.

change so sweeping. I confess that I look upon that plan
of complete autonomy-a plan, that is, of the creation of a fresh
group of tributary States, as one outside the range of practical
politics. (Cries of "No, no.") There is not a single Government
—whatever its sympathies and whatever its ideas-there is not
a single Government in Europe which has at any time proposed
or entertained that scheme, and if I were now to propose it, I
am convinced that I should stand alone. (Cries of "No, no,"
and a voice, "Try it.") . . . But allow me to point out that there
is a very wide difference between rejecting, as I do reject, that
particular proposition as impracticable, and saying that things
are to remain as they were and as they are. (Hear, hear, and
loud cheers). It is quite possible, while rejecting the idea of
political autonomy, to accept the idea of local or administrative
autonomy. (No.) I do not particularly like the phrase.
is not an English phrase; it is very vague and elastic in meaning,
and for my own part I much prefer the plain English phrase of
local self-government. (Hear, hear.) But I take the word as I
find it, and I think in that direction we may look for a possible
and practical solution. (No, no.)

It

Towards the end of his speech, Lord Derby let fall a sentence which the Times1 regarded as the most important in the whole speech, and one which the Turkish Ministers could not too attentively study.

I do not at all wish to disguise the fact that what has happened in Bulgaria has, to a certain extent, changed the position, not only of our own Government, but of every European Government in regard to Turkey and the East of Europe.-Lord Derby, Sept. 27th.

The deputation retired, and proceeded to consider Lord Derby's reply:

Mr. M'George then moved the following resolution: "That the reply of Lord Derby this day to the deputation, in presenting the resolutions passed at the meeting held in Guildhall, is unsatisfactory, and that the policy enunciated by the Foreign Minister does not represent the convictions of the British people."

Mr. Hubbard, M.P., could not agree with the terms of the resolution, and for that reason begged to withdraw from the meeting. He heartily sympathised with the object of the movement, but thought it was far better they should endeavour to work with the Government rather than be antagonistic. Lord Derby had produced four or five separate propositions which he conceived to have been presented to the Government, but had never told them what his own policy was. (Oh, oh.)

Mr. E. Kimber seconded the resolution, which was unanimously carried, Mr. Hubbard, the only dissentient, having in the meanwhile left the room.

1 Sept. 29th.

Dr. Abbott moved, and Mr. Lawrence seconded, the following: "That this meeting is of opinion that the present agitation must be continued and enlarged, in order that the country may not be allowed to be committed by Her Majesty's Ministers to a policy which cannot issue in a permanent peace."

This resolution was carried, as also was one with respect to the early assembling of Parliament.-Report in D. T. Sept. 28th.

Lord Derby's words were everywhere eagerly canvassed, and compared with the speech which Lord Beaconsfield had delivered at Aylesbury a few days previously:-a speech which will be alluded to in connection with the new development which Opinion was beginning to undergo.1 Grave discrepancies were noted, which shook men's confidence in the Cabinet as a body agreed upon a policy capable of coherent explanation.

"One of the Deputation" wrote to the Times to explain why he and many others felt it to be impossible immediately to suspend the present agitation.

[He refers to the discrepancy between Lord Beaconsfield's statement, that the English Government reverted to the position occupied before the Servian war, and Lord Derby's admission that its position towards Turkey had been changed by what had happened.]

Again, Lord Derby, in his reply to us, used these words :"No decisive success having been obtained on either side, both parties may fairly and honourably treat the matter as a drawn game. He proceeded to illustrate the importance of this point by remarking that, otherwise, concessions could have hardly been asked from Turkey. But he was interrupted. A voice near me said, in a low whisper which penetrated the whole room, "Crushed." Not a word more was said; not a sound of applause was uttered, but everybody felt that everybody else understood perfectly what was intended. We were all thinking of the afterdinner speech at Aylesbury and of the wonderful utterance of Lord Beaconsfield :-"Turkey was triumphant; she had crushed these ungrateful subjects of the Suzerain."

...

If we cannot trust the Government for its own sake, can we trust its policy? I fear not at present. . . . The question of course turns, as you have repeatedly pointed out, entirely on the meaning of the word "autonomy." But here a little significant remark dropped parenthetically by Lord Derby, and not, I think, contained in your report, made a great impression on many of the deputation. After expressing his preference for the "plain English phrase of local self-government," he added, "You all know what that means." Yes, we felt we did all know what that meant; but it did not mean what we wanted.

1 See post, chap. xiii. § 3.

Your report states that when Lord Derby put the question to the deputation, who would be with England in her policy of giving genuine political autonomy, a voice answered "Russia." It is my impression that more than one voice made that answer. I believe that many others feel that the right policy for England is to seize this opportunity of laying aside her antagonism to Russia and of coming forward in the new attitude of joint protector with Russia of the interests of the Christian populations in Turkey. Lord Derby threatens us with a war from Austria. Some may venture to doubt whether the Magyar interests would be powerful enough to drive Austria into a war, discreditable certainly to her, and possibly dangerous; but, be that as it may, a transient and delusive peace may be dearly bought at the cost of a terribly increased war a few years hence. Amateur politicians must not venture to dispute with great statesmen on matters of political detail. But common sense might teach us that there is such a thing as borrowing peace at compound interest.

In conclusion, we would beg the Government to be more explicit if it has anything really satisfactory to say. We all alike, Liberals and Conservatives, misunderstood the intentions of Her Majesty's Ministers when they sent the British fleet to Besika Bay; how do we know that we are not misunderstanding them again-One of the Deputation in T. Sept. 30th.

I scarcely think it possible to exaggerate the profound dissatisfaction with which Lord Derby's last speech will be received by all who care for the future of Bulgaria. We now know that, whatever reforms and guarantees his lordship will recommend, he will not recommend that administrative autonomy which is the only real reform and the only effectual guarantee. We now know that the erection of Bulgaria into a fresh tributary State is "outside the range of practical politics" to the present Government as at present advised.

It is something, at least, to have the issue between the public and the Government brought to a clear, intelligible point; for, if I am not mistaken, the one thing which Lord Derby will not do is the one thing which the great majority of that public wish to have done, and will have done. What tribute may be imposed, what suzerainty may be retained, are matters of indifference; but Turkish rule must cease where these Turkish atrocities have been committed. [With reference to the objection that autonomy could not be confined to certain districts] Lord Derby has answered himself. Unless he means his local reforms to extend through the Turkish Empire, he must have some definite area in view for them. Let him propose tributary independence within the same area, and the present agitation will die away in praise and gratitude. Few of those who most unwillingly put themselves forward in this matter have any wish for a change of Government; and any meeting of Parliament would most likely, as Lord Derby points out, be too late to do any good.-Prof. E. C. Clark, in T. Sent. 30th.

If Lord Derby was reticent, it was certainly from no want of invitation to speak out; for seldom has less measured language been addressed to an English Minister. The Lord Mayor gave a clear and impartial account of the temper displayed in the City Meeting, as well as of the Resolutions which it passed. Some other speakers became unpleasantly dictatorial even at the moment when they said that nothing could be further from their minds than a wish to dictate. One was so indiscreet as to menace the Government with an outburst of something more violent than verbal indignation if it should not change its course; and another so far forgot that the courtesies of life should govern even a Deputation as to denounce to the Foreign Secretary some words recently spoken by the Prime Minister. . . . . . There are real objections to Mr. Gladstone's plan-objections which would be insuperable unless it were accompanied by other provisions for the maintenance of order; and, if Lord Derby correctly interprets the determination of all the Great Powers, there are also political causes, which, for the present at least, make it perfectly impracticable. The Porte, he said, would not withdraw its officials from Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Bulgaria, save at the bidding of compulsion. It would have been more correct to say that the Porte would not do so save at the united dictation of the Great Powers. The Porte would withdraw its officials even from Bulgaria if all the Great Powers were to say to it, in Mr. Gladstone's phrase, "You must." But Lord Derby assures us that such a joint command is out of the question. [He became much more vague on the subject of his own proposals. Until we have the precise character of the "local self-government" which he would apply, we practically know nothing of his schemes. Taking his own statement of the essential aims, certain securities are essential too. If both Mahometan and Christian could appeal from local injustice to a body composed of the Ambassadors of the Great Powers, the pressure of European civilisation would gradually be brought to bear on every detail of Turkish administration. The desideratum is to systematise the present method of putting pressure on the Porte by vesting the power in a regularly constituted and perinanent body. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe's experience has taught him that a bridge might so be built between the present and the future.] At all events local " self-government" will be the idlest of mockeries if applied merely by Turkish officials in Turkish ways, and the time has passed when mockeries of justice in Turkey could be safely tolerated even by Europe itself.-7. Sept. 28th.

The country has the diplomatic situation unrolled like a map before it, and those who continue an unpatriotic agitation henceforward must meet facts with facts, and plans with counter-plans. Vague declamation and loose political chatter have come to an end, with the simple exposition of events and views which was yesterday imparted; for the limits of what is practical now stand marked with a sure hand by Lord Derby, and it is inside these that sensible men will think and act. In answer to those

who propose to coerce the Porte. Lord Derby quietly explained that, so far from finding allies in this new crusade, one Power at least besides Turkey would stake its last florin and soldier against such an effort, while Russia has never countenanced so violent a solution, which would by no means suit her policy. These solid facts, which come from well-informed lips, will furnish eminently useful meditations to those who have been saying that we had only to " agree with the Powers" in order to make an immediate end of the Ottoman rule. If so desperate and iniquitous a policy could be even contemplated as the violent extrusion of the Sultan from his dominions, guaranteed to him by treaties as solemn as any extant, we should have to wage war on Islam with no allies, and with at least one certain opponent among the Powers. The intelligence just received of Prince Milan's timid and helpless surrender of his Government to the dictation of Tchernayeff, and the infamous infraction of the truce, seems to present a new situation but Servia must obey if the Powers command. In that case the programme holds. The status quo ante therefore as regards the actual conflict, and "local self-government," as a means of reform, in the European provinces-such are the bases of the policy of conciliation and amelioration which the English Foreign Minister explained to the deputation as that which he had successfully supported. . . . If Europe secures what is indicated by the programme still, as we must trust, approaching a happy acceptance, it gains a remarkable development in the Eastern Question, and the victims of the recent horrors have not suffered in vain; nor will the generous voice of the English people have been idly raised. If more is demanded than international justice admits or rival interests allow, we part with the great principle of gradual solution in the Eastern Question, and the price of our impatience must be war, costly, dubious, and dreadful. The British nation now know as much almost as the profoundest statesman, and we believe their response to this official explanation will be that of a reasonable and patriotic community.-D. T. Sept. 28th.

...

[Can the deputation be for an instant regarded as representing the City of London commercially, industrially, or in point of personal repute and influence?] The pretension is of course absurd in the eyes of Londoners, but use is being made none the less of such fictions by Pansclavic schemers. For us at home it is enough to see the divergence between Mr. Merriman's language and that of Mr. George Potter and the Trades Unions, to be assured that the kind hearts of the English working people have not really affected their brains. . [To those who differ from them the writers say] Your policy may be the right one; but-make no mistake about it-it is a war policy, and its inevitable upshot would be a conflict, beside which the Servian and Turkish struggle is dwarfed into utter insignificance.-D. T. Sept. 29th.