do is to moderate its course so as to hinder it
from degrading the moral status of societies by a too rapid effacement
of those national traditions and customs which are the language of the
national genius--the deep suckers of healthy sentiment. Such moderating
and guidance of inevitable movement is worthy of all effort. And it is
in this sense that the modern insistance on the idea of Nationalities
has value. That any people at once distinct and coherent enough to form
a state should be held in subjection by an alien antipathetic government
has been becoming more and more a ground of sympathetic indignation; and
in virtue of this, at least one great State has been added to European
councils. Nobody now complains of the result in this case, though
far-sighted persons see the need to limit analogy by discrimination. We
have to consider who are the stifled people and who the stiflers before
we can be sure of our ground.

The only point in this connection on which Englishmen are agreed is,
that England itself shall not be subject to foreign rule. The fiery
resolve to resist invasion, though with an improvised array of
pitchforks, is felt to be virtuous, and to be worthy of a historic
people. Why? Because there is a national life in our veins. Because
there is something specifically English which we feel to be supremely
worth striving for, worth dying for, rather than living to renounce it.
Because we too have our share--perhaps a principal share--in that spirit
of separateness which has not yet done its work in the education of
mankind, which has created the varying genius of nations, and, like the
Muses, is the offspring of memory.

Here, as everywhere else, the human task seems to be the discerning and
adjustment of opposite claims. But the end can hardly be achieved by
urging contradictory reproaches, and instead of labouring after
discernment as a preliminary to intervention, letting our zeal burst
forth according to a capricious selection, first determined accidentally
and afterwards justified by personal predilection. Not only John Gilpin
and his wife, or Edwin and Angelina, seem to be of opinion that their
preference or dislike of Russians, Servians, or Greeks, consequent,
perhaps, on hotel adventures, has something to do with the merits of the
Eastern Question; even in a higher range of intellect and enthusiasm we
find a distribution of sympathy or pity for sufferers of different blood
or votaries of differing re