The eloquent and earnest speech which M. Aksakoff recently addressed to the Moscow Slavonic Committee affords the Western world with more information as to the way in which the Russian people regard this war than all the despatches of all the diplomats. M. Aksakoff, although a noble both by birth, and by character, is a simple Russian citizen, holding no official position, and deriving his importance solely from the fact that he is the accepted representative and recognised exponent of the views of the Russian people. As honest as John Вright, as earnest as Mr Gladstone, M. Aksakoff has won the confidence of his countrymen, not so much by the brilliance of his abilities as by the undisputed integrity of his character and fervour of his enthusiasm in the cause which last year enlisted the whole Russian nation in its support. He is the foremost representative of that “unofficial Russian” which sent the volunteers to Servia, and his words can be accepted without hesitation as conveying the honest convictions of the Russian people, as distinguished from the calculations of the Court or the intrigues of diplomacy. “Official Russia,” which at first opposed, not without bitterness, the aspirations of national enthusiasm which found in M. Aksakoff their leading exponent, is now doing his bidding; and it is in his speech we alone can find a full, frank, and free expression of the convictions which at this moment are in the ascendant in Russia. M. Aksakoff stands to the Russian Government much as Mr Gladstone stands in relation to the Government of England, with this difference, that Russia having as her ruler one of the noblest of her sons, M. Aksakoff was able to impel the Government further in the right direction than Mr Gladstone was able to move the party which has placed the Government of England in the hands of its Jew. Untrammelled by official responsibilities, and fearless аs a lion of official censure, M. Aksakoff may unhesitatingly be accepted as a faithful exponent of the flood of popular sympathies and emotions which submerged Europe last autumn, and hurried Russia into a war which her own Government dreaded, not without reason, as much as any other Government in Europe.

What, then, does M. Aksakoff say? Readers of our Turkophile newspapers, who are saturated with the malignant inventions of the inveterate enemies of Freedom and Christianity, will learn with surprise that M. Aksakoff is not discouraged by the result of the campaign. He does not cry “Hold, enough!” He is not overwhelmed by the discovery that the Turks can hold entrenchments against a front attack, nor does he regret that the war has been entered upon. On the contrary, his discourse throughout is animated by the spirit which Englishmen are proud to claim as a national characteristic. He looks the Russian disasters full in the face, recognises their importance, laments their occurrence, and then proceeds with unshrinking courage to point out the causes of the recent reverses and to insist emphatically upon prosecuting the war more energetically than ever. He does not concern himself about questions of expediency, nor does he so much as allude to any hope of conquest. To him, as to the great masses of the Russian nation, these things are impertinences. The object of the war is to free the Southern Slavs and to root up from the Balkans the Upas tree of Turkish domination. Russia, as a great Power, is doing now what individual Russians did last year in Servia. She is risking all, even existence itself, in order to achieve one of the holiest and most sublime of all enterprises, the redemption of oppressed nationalities from the intolerable tyranny of irreclaimable barbarians. Even Lord Beaconsfield’s Government would deride the notion of abandoning England’s historic crusade against the slave trade because the maintenance of the squadron on the African littoral was not a profitable speculation; and Russians regard the crusade against the Pashas as at least as worthy a sacrifice as a crusade against the slavers. Russia has put her hand to the plough: woe unto her if she should turn back. Russians, although perplexed, are not depressed. They admit their sudden and unexpected paralysis; but instead of losing hope they insist more strenuously than ever upon the need of light, more light, for “in light are health, force, power, and the possibility of recovery.” They demand light, not in order to effect a retreat, but to make a more effective advance. Instead of regretting the war, they only regret that the war was not carried on with more vigour. “Amid all the millions of Russia,” says M. Aksakoff, “is heard no word of complaint and murmur. Not for a single moment has a doubt crept into the popular mind as to the holiness of the enterprise.” They will finish the work which they have taken in hand; nor will they rest satisfied until what he describes as “the most heroic war in the world” achieves its purpose. “There must be no hesitation, as there is no choice. We must conquer. Retreat would be treachery to the suffering Slavs, treason to our historical mission, and the beginning of political death.” And with a confident assurance in the ultimate triumph of the cause of Right, M. Aksakoff concludes by expressing the willingness of the nation to make new sacrifices and to accept new burdens in the sacred cause of Freedom and Religion.

The speech is worthy of the speaker and of the occasion. Even these Englishmen who are so blind to the true interests of humanity and civilisation as to sympathise with the Turks cannot read without admiration the calm and resolute language of this representative Slav. They stir the heart like “the blast of a trumpet.” Here, at least, in an age cankered by luxury and honeycombed with cynicism, is a faith worthy of the heroic times when the hearts of Englishmen not yet “dungeoned up with interest or with case,” gave free utterance to “the sympathies, the words, the hopes that make man truly Man.” M. Aksakoff at least does not share the pitiful atheism of a society that asks of martyrdom “does it pay,” and tries to reckon up in coppers the value of a soul. We may differ from many of the theories of this enthusiastic Slav, but the words are those of an hero, which find a grateful echo in every heroic heart. We are not surprised that M. Aksakoff should accept as his own the definition of English interests which is formulated so emphatically by our blatant Turkophiles, and declare that England’s interests are based upon the humiliation and degradation of the races inhabiting the Balkan Peninsula. But it is necessary to remind him that these Turkophiles are neither the English people nor the English Government. If Russia can—as we hope and believe she ultimately will—cut down, root and branch, the whole of that execrable system of misrule which curses the East of Europe, the English Government will not interfere unless Russia violates her pledges not to possess herself permanently of Constantinople; and the best and noblest of the English people will rejoice with an exceeding great joy over an achievement in which they bitterly regret they are not allowed to bear a hand. M. Aksakoff ought to know that even the English Government no longer describes the preservation of the Ottoman Empire as a British interest, and he surely cannot be so ill-informed as not to know that the immense majority of the English people would repudiate with horror the assertion that the existence of their Empire required the perpetuation of Turkish domination in Europe. Speaking for no inconsiderable part of the English people, we assure M. Aksakoff that our one dread is that Russian diplomatists may thwart the determination of the Russian people to make an utter end of the Ottoman Power. That is our only fear. The Russian Government may choose for its own selfish ends to perpetuate the existence of the Ottoman Empire instead of utterly overwhelming it. Let him address himself to the prevention of that danger, let him render it impossible for the Czar to return to Russia until he has utterly destroyed the domination of the Turk in the East of Europe, and he will have no more ardent sympathisers than the great masses of the English people. According to his own showing, the Conservatives of Russia are little better than the Conservatives of England; and we should contemplate the future in the East with more assurance if we did not dread that “Official Russia” may yet inflict a blow upon the interests of England and of civilisation by refusing to carry on the war to its only logical and satisfactory conclusion—the final overthrow of the Turkish Power.