THE ACT OF ALGECIRAS.
[To TITS EDITOR or THI "8PNCTAT011."] S1E,—I am no supporter of the "Union of Democratic Control," Bat no one who has the honour of knowing Mr. Morel can, without an indignant protest, read your sentence upon his book as a " muddy mixture of pride and ignorance."
I am unable to refer to your article of June 8th, 1912. But instead of hurling these epithets at Mr. Morel's book now, it would be more to the purpose to refute it in the light, not of the future possibilities of 1912, but of the accomplished history of 1915. I can hardly doubt that Mr. Morel has, in the course of the last eleven months, learnt that, whatever, in his opinion, were the faults of secret or other diplomacy over the Morocco matter, that unhappy country has reason to thank Heaven that it has come under the control of a French rather than a German Protectorate. The only point, however, upon which I venture to join issue with you is your assertion in the Spectator of June 26th that the Act of Algeciras was not broken. After careful perusal of the reissue of Mr. Morel's book, it appears to me that he demonstrates not so much that it was broken as that it was a dead letter from the first. And why? Because it was, on the face of it, unwork-
[Our correspondent admits that the Treaty was not broken but only "unworkable," and yet takes us to task for resenting the accusation that Britain was a treaty-breaker I If Mr. Morel and his supporters think that Germany is a better upholder of treaties than Britain, we can only say, in the words of the Russian diplomatist, "C'elit impossible de causer avec Int Monsieur comme pa."—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
