies.

"Russia would not enter Constantinople to-morrow if the Turk wished him. She knows that Europe would not bear it. Europe therefore must be brought to the condition where she will bear it, that is, after more wars, more revolutions, more exhaustion, more dreams, and more despair. This is the simple key to Russian policy.

"It would oblige me if you would read the inclosed paper. It, or a nearly similar document, has been received with interest by more than one personage of some experience in European affairs. I would almost ask you to print it in your Review as a fair tribute to opposite views, and as a paper which, as a fact, has been respectfully acknowledged in high quarters. Any passages in further illustration of the side of the question from my letter are also much at your service.

very

[ocr errors]

I remain, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant."

not quite unWe are not,

We think our Scottish correspondent has derstood our position with regard to Russia. and never have been, the partisans of the autocrat, and whoever will do us the honour to read the first article in our Review for January, 1852, will perceive that resistance to the further advance of Russia was a leading feature of the policy we ventured to recommend to the Catholic statesmen of Europe. That article, we may remark by the way, was written and in type before Louis Napoleon's coup d'état of December, 1851, when the more immediate danger seemed to be from the temporary triumph of demagogy, of which France was the focus. The policy we recommended had for its object to resist, on the one hand, the advance of the demagogic despotism, or centralized democracy,-what in this country we call radicalism,—and on the other centralized royalism, or the monarchical absolutism represented by Russia. This end, we contended then, and contend now, can be secured only by strengthening Austria as the great central power, so as to render her able always to mediate between Russia and the Western powers. We made Austria-we should have said Germany, if German unity had not been lost-the pivot of our European policy, and not Turkey, an infidel and barbaWe are, then, Austrian rather than Russian. But we are Austrian only in the respect that Austria happens to occupy a central position in Europe, and is for that reason fitted to mediate between the East and West; not because we prefer Austrians to Frenchmen or Englishmen, or have any partiality for what has been the general policy of Austria for the last hundred years.

rous power.

We have never relied on Russia as a conservative power in Europe, or as a bulwark against the demagogical party; for she inherits the old Byzantine politics, and carries with her that imperial despotism or Cæsarism, wherever she goes, which we hardly prefer, perhaps which we do not prefer, to Jacobinism itself. We have always been aware that Russia is a schismatic and strongly anti-Catholic power; but we have never regarded the Greek schism as worse than English or Scottish heresy, or Russia as more decidedly anti-Catholic than Great Britain, or than even the French government has often proved itself. Every absolute or despotic government is hostile to Catholicity, and in regard to religion even the English government, through

THIRD SERIES.-VOL. III. NO. I.

13

its intense nationalism, is despotic. Indeed, we hope nothing for Catholicity from any European government, for the secular courts have long since ceased to be governed in regard to religion by any other views than those of state policy, and religion suffers nearly as much from those whose policy leads them to protect it, as from those whose policy leads them to oppose it. They will all sustain the Church so far as they can use her; none of them will do it any further, if they can help it, or hesitate to oppose her if they find her in their way. Catholicity, we therefore considered, could gain nothing in the struggle, whichever party might triumph, and would suffer about equally whether the Western powers or Russia were defeated.

We, of course, treat with great respect the opinion of the bishops and clergy of Europe, which our correspondent cites against us, but we suppose the question is one on which we are free to form our own opinion. What the opinion of the Holy Father is, we do not think is known by any one, and till it is officially expressed, we can make no use of it one way or another. His position is a delicate one. There are Catholic interests to be looked after in Russia as well as in France and Great Britain, and it is not the part of good Catholics to do or say anything that might embarrass him in regard to them anywhere. We have not understood that a crusade has been preached against Russia, and we do not think Great Britain likely to enlist in a war for the promotion of Catholic interests; we agree, however, that at the present moment Russia is a more formidable enemy of the Church than Turkey, but whether she is more so than Turkey would be under the tutelage of the British government, and administered by the British minister resident at Constantinople, may well be a question. The worst enemies of the Catholics in the East are the Protestant missionaries, and these are under the special protection of the British government. The policy of the British government in the East is to Protestantize it, or, what is nearly the same thing, to render it indifferent to all religion, whether Christian or Mahometan. The civilization it is urging upon the Turks places the Bible and the Koran in the same category, and rejects both as of no more value than the last year's almanac. The French government, through fear of disturbing the entente cordiale between England and France, will favor the same policy.

We have yet to find an instance in which the French government ever supported Catholic interests at the hazard of political interests. It sacrificed the Jesuits and their missions among our North American Indians to its political policy, as it favored them only as a means of extending French influence with the Indian tribes.

Our correspondent gives us some evidence of Russian intrigues with the revolutionary party in Europe, which had not reached us before; but in so doing he only proves that Russia is in this respect no better than England or France, which we are not disposed to dispute. If Russian intrigue has produced many of the troubles in Italy during the last twenty years, English and French intrigue has probably produced many more of them. Our correspondent should not forget Lord Minto's mission to Italy in 1847, designed, by appeals to the revolutionary party, to thwart the efforts of France under Guizot to introduce the political reforms needed in the Continental states through the legitimate and orderly action of the sovereigns, nor that England is the home of Kossuth and Mazzini, whence they organize their revolutionary plans against the peace of Europe. Ever since 1832, Great Britain has been the well-known ally of the revolutionary party on the Continent. The Russian interference in Spain was doubtless intended to disturb the union of France and England, formed, avowedly, in an interest adverse to Russia. Why she attempted the Quixotic enterprise of revolutionizing England through a contemptible Chartist insurrection, we do not know. If she did any such thing, she acted without ber usual shrewdness. If she interfered in Belgium, and induced the Belgians to revolt against William the First, she did what we as a Catholic dare say was a good act. Our correspondent cannot approve the act of the Congress of Vienna that annexed Belgium to the Dutch Netherlands, or really think that the Catholic interests of Belgium have suffered by being emancipated from the oppressions of the bigoted Calvinistic king of the Nether-. lands. For our part, we think the Belgians needed very little urging from Russia to seek to throw off an oppressive rule, which had been imposed upon them without a shadow of right, by a most arbitrary exercise of power.

Indeed, we cannot but suspect that our correspondent attributes to Russia too large a share in the revolutions of Europe, and has seen her hand sometimes where it was

« AnteriorContinuar »