that can attend, to consider what can be done for the promo-
tion of the cause. . . . But this sad war absorbs almost all
that is good, and promotes all that is evil.'

This letter is the first indication we can find, in his life
of incessant activity, of illness. Like John Bright shortly
afterwards, he broke down in health under the intense
strain. This was in the winter of 1854-5. In February he
writes from Torquay, whither he had been taken, that he
cannot expect to regain his strength suddenly; but he
characteristically adds that both his wife and himself seem
to have lately made his bodily state too much a subject of
thought. Slowly during the course of 1855 he recovered
much, at any rate, of his wonted vitality.

What must have contributed largely to this break -down
were the bitter attacks made upon Sturge in his own town
and by his own friends. Unfortunately, in addition to other
things, he was personally in a very vulnerable position
owing to his occupation as a dealer in corn. He was accused
at one time of desiring peace, because the war stopped his



THE CRIMEAN WAR 151

profits in Russian grain, at another of conspiring with
other merchants to keep up the existing high price of corn.
In a printed address ' to my fellow-townsmen of the work-
ing classes ' he thought it right to reply to attacks of this
kind, and to the charge that he was doing the ' enemy's
work.' He recalls to his readers how great statesmen like
Burke and Fox had temporarily been branded as traitors
because they worked for peace during former wars; and
reminds them how atrocities, as bad as the Russian ones,
were committed by British troops during recent wars in
China, India, Burma, and Africa. The document, which
is an able one, concludes with this appeal : ^

' The carnage which has already taken place in the Crimea,
the voice of mourning which has been heard in many families
in Great Britain, and the increased sufferings of the poor,
may be but the commencement of the chastisements of Provi-
dence for our national crimes. May these considerations lead
us, as a nation, to act more in accordance with that spirit
which recognises all mankind as our brethren, and with the
example of Him who " came not to destroy men's lives, but
to save them "! '

There were a few, however, even among the most warlike,
who, while disagreeing with the Quaker leader, kept their
respect for him undiminished. It is refreshing, as one turns
over the files of the contemporary Birmingham newspapers,
to come across, among much abuse of Joseph Sturge and
the Peace party, a letter from a supporter of the war, who
asks whether it will be creditable to their generation, that
posterity, who will not pass unheeded the facts of Mr.
Sturge's life, marked as they may be by misjudgments
and acts of apparent imprudence, should learn that the war-
spirit led his fellow-townsmen to make a " football " and a
" target " of one who had worked so nobly for his country.' 1

1 History repeats itself. In 1901 during the Boer War, a meet-
ing in the Birmingham Town Hall was violently broken up by
a riotous mob. Mr. Lloyd George was the chief speaker, and was
described at the time by a Birmingham newspaper as a ' ranting dis-
loyalist,' who ' has spoken, not once but always, as if he were the
paid advocate of England's enemies.'



152 JOSEPH STURGE

A recent writer has said that to arraign an unjust and
unwise war is the only way to prevent another; and that,
if Bright and Cobden had not raised their voices against
the Crimean war, so that men felt, after its close, that they
were right, England would very probably have gone to
war with Austria against France in 1859, or again with the
Slave Confederacy against the United States in 1861, or
with Denmark against Germany in 1864, or with Turkey
against Russia in 1878. l Five years after the close of the
Crimean war, public opinion had so changed that even
the Times sorrowfully admitted that it had been based on
a mistaken policy, and that ' a gigantic effort and an
infinite sacrifice had been made in vain.' And Lord Salis-
bury afterwards confessed that, in the long-standing policy
of alliance with Turkey, ' we had put our money on the wrong
horse.' Unhappily, however, all that the English advocates
of Peace were able to achieve, during the generation follow-
ing the Crimean War, was to convince their countrymen
of the advantages of a somewhat selfish neutrality. Had
there been a continuous succession of men like Joseph
Sturge, ready to preach at home and abroad with true
missionary fervour the essentially mistaken and immoral
character of all war and of all preparation for it, the world
might have been a very different place from what it is
to-day.

1 G. M. Trevelyan's John Bright, chap. x.



BINDING UP WOUNDS OF WAR 153



CHAPTER XI
BINDING UP THE WOUNDS OF WAR

IN February, 1855, Cobden wrote to Henry Richard, remind-
ing him that in a few weeks the newspaper stamp would be
abolished, and suggesting that the Peace party should now
have a daily paper to advocate the views of the Manchester
school. The newspaper stamp was only one of those so-called
' taxes on knowledge,' which hampered the freedom of the
press. In consequence of them, daily papers like the Times
and the Daily News had to appear at $d. a copy. The repeal
of the taxes was welcomed by Cobden, and still more by
Bright, as the opportunity of starting a penny daily which
would do something effective to counteract the torrent of
misrepresentation and abuse, which nearly all the existing
press were pouring upon the advocates of a pacific foreign
policy. It was necessary to raise a large amount of capital,
in order to launch the new enterprise. Cobden and Bright
turned instinctively to Sturge and sought to secure his
unrivalled energy and influence for the project. The latter
hesitated for some time. He had in times past given a
helping hand to many newspapers (such as the Noncon-
formist and the Pilot already mentioned) ; but, with scarcely
an exception, they had all either proved very short-lived or
else had so swerved, in their anxiety for popular favour,
into the advocacy of objectionable lines of policy, that all
the trouble and money involved were as good as wasted.
However he was finally persuaded ; and at once, with his
usual indomitable perseverance, he set to work so effectively
that, during the course of the last year of the war, by dint
of journeys, conferences, and much correspondence, the
necessary funds were collected. Richard was installed as



154 JOSEPH STURGE

the first (though not very successful) editor ; and, just about
the time that the Peace Treaty of Paris was signed, the
Morning Star and the Evening Star came into existence.
These papers were the subject of pretty constant corre-
spondence between Sturge and his friends Cobden and
Bright during the last four years of his life. Only ten days
before Sturge's death, Bright wrote to him expressing the
opinion that the Morning Star was doing great and increas-
ing good, possessing a greater political influence than any
London journal, except the Times, (which was at the time
far ahead of all others) . The peace policy of the Star was,
as was to be expected, not maintained for long in its
original purity, but the paper did useful work for a good
many years. Justin McCarthy and John Morley were
among its successive editors.

When the representatives of the great Powers were
gathering in Paris to settle the terms of peace, it was felt
to be a valuable opportunity to urge upon the British
Government the inclusion in the treaty of the principle
of international arbitration, for the universal adoption of
which the Peace party had long been contending. With
this object an influential deputation, with Cobden at its
head, waited upon Palmerston, who was then Premier.
But Palmerston preferred, as he himself hinted, ' the
dazzling results of war ' to ' the solid advantages of peace,'
and gave them no hope that anything would be done in the
desired direction. This rebuff and other circumstances
so disheartened Cobden and most of the rest, that they
thought it best to refrain from prosecuting the attempt
further.

But Richard felt convinced that a deputation should
go to Paris and endeavour to influence the diplomatists of
the various countries in favour of an arbitration clause in
the Treaty. Sturge alone supported him. ' Thou art right/
he said, ' if no one else will go with thee, I will.' Later on,
Charles Hindley M.P., who had been President of the 1843
Peace Convention, agreed to accompany them, and on
March 20th, 1856, the three men travelled to Paris, with a



BINDING UP WOUNDS OF WAR 155

memorial of the Peace Conference Committee praying the
plenipotentiaries to insert in the Treaty a provision bind-
ing the signatory powers to submit disputes to an impartial
body of arbitrators.

It was natural enough to consider it an almost futile
task for private individuals, holding the unpopular views
of the Peace Society, to attempt to canvass the diplomatists
of Europe. Yet in this instance the unexpected was
achieved. It is true that they were foiled in their endeavour
to get a personal interview with the Emperor Napoleon,
an object on which Sturge set great store. But they had
a very sympathetic reception from Lord Clarendon, the
British representative at the Congress, who said he would
do what he could ; while other plenipotentiaries, including
the Prussian and the Sardinian, took special notice of the
memorial. Three weeks, that must have been tedious
enough to Sturge, were spent in Paris, to see if more could
be done ; and when the three men at length returned home,
they were not sanguine as to the accomplishment of their
object. As soon, however, as the proceedings of the Con-
gress were published, it was found that Lord Clarendon had
loyally redeemed his promise, and had spoken so con-
vincingly on the advantages of arbitration, that the
following protocol had been drawn up and unanimously
adopted :

' The plenipotentiaries do not hesitate to express, in the
name of their Governments, the wish that States, between
which any serious misunderstandings may arise, should,
before appealing to arms, have recourse, as far as circum-
stances might allow, to the good offices of a friendly Power.
The plenipotentiaries hope that the Governments not repre-
sented at the Congress will unite in the sentiment which has
inspired the wish recorded in the present protocol.'

There seems every reason to believe that this important
step in the recognition of arbitration would not have been
gained, but for the way in which Lord Clarendon responded
to the appeal of Sturge and his two friends. The former
was deeply moved with gratitude to the statesman for his



156 JOSEPH STURGE

co-operation, and wrote him a letter of thanks, which he
ended by expressing an earnest desire ' that, when Lord
Clarendon shall arrive at that final tribunal to which we
are all hastening, when all human praise or censure will
be alike indifferent, he may receive the reward of the peace-
maker, and, through a Saviour's love, be admitted into
that Kingdom, where war and discord are unknown.'

It may be interesting here to trace the apparent sequence
of events, of which the foregoing incident forms a part,
that led, from small beginnings and by the personal influ-
ence of a comparatively few men, to the establishment
of the great principle of international arbitration as a
substitute for what has been absurdly called the ' arbitra-
ment of war.'

The first modern instance of the successful submission
to arbitration of disputes between governments was in the
so-called Jay Treaty of 1794, on a question of frontier
claims arising between Britain and America. But there
was no general disposition to follow up this example. The
American Chief Justice, John Jay, from whose services the
1794 Treaty acquired its name, had a son William Jay,
who followed in his father's footsteps by also becoming a
judge and also rendering assistance to the cause of peace,
as well as to that of anti-slavery. When Sturge visited
Judge William Jay at his house near New York in 1841,
the latter showed him the manuscript of a scheme which
he had elaborated, providing for the insertion of a clause
in all conventional treaties between nations, mutually
binding the parties to submit all international disputes to
the arbitration of some one or more friendly powers.
Sturge took up the idea with enthusiasm, printed it on his
return to England, and in this way it became adopted by
the London Peace Society and by the International Peace
Congresses of 1843, 1848, and succeeding years. In 1849
Cobden put the substance of it into a motion which he
brought before the House of Commons, and secured, in a
rather empty House, seventy-nine votes in its favour. The
next step is represented by the protocol of the 1856 Treaty.



BINDING UP WOUNDS OF WAR 157

The cardinal importance of this protocol was recognised at
the time by Gladstone, who said in the House of Commons :

' As to the proposal to submit international differences to
arbitration, I think that it is in itself a very great triumph, a
powerful engine on behalf of civilisation and humanity. It is,
perhaps, the first time that the representatives of the principal
nations of Europe have given an emphatic utterance to senti-
ments which contain, at least, a qualified disapproval of a
resort to war, and assert the supremacy of reason, of justice,
humanity, and religion.'

From this time the advantages of arbitration began to
be more and more widely recognised. Thus while between
the Jay Treaty of 1794 and the year 1856 only thirty-two
different disputes between governments were satisfactorily
submitted to arbitration, between 1856 and 1899 there
were one hundred and forty disputes settled in this way.
The most important of these arbitrations was that given
on the claim for damages committed by the British-built
Confederate cruiser Alabama during the American Civil
War ; its acceptance by both nations almost certainly pre-
vented war between Britain and America. Further,
between 1899, the date of the first Hague Conference, and
February, 1914, no less than one hundred and ninety-seven
separate general treaties of arbitration were made between
various powers. They substantially carry out Judge Jay's
proposal, except that most of them unfortunately exclude
questions of ' vital interest ' and ' honour.' The culminat-
ing result of the movement is the 'Peace Commission
Treaty' between Great Britain and the United States,
signed in September, 1914, by which the two Governments
agree that ' all disputes between them of every nature
whatsoever, other than disputes the settlement of which
is provided for and in fact achieved under existing agree-
ments, shall, when diplomatic methods of adjustment have
failed, be referred for investigation and report to a Per-
manent International Commission ' (consisting of five
members) ; and they further agree ' not to declare war or
begin hostilities during such investigation and before the



158 JOSEPH STURGE

report is submitted.' The report must be submitted before
the close of a year ; and this year is generally regarded as
an invaluable ' cooling-off period/ during which, assuming
a healthy public opinion, danger of war ought to be averted
and a peaceful settlement insisted upon. Finally the agree-
ment to submit disputes to arbitration is one of the indis-
pensable principles to be accepted by all the members of
any League or Commonwealth of Nations, which may be
formed as a result of the present war.

The above digression appears to be justified by the need
of placing in its full setting the humble but important part
which Joseph Sturge played between 1841 and 1856 in the
evolution of a great practical idea. There was also another
way, worthy to serve as a guiding precedent, in which he
attempted to make reparation for the injuries of war.

In March, 1854, three weeks before the outbreak of the
anticipated Crimean War, a farewell dinner, attended by
three Ministers of the Crown, was given at the Reform Club
in honour of Admiral Napier. The gallant Admiral was on
the eve of departing in command of the British fleet to the
shores of the Baltic; the dinner was characterised by an
exhibition of almost frivolous enthusiasm, and one of the
Ministers present spoke of the fleet as eager to display its
prowess, and to make the shores of the Baltic resound with
its deeds of naval daring.

It was in a very different spirit that in the September
after the close of the war, another expedition left the shores
of England for the Baltic coasts. It was an advance guard,
going to spy out the nakedness of the land, but in order to
clothe that nakedness, not to take advantage of it. The
British fleet, finding it impossible to do effective damage
either to the Russian warships or to their naval bases, had
turned a large part of its attention to the destruction of
private property on the coasts of Finland. So Joseph
Sturge was going, along with Thomas Harvey, the old
companion of his West Indian tour, to see what could be
done to alleviate the sufferings caused by these wanton



BINDING UP WOUNDS OF WAR 159

attacks. They deserve to be called wanton, over and above
the usual characteristics of war, because they were in-
flicted, without any apparent military advantage, upon
an unarmed people, who were probably more f riendlily dis-
posed to the English than to the Russians, who had con-
quered and annexed their country not half a century before.
The British attacks were the more noticeable, as the
French fleet, which was also cruising off the coast, abstained
from destroying property on shore, or even, it is said, from
capturing merchant ships. Admiral Napier was under-
stood to have disapproved of the policy of burning and
pillage ; but nevertheless, though there were many honour-
able exceptions, it was practised by the officers of numerous
warships, with disastrous results to the Finnish inhabitants.
In one case round shot was, according to evidence obtained
locally, fired into an open town, with the result that two
or three civilians lost their lives ; while in another a huge
conflagration of shipping and timber was caused by a
landing party, in a way to threaten the destruction of the
whole township, after the British Commander had pro-
claimed that he would not ' molest or injure private
persons or their property.' By the widespread burning of
timber, boats, and ships, and the seizure or destruction of
nets, cattle, sheep, and stores, large numbers had lost their
means of livelihood. Their piteous condition was de-
scribed by a local correspondent who wrote to the Times
in June, 1854.

' The number of fugitive Finns increases here every day.
Whoever walks round our harbour sees a vast number of
ragged people lying about on the stones, whose nocturnal
abode is the tents they have contrived out of tattered sails.
One shriek of woe sounds all through Finland! It will take
many years before those wretched outcasts regain the point
which they had hitherto by great assiduity obtained. All
their vessels of any size are in the hands of the English and
the smaller ones are totally destroyed. All the stock of timber
and pitch that they are wont to export to Denmark and even
to Germany in the spring, and which constitutes their chief
source of livelihood, is reduced to ashes. Anything and every-



160 JOSEPH STURGE

thing that might possibly be useful to the Russians has been
destroyed.'

Here was surely enough to prompt Joseph Sturge and
his friend, as soon as peace made it possible, to go and see
on the spot the extent of the suffering, and how it could
best be alleviated. It was not a long visit they were only
in Finland just over a fortnight, but they made good use
of their opportunities. For want of time they did not reach
the two ports where most damage had been done ; but at
other places, with the aid of an interpreter, they examined
poor persons who had been reduced to penury by the acts
of war, and satisfied themselves of the need for relief.
At the old Finnish capital of Abo they helped to form a
Committee of local merchants who undertook to administer
the British relief funds. Here very probably they met men
who remembered the visit in 1819 of the Quakers Stephen
Grellet and William Allen; on which occasion they had
been instrumental in pressing the Czar Alexander to im-
prove the deplorable condition of the Abo prison. They
found the Finns generally in a state of great exasperation
against the English, whom they had previously regarded
with esteem. It was the hope of Sturge to make an act of
restitution, that would partake somewhat of a national
character. He therefore caused it to be known that there
were many in England who had shown their disapproval
of the conduct of the fleet, and that the relief fund was
intended ' not as an act of bounty or of mercy, but of mere
justice.' The effect of this seems to have been good.

Whittier, in his rhyme The Conquest of Finland, imagines,
with pardonable poetic licence, the peacemakers actually
replacing the ' foraged beeves and grain ' from a ship of
bounty that sails round the coast. In a less picturesque
way, by means of a Committee of the Society of Friends
in England, and through the Finnish Committee on the
spot, the equivalent of this was carried out, necessities of
all kinds being purchased and distributed. The sum col-
lected was not a large one about 9,000, but it repre-
sented much good- will ; one of the gifts actually came from



BINDING UP WOUNDS OF WAR 161

a naval officer (of H.M.S. Porcupine), who is said to have
helped in causing the devastation. The relief sent was all
the more needed, inasmuch as something approaching to
famine conditions prevailed in Finland during the first
half of 1857. The collection made at this time was a
precedent for the 'War Victims' Relief Funds/ which
Friends have organised and administered in more recent
wars, including the one now drawing to a close.

On the way back from Finland, Sturge had stopped in
St. Petersburg; and there, with characteristic zeal, he
penned and despatched an address to the new Czar, Alex-
ander II., in which he and Thomas Harvey wrote that
they ' had been led to visit the dominions of the Emperor
by motives springing, as they trust, from that Christian love
which is not limited by geographical boundaries, nor inter-
rupted by international contests, but which embraces the
whole human family, as children of one Father and objects
of the same redeeming Love.' At the same time they pleaded
with the Czar for the principle of international arbitration,
for the free circulation of the Bible in Russia, and for the
emancipation of the serfs. The, perhaps, ill-judged em-
phasis on this last subject was strongly disapproved of by
Cobden, who otherwise rejoiced at the results of the visit.
A nephew of Sturge, who was sent to Finland in the follow-
ing year, reported that the feeling of the people towards
England had changed very much for the better, .owing
largely to the helping hand held out to them in their
distress.

In the autumn of 1856 we find Cobden writing thus to
Richard, as Secretary of the Peace Society :

' It is really refreshing to see Sturge's inexhaustible energy.
He could run a dozen young men off their legs. No sooner is
he back from his visit to Russia than he inquires if there is
nothing to be done! I have sometimes wondered what such
men would do, if the world's crimes and follies did not find
them plenty of employment in the work of well-doing.'

In another letter of the same period Cobden says that

L



162 JOSEPH STURGE

' nothing but action of some kind would pacify our friend
Sturge.' But he himself was pessimistic about the prospects
of fresh peace agitation. He felt that their party had ' lost
their standing - ground, and been deserted by nineteen-
twentieths of those whom they reckoned as their partisans.'
And the times were in truth difficult for pacifists. The
Crimean War had apparently far from exhausted the
aggressive temper of the electorate and the press. They
were only too ready to support a warlike policy in Asia,
if not elsewhere. Palmerston's Government sanctioned in
November, 1856, the declaration of war against Persia,
' in order to repel the first opening of trenches against
India by Russia ' ; and the Ministry also staked their
existence on the defence of the outrageous bombardment
of Canton, carried out in this same autumn as a reprisal for