The Globe. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1876.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 760, 27 November 1876, Page 2

The Globe. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1876.

The telegrams in Saturday’s and today’s issues on the Eastern question confirm the opinion which we expressed on Friday. Saturday’s telegrams stated that the Emperor’s speech has been received with great enthusiasm, and that the Russian press regard it as a reply to Earl Beaconsfield’s speech at the Guildhall. On referring to the telegraphic summary of the Earl’s speech, it does not at first appear that their is anything in it that requires such a counterblast. He said that the policy of the Government was the maintenance of peace and the amelioration of the condition of the Christians in Turkey and her provinces—the very object the Emperor professes to have in view. The policy of England he declared was especially one of peace, though no nation is more prepared for war, if the liberty or the existence of the empire should be menaced. Very harmless all this surely; indeed entirely justifiable and praiseworthy. Why the Emperor should say in reply that unless he obtained rightful guarantees he was determined to act independently, and he was sure the whole of Russia would respond to his summons, is hard to understand. But on reading again the summary of Earl Beaconsfield’s speech we notice his intention while protecting the Christians of Turkey and its provinces to uphold the integrity and independence of that empire. The integrity of Turkey means, of course, the preservation of her provinces—it means, indeed, the maintenance of the present order of things, so far as Turkey is concerned. Now this is just what the Russian Czar does not want—just what his policy has been endeavouring to destroy. Hence the covert threat contained in his speech. Hence the opinion of the Russian press that his speech is a reply to that of the English Premier. If this view of the speech is correct, we can see how readily we may be plunged into a European war over the Eastern question. There are two considerations, however, which we set over against the probability which w© have been pointing out. The first is the character of the new Sultan. He has, it is said, already given proofs of his moderation, and is making his personal influence felt with both his Ministers and the people. This kind of thing is said probably of every new ruler; but some of the doings of the new Sultan seem to justify the remark. Under his rule the Porte has ordered the trial of those implicated in the atrocities which had created so profound an impression throughout the civilised world; Mr Baring, to whose report we are indebted for a full and reliable exposure of the atrocities, has been appointed to try the miscreants. Another commission with £318,000 at its disposal, has been appointed to relieve the pressing wants of the sufferers from the insurrection ; and further, measures have been taken to rebuild the villages which have been burnt and destroyed. In these steps Europe cannot fail to recognise the desire to make amends for the cruel wrongs which had been inflicted upon the Christian villages. If the amendment is made in good faith it will go far to turn the tide of sympathy, and Russia will once more find herself without the sympathy of Europe in her sinister designs. There are other evidences that the Sultan is no ordinary man. He has already broken through the barriers of custom, which have been hedged about a Sultan for centuries. He has dined with his Ministers—an unusual proceeding; he has also partaken of a banquet, at which all the general and many field officers were present —another novel proceeding ; and, still more novel, he has but one wife, and has hitherto resisted every temptation to induce him to take a second. These are signs of the possession of common sense; and a Sultan, with common sense, may do much to stave off a general European war at this juncture.

The second consideration is this: Even if Russia wilfully goes to war to obtain the coveted provinces, still England may come te see that the Russian occupation of the provinces is not opposed to her own interests. The treaty of Paris has not been maintained in its integrity. One

part of that treaty was that Russian ships should not occupy the Black Sea. But when Russia a little while since refused any longer to be bound by this treaty, the English press advocated her view, and the treaty was violated. It was found that Russia’s occupation was not inconsistent with England’s interest. So it may be found that the Russian occupation of the provinces, or their autonomy under Russian protection, is not necessarily inconsistent with English interests. The tendency of Mr Gladstone’s pamphlet is to this end. The writer says : —“ We have acted as “ if she (Russia) had a present con- “ spiracy in hand, and as if the future “ did not exist or never could arrive.” And. he argues that as the Christian element in European Turkey is a growing one, and the Mahomedan a declining one, we are playing into Russia’s hands if we allow the other provinces to believe that Russia is their best friend, and England their enemy. The Russian demands on Turkey, a summary of which we publish elsewhere, must tend to confirm this opinion.