L I B RAFLY OF THL UNIVLRSITY or ILLl NOIS [Publications of the National Union, No. XXXI.] THE EASTEEN QUESTION. A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS, ET THE UIGHT HON. R. ASSHETON CROSS, M.P. (Secretary of State for the Home Department), ON MONDAY, MAY 7th, 1877. CORRECTED ON AUTHORITY. PlIHMSHED BY THE NATIONAL UNION OF CONSERVATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATIONS, ST. STEPHEN'S CHAMBERS, WESTMINSTER, S.Vi^. MAY, 1877. Tlie fnlhim'ng ?> a copy of Mr. Gladstone's Brfiolnfioii^ , — 1. That tliis House finds just cause of dissatisfaction and complaint in the conduct of the Ottoman Porte with regard to the despatch written by the Earl of Derby Sept. 21, 1876, and relating to the massacres in Bulgaria. 2. That, until such conduct shall have been essentially changed and guarantees on behalf of the subject populations other than the promises or ostensible measures of the Porte shall have been provided, that Government will be deemed by this House to have lost all claim to receive either the material or the moral support of the British Crown. 3. That, in the midst of the complications which exist and the war which has actually begun, this House earnestly desires the influence of the British Crown in the counsels of Europe to be employed with a view to the early and effectual development of local liberty and practical self-government in the disturbed provinces of Turkey, by putting an end to the oppression which they now suffer, without the imposition upon them of any other foreign dominion. 4. That bearing in mind the wise and honourable j^olicy of this country in the Protocol of April, 1826, and the treaty of July, 1827, with respect to Greece, this House furthermore earnestly desires that the influence of the British Crown may be addressed to promoting the concert of the European Powers in exacting from the Ottoman Porte, by their united authority, such changes in the government of Turkey as they may deem to be necessary for the purposes of humanity and justice, for effectual defence against intrigue, and for the peace of the world. 5. That an humble address, setting forth the prayer of this House according to the tenour of the foreging resolutions, be prepared and presented to Her Majesty. The Amendment moved hy Sir H. Drummond Wolff, wMch vas carried May 14/7i hy 354 to 223, runs as foUoivs : That this House declines to entertain any Resolutions whicli may embarrass Her Majesty's Government in the maintenance of peace and in the protection of British interests, without indicating any alternative line of policy. SPEECH OF THE EIGHT IIOX. E. ASSHETON CEOSS, M.P, Mr. Cross. — I am not going to dwell on the somewliat unhappy wrangle which occurred at the beginning of the evening with respect to the form which this debate should take. I feel, however, bound to say, that under all the peculiar circumstances of the case, seeing that the right hon. gentleman the member for G-reenwich, who, throughout the last autumn, led a great agitation on this subject, at last had declared tha;t the time had come when he could not, consistently with the course which he then toot, remain silent with respect to it any longer, and, in consequence, had placed a series of Eesolutions on the notice paper, on which he distinctly intended to invite the opinion of the House — not separately, but as a whole — the country, from one end of it to the other, ^vill, I think, learn with astonishment to-morrow morning that the right hon. gentleman has changed his course at the last moment, and has abstained from inviting that opinion. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, whatever may be the view taken as to the moving the previous question — and I, for one, would have preferred meeting the motion of the right hon. gentleman with a more decided opposi- tion — I believe my hon. friend the member for Christchurch has done well, when a person occupying the high position of the right hon. gentleman at the last moment strikes out the pith of his Eeso- lutions and changes the front which he presented, not only to this House, but to the country, in giving the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion that it will decline to entertain the question of any Eesolution which might embarrass Her Majesty's Go- vernment in the maintenance of peace and in protecting British in- terests, especially when such Eesolution indicates no alternative line of policy. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman spoke of all the meetings which have been held in the country, not only during the autumn, but in the past week. Now, as to those which were held in the autumn, I can only say that I, for one, should have been ashamed of my countrymen if public expression had not been given fi'om one end of the land to the other of their utter detestation of the horrors which had been committed in Turkey. (Cheers and counter cheers.) Do you think that because we happen to be Ministers we are not Englishmen ? the atrocities in Bulgaria. Do you think that because we, hap- pening to be Ministers of the Crown, pursue a line of policy 4 wliicli you do not like, we have not the feelings of Englishmen ? (Cheers.) Do you suppose that we twelve men are the only persons in the country who have not been alive to the horrors which have been going on in Turkey? (Cheers.) If you think that, or if you have let the country think that, you are grievously mistaken. And I am bound to say that you have misled the country, and led it to think that because we have pursued the policy that we considered right and just, we are more callous than you to the horrors of all that has been going on in Bulgaria. The right hon. gentleman says " No, no," but it is true. (Cheers.) I think these allegations against the Govern- ment are perfectly false. (Continued cheering.) But when you come to the meetings that have been held during the last week, they are not the spontaneous feeling of the country. (Cheers.) It is a matter of notoriety that they are meetings held for the express purpose of backing up those Eesolutions which the right hon. gentleman disdains to put before the House. (Cheers, and cries of " No.") Yes, and if the opinions of those meetings are to be gathered as the opinion of this House apparently is to be gathered, if all the horrors perpetrated in Turkey are to be j)araded before the country, if they are to be spokenofby the most eloquent man who can be found, if you propose Eesolutions containing some x^olicy to stop these horrors, and if at the same time you strike out the pith of those Resolutions, I do not wonder at your getting any expression of opinion at such meetings. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman has said that the policy of the Government has been ambiguous. I hope to show before I sit down that it has been as clear as possible, and has proceeded in one straight line. The right hon. gentleman said that no policy could be more deplorable than the policy of the Government during the last eighteen months. Eighteen months ! And in his very next sentence he said that when we went to the Conference at Constantinople the country had confidence in the Government. (Cheers.) Mr. Gladstone. — Confidence in Lord Salisbury. Mr. Cross. — I am coming to that. I thought that the right hon. gentleman stated that when the Conference went on the right hon. gentleman and his friends held their hand. Will the right hon. gentleman allow me to ask this question ? When was the meeting of the Conference at Constantinople ? And when was the meeting of the so-called Conference at St. James's Hall? Did they not stay hands ? (Cheers.) How long did they stay their hands ? If you compare dates you will find that there was very little time between the two to stay their hands in. The right hon. gentleman says that he had confidence in Lord Salisbury and the proposals he made at the Conference. Now, if there has been one thino^ as^ainst which Ena-lish- , UIUC men ouglit to protest, it is when an attempt is made to separate one member of the Cabinet from the others. (Much cheering.) Yes ! this attempt to separate Lord Salisbury from the other members of the Cabinet led some people to believe that the Cabinet were not united until the publication of the Blue-books, when all these castles in the air fell to pieces, and it was shown that every word uttered by Lord Salisbury expressed the firm declarations of the united Cabinet that sent him out and gave him his instructions. The right hon. gentleman has said there was a power behind Lord Salisbury which had previously determined that he should not succeed. I tell the right hon. gentleman that a person holding his position in this House, unless he has some evidence to bring before the House, ought not to make such a state- ment. (Loud cheers, during which Mr. Gladstone pointed to the Blue-books lying on the table before him.) I repeat, that unless he has some evidence to prove the fact, he has no right whatever to make that statement. Nay, more, I will prove to him before I sit down that the statement is untrue, and that no such charge can be made or ever ought to have been made. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman says we had determined that the Conference should fail, and that it must needs have failed because we told Turkey that we were not going to enforce the decision of the Conference by arms. Now, I want to ask the right hon. gentleman if any gentleman who has taken any part in these meetings has ever put to the people of this country this question straight out — "Will you go to war?" (Cheers.) And that is the question which you shirk to-night. (Cheers.) That is the one thing that you do not dare to put to the country and to this House. Are you prepared to go to war against Turkey as an ally of Eussia ? (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman will have an opportunity of answering me. Let him answer that question if he can — not in a dozen or even a hundred sen- tences — but by a simple "Yes" or "No." (Cheers.) It is a simple question. It is a vital question. It is a question that admits of no deviation. It can only be answered in a monosyllable one way or the other. (Cheers.) Are you prepared to engage the country in a war with Eussia as an ally against Turkey ? We did not get at the answer to that C[uestion in a long wrangle of an hour and a half, when we heard that the third and fourth Eesolutions were to be withdrawn. The right hon. gentleman at considerable length went into the declarations of the Ministers and their supporters. To my mind it is perfectly marvellous, if you con- sider the enormous number of pages in the Blue-book and the speeches that have been made, that you cannot pick out one single sentence to show that we could have done anything that we have not done. The right hon. gentleman says that the Press, which has sup- ported the Government, lias to a certain extent jjrepared the country for war I want to know how, when, and where ? (Hear.) And what war ? The right hon. gentleman has spoken in reference to British interests, of the enormous territory we have, and says that when we speak of British interests being affected we can find them anywhere whenever we want an excuse for war. I hope to tell the right hon. gentleman before I sit down what those British interests are. Then he went on to say, and for the best part of an hour — I assure the right hon. gentleman I listened to him with attention and admiration, and agree in a great deal he said — he went on to spea.k of the massacres that had been committed. Well, nothing would induce me to say a word here or anywhere else in defence of the acts of the G-overnment of Turkey, which he has condemned. (Cheers.) I utterly abhor them from the bottom of my soul, and I speak not only for myself, but for every member of the Cabinet. (Renewed cheering.) I will not separate myself from the Government any more than will Lord Salisbury. The Government is one on that point ; and I believe that if a Liberal Government had been in ]3ower, with the right hon. gentleman at its head, they could not have felt more utter detestation of those acts than we have. (Cheers.) There is another point on which I must say a word, though it is going back to an old story — I mean as THE TEEATY OF KAiNAEDJi ] to tho Treaty of Kaiuardji. The right LIBEEAL EESPONSIBILITY EOE , , i i THE cEiMEAN WAE. ^^^^' gentleman has on every occasion referred to that Treaty. His conscience is not easy on the subject of the Crimean War, and he always seems to me to try and invent some way of escaping from responsibility in refer- ence to it. Well, to-night, again, the right hon. gentleman has fallen back on the Treaty, and quoted the authority of a great historian in suppo?'t of his view. But it happens that the historian was not attempting, in the passage Avhich he quoted, to describe accurately the precise extent and effect of that Treaty ; he was endeavouring simply to give prominence to the fact that the extraordinary fate was reserved for Turkey at that moment of being compelled to admit for the first time the intervention on the part of her Christian subjects of a Power which she had reason to believe was her deadly enemy. (Hear, hear.) If you wish to understand what the meaning of the Treaty was, not as an abstract question, but as a practical one, surely you should see what was the conduct of the Ministers who dealt with it in 1856. The right hon. gentleman has said that much correspondence passed on the c[uestion, and he referred to one person who, as he stated, knew more of Turkey, and had more influence in Turkey, and under- stood the question better than any other man — namely. Lord Stratford do Redclifte. The Ministers of the clay very properly took the advice of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe on this very point, and in his reply he wrote : — " As the Treaty thus evoked to serve as the basis of another more stringent and comprehensive one is doubtless within your Lordship's reach, I will only observe with reference to it that of the four Articles which alone, as I am assured, have any bearing on the subject, the 7th allows of a limited Eussian interference only for one particular church and its ministers, and of no direct protection at all ; the 8th relates exclusively to pilgrims ; 14tli accords to Eussia the right of protecting one specified church in this neighbourhood ; and the 16th applies exclusively to Wallachia and other Provinces restored to Turkey by the Treaty." Well, again, what said Lord Clarendon, who svill surely be admitted to be a high authority : — '* The whole question as regards Eussia turns upon the interpre- tation of the 7th Article of the Treaty of Kainardji by which Eussia engaged to protect the Christian religion and all its churches through- out European Tui'key; but so carefully did the Porte guard itself against any right of interference on the part of Eussia, that by a subsequent portion of the Article that interference was expressly limited to the right of making representations with respect to a church in Constantinople and to take those representations into consideration. But it is this unlimited interpretation of the Treaty which has been throughout insisted upon by Eussia, and for which she is now pre- pared to go to war/' He had yet another document to quote to the right hon. gentleman, and it is an extract from the views communicated by the Plenipoten- tiaries of France, Austria, and Great Britain, to Prince G-ortchakoff in Dec, 1854. They say : — " La Eussie, en renon9ant a la pretention de couvrir d'unprotectorat officiel les sujets Chretiens du Sultan du rit Oriental, renonce egalement par voie de consequence naturelle, a faire rccrire aucun des Articles de ses Traites anterieurs, et notamment du Traitc de Koutchouk- Kainardji, dont 1' interpretation erronce" — (cheers) — Yes, that is the point — " a etc la cause principaie de la guerre actuelle." That was an exact description of the case. Well, the question came to be debated in the House of Commons in 1856, and during the discussion an hon. member spoke as follows : — '• It is said that what the Sultan gives to-day he may revoke to-morrow, and that the Treaty does not give to the Allied Powers that right of interference which some hon. members think necessary for the security of the Christian subjects of the Sultan." And Avhat was Lord Palmerston's reply ? " I do wish," he said, " those who hold that opinion to remember for a moment the cause of the war. It was that the Emperor of Eussia sent Prince MenchikoiF to Constantinople with a 8 demand wliicli, if agreed to, would have given to tlie Emperor a right of interference in favour of the Christian subjects of the Sultan which was held by the Government of the Sultan, and by the English and French Grovernments, and admitted by the greater part of Europe, to have been a practical transference of sovereignty over 12,000,000 of the subjects of the Sultan to the Emperor of Eussia. (Cheers.) The war took place in consequence of the resistance of the Sultan to that demand ; and if the Treaty had placed that Firman of the Sultan under the guarantee of the Allied Powers in a greater degree than the Note of Prince Menchikoff required that the protection of Christians should be placed under the Emperor of Eussia, the only effect of a war commenced to maintain the independence of the Sultan, and to protect him against an authoritative interference of foreign Powers in the relations between him and his subjects, would have been to multiply by five the evil which he had previously resisted, and to give to all the Allies those very powers to resist which they took up arms to defend the Sultan. Therefore a war begun to maintain the independence of the Sultan would have ended in utterly destroying that independence." The course thus condemned by Lord Palmerston is the very course v/hich the right hon. gentleman wishes us now to take. He wants us to act in concert with Europe in the direction of coercion. The right hon. gentleman shakes his head, but it is true nevertheless. I want to call the right hon. gentleman's attention to this, for it is the contention of Her Majesty's Government, and it was the contention of the Government of which Lord Palmer- ston was a member, in 1856, that the fact of the Firman having been adverted to in the Treaty, and the issue of it having been recorded in the Treaty, would give to the Allied Powers that moral right of diplomatic interference and of remonstrance with the Sultan which, says Lord Palmerston, " I am perfectly convinced would be quite sufficient to accomplish the desired purpose." Who, I would ask, is responsible for anything that may be deficient in the way of power to clo what hon. members opposite want ? It is surely the Govern- ment which was in power in 1856, and if the Government of that day held the opinion Avhich the right hon, gentleman who has brought forward these Eesolutions now holds, they would have insisted on the insertion in the Treaty of a much stronger article than that which was inserted. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman further objects to the notion that the Treaty of 1856 was carefully revised in '^'^?/^..T'ri''i«^';'''^ '''''' 1871, but he seems to forget that he TUE TEEATY OP 1871. ^ was solely responsible for the last-named Treaty. He says further that the Treaty was passed in a hurry, and that England and Piiissia, who were parties to it, had no time to tliink of it ; at all events that Prussia was so much engaged in the French war that she did not even take the trouble to answer Prince Gort- chakoff's note. So far as Prussia or Ofermanv (call it which you will) is concerned, I am quite sure the right hon. gentleman's memory is at fault. He seems to forget that the Conference on which the Treaty was based was held in London at the express instance of Prussia, that it was Prussia which took the leading part in these negotiations from the beginning, and that at its close Her Majesty's G-overnment, of which the right hon. gentleman was then the leader, thought fit to express thanks to Prussia for the part which she had taken in the business. I hope we shall hear no more of the statement in reference to the Treaty of 1871 that Germany had no time to consider it. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman has thought fit to say the co>sTAyTiyopLE con- ,1 i ,1 T r TT TVT • J. » r< ^ FKEENCE : CONSISTE>CY OE tnat the policy of Her Majesty s Govern- ^^^ ^^^^^.^. ^^, ^^^ goveex- ment in reference to this matter has been ment. ambiguous, but nothing could be wider from the truth. He has said that the policy laid down by Lord Salisbury at the Conference was right, but that that was not the policy of the Government, and he has chosen to refer to some words which I used in the autumn, and to which I still adhere, as does also the Government. How does the case stand ? If any hon. member will look at the proceedings which took place before the Conference he will see how far we deserve the charge of the right hon. gentleman. He says that we put a stop to all the good that could have resulted from the Conference by telling Turkey that we would not enforce the decisions of the Conference by war. Let me remind him that the whole gist and basis of the Conference was that we would not interfere with the independence or integrity of Turkey. Does the right hon. gentle- man mean to say that when Europe had gone into the Conference on these terms she should have taken advantage of the position so gained, and then have turned round and said to the Turks, " If you don't agree to our terms we will go to war with you"? (Cheers.) I say that if we had departed from that basis we should have been guilty of a gross breach of faith. (Cheers.) The words I used in the autumn, and to which the right hon. gentleman has alluded, are true, and will be substantiated in the documents now upon the table of the House. What were the instructions which were given to Lord Salisbury before he went to the Conference at Constantinople ? In the instruc- tions given to Lord Salisbury before he left for Constantinople it was laid do\vn that : — " Pacification cannot bo attained by proclamations. Powers have 10 a right to demand in the interest of the peace of Europe that they shall examine for themselves the measures required for the reform of the administration of the disturbed provinces, and that adequate security shall be provided for carrying those measures into operation." And that security was eventually laid down in the proposition for an International Commission, and in the provisions as to the appointment of the Valis. When the right hon. gentleman says that our policy has been ambiguous, I reply that if ever a policy has been marked by two distinct landmarks, it is that of Her Majesty's Grovernment. What are those two distinct landmarks — and don't put them upon Lord Salis- bury, because they are the embodiments of the opinions of Her Majesty's Government, and are to be found in the instructions given to him before he left this country. The first of these landm.arks is as follows : — " Her Majesty's Government cannot countenance the introduction into the Conference of proposals, however plausible or well-intentioned, which would bring foreign enemies into Turkey in violation of the engagements by which the Guaranteeing Powers are solemnly bound." That is to be found in the instructions which were settled before Lord Salisbury went abroad, and it is one in which I entirely agree. The next landmark is also one in which I entirely concur, and it is as follows : — " Her Majesty's Government are resolved not to sanction misgo- vernment and oppression, and if the Porte by obstinacy or apathy opposes, the responsibility of consequences rests solely with the Sultan." It has been said by the right, hon gentleman that the Government has sanctioned the maladministration and oppression going on in Turkey. Let us look to the facts. The Conference came to an end, and let us hear what were the last words which Lord Salisbury used on that occasion, not as speaking for himself alone, but as the mouth- piece of the Cabinet : — " My duty is to free Her Majesty's Government of all responsi- bility. Great Britain is resolved not to give her sanction either to maladministration or to oppression. If the Porte, from obstinacy or inactivity, offers resistance to the efforts now being made to place the Ottoman Empire on a more sure basis, the responsibility of conse- quences rests solely on the Sultan." (Cheers and counter cheers.) That was the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and the question is whether they should hive gone farther or not. Bat after the Conference was brought to a conclusion E-ussia was still not at all satisfied. Kussia had then massed her forces upon the frontiers of Turkey, and she determined to take farther steps in the matter. In the Circular which Prince Gortchakoff sent 11 tliroiigLout Europe lie still felt liow necessary it was to maintain, at all events, the appearance of European concert, and therefore he made in it a remarkable statement which I wish he had always kept in view and had acted up to— namely, that European concert should be pre- served. The right hon. gentleman, in referring to the Protocol, seems to forget that Eussia was not the assenting partv to it, but was the originator of it. '^"^ ^^^^^^^ protocol a bus- I ^ ' o SIAN ONE. It was not a European, it was a Eussian Protocol. (Cheers.) Eussia at that time stood in full armour upon the frontiers of Turkey, and under such circumstances disarmament by Turkey was impossible, because the attitude of Eussia had excited not only the apprehension but the fanaticism of the Mussulman population of Turkey. I believe that it was the attitude of Eussia at that time that was the obstacle to the internal pacification and reform on the part of Turkey. (Cheers.) In all these circumstances Her Majesty's Govern- ment consented to sign the Protocol, not perhaps believing that it would effect much, but at all events, as it was there stated, in the interests of peace. (Hear.) \Vhat was the conduct of Turkey after that ? Turkey was not asked to be a party to the Protocol which was a document drawn by the Powers themselves, and in which they agreed to give her time to see what she could do in the way of reforming her government, reserving to themselves the right if she did nothing in that direction of future interference. Well, Turkey protested against that document, claiming to be treated as an independent Power, and protesting against what she considered to be a humiliation of her as a sovereign country. In doing that I think she was unwise (cheers), that she was blind — utterly blind — and foolish. (Cheers). She is now suffering for her folly, and I have not a word to say on her behalf. (Cheers.) Yes, but still the Protocol had held out to her that Europe would allow her time to see whether her promises would be fulfilled (cheers), and yet, almost immediately after that Protocol had been signed, Eussia throws it at her and holds it to her head as though it were a loaded pistol, and requires her at once to reply to it. Eussia said there was no guarantee that reform would be carried into effect, that all chances were closed against con- ciliation, and that there was no alternative but coercion. I entirely deny that. Eussia insinuated that she was doing a work on behalf of Europe. Now, Her Majesty's Govern- ment felt bound to protest against that, ^oud derby's answer to .^, PRINCE GORTCHAKOFF'S CIB- (Cheers.) 1 do not know what grounds cular. Eussia had to suppose that she was charged by Europe to carry out the objects of the Conference or the 12 Protocol. (Hear.) I maiiitain that Her Majesty's Government replied, not only with justice, but with dignity, to the letter which Russia sent. We said : — " Her Majesty's Government cannot, therefore, admit, as is con- tended by Prince Gortchakoff, that the answer of the Porte removed all hope of deference on its part to the wishes and advice of Europe, and all security for the application of the suggested reforms. Nor are they of opinion that the terms of the Note necessaiily precluded the possibility of the conclusion of peace with Montenegro or of the arrangement of mutual disarmament. Her Majesty's Government still believe that with patience and moderation on both sides these objects might not improbably have been obtained." (Hear.) Then we go on to say : — " But the course on which the Russian Government has entered involves graver and more serious considerations. It is in contraven- tion of the stipulations of the Treaty of Paris of March 30th, 1856, by which Russia and the other signatory powers engaged each on its own part to respect the independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire. In the Conferences of London, 1871, at the close of which the above stipulation with others was again confirmed, the Russian Plenipotentiary, in common with those of the other Powers, signed a Declaration affirming it to be an ' essential principle of the law of nations that no Power can liberate itself from the engagements of a treaty nor modify the stipulations thereof unless with the consent of the contracting parties by means of an amicable arrangement.' " I ask the House, I ask the country, whether Russia has performed her duties, under that Treaty of 1871? (Cheers.) Her Majesty's Government would willingly have refrained from making any observa- tion on the subject, but as Prince Gortchakoff seems to assume, in a Declaration addressed to all the Powers of Europe, that Russia is acting in the interest of Great Britain and other Powers, they felt bound to state, and I feel bound to state openly here, in a manner equally firm and public, that the Russian Government is not acting in concert with the other Powers. (Cheers.) If any Power has more than another prevented united European action, that Power is Russia. (Cheers.) Russia and Turkey are at war — war in a part of Europe which is the most inflammable you can conceive — in that part of Europe where every Power has an interest, and I am sorry to say an almost antagonistic interest. Of that war we feel the effects in this our own country at the present moment in the rise in the price of bread. (Hear.) War having broken out, the landmarks of the policy of the British Government are 'IovbbX?""'' °' '"' ^' «1^'»- ^« ^^^y ^™''° l^«f°^-«- Tliey have nothing to do with the war. Great Britain has declared absolute and strict neutrality. What the result of the war may be God only knows, but all the efforts of the British Government 13 must clearly be a3 far as possible to loaalisetlie war — to rodajeits area to a mininiitn. The hon. ni3mb3r for Birnilngliain and tbe rigbt hon. gentleman the mBmber for G-reeuwicli have talked about British in- terests, and the hon. member for Birmingham has challenged Her Majesty's Grovernment to point out what are the British interests which can possibly be drawn into this war. The policy of Her Majesty's Grovernment is one of strict neutrality between the parties. We warned them as long ago as May, 1876, that they had nothing to expect from us. We warnel them at the Conference, and since there has been no loss of time in the issue of our declaration of neutrality. So far, therefore, as it is a Russian and a Turkish war we have nothing to do with it. In the war between Russia and Turkey we are absolutely imj)artial. There is the first clear landmark. Whether that war will produce the results which it is supposed will be produced is another matter. Although our efforts will be directed to prevent that war from spreading, it is impossible for any one to say where it will stop. I am afraid that Russia, by the action she has taken, has assumed a most serious responsibility. Other nations may soon be drawn in — other interests may soon be involved. And there are interests that may be touched which technically it may be within the rights of belligerents to attack, but which j^ractically are altogether outside and foreign to the objects and purposes of this unhappy war. There are English interests, there are European interests, there are Indian interests, there are world-wide interests which may be concerned. We do not want additional territory — we want nothing. We wish this war had beitish interests defined. not broken out. Batoum and other places have been spoken of, but there is the Suez Canal, in which not only England, but the world, is seriously concerned. Why the Suez Canal should be attacked by Russia in any shape I cannot imagine. (Hear.) Whether attacked by Russia or by Turkey, that is a question of not only English, but European interest. It is the road from the West to the East of the world. Take another place in which not simply England, but the Avorld is interested. I mean Egypt. Alexandria is for practical purposes an English, a French — nay, a European town. No place can be of more commercial im- joortance than Alexandria. Is Europe to allow Alexandria to be destroyed or Egypt to be occupied ? Well, what am I to say about the Treaties as to the Straits of the Dardanelles and the possession of Constantinople ? Is it necessary for carrying on the war between Russia and Turkey, and for the protection of the Christians in Turkey, that Constantinople should be either attacked, approached, or occu- pied? I say "No." These are rjuestions which no country in Europe 14 could regard with indifferonco ;