The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-12-02 00:00:00

WHY RUSSIA SHOULD NOT POSSESS
CONSTANTINOPLE.
(From. the Daily Telegraph.)

on the best
the of llinerna Les not intend
Is sa ti
Emperorf a o t o
authority, Although
to possess himself of eonstantinople, it is of far greater
moment that we should not rest under any millooncep.
tion respecting the relations between the Sultan's
capital and the interests alike of the British Empire
and of Europe. There are still tuany who cannot
understand how we are concerned in the ownership of
a city 3,000 miles away, and who think that our future
would not he affected were the Imperial city in the
bands of Russia. Tne error can only arise from an in
sufficient attention to geographical facts, or want of
capacity to comprehend their bearing. In the eyes
of the tourist Constantinople is a picturesque
metropolis, seated on the western shore of the BA-
phorus ; but regarded by the staesman and soldier,
it beoomes something more—a strong, perhaps un-
equalled position commanding the channel which
separates two coniintKits and controlling the inlets and
outlets of two seas. As the straightsort pitrrow and
.torni Aet

ma OP

ItvoliLit-1 .0.
t.;44

_
" 4;ia 4:1a41t

easily fortified it might readily be made the seat of a 1
formidable naval force. We have already described, 1
more than once, how nearly impregnable lines could be
constructed on its western front, so that in the hands
of a great aggressive Power Constantinople woul,i
necessarily become a military and naval centre,
radiating its influence, if not its arms, hun-
dreds of miles in every direction. By acquir-
ing this singular advantageous position Russia
for example, would be at once, and without
truing a further" blow, Mistress of the Black
Sea. The Tnrkish navy would falj withthe
Turkish rule J'here.:twould be no rihi %float to
the new eoureom the mouth of the Dardanelles to
the.Caucasus;!-- The entire command of the great trade
routes.would go .with the °Ai:that and a prihibitory.,
tariff Would be interpnsed between the West and the
East. The '! occupation" of Bulgaria if it were an
accomplished fact, would confer, so long as it lasted,
the mastery of the Danube, and during the period of
its continuance would constitute a "standing menace"
at the gates of Stamboul. But the seizure of Con-
stantinople would make it extremely difficult for any
other Power to rithstand Russia either in Bulgaria or
R minania. The'weieht of the authority established on
the Dareianelles and the Boaphorus would be felt
throughont Cei,tral and Western Europe, not less in
Paris than in Vienna, or in Rome less thau in Berlin.
Su far as llogland is directly coni:erned, she would
learn- first by increased naval estimates wharthe ac- -
..1 quisition of Constantinople meant ior her ;,for if eh, i ...'
?tided to rem.ik a great 11/41,..diterratilanOipvief, ih
ffeet in that inland sea Wank" have to 'be- double . 1

-Ottiste-consequences -would follow; to which, we mill
resently allude, but the earliest indications of an im-
ense change would come from the First Lord of the
dmiralty. Napoleon was not an indifferent judge of
ommanding positions, and he has left on record-his
bpinion upon that of Constantinople. Even, he said,
t.t St. Helena, if France possessed Egypt, Syria, and
be Islands, yet those territories would be as nothing
compared with what the Emperor Alexander would
have gained had he been permitted to seat himself on
the Bosphorus. If such were the estimate formed by
is French Emperor, how much more truly could it
applied to the situation by an English statesman en
trusted with the security of a great Oriental Empire !
Consider another aspect of the question. Europe is
busied about the fate of Roumania, the Danube, and
Bulgaria: but, assuming that &lade were mistress of
Constantinople—not merely the city, but the entire
position—what would be the Effect of that conquest on
Asia Minor? We have already said that the Black
Sea and the Straits from end to end would fall under.
the control of the Czar. No one could hold the Penin-
sula of Gallipoli who was not master of birth deleted
the Dardanelles; the Power which seized Constanti-
nople would certainly secure the Mediterranean 'gate-
way, and in order to complete the work Wald grasp
the Asiatic shore. It is, indeed, nearly inconceiv-
able that the possessor of ,Stanubonl would:rest
content without crossing the Straits and setting
foot in Asia Minor. At the outset, indeed, the
conqueror might be satisfied with the peninsula which
Is washed by the Gulf of izmid on one side and .the
Euxine on the other; but, as we have shown, the neces-
sity of holding fast the Dardanelles would impel him
to further extensions of sovereignty; and he would feel
an irresistible attraction, forced on him by military and
political exigencies, to plant his flag along the coast
from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. We ate
absolutely at a loss to percervo how it could be other-
wise. Once over the Straits, could Rtigoill- draw a
frontier line in Anatolia any more than she can in
Central Asia? Where could the Sultan fix the seat
Of his dominions? Not at Broussa—it is too near; and
if he found a capital how could he organise a State
itrong enutieh to resist his ancient foe? Russia ia a
Power having a great capacity for organising her material
and applying her moral forces. Mistress of the Euxine,
unassailable within the Dardanelles, having already a
stronghold in the Caucasus, Georgia, and what w-es
once rurkish Armenia, would anything able to resist
her be left, if she ttiought that her dominions should
extend to the coasts of Cilicia ? In any case the Sultan',l
II the Turkish Monarchy survived the shock, would be :
a va-sal of the Czar; but in all erobability the fall of
Constantinople would be followed at no remote date .
the conquest of Western Asia Minor. That would
mean the acquisition of fertile lands, vast, mineral '
treasures, and a splendid coast live. Thus, whatever
ilight be the consequences to the Continental Powers
n a westerly- direction, England would find herself
onfronted by a mighty rival established on the I
ink of her communications with her vast Eastern,
tripire. That would indeed be the case weeel
Russia to re4ist temptation and -rest eatisfie4 with
the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. But a Power
'which had gone to Kuldja and Khiva in search of
territory would not be proof against the infinitely
,
superior attractions of Asia Minor. ~, I
Since, however, we should stilt be able tbefrght,
the presence of Rus.ian ironclads in the Mediterranean, -
backed by naval stations in the south as well as the
north, would probably be the lesser of two evils. We
should still, at vastly increased cost, protect our high-
way to India through Egypt, and hold our own. But
U Russia were to become mistress of Constantinople
_ _

bet

by. 1

he would thereby strike a blow at British power which
Lo lavish voting of ()Ali, ates could repair. The
videly-spread empire of England, especially in the
)rient, is largely based on that moral force which so
povverfully assists the rifle and the cannon. Tilt might
re have exhibited has created a belief and a dread

Which frequently do the work of fleets and
armies. The sway exercised over India alone
by a handful of Englishmen exerts, whatever may be
its effecZ. in the West, a magical influence everywhere
east of the Red Sea. Nor is it only useful in preserv-
ing dominion • it smooths the pathways of trade and
extends the realm of commerce. What would become
of that influence, renown, and moral might were the
tale to ring through the East that the Rues had -dap-
tnred Rouse, as Constantinople is still af ten called?.
We should lose our position in every Oriental region.
The fact would be accepted, and rightly; as a signal of
British decadence, and the invisible force which has been
and is so great an auxiliary of Britain would lose half
its vigour. En every land—in Psrsia, Arabia, India,
China. Japan—the story would be told how the war-
riors who had overthrown the Khanates of Corral
Asia, who had preNed back the frontiers of Coins,
who had acquired possessions from Japan, and who
threaten to annex Eastern Turkestan, had expelled the
Moslem from Constantieople in defiance of Eogland.-
The tribes upon our Indian borders, the maicontents
within, would raise their heads and feel that they fa'eo
might assail a Power w hich did not know how to defend
its interests. Our inaction would not be ascribed to
apathy, ignorance, or dislike of Turkish misrule:
it would be regardel as,:siSringing from fear.
If Lord Napier's march to- • Braidara planced
such a deep impression of British power how .
profound woad be the • effeat brought about by
the fall of 'Constantinople into the —hands of
Russia, known from Smyrna to Jeddo as our
rival in Asia! 7The • shock would run with
,eleetric
rapidity throughout the near as well as the far East,
and England would be the weaker by the immense
volume of naoral force which the establishment fif
Russia on the Bosphorus would assuredly sweep away.
We have put the case in this naked form, because so
many intelligent persons fail to understand how the
Pritish Empire would be affected by a Russian
cdnquest of Constantinople. Nor do we consider
Oat the solemn declarations of the Emperor
Alexander furnish any valid reason why the
Immediate and remote consequences of a specific
ant should not be thoroughly examined and ex-
- plained. At present we have only stated some ef them
with the succinctness demanded; but they obviously
admit of larger exemplification. The lull in the
Eastern storm may be regarded as favourable to peace
on solid and just foundatiors ; but that does not pre-
clude any one from looking into the deeper questions
which underlie the situation. If, however, peace is
less unlikely, there can be no doubt on one point—that
whatever weight may be attached to the Czar's inten-
icing, Bulgaria is two-thirds of the way to the goal of
iy Russian hopes, Constantinople:

--. .- -: --.
•
•
i THE LIABILItY OF A RAILWAY.
4 •
' COMPANY. . ,
.
In the Exchequer Divition, before thelord Chief
Baron and a special jury, the cause of "Foreman v.
Great Western Railway Company" has been beitd:'
and was an action to recover £1.65 for loss occasioned
by the non.ddlivery of 70 head of cattle within a reit:
eosable time. The def ndauts said they were relieved
from liability‘by the terms of , special contract.

Mr. Murphy, Q C., and. Mr. Grantham appeared
for the plaintiff; Mr. Matthews, QC., and Mr,:er.
Di2by for the defendants.. - ~ .. ,:- e
On the 29th of July., 1875, the plaintiff, a farmer at
Battle, Sussex, delivered 110 head of cattle to thi de-
fendants at Bristol to be conveyed to Battle. Next
morning 40, arrived at .their destination in due course,
but the remaining 70 were detained at Reading, and
did not reach Battle until the following day. In con-
sequence of this delay and the want of proper foci and
water the plaintiff said the cattle had been greatly
deteriorated in value, and he sought to recoup himself
for the loss. .
For the defence, reliance was placed upon the condi-
tion in the contract note signed by the plaintiff's
droverr at Bristol; to the Effect that on the cattle being_
carried at the reduced rate of charge the plaintiff
undertook to relieve the company from all liability in
ease of loss from delay or injury, except on proof that
it arose from wilful misconduct on the part of the com-
pany's servants. It appeared that the delay com-
plained of.. arose under .these circumstances :—At
Bristol the whole cattle were placed in eight trucks,
but the dompaby's eervants_ only affixed the name of
-the cAiiiiirteei with his residence, to Ion; bele:wee W 35
itiplained, out or:labels •' and the others were detained
iataeading. It seemed that if the company's servants
lat Reading had eximieed the. invoice which was
, eiitte.ched to lite- or the trucks they would heve found -
that the eight trucks ought all tp_kausane.,to Battle
but stithisneietitty;--afreeifir via—the mistake was dive
I covered, the cattle were forwarded on. - It Wae con- 1
inded that, although the es•impany'e servants might
eve been remiss in their duty, their negligence was
not such as to render the defendants • liable. --It wall
also said that there had been contributory negligence
on the pert of the plaintiff's diover who had charge of
e cattle.
- The Lord Chief Baron, In summing up, maid that
the first question was one of great importance not only
.to railway companies, but to the publie at large—viz.,
-..ivhetber, if a railway company undertook to convey a
"number of cattle from one point to another at a reduced
erste, and the coneignor brieg a party to thenontract,
-the company was relieved from all liabiiity for negli-
gence except such a.. arose from the wilful teicenduct
of their servants. Teat was a matter of law for the
determination of the Full Court; but he would take
the opinion of the jury on the question whether this
was a contract binding on the plaintiff. There was,
next, the question whether there was any negligence on
the part of the defendants' sei, ants in riot affixing
proper labels to the whole eight trunks, and also in net
examining the invoice at Reading. Fleetly, they would
say whether the plaintiff's driver had b.-en guilty of
contributory negligence. If they were of opinion that
there had been negligence on the part of the defendants,
'they would. say. what damage the plaintiff had Luz- '
tained. Fry .) , 3qc._:,• I
rile jury, after a long consultation in their private I
room, totted that the contract signed by the plaintiff'
drover was binding upon the plaintiff; that labels
should have been placed upon each of the trucks with
the name of the consignee and the place of destination;
that it MO the duty of the defendant's servants, in the
J • idi, l G 6 16: . . •;,S- • ' - t - •

4104 ..tga f icy
MOO .Q2ll

Batt! ; 1. won