In the House of Lords, Lord Granville, in a speech
occa- sionally amusing—as when he stated that the £100,000,000 we had lent to Turkey had had precisely the same effect as giving rum to savages—maintained that the object of the settlement after the Crimean war was to restore to collective Europe the right of interference in Turkey, that the accord of the Powers should be repaired, and that diplomacy should be resorted to as early as possible to terminate the conflict. He suggested, as the method of termination, that where the Christians were in a majority, they should have self-government ; and where the creeds were too much mixed for that solution, some compromise should be adopted, such as Lord Dufferin had arranged in Syria. This country would never be satisfied if, as a result of the Crimean war, and of our sacrifices for twenty years, the Christ- ian subjects of Turkey should be placed in a worse position than before. Lord Granville's speech appears to point to autonomy, without a hereditary ruler, as the solution he would
best approve, but it is, we imagine, an impracticable one. The object of the non-hereditary governor would be plunder.
Previous page
