THE DIPLOMATIC REVIEW. VOL. XXIV., No. 2, APRIL, 1876. "SO NATURAL IS THE UNION OF RELIGION WITH JUSTICE THAT WE MAY BOLDLY DEEM THERE IS NEITHER WHERE BOTH ARE NOT."-Hooker. Published on the First Wednesday in January, April, July, and THE DIPLOMATIC REVIEW. "SO NATURAL IS THE UNION OF RELIGION WITH JUSTICE, THAT WE MAY BOLDLY DEEM THERE IS NEITHER WHERE BOTH ARE NOT."-Hooker. VOL. XXIV., No. 2. APRIL, 1876. CONTENTS. PRICE 18. THE ALTERNATIVE for MR. DISRAELI The only Way to Defend India Lord Palmerston's secret and Posthumous Charges against Address of the Ulemas and Primates of Bulgaria to Mr. The Andrassy Note INHERITOR THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE INHERITOR OF NAVAL Speech of Mr. Butler-Johnstone A DECLARATION OF WAR AMONG THE TURKS MR. URQUHART ON THE ANDRASSY NOTE OF PAGE 67 68 71 71 72 The Part of the Times in the Conspiracy against Turkey Speech of Lord STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, on moving an Address for further Cor respondence respecting the Malay Peninsula. Reprinted from "Hansard." Copies may be had by the Committees on application to the Office of the Diplomatic Review. "ENGLAND'S MARITIME RIGHTS," by John Ross-of-Bladensberg, Coldstream Guards. We regret that want of space makes it impossible to give any review of this valuable introduction to the history of the Declaration of Paris. AT the time of the publication of our last number it was the purchase of shares in the Suez Canal which principally occupied men's minds. In England that excitement has been replaced by another which has also been the work of the same hand. Mr. DISRAELI purchased the F Canal Shares, and Mr. DISRAELI has introduced the "Royal Titles "Bill" into the House. Both acts are also connected with India, and have been defended as necessary to the holding of that great dependency of the Crown. The first of these acts has received very general support, and the latter has met with nearly as general disapprobation. Both have been sanctioned by Parliament, but the debates on the subject have not brought out that which is of real importance, which we hold to be this: the intentions of the Minister. The buying of the Suez Canal Shares was a step in the right direction, because it was an acknowledgement of the importance to England of that Canal. But unless it implied that all other means would be taken necessary to the end in view, namely, the keeping of India, it was not only valueless, but it was a deception. We inserted a letter in our last number on the Suez Canal, by Mr. URQUHART, in which he pointed out that the act of Mr. DISRAELI ought not to be considered either as an insult or injury to France, or as implying an abandonment of the Ottoman Empire, and an intention of sharing in its spoils: those being the two views of the case which had been put forward by Russia herself, and generally accepted in France and elsewhere abroad. The act of buying the shares did show the intention and capacity to undo the work of Lord PALMERSTON, who had first interposed to delay the making of the Canal, and then prevented it from being made by English money. But in the same letter there were indicated some possible events which, did they take place, would lead to a different conclusion. One of the events there spoken of has since occurred, namely, an identic note in regard to the Herzegovina, in which England has joined. It is in the new light thus thrown on the intentions of the man who at present rules over England, that we must consider his last act of bringing in a Bill to enable the QUEEN to assume a new title in respect to her Indian possessions. After mysteriously hinting all through long debates at grave reasons of State, "great political reasons why it should pass," he at last produced those reasons in his final speech, and they are-that the new title of Empress to be assumed by the QUEEN in India will preserve to England her Indian Empire! People have recalled the author of "Vivian Grey" and of "Tancred" in consequence of this act: but it is rather the author of "Lothair" that it reminds us of. That work can only be regarded as an audacious speculation upon the intellectual degradation of his contemporaries. He wrote extravagent nonsense, and he got a very large sum of money for it; for every one bought it. Now in his political character as Prime Minister of a great country, he propounds the theory that the march of a conquering power is to be stayed by the assumption of a new title by the Sovereign whose dominion is imperilled. The cynical spirit shown in these proceedings is very alarming; for it is impossible to predict what may not be done by or with a powerful Minister who rates so low the intellectual status of the country over whose destinies he presides. The Constitutional side of the question is too grave a one to be touched upon at present. But one word out of the wisdom of the past we will record. Sir JOHN FORTESCUE, in his instructions to his royal pupil, impressed upon him "how grave a thing it was to meddle with a new matter." The Alternative for Mr. Disraeli. IT is now believed that Mr. DISRAELI's views on the subject of our Maritime Rights are that, though the Declaration of Paris is a fatal measure, it is impossible to free ourselves from it. If this be so, all his apparently incomprehensible conduct is explained, is indeed made so clear that what he has done seems, when looked upon in that light, to be the only thing he could have done. He himself said on one memorable occasion, referring to the conduct of the Government during the Danish War, that Lord CLARENDON was the Minister of a country which could no longer enforce its decrees, because he had signed away at Paris the Maritime Rights of England. If Mr. DISRAELI has made up his mind that those Maritime Rights cannot be resumed, then is he a Minister who is obliged to act a part, for he has to speak in the name of a country apparently great and powerful, and which is, in reality, bereft of all power. A Minister who dares not utter the word "War" must so frame his policy as to avoid having to do so, and yet not appear to be coerced. But, it may be objected, on the last occasion of an Insurrection in Turkey, used like the present one as a pretext for foreign interference, England did refuse to join in an identic note, and Mr. DISRAELI was then also in power. Whence the change? The merit of the former refusal cannot be ascribed to Lord DERBY, for he publicly expressed his conviction that Turkey was unable to put an end to that insurrection, and when a deputation from the Foreign Affairs Committees spoke to him of the necessity of Greece being called to account, he replied that no one could advise Turkey to do that, for Russia would immediately attack her. The explanation of the change may be found in the progress made by Russia in Central Asia, and the conviction established in the mind of the Minister that the days of our dominion in India are numbered. His object then will be to hide this state of things from the nation under the appearance of a determination to resist Russia, and he will omit no opportunity of speaking of the necessity and the resolution to preserve our Indian possessions. Believing himself unable to take the only step which will preserve India, the abrogation of the Declaration of Paris, he will naturally be driven to do something else which may be represented as a means to attain the same end. Under such circumstances we may be thankful that it is only the buying of Canal Shares and a Royal Titles Bill that he has proposed, and not a new invasion of Afghanistan. What is to be done under these circumstances? Evidently there is |