CORRESPONDENCE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 302, 20 December 1881, Page 4

CORRESPONDENCE.

To THE EdITOE OF THE " EVENING MAIL .'' Sik,— May I ask you to publish the followingreplyto your correspondent ••Historicus'-'? There are two points to which I will principally confine my remarks. The effect : the occupatioa of Constantinople hy Russia J would bave hnd upon the European Powers, and the intention or not of Russia to occupy the capital. We will take the latter first. Why should Russia press forward with a powerful force on Constantinople if she did not intend to occupy, and why f*arther, was a corps d' arrr.e; detached from the main hody and ordered «-■ >o>it~ for G._.lipoK ? I as-Tf-e with '• Hir-toricas " that a permanent Miii-cnvite occupation of the city would not have been allowed ; it was an impossibility, and therefr.re is not the point. But an occupation of Constantinople by a Russian army even for :*. short time could not be permitted hy England ; and for this reason— a treaty wou'd have been extorted from Turkey of more benefit to Kussiu even than that secured by the San titefano arrangement ; and the more advantageous to the latter Power, the more detrimental to English interests. The annexation of a-^ large a part of Armenia .ss he could obtain" was a principal object with the Czar ; the* establishment of Russian hilluence or a protectorate to the southern side of the Balkan?*, the cession of certain seaports, au arrangement in regard to the passage of the Dardanelles, all these points could have been more favourably discussed from the Russian point of view if she was in military possession of the capital, and a powerful menace to England, growing as time progressed, would be constituted. Now liussia had everything to gain, and how Mas she to know how a temporary occupation would be received by the Powers ? The Czar if necessary would and could defy An tria ; Germany would not interfere (but more on that point later on) England was alone uncertain, and would sho now depart from that policy which she had maintained for so many years, and which perhaps " Historicus " can tell us something I about ? ExptrimV.a docet, and Gortscbakolt" understood that proverb. These are my reasons why Russia should occupy Constantinople. Ido not mean to say the terms concluded would have been exactly those I I have pointed out, I have only endeavoured to show that the conqueror could have gained a more favourable treaty, and that it wouid Have heen suicidal for England to allow a state of things to come into existence which sooner or later would have demanded her anxious attention. Now in regard to the point, was an occupation intended ? Russia J stopped in her advance when our ships anchored off Gallipoli and Constantinople ; that is a fact and wiil admit of no compromise. Of course my opponent can argue she would ouly have gone a few miles further and not entered, but how can that be proved, and was it consistent with her conduct up to that time '? Onr duty in moral accordance witli the treaty, our policy was to prevent a foreign occupation even for a day. Did we carry it on and how ? What number of lives were lost in the attempt ? I will cow touch aa briefly as possible on the Sfieon-t point. Germany is tbe chief Power at issue. "Historicus" only oonsiders my allneion to the influence of France upon the policy as irrelevant, and he farther thinks that, England and Germany acting together, France dare not take advantage of the latter. Would tbat combination prove so serious when it waa employed in two foreign countries over a vast theatre of war, and farthermore, putting that on one side, did Germany e'.er give any indication that she would prevent an occupation of the Turkish capital. Russia would never have gone so far south if she had. The one great thing during the crisis was to prevent the necessity of movine- the armies of Europe. No one could tell what then would happen, blocdBhed must hava assuredly resulted, and I hold the principle that an Austrian's life is as valuable as any other m*.n's. Probably matters would so have resulted that England would have been compelled to have acted alone, and it wa3 her duty as it was in her power to adopt these measure* best calculated to ensure a peaceful settlement of a question in wbich she wss dec-ply interested and whioh threatened at one time to involve other na'iors besides herself. Before concluding I should like to notice one or two remarks cf n*y cprcnrr.t. He quotes the Eolemn pledges of Russii to support his arguments. Assurances frcm St Petersburg wpre worthless. At the opening of the campaign tne Czir irtiraated in so many word.*, \oi one kch of territory do I covet, and yet ei^ht months later the treaty of San St'fano w..s tbe resnlt; end tbere Is another r.otori',us violation of pledges on record v.-b.ich I -wili not mention now. Lorr. Derby did not resign tili there-serves had been called out, and as far as I can remember his words, early in Jan nary, IS7B, he informed the House of Lords *•"•* that he hoped to-mor-row to he able to inform their Lordships tbat the fleet was eff Constantinople " So it will be eeen that in oue of the chief measures of the Prime Minister in connection with the Eastern question he had the loyal support of his first Foreign Secretary. " Historicus " quotes a ryhme which found great favour with the rising generation a year or two ago, bnt he makes a Blight error in the last pronoun in the firat line, instead of "we" it Bhould read " you," "We don't want to fight, but by Jingo if you do. We've got the ships, we've got the men. and we've gofc the money too." I am sorry your correspondent does not like tho=e lines ; I think they are very practical, very true, and the sentiment pervading them admirable. The poetical idea ihat the Conservative party is buried with Lord Beaconsfield in bia vault at Hugbenden is so original. <-*o unconnected with the question at issne, tbat I meat ask your permission Mr Editor to leave its discussion to a future occasion. I am, Sec, Functus Orncio. Nelson, 16th December, 1881.