Central Asia had almost a whole night to itself in
the Commons on Tuesday, but the debate was not productive of much that is new. Mr. East-wick spoke a historical essay, instead of making a practical speech. Mr. Grant Duff, whose intellectual scorn is as great for all who neglect the study of facts as it is for those who form what he thinks a false judgment upon them, was, as a purveyor of in- formation, if not as a statesman, more practical than his opponent. As right in regard to the importance of Persia as the Under- Secretary was wrong, Mr. Eastwick spoiled his case by depre- ciating the Afghan-boundary policy, which, oddly enough, like everything of an active character, Mr. Grant Duff set himself to cry down. In fact, he seems as unable to read the situation as he showed himself to be in 1869. So far as Ministerial and ex-Ministerial opinions are concerned, the debate, if it has any effect abroad, must act as an encouragement to Russia. At the close, Mr. Gladstone confined himself to a brief explanation of the Afghan-boundary policy, in answer to the singular criticisms of Sir Stafford Northcote. On the whole, the debate was a failure, and calculated to mislead foreign nations as to the real drift of English opinion.
Previous page
