Sir William Harcourt at Oxford, on Wednesday, was neither quite
so strong nor quite so much in earnest as Mr. Forster, and his position on both the Dardanelles question and the Constanti- nople question was a little ambiguous, except that on neither did he expect Russia to ask what is commonly supposed ; but his speech was very able, its logic with regard to the Armenian craze as well- knit as a chain of wrought iron,—indeed he quoted Mr. Layard in complete refutation of Mr. Layard,—and in parts of the speech he ' was very eloquent. He quoted Lord Derby's repeated warning that Great Britain would not interfere to save Turkey from her fate, then showed how our Ambassador at Constantinople, Sir Henry Eliot, had argued that though we should never interfere
simply for such an end as that, we might properly shield Turkey on grounds of self-interest, even though the alliance of a half- barbarous Power involved the occasional massacre of 10,00a or even 20,000 persons ; and he recalled to his audience how warmly Great Britain had repudiated and execrated that doctrine, the moment it was advanced. He then proceeded :—" If we are to go to war for Turkey as the ally of Turkey, I suppose the officers- of the Queen are to be the brothers-in-arms of Chefket Pasha, and perhaps the Ministers might advise the Sovereign to confer the Grand Cross of the Bath or the Star of India on the man against whom she had demanded condign punishment in vain.. What a grand historical picture might be made of the belle alliance, in which the English General should embrace the hero of Batak on the plains of Tatar-Bazardjik I It might be hung up in the Foreign Office with the despatch of September 20, 1876, in- scribed on its frame in letters of gold, as a monument to the
of our arms and the success of our diplomacy."
Previous page
