402 



GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 



the course they intended to take with regard 

 to slavery aud other matters. The Earl of 

 Kimberley expressed astonishment that a Brit- 

 ish Government could hesitate to declare its 

 determination not to tolerate slavery in any 

 place under its rule, and was referred to the 

 conduct of the Government with regard to 

 the Sultan of Zanzibar and the convention 

 with Egypt as sufficient indications of the view 

 they took of the slavery question. On the 

 same day Mr. Bourke stated in the House of 

 Commons that the Porte having expressed its 

 willingness to enter into a convention for the 

 abolition of the slave-trade, the terms of the 

 convention had been sent to Constantinople on 

 the 9th of June, and negotiations were now in 

 progress. 



Earl Beaconsfield, having returned from the 

 Congress at Berlin with Earl Salisbury, made 

 his statement respecting the proceedings of the 

 Congress and the treaty on the 18th of June. 

 The changes and modifications made in the 

 treaty of San Stefano by the Congress, he said, 

 removed the menace which it had contained 

 to the independence of Europe. After ex- 

 plaining the new provisions respecting Bulga- 

 ria and Bosnia, he defended the course taken 

 by the Congress with regard to Greece. This 

 country was animated, he said, by an idea 

 which had no limits short of Constantinople, 

 but it had a future and should be patient. The 

 British plenipotentiaries had been especially 

 nnxious that an end should be put to those ir- 

 ritating border warfares which threatened the 

 approaches to India, and they believed that 

 this could be best accomplished by a protecto- 

 rate of the Asiatic dominions of Turkey and 

 the transfer of Cyprus. It had been said there 

 was room enough in Asia Minor for both Eng- 

 land and Russia. This was true ; but the Eng- 

 lish plenipotentiaries were determined that the 

 room which England required should be kept 

 and guarded. In the debate, Earl Derby said 

 that one of the reasons which had induced him 

 to retire from the Cabinet was that his col- 

 leagues had come to a resolution to send a 

 secret expedition from India to seize Cyprus, 

 with or without the consent of the Sultan, as 

 also a position on the coast of Syria, from which 

 operations might be directed against Russia in 

 the event of a war with that power. This was 

 denied, but Lord Derby insisted on the correct- 

 ness of his statement. On the 22d a member 

 of the Cabinet stated in the House of Commons 

 that the Indian troops stationed at Cyprus 

 would be on the same footing as while they 

 were at Malta, and they would not be added 

 to the permanent strength of the army, nor 

 would the Indian army be recruited to fill up 

 their places. On the 29th of July the Marquis 

 of Hartington moved a resolution that " while 

 the House has learned with satisfaction that 

 the troubles which have arisen in the east of 

 Europe have been terminated by the treaty of 

 Berlin without a further recourse to arms, and 

 rejoices in the extension of liberty and self- 



government to some of the provinces of Euro- 

 pean Turkey, it regrets that it has not been 

 found practicable to deal in a more satisfactory 

 manner with the claims of the kingdom of 

 Greece and of the Greek subjects of the Porte ; 

 that by the assumption of the sole guarantee 

 of the integrity of the remaining territories of 

 Turkey in Asia the military liabilities of this 

 country have been unnecessarily extended; 

 that the undefined engagements entered into 

 by her Majesty's Government in respect of the 

 better administration of these provinces have 

 imposed heavy responsibilities upon the state, 

 while no sufficient means have been indicated 

 for securing their fulfillment ; and that such 

 engagements have been entered into and re- 

 sponsibilities incurred without the previous 

 knowledge of Parliament." In offering his 

 resolution the mover admitted that in the main 

 the treaty of Berlin was not repugnant to the 

 views of many members of the Opposition. 

 Although it was not a complete settlement, it 

 was a long step in the direction of establishing 

 the freedom and independence of the subject 

 races, the policy which had all along been sup- 

 ported by the Liberal party, and therefore in 

 the main they approved it. He then spoke 

 to the points mentioned in his resolution, and 

 characterized the policy of the protectorate in 

 Asia Minor as " insane." Mr. Plunket moved 

 as an amendment an address to her Majesty, 

 expressing deep satisfaction at the termination 

 of the war and the conclusion of the treaty 

 between the Powers; and "expressing an ear- 

 nest hope that the arrangements made and 

 sanctioned by her Majesty's Government may, 

 under the blessing of Providence, avail to pre- 

 serve peace, to ameliorate the condition of 

 large populations of the East, and to maintain 

 the interests of this empire." Lord Sandon, 

 speaking on the resolution, admitted that the 

 Ministers were in no mood to claim a great and 

 brilliant triumph, but that the sentiment which 

 animated them was rather one of deep thank- 

 fulness for having escaped the horrors of a 

 European war. The principal speech on the 

 side of the Opposition was made by Mr. Glad- 

 stone. He defended an expression that had 

 been complained of, to the effect that the 

 Prime Minister had dishonored the country, as 

 a legitimate criticism on his policy, and main- 

 tained that if such language could not be used 

 on necessary occasions, however painful it 

 might be to use it, the House of Commons 

 might as well shut its doors. He admitted that 

 the treaty of Berlin had achieved great re- 

 sults in the diminution of human misery and 

 toward the establishment of human prosperity ; 

 but, examining in detail the attitude of the 

 British plenipotentiaries, he complained that 

 they had invariably taken the side of servitude 

 rather than of freedom, and that the voice of 

 England had been made to speak in the tone 

 of Metternich rather than in that of Canning, 

 Palmerston, or Russell. The argument on 

 which he laid most stress was on the abuse 



