LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

THE POLITICAL SITUATION.

[TO TEl EDITOR OF THE 'SPECTATOR.) Sin,—Under ordinary circumstances, Lord Carnarvon's speech ought to satisfy the country and calm all agitation. But the

circumstances are not ordinary. Our Premier is one who loves sudden surprises and dramatic incidents ; and in this matter, moreover, he has something at stake which is dearer to him than "British interests." The Nemesis of his braggart speeches

is now dogging his heels, and he hears in the triumph of Russia the knell of his own reputation as a statesman. If, according to

Dante, one of the chief elements in the misery of the damned is the remembrance of lost opportunities, the political survey of the last eighteen months must fill Lord Beaconsfield's mind with a crowd of thoughts the reverse of pleasant. No English states- man ever had a richer crop of golden opportunities, and no English statesman ever threw all his opportunities away with such lavish recklessness. All Europe besought him to take the lead in settling the Eastern Question. He tried to:outwit Europe, for the sake of maintaining "the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire." The integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire are now things of the past, and it will not be Lord Beaconsfield's band that shall draught the new map of Turkey. Lord Beaconsfield has indeed changed his character if —to quote a memorable phrase of his own against Sir Robert Peel—he awaits "the catastrophe of a sinister career" without a supreme effort to avert it. He has apparently engaged Russia in controversy, and a Prime Minister can himself so largely create the elements of a quarrel that there can be no safety till the controversy is fairly closed. If, indeed, Lord Carnarvon were at the Foreign Office, one might feel confident that no policy could prevail which would run counter to the speech which he delivered to the South-African deputation. It is im- possible to feel such confidence in Lord Derby. One cannot read

Ids speeches without being impressed by his honesty of purpose. Yet he has faced about and contradicted himself on this question in a manner which, I venture to think, is unexampled in the annals of English diplomacy. And the odd thing is that he does not seem to be in the slightest degree conscious of his own political gyra- lions. He has acted like a man under the mesmeric influence of a will stronger and more subtle than his own. I could fill a vol- ume with proofs of this out of the Blue-books, but there is one

example of it in particular, which illustrates so strikingly the crisis through which we are just passing, that I trust you may be able to afford space enough to let me exhibit it in detail.

The able Paper of Instructions which the Government handed to Lord Salisbury on his departure to the Conference concludes with the following solemn warning :—

" In authorising your Excellency to declare this determination on the part of her Majesty's Government at the Conference, should occa- sion require it, they desire at the same time that it should be under- stood by the Porte that Great Britain is resolved not to sanction mis- government and oppression: and that if the Porte by obstinacy or apathy opposes the efforts which are now making to place the Ottoman Empire on a more secure basis, the responsibility of the consequences which may ensue will rest solely with the Sultan and his advisers."

The Porte followed the course which Lord Derby deprecated beforehand, and Lord Salisbury accordingly delivered the warning with which his Government had charged him. He reminded the Porte of the great benefits which had accrued to it under the Treaty of Paris,—a Treaty which the Six l'owers had observed "without reservation." But the Sultan had, on his part, made

"promises of reform," and "the engagements of the Treaty were not and cannot be unilateral." If the Sultan should now, at

the eleventh hour, decline to "listen to the counsels of the Six guaranteeing Powers," and still refuse to fulfil the engage- ments undertaken by the Porte under the Treaty of l'aris, "the position of Turkey before Europe will have been completely changed, and will be extremely perilous We can foresee dangers near at hand which will threaten the very existence of Turkey, if she allows herself to be entirely isolated." Lord Salis- bury, therefore, proceeded to "free her Majesty's Government from all responsibility for what may happen," and in accordance with Lord Derby's instructions, " formally " declared :—" The responsibility of the consequences will rest solely on the Sultan and his advisers." To increase the solemnity of the occasion, Lord Salisbury added :—" In communicating to your Excellencies [the Turkish Plenipotentiaries] the modified summary, I am, moreover, authorised by the Plenipotentiaries to declare that it is the final communication which will be made to you by us." But perhaps Lord Salisbury exceeded his instructions. So it was said, in organs which affected official inspiration. But in a despatch dated "February 5, 1877," not only is Lord Salisbury's general conduct at the Conference approved of, but the grave warning in which he throws the responsibility of war, with all its con- sequences, "solely on the Sultan and his advisers" is specific- ally ratified by the Queen and her Government.

Russia made one more desperate effort to avoid war by means of the London Protocol, in which even the "irreducible mini-

mum" was still further reduced. This last appeal was flung by the Porte in the face of Europe ; and having thus exhausted all pacific expedients, the Emperor of Russia redeemed his pledge, and "acted alone."

Here, then, we have a clear case. Lord Salisbury declared, in the name of Europe, and of his own Government in particular,

that the responsibility of a war with Russia—a war "threatening the very existence of Turkey "—would " rest solely on the Sultan and his advisers." Yet when the war was actually declared, Lord Derby, in his famous despatch of May 1, threw the responsibility of it entirely on the Czar and his advisers !

Is it possible to imagine a more flagrant contradiction? Can we find any explanation ? Yes ; and in that explanation lies the danger of the present crisis. Between Lord Salisbury's warning to the Porte and the Russian declaration of war, Mr. Layard had been sent to Constantinople ; and he immediately set himself to reverse the policy of the Government, as represented by Lord Salisbury.

Lord Salisbury had warned the Porte, in the name not only of his own Government, but of the other guaranteeing Powers, that since the Treaty of Paris "could not be unilateral," the Porte, by refusing to fulfil its share of the engagements, had forfeited the rights which depended on such fulfilment. Its status under the Treaty was "completely changed." Mr. Layard saw that it was all up with the Porte unless he could extricate it out of this dilemma, and he set at once about the work of extrication. By book or by crook Russia must be put in the wrong in the public opinion of England. By hook or by crook Turkey must be put in the right, not by getting her to fulfil her promises, but by diplomatic legerdemain. Mr. Layard accordingly drew up a " Memorandum " for the Turkish Government, showing how this could be done. It is published in Blue-book No. 2, p. 162, and is an instructive comment on England's "neutrality." According to this "Memorandum," the Porte was to appeal to the eighth Article of the Treaty of Paris. "Her answer to the Protocol," —so runs the "Memorandum "—" whatever may have been its intention, has been universally considered as a defiance and pro- vocation to Russia, who avails herself of this impression to lead

Europe to believe that Turkey alone is responsible for the war which may ensue." Why, it was not Russia, but Lord Derby who declared that "Turkey alone is responsible for the war which may ensue."

"It is of the utmost importance to Turkey," continues the Memorandum, "that this impression should be removed, and the best mode of doing so is by showing that she is willing and ready to make peace, and to place herself in the bands of the mediating Powers with that object It must not be for- gotten that the declarations made by the British Government as to the impossibility of coming to the aid of Turkey in case of a war with Russia remain in full force, and that public opinion in England would not support or approve any Government that was prepared to help Turkey. It is of vital importance to Turkey that she should seek to change or modify this opinion, and the best way to do so is to show that she is ready to make reason- able sacrifices in the interests of peace." "If Russia refused this condition, she would undoubtedly place herself in the wrong before public opinion. Turkey can lose nothing by appealing to the eighth Article of the Treaty of Paris If the appeal succeeds, so much the better ; if it does not, Turkey is precisely in the same position as regards her defensive and other measures, with the immense advantage of having given a proof to the world of her earnest desire for peace."

Here, then, we have the British Ambassador concocting a plot by means of which Turkey may put Russia "in the wrong before public opinion," and herself so far right that the English Govern- ment may venture "to help Turkey." And this change in public opinion is to be brought about, not by any honest endeavour on the part of the Porte to conform to the advice of Europe, but by a dishonest dodge which may hoodwink the public.

The Porte acted on Mr. Layard's advice. All the Powers but England replied coldly that Turkey had no right to appeal to the eighth clause of the Treaty of Paris till she set about fulfilling her own part of the engagement. Lord Derby, on the contrary, forgetting his own instructions to Lord Salisbury, forgetting also the ratification of Lord Salisbury's warning to the Porte by the Queen and her Government, backed up the appeal which Mr. Layard prompted the Porte to make, and pressed it on Russia, in order "to place her in the wrong before public opinion." Russia declined the insidious "mediation," and Lord Derby thereupon threw upon Russia the responsibility of the war.

Does not this throw a significant light on the crisis through which we are passing ? The incidents of the two periods bear a remarkable family likeness. In the former, Lord Derby seems to have acted as a sort of mesmerised medium, manipulated by two conspirators against the peace of Europe,—one of them on the banks of the Bosphorus, the other on the banks of the Thames.

The "mediation " scheme of last May having failed, Mr. Layard tried another method of "placing Russia in the wrong before public opinion." He deluged the Foreign Office with stories of "Russian atrocities," which he confessed with cynical frankness that he had not taken the trouble to "verify," and whieh have all turned out to be absolutely false. Nevertheless, Lord Derby, who declined to join the other Powers in protesting against the verified atrocities of the Turks, considered it his duty to call the attention of the Russian Government to the unverified rubbish sent home by Mr. Layard. The second " mediation " plot having apparently shared the ignominious fate of its predecessor, Mr. Layard is sending home another cargo of "Russian atrocities," in the hope, according to the Constantinople correspondent of to-day's Pall Mall Gazette, that "we may arrive at results which may stir the languid rulers of the nation. Quantity may tell where mere quality has failed." And the Ambassador who is striving by these means to "stir the languid rulers of the nation " to war, has used the influence of his position to induce Englishmen, who have told him of Turkish atrocities, to conceal them from the English public !

But there was a lower deep still which the fair name of Eng- land might reach in Mr. Layard's custody, and that deep it reached on the 12th of last May, when a deputation from the Turkish Parliament waited on Mr. Layard to offer him an address of thanks to the English Government, for having, in Lord Derby's despatch of May 1, adopted the cause of Turkey, and justified her before Europe. In this address Russia is characterised as "a brigand." "Not content with having sacrificed a number of in- nocent people in the flames of the intrigues which she has fomented for the last ten years by lavish expenditure, with having caused the butchery of a number of children and Mahommedan women, and with having plunged many of our fellow-citizens into every kind of calamity, Russia has managed, through her many intrigues, to spread abroad her calumnies, and to excite public feeling to such a degree that she has succeeded in deceiving many reasonable people, and in rousing against us just and honourable persons." "The different Christian communities" are declared to "enjoy perfect liberty, under the shadow of the Ottoman Empire." "The English Government, after making every effort to preserve peace, judged it right at the time to adopt a policy of neutrality ; and consequently, as it was clear they could not approve of such ruses and intrigues, we have seen with joy that in their reply to Prince Gortchakoff they embraced, as is their wont, the cause of justice, and have judged with equity the conduct of the two parties." "This decision has given us courage and satisfaction."

Has the reader comprehended what all this means ? The British Ambassador at Constantinople receives from the Turkish

IParliament an address of thanks to the English Government for having sided with Turkey against Russia, the latter country being at the same time made solely responsible for the very crimes which Lord Derby had, in the name of the Queen, denounced as the work of Turkish officials. In short, all the fruits of Turkish mis- rule are laid at the door of Russia. And this impudent Address to the British Government is graciously acknowledged by Lord Derby, and printed in a Blue-book ! The courteous answer of the Russian Government the other day to our so-called " mediation " has been ludicrously characterised as worthy of Ghengis Khan. But I doubt whether even Ghengis Khan would have offered to a friendly Government the affront which Lord Derby has offered to Russia by his reception of this infamous Turkish address. And all this time our Foreign Office has been supposed to have been playing a neutral part between Russia and Turkey !—I am, Sir, &c.,