A PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR:] SIlt,-I do not seek to reopen the controversy between "Middle East" and myself, but in the Spectator of June 13th he accuses me of discourtesy, which is always inexcusable in a controversialist; and he replies to statements which he imagines me to have made, and not at all to the statements which I did make. I send my Spectator to several friends in succession every week. I had thus no copy of my letter when the last Spectator arrived, and not recognising it in "Middle East's" representation of it, I sent to London for a copy of the Spectator containing it. It has just arrived, and I am sure you will allow me to defend my good manners and intellectual sanity by placing before your readers a few specimens of what I said in juxtaposition with what "Middle East" makes me say. First, as to my discourtesy. Not having the documents by me, I asked "Middle East" whether the Congress "did not thank the Czar for his spontaneous offer "; and I added that "Middle East's" quotation "is what I called, and still think, taking note of the Czar's offer.'" He now quotes Prince Gortchakoff's words : "I am authorised to declare that in virtue of his right of sovereignty my august master will declare Batoum a free port." "Commenting upon this statement," says "Middle East," "'le President [Prince Bismarck] constate rimportance de la communication que le premier Plenipotentiaire de Russie vient de faire au nom de son gouvernement." Your readers have now in juxtaposition my recollection of the Treaty and "Middle East's" indignant refutation. Let them judge. But where is my discourtesy ? It was not "Middle East's" facts, I assure him, which I questioned, but his interpretation of them. Let me now give two specimens of "Middle East's" answers to what I did not say. "In the Yangtse Valley and in Shanghai, he [` Scrutator '] now says, Germany claims equal rights with us.' But equal rights, I submit, are not preferential rights." But I said nothing of the kind. "Middle East" had said two things: (1) that Shanghai was practically an English town (I have not got his words before me); (2) that Germany claimed no preferential rights anywhere. I answered : "As to Shanghai, it was Germany, not Russia, which claimed equal rights with us there." As to the Yangtse Valley, " Germany has claimed not only equal but preferential rights with us these, and her officers are drilling a Chinese army in that valley." Again, I leave your readers to compare what- I did say with what "Middle East" makes me say. One more example, which is important, may suffice : "British capitalists, who, according to 'Scrutator' in their folly, have invested their money in China, have prospered exceedingly." The italics are "Middle East's." Let me now quote what I did say : "And if more British capital is invested in China than in Russia, that is due to the folly of British capitalists and the senseless Russophobia which has bred bad blood between ourselves and Russia ever since the Crimean War." In other words, British capitalists would have been wise to invest capital as freely in Russia as in China. A very different assertion from that which "Middle Eat" has attributed to me, with all the emphasis of italics. I referred to investments guaranteed by the Russian Government, which has never, as far as I know, repudiated its debts.—I am, Sir, &ea SCRIITATOR.
Previous page
