1875.]

Lord Russell on Foreign Affairs.

[51

generally allowed not to be in the highest state of efficiency, the prospect must at all times be most unwelcome.

On the 19th of April Lord Russell moved two questions in the House of Lords, one to ask whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs considered the correspondence between Germany and Belgium entirely terminated; the other, whether that correspóndence caused him any fears for the maintenance of the peace of Europe; and on the 3rd of May he again brought the relations of Germany and Belgium before the House of Lords, moving that an address should be presented to the Queen for copies of the recent correspondence between the Governments of the Emperor of Germany and the King of the Belgians, “with an account of the steps taken to ascertain the truth of the allegations referred to in the said correspondence." The Earl of Derby asked for delay, and the motion was postponed. On the 31st Lord Russell returned to the charge, asking this time for more general information as to the prospects of peace in Europe, the relations between France and Germany having assumed a threatening aspect. The contrast between the policy of this generation and that which prevailed 60 years since he declared filled him with concern. Referring to the Treaty of 1814, he said :-"I have been much struck with the great wisdom and circumspection and care shown, when that treaty was made, to preserve the position of Great Britain and place her in a situation of considerable power and influence." In the late war the Germans were successful, but had it been otherwise, "we should have been called upon to vindicate the faith of treaties, and uphold what we had taken a prominent part in establishing." The French Emperor had no scruple in declaring that he did not consider the Treaties of 1815 binding, and it would have been our duty to convince him that such a view was mistaken. The danger still remains. In 1870 war burst suddenly on the world at a time when the Foreign Office was congratulating itself that all the difficulties of Europe had been removed. Why may not a like catastrophe await us? This brought Lord Russell to a definite statement of his policy: "It appears to me, my Lords, that, with such a warning in remembrance, we ought at present to take means which would afford some security for the peace of Europe." In 1814 it was thought necessary to make a treaty, with Great Britain, Russia, and Prussia on the one side, and France on the other, in order to secure peace," and I cannot think that this country is safe or the peace of Europe is secure unless we have treaties, and see that our power in respect of treaties is fully maintained." Lord Russell gave something like a direct challenge to Lord Derby to declare himself. "I hope," he said, "that we shall not only receive the same assurances of peace which we did in June 1870, but that the policy of Great Britain in 1815 will be revived; that we shall see something of the spirit which was then displayed, and that this country will combine with other nations for the maintenance of

the peace of Europe." "My object in asking for this correspondence... is to see whether the old spirit which used to prevail, and which did prevail in 1814, has been revived."

Lord Derby, as might be expected, said nothing which could countenance these speculations. He said that Her Majesty's Government did on the occasion of the late crisis interfere in the cause of peace, and do its best to calm the feelings of mutual suspicion and distrust entertained by Germany and France. But no such engagement as that suggested by Lord Russell had been taken, or even proposed. The results of the intervention of England, whatever they might be, have been secured without the sacrifice on our part of our freedom of action, presen or prospective. The Government had used no language, entered into no engagement, given no pledges, by which their successors could be embarrassed or committed. Lord Derby did not conceal the threatening character of the relations between Germany and France a month before. His chief reason for declining to communicate the correspondence was that the points of difference were of such a nature that they were likely to recur, and that to give a wider publicity and a larger circulation to the details of the negotiations would be likely to revive and exasperate the irritation and uneasiness which are known to have existed. There could be no doubt, the Foreign Secretary remarked, that language had been held by persons of the highest authority and position, and statements had been made by the semi-official press of Germany, to the effect that the French Army had been increased to an amount dangerous to Germany. It was said that Germany did not desire war, but that if war was to be avoided, it seemed necessary that the French armaments should be discontinued. One of the greatest difficulties that we have had to encounter in the matter was that the French, on their side, seemed hardly able to understand or to conceive that these apprehensions which were felt on the part of the German Government were genuine or sincere, and that they I will not say the French Government-but the French people, undoubtedly looked upon these apprehensions as being put forward by Germany as a mere pretext for a fresh attack. Now, that was the situation with which we had to deal, and it appeared to Her Majesty's Government that in such a state of things a mutual misunderstanding existed which might lead to the very gravest consequences. Under these circumstances, therefore, it appeared to Her Majesty's Government that much good might be done by endeavouring, quietly and unostentatiously, to calm down these feelings of mutual suspicion and distrust entertained by the two countries. It appeared to us that when two great nations are determined upon going to war with each other, it is of very little use for their neighbours to attempt to interpose in the cause of peace, but that when the feeling between them is not so much one of violent irritation as of extreme mutual suspicion and distrust, there is room for the friendly offices of a third party. We did not

think that France was contemplating a renewal of the war, neither did we believe that the German Government were contemplating an act so entirely repugnant to the moral sense of Europe as that of rushing into an unprovoked war with the intention of completing the destruction of her former opponent. We found that the Russian Government were determined to use their best efforts in the interests of peace, and the late visit of the Emperor of Russia to Berlin furnished us with a convenient opportunity of supporting as far as support appeared to be necessary-the representations in favour of peace which we were led to believe the Emperor of Russia intended to make in the course of his visit to the German capital. That is substantially what has occurred in reference to this question as far as we are concerned.

Lord Granville thought it was for the Government to decide whether the papers moved for could with propriety be produced, though no doubt it was their duty to avoid committing the country to any line of policy until due information was afforded to Parliament. It appeared to him that the Government had acted in a wise and judicious manner. Lord Russell said he did not wish for the production of any confidential correspondence, but he thought the policy of the Government with regard to foreign affairs ought to be communicated to Parliament. The motion was then put and negatived.

Another Foreign Office debate, even more noticeable in respect of the events which took place on the Continent in the latter part of the year, was that on the condition of Turkey, brought on by a motion of Mr. R. Yorke's on the 18th of June. Mr. Yorke drew a very gloomy picture of the decaying condition of the Ottoman Empire, both as to her finances and administration. All the promises, he said, made at the time of the peace had been broken, and misgovernment and corruption were paramount throughout the country. He quoted an account of the Sultan's personal expenses given by Mr. T. Brassey, who had visited Constantinople the preceding year. Mr. Brassey had said: "The authorised Civil List of the Sultan is about 1,200,000l., and by means of various more or less arbitrary grants it is actually little short of 2,000,000l. a-year. All along the shores of the Bosphorus vast palaces and elaborate kiosks occur in succession at a distance of a a little more than a mile apart. Some of these buildings are furnished in the most costly style. The daily dinner of the Sultan -he always dines alone-consists of 94 dishes, and 10 other meals are prepared in case it should be his fancy to partake of them. He has 800 horses, 700 wives, attended and guarded by 350 eunuchs. For this enormous household 40,000 oxen yearly slaughtered, and the purveyors are required to furnish daily 200 sheep, 100 lambs or goats, 10 calves, 200 hens, 200 pairs of pullets, 100 pairs of pigeons, and 50 green geese."

are

Under the 9th clause of the Treaty of Paris, said Mr. Yorke, we had a right to interfere by friendly remonstrances with the

Turkish Government; and he now moved for papers, including a circular-memorandum from the former Turkish Minister, Fuad Pasha, who, when Lord Lyons in 1867 remonstrated on the nonfulfilment of the convention called the Khathy-Humaïoun, or Hatti-Humayoun, had given a reply, which was sent to all the Great Powers, describing the difficulties with which the Turkish Government had to contend, and asserting that she had done as much in the way of reform as could fairly have been expected from her in the time she had had for the purpose. Fuad Pasha died the next year, and incapacity and corruption again prevailed. The influence formerly exercised by Lord Stratford on the behalf of England had ceased to exist. The Russian Minister, General Ignatieff, was now supreme. His influence, founded on fear, was backed by Austria, and was exercised for evil. The Turks perfectly understood General Ignatieff's policy, which was to weaken them by every means in his power. He supported all the vassals against their Suzerain, picked quarrels through consuls with local governors, was intimate with the Sultan, whom he supported in his despotic acts, and might, indeed, be described as the Mephistophiles of Turkey. The German Ambassador, Baron Werther, was General Ignatieff's shadow, it being the policy of Germany to conciliate Russia in order to get her support in the West. Austria again had abandoned independent action, because her crippled condition prevented her from taking any unless she was supported by England. All she did now was to develop her commerce with the vassal states and Roumelia, for which she had to bargain with Russia, who, of course, demanded reciprocal advantages. Her commercial necessities had become Russia's political opportunities. The commercial treaties with Roumania and the diplomatic action of the three Powers in the matter of Baron Hirsch's railways resulted from this solidarity between the three Powers. The only country which counted for nothing at present was England. She certainly kept out of diplomatic intrigues and scandals, but she also had to forego the higher duty of remonstrance and advice on the general good and bad governments of the country which Lord Stratford discharged with such effect. England had abandoned her old programme, and the Turk looked in vain for his accustomed friend at Pera.

Mr. Baillie Cochrane, in seconding Mr. Yorke's motion, mentioned various signs of the deterioration of Turkey. Her revenue, he said, was 18,000,000l. per annum, while the interest upon her debt amounted to 15,000,000l., and the expenses of the Sultan's establishment were 2,000,000, which left only 1,000,000l. for the support of her Army, her Navy, and her Civil Service. The result was that loans were heaped upon loans, and the interest upon the old debt was paid out of fresh loans. That was certainly not a sound state of things. Contrasted with Turkey how did Egypt stand? Why, under two of the most enlightened men of the day, the present Viceroy and Nubar Pasha,

that country had within 10 years doubled her revenue, and, although 52,000,0007. had been raised by loans, every penny of the money had been expended on roads, railways, the Suez Canal, and other public improvements. The reason of the difference between the two countries was that Egypt was not governed as Turkey was, by foreign influence. The artichoke policy of Russia was to weaken Turkey bit by bit until nothing was left of her but the heart of the artichoke, which Russia could then readily swallow. With regard to the existing relations of Russia with Turkey, the policy of Russia was to establish ports for her own advantage, and which she could herself control. He did not advocate any undue interference in the matter; but, at any rate, the opinion of England ought to be expressed so that the whole world might know what was going on.

The disinclination of the Government to pledge itself to any course of conduct was indicated by the silence of Mr. Disraeli, while Mr. Bourke, making his reply as Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, declined to go into a minute discussion of the internal circumstances of Turkey, with which, he said, we had no direct concern. But, beginning from the time of Redshid Pasha's reforms, he showed how much the condition of Turkey had improved. All her engagements for internal reform had not been fulfilled, but that was owing rather to the backwardness of distant subordinates than of Turkish statesmen. It was our wish that Turkey should be strong and powerful, but that result was not to be brought about by our Ambassador interfering in her internal affairs, to which, indeed, the Treaty of Paris gave us no right.

Mr. Butler-Johnstone, in an animated speech, asserted that the Government shrank from its duty in limiting itself to giving advice when asked for, and that we had a right to interfere in order to press forward the execution of the reforms in the Hatti-Humayoun.

Lord J. Manners explained that for all practical and useful purposes the influence of England was as much exercised as ever, but we did not think it our duty to interfere in internal and domestic affairs.

Finally Mr. Yorke's motion was negatived, and the affairs of Turkey were dismissed from official cognisance, till a few weeks after Parliament separated they forced themselves to the front again with an urgency and persistency which no temporary caution could allay.

Another important subject of Foreign affairs brought under the notice of the House of Commons was that of the progress of Russia in Central Asia. Mr. Baillie Cochrane, on the 6th of July, asked for copies of papers relating to the occupation of the Khanate of Khiva by the Russians. In the recent debate on Turkey, he observed, there was a general feeling of anxiety and uneasiness with respect to the influence exercised by Russia; and