Is it rational, I ventured to ask in the year 1886, to awaken general indignation in a country like Russia, which could be so useful as an ally? We have common enemies in Asia. Fancy the power represented by two great Christian countries like Russia and England, when they are united and friendly! Is it really not worth having? Time has given me my answer. People have been so kind as to say that I have been mainly responsible for the bringing together {97} of England and Russia, but whatever I have done I have merely been carrying on the ideal of the Emperor Nicholas I. Kinglake wrote: "The Emperor Nicholas had laid down for himself a rule which was always to guide his conduct upon the Eastern Question; and it seems to be certain that at this time (the eve of the Turkish war of 1853), even in his most angry moments, he intended to cling to his resolve. What he had determined was that no temptation should draw him into hostile conflict with England."[1] [1] _The Invasion of the Crimea_. Sixth edition. It must be borne in mind that this is the testimony of an Englishman, and one who cannot be accused of being pro-Russian. It is interesting to recall the words addressed by the Emperor Nicholas I to the English Ambassador at Petrograd in 1853. The Emperor then said: "The affairs of Turkey are in a very disorganised condition; the country itself seems to be falling to pieces; the fall will be a great misfortune, and it is very important that England and Russia should come to a perfectly good understanding upon these affairs. We have on our hands a Sick Man, a very Sick Man. It will be, I tell you frankly, a great misfortune if one of these days he should slip away from us, especially before all necessary arrangements are made. If the Turkish Empire falls, it falls to rise no more; and I put it you, therefore, whether it is not better to be provided beforehand for a contingency, than to incur the chaos, confusion, and the certainty of an European war, all of which must attend the {98} catastrophe if it should occur unexpectedly and before some ulterior system has been sketched." The Sick Man certainly has taken longer in dying than the Emperor thought, but he certainly seems to be well on the way now. Nicholas I was a statesman, one who has been described as bearing "the stamp of a generous and chivalrous nature." Bismarck himself, in 1849, expressed his admiration of the Emperor's conduct in regard to Hungary. He was always essentially upright and straightforward, and was in every sense of the term a strong man. Writing of Bismarck reminds me of a story I have heard which I do not remember to have seen in print.