Mr. Bourke, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Stanhope,
the Under-Secretary for India, both addressed the afternoon meeting ; Mr. Bourke maintaining that the private agreement between Russia and England, before the Congress of Berlin, on subjects in relation to which Lord Salisbury addressed Lord Odo Russell as if England were still unpledged, in no way affected the Congress, and was a perfectly honourable and legiti- mate transaction ; while Mr. Stanhope, recanting virtually the very strong language he used in Parliament last August con- cerning Afghanistan, admitted that we could now scarcely hope for a strong, friendly, and independent Afghanistan,—so that he is quite at issue with his leader in the House of Commons, who says that our policy in Afghanistan is the same as before, and that only "small details" are changed. This is Mr. Stanhope's rather soberer opinion :—" It is quite true, we did declare that the great object of the policy in Afghanistan might be carried out by means of a friendly independent ruler, acting in alliance with us, and with his foreign policy under our influence." [We wonder what "an independent ruler with his foreign policy under our influence" means ? Is it not much the same as an in- dependent ruler who is dependent?] "That we can h,ardly hope for now, perhaps; but the main principle on which our policy has been hitherto founded remains altogether un- changed." We believe that if the Afghans succeeded in beating us out of the country, Mr. Bourke would say, "Though we can hardly hope now to have a friendly Afghanistan, with its foreign policy dictated from Calcutta, the main principle on which our policy has been hitherto founded remains altogether unchanged." If you only surrender nothing verbally, no matter what you surrender in fact, your audience is none the wiser.
Previous page
