362 



GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 



field replied, Lords Cardwell and Salisbury 

 also making brief speeches. In the Commons, 

 after the address had been moved, Lord Har- 

 tington made some general remarks, and, re- 

 ferring to the Eastern question, spoke severely 

 of Earl Beaconsfield's speeches as opposed to 

 the sense of the country. The Chancellor of 

 the Exchequer vindicated the policy of the Gov- 

 ernment, which, he said, had been consistent 

 throughout, and Mr. Gladstone contended that 

 it had been shaped by the feeling of the coun- 

 try caused by the Bulgarian atrocities, and he 

 insisted that Turkey could not be allowed to 

 govern her European provinces free from Eu- 

 ropean control. 



On February 20th, the Duke of Argyll made a 

 bitter attack in the House of Lords on the Gov- 



ST. PAUL'S CATHEDKAL, LONDON. 



ernment. In the course of the debate he point- 

 ed out that the object of the Marquis of Salis- 

 bury's mission had been to secure peace in 

 Europe and reform in Turkey. Neither of 

 these objects had been attained. Turkey was 

 not reformed, and there was no prospect of 

 peace in Europe. He deprecated the unrea- 

 sonable suspicion of Russia which actuated 

 English policy up to AugusOSst. He admit- 

 ted that England had a great interest in the 

 neutrality of Egypt and in preventing Constan- 

 tinople from falling into the hands of any great 



European Power. But except on these points 

 he could conceive of no injury to Great Brit- 

 ain by any transfer of power from the Turkish 

 Empire. He pointed to the various instances 

 where European Powers, while professing to 

 respect the independence guaranteed to Turkey 

 by the Treaty of Paris, had interfered in Turk- 

 ish affairs in a way that showed they regarded 

 Turkish justice as utterly unworthy of confi- 

 dence. It was necessary to carry this argu- 

 ment further in the sense indicated by the 

 Marquis of Salisbury, when he declared the in- 

 dependence of Turkey might at the present 

 time be interpreted so as to be consistent with 

 the joint military and diplomatic action of the 

 guaranteeing Powers. The speaker concluded 

 with an eloquent appeal to the Earl of Bea- 

 consfield to mark the 

 close of his career by 

 procuring some measure 

 of liberty for the Chris- 

 tians in Turkey. 



Lord Derby, who fol- 

 lowed the Duke of Ar- 

 gyll, arguedthat the Con- 

 ference could not be 

 called a failure, since it 

 had undoubtedly been 

 the cause of consider- 

 able changes. The Con- 

 ference was summoned, 

 first, to maintain the 

 peace of Europe, and, 

 secondly, to improve the 

 Turkish administration. 

 " It cannot be said that 

 the peace of Europe has 

 been broken." What- 

 ever might be the value 

 of the respite which the 

 Conference had given in 

 this respect, the friends 

 of the Turkish state, 

 among whom the allied 

 Governments must be 

 reckoned, might be al- 

 lowed to hope something 

 from the promises of re- 

 form which had been 

 again made, this time un- 

 der circumstances which 

 would insure an attempt 

 to fulfill them. 



On the 26th of Feb- 

 ruary Lord Stratheden moved an address to 

 the crown, praying for the observance of 

 the treaties which, in his view, bound Great 

 Britain to maintain the integrity of the Ot- 

 toman Empire. The motion met with no 

 support from either side of the House, and, 

 after a short debate, was negatived. In both 

 Houses the opposition continued to question 

 the Government on the Eastern question. The 

 negotiations with the other Powers finally led 

 to the signature, on March 31st, of the Protocol 

 (see TURKEY). On April 26th, Earl Granville, in 



