By JOHN ROSS-OF-BLADENSBERG, COLDSTREAM Guards. London: Hardwicke and Bogue, 192, Piccadilly. Price 1s. THE TURKISH VIEW OF THE EASTERN QUESTION. ALI SUAVI. A PROPOS DE L'HERZEGOVINE, 4to. pp. 17, PORTRAIT AND TWO MAPS, sd. 3s. PARIS, 1875, An enthusiastic partisan treatise by an eminent Osmanli, whose uprightness of character and opposition to corrupt government in Turkey, have forced him to live in banishment, but who is nevertheless as devoted as a patriot to the welfare of the Turkish monarchy. He contends that the Russians are not Slaavs but Turanians, that the Osmanlis are no more Turks than the English are Jutes and Saxons; that the Ottoman domination has been a blessing to Europe, by rising as an interposition between the Crusades and the memories of Oriental peoples; that there is an actual Osmanli nationality, powerful enough to defeat any attempt of Russia singly; that the natural tendency of fast-growing Misr (Egypt) is to support the realm of the Sultan and to identify its interest with the progressive Ottoman Empire. If only insurgents would not be so villainous, Muscovites not so cunning and treacherous, Earopean powers not so readily to believe ill of Turkey, all would be well and couleur de rase. Bernard Quaritch, 15, Piccadilly. A VISIT TO TURKEY IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, 1874. REPRINTED FROM THE DIPLOMATIC REVIEW" "ingentem foribus domus alta superbis By G. CRAWSHAY. OF Georgie 2, 461. "Diplomatic Review" Office, 31, Essex-street, Strand, W.C. Price Sixpence. THE ARMED NEUTRALITY OF 1780 AND 1800. Lost Work of the late ROBERT PLUMER WARD on the Relative Rights and Duties of Belligerent and Neutral Powers in Maritime Affairs. Reprinted from the Original Edition, with a Preface by Lord STANLEY OF ALDERLEY. Price Seven Shillings. Bernard Quaritch, 15, Piccadilly, and may be had at the Office of the "Diplomatic Review," ABROGATION OF THE DECLARALION OF PARIS. The Extant Speeches and Writings of Mr. URQUHART may be had separately at the Offier of the "Diplomatic Review." "Diplomatic Review" Office, 31, Essex-street, Strand, W.C. THE DIPLOMATIC REVIEW. "SO NATURAL IS THE UNION OF RELIGION WITH JUSTICE, THAT WE MAYBOLDLY DEEM THERE IS NEITHER WHERE BOTH ARE NOT.”—Hooker. The Ulemas and Notables of Philippopilis to Mr. Urquhart 166 Explanation of the Above To Sultan Abdul Aziz, for the Restoration of the Great To the Turks Studying in Europe The Catastrophe of Diplomacy Islam and the "Constitutional System" Permanence and Politeness . The Circumstances of 1853 reproduced in 1876 The Greeks, an Example to the Turks. Mr. Urquhart's Letter to the Decentralisation de Lyon THE LATE HUSSEIN AVNI PASHA Financial Peril of Russia Commercial Peril of Russia Maritime Rights and the Declaration of Paris THE MARITIME LEAGUE Meeting of the Maritime League CORRESPONDENCE WITH LORD COWLEY 167 . 170 172 . 172 for the Protection of Russia, not of Turkey. IN reference to the remarkable events which have happened since our last number appeared, two salient points present themselves. One is as to the nature and value of the changes in the Turkish Constitution, of which we hear so much, and before which the change from one Sovereign to another becomes quite insignificant. The other is as to the part played by the English Government in bringing about the events in Turkey, and the course which it is now engaged in pursuing. These two, it will be found, are in fact one. The touchstone for the M intentions of the English Government, and therefore the explanation of its conduct, is in the value of Turkish Reform. The downfall of MAHMOUD, the late Grand Vizier, and the deposition of the Sultan were not the work of the English Government. The first of these events would have happened last February instead of the other day, and the second would most certainly have been thereby rendered unnecessary, but for the direct interposition of the English Ambassador at Constantinople. The order for the dismissal of MAHMOUD PACHA had been actually signed when he went to Sir HENRY ELLIOT and told him that it was the Russian Ambassador who had brought about his downfall. The Diplomatist who represents the power and wisdom of Great Britain in the Capital of the Ottoman Empire, immediately fell into the trap. He went to the Sultan, spoke in the name of England, and thus, by engaging him to retain his evil and traitorous Minister, signed, as it now appears, his death warrant. Here, at least, was the semblance or the belief that the advice given was in opposition to Russia. But the mask was not long kept up. Again the Grand Vizier was about to be dismissed; and then the whole weight of European Diplomacy was brought to bear upon the will of the Sultan, and it was the English and Russian Ambassadors acting openly in concert who led the van! It was not, therefore, by any diplomatic intrigue that first the Minister and then the Sovereign fell. They fell because they had become the instruments of foreign Powers, and because the patience of a suffering people had become exhausted, while they had been enlightened as to the real cause of their sufferings and of the perils of their country. These domestic incidents took place immediately after the Berlin Conference of the three Emperors, which was paraded before all Europe as the power which was to decide on the fate of Turkey. Its conclusions-to which France and Italy hastened at once to adherewere the natural continuation of the plan laid bown in the Andrassy Note. The Berlin Note complained that the "reforms" which the Sultan had engaged himself to introduce had not been carried out, and the ultimate measures that should be taken in case of the present remonstrance proving ineffectual, were openly referred to. It must be understood that the Andrassy Note was not confined to dealing with the local affairs of the disturbed provinces, but in its ultimate conclusions took in the whole Empire, as will be seen by the following extracts : The Note, dated the 30th December, 1875, concludes by observations on the general position of the Turkish Empire. It foreshadows new elements that would come in in the spring to extend the insurrectionary movements, and then goes on to say that it is evident that, to wait for the result of the reforms promised by the last Firman, would only lead to fresh conflicts after the winter was over, and that the only chance of avoiding further complications lay in a display "by the Powers of their firm resolution to arrest the movement which "threatens to draw after it all the East." It continues thus: "But this end can only be attained by an injunction addressed to "the Princely Governments, and to the Christian populations which are subject to the Sultan. For this difficult measure to have any chance "of succeeding, it becomes absolutely necessary that the Powers "should be able to appeal to acts of a clear and practical nature, and "specially proper to improve the condition of Herzegovina and Bosnia; "in a word, their initiative must be able to base itself on facts and 66 not on programmes. There is another difficulty, and it "is the greatest, which must be overcome at any cost, if a favourable "result is to be expected. This is the deep distrust with which every 66 promise made by the Porte is received by the Christians. "The Cabinets, therefore, believe it to be absolutely necessary to "obtain from the Government of the Sultan that it should confirm, "by an official Commission, its intentions with reference to the whole "of the Empire, consigned in the Irade of the 2nd October, and in a "Firman of the 12th December, and that it should at the same time "notify to the Powers its acceptance of the points above-mentioned, "which have for their special object the pacification of the insurgent provinces. Without doubt the CHRISTIANS will not obtain by these "means the guarantee which they desire, but they will find a relative cr security in the very fact that the reforms already granted will have "been considered indispensable by the Powers, and THAT THE PORTE WILL HAVE TAKEN THE ENGAGEMENT TOWARDS EUROPE TO PUT THEM INTO EXECUTION." 66 66 An English journal, speaking of this document, said that "it gave a mortal blow to international morality; never, perhaps, in the history "of the world has hypocrisy been carried so far." Yet the Berlin Note does carry it a step farther. In the interval, what has happened has been, not that the Porte drew back from its promises, but that the insurgents refused to accept them. During this space of time the two criminal Governments have continued by every means in their power, to promote the insurrection which, in the Andrassy Note they solemnly declared they would put down. It is under these circumstances that the "Three Emperors assem"bled at Berlin, again defied all the instincts of justice hitherto "honoured among mankind, and outraged the face of heaven, by "threatening the Sultan's Government with armed intervention, "because it had not carried out reforms which its rebellious subjects "had refused to accept "-that refusal being, of course, brought about by the acts of the same three Powers. When the English Goverment did refuse to adhere to the Berlin Memorandum after having accepted the Andrassy Note, it might have been supposed to have acted under a sense of alarm at the consequences now seen to have followed so closely upon the presentation of the Note. This would have been in accordance with the character of Lord DERBY, and not unlike his proceedings during the Candian insurrection, during which period he went along with the other Powers up to a certain point, and then suddenly drew back. But it is not Lord DERBY that we have to consider in this case. Lord DERBY may refuse to act from the promptings of his own mind or the inclinations of his own temperament. When it comes to action, then we may be sure that it is the head of the Government who is at work, and it is his intentions that have to be divined. It is not the refusal of the English Government to join the rest of the Powers in a fresh act of intervention that has to be explained, but the order which despatched the fleet to Besika Bay-name of ominous memory. Mr. DISRAELI told the House of Commons that the Government had agreed to the Andrassy Note, because, had they not done so, the Porte would not have accepted it. He therefore held that it was desirable for Turkey that its Government should submit to that shameful and dangerous intervention. He also said that England could not stand alone. She now does stand absolutely alone, since France and Italy had joined the Berlin Memorandum even before the decision of England was known; the former, it is said, having done so, because it never doubted for a moment that England would take the same course. The question is a very simple one. Has Mr. DISRAELI changed his intentions, or has he only changed his course? The answer is equally simple and conclusive. He has not denounced the Declaration of Paris, he is throwing difficulties in the way of those who are labouring to bring about that end. Therefore he does not intend to oppose the designs of Russia. When he sent the fleet to Besika Bay the Turks were encouraged to believe that it went there to protect them. By the same act the belief was created that they needed protection. Then this protection was ostensibly offered to them on a condition, that condition being, the carrying into execution of the Andrassy Note with additions. The words now used are "a plan of radical reform." But what was the Andrassy Note but a project of "reform," and if to the amelioration of the condition of the Christians is superadded change in the constitution of the Empire itself, in imitation of Europe, then, indeed, is it as clear as noon-day, that Mr. DISRAELI, not being engaged in opposing Russia, is occupied in carrying out her designs. The need for speculation as to whether an English minister is or is not opposing Russia, arises solely from the circumstance, without precedent, of such a man as the present Premier having the power of England in his hands-a man who understands Russia, and therefore cannot become her dupe, and who, up to a certain moment, was opposing her. When the despatch became known by which the English Government refused to attend the Congress of St. Petersburg, we said of that event that it had no parallel in the past, and that as to the future, its effects were incalculable. But we also said: "In itself it is nothing. It merely puts us back to where we were "on the 28th of March, 1854, and cannot atone for, redeem, repair, 66 or redress the crimes we have committed, and the torture we have "inflicted, since that hour on the human race. For the Declaration "of that day has done it all. But if this be a commencement, then the "future may even yet be rendered safe; and a chapter of some future |