The Sun.
London, England, 1871-02-25 00:00:00

Wider whether a navigable canal could not be cut at
Adam's Bridge for the purpose of diminishing the
route to India, and although the committee re-
commended that the matter should be attended to,
the Indian Government had neglected it up to the present
time. He had recently visited the locality, and was in a
position to say that there was no kind of difficulty what-
ever in cutting the channel. The opening of the Suez
Canal had thrown the trade to India almost entirely into
steam vessels, and in a few years nothing but steam
vessels would be used, so that a diminution
of the distance would become a matter of
great importance to the trade of India.
Large ships had uow to lay five miles from shore, and if a
harbour was opened, a connection would be made by rail.
The resources of this portion of the country were very ex-
tensive, there being large quantities of cattle, meat, and
provisions of every description. He hoped the
hon. gentlemen who were members of Chambers of
Commerce, would take the question up, and press it
upon the attention of the Indian Government.
He regarded the opening of the Channel as an imperial
question, and the Government of Madras looked at it in
that light, for they thought that they should expend their
funds in canals through their own territory, and not en-
gage in an Imperial work. By the alteration proposed,
steamers would save 730 miles on the route to Calcutta.
The maritime condition of the coast between Bombay
and Cape Commerin was the worst in the world.
At thirteen different points lighthouses were required.
He believed that if the matter had been placed in the
hands of M. Lesseps he would have done in nine days that
which it would take the Indian Government nine years to
accomplish. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. B. SMITH remarked that now the Suez Canal
was opened it was absolutely necessary that this work
should be done.
Mr. EASTWICK having made a few remarks in support
of the observations of the hon. baronet,
Mr. GRANT DUFF said that there was no doubt but that

it would be extremely desirable to have a deep water
channel through the straits, but the question was who was
to make this channel? The Government of Ceylon had
hitherto considered that its subjects were not sufficiently
interested, in the matter to make it any part of
their duty to expend any considerable sum of money
for this purpose. Seve;al plans for this work had at
various times been submitted to the Government, but the
Imperial GoVernment had refused to do anything in the
matter. He had been given to understand that large
ships which had paid toll to pass through the Suez Canal
would not be willing to pay toll to pass through these
straits, and as to men-of-war, they would not be of any
advantage to them. Under the circumstances, he did not
think that it was within the province of the Imperial
Government to undertake this work. (Hear, hear.)
THE PRINCESS LOUISE'S ANNUITY.
The Sergeant-at-Arms appeared at the bar of the House
and introduced Mr. Justice Blackburn and Mr. Justice
Keating.

Mr. Justice Blackburn said—Mr. Speaker, the Lords
have agreed to the Princess Louise's Annuity Bill without
.any amendment.

The judges then bowed and retired.
THE BLACK SEA TREATY.
_ _

Mr. DISRAELI rose, in compliance with a notice of
motion, to call attention to the provisions of the Treaty of
Paris (1856) as to the Black Sea, with reference to the
statement on this subject lately made by the Prime
Minister. The right hon. gentleman said that
the
few inquiries he was about to make
had reference to the Treaty of Paris of 1856.
Ito was not his intention or wish to enter
any discussion as to the great principles in-
volved in
the subject. A more important thing could not
engage, in his opinion, the attention of Parliament ; and
in the right appreciation of the circumstances
connected with it, he would venture to say
that the future power of this country greatly depended,
and more than that, the future position of this country
with regard to a considerable part of the globe depended
•an it. This subject was not to be treated in a casual
manner. He believed that an hon. gentleman had given
notice to bring the whole question before the House, and
no doubt if that took place the House would listen to his
statements, and take up a discussion upon them with that '
interest and attention which the gravity of the question
required. But the remarks he was about to make were
rather preparatory to a discussion on the subject. Among
otherpoints he should like to decide to night if possible was
to ascertain, if he could, what was the avowed
objects of the Conference now sitting in London. At
present that subject was involved in an atmosphere of
ambiguity. The grounds and reasons given by persons
in authority for that Conference seemed to be various,
and to a certain extent contradictory, and the whole matter
seemed to be mixed up with so much mysterious
inconsistency that he thought no time should be lost in
getting at the state of affairs connected with it. He had
occasion to advert to the subject of the treaty of 1856 in
some remarks he made on the first night of the session.
They avere necessarily of an imperfect character,
aud it was not possible from the view he wished
thesn to impress on the House .to enter into any
great detail with regard to that particular treaty. He
had one object and only one in making those remarks.
He thought it was advisable, considering the great events,
the almost unprecedented events which had occurred in
the interval since the prorogation, that the attention of
the House should be called to the results of those events.
Ire wanted to impress on the House, that in consequence
.of those events,'there had been a great revolution in our
diplomatic relations, and that old ideas had become
obsolete. The balance of power was disturbed
in Europe, and in consequence, there had been
a repudiation of treaties by several states, and
of all the existing states which would suffer
by the deterioration of public morality, or the violation of
-Public law, England would suffer the most. They found
Russia repudiating the Treaty of 1856, and the point they
.repudiated contained the whole gist and the whole pith
'Of that treaty—the very question for which we struggled
and made great sacrifices and endured great sufferings.
-After the war had been waged for one year, Russia inti-
mated a desire that some understanding should be arrived
at, and the Government of Austria interfered with the
view of bringing about a pacification. After some com-
munication it was ascertained that peace might probably
be successfully negotiated on four points, the first of which
referred to the Government of the Principalities, the seeond,
to the free navigation of the River Danube, the third, to the
discovery of means for terminating the naval supremacy of
Itussia in the Black Sea, and the fourth to the future
Protection of the Christian subjects of the Porte, The
Conference took place at Vienna, Russia having intimated
her readiness to negotiate on those points, and thus admit-
ting the principle involved in them. The first two points
were admitted by Russia, and though the fourth point
was never brought under oral discussion, Russia inti.
mated that she would accede to it ; but upon the third
Point, when the Conference had to decide upon the means
by which the supremacy of Russia in the Black
Sea was to be terminated, great difficulty arose.
It appeared that Russia having admitted the principle of
the third point, the allies suggested that she should her-
'elf propose the means by which that result should be
attained. Russia, however, declined, and the question
arose whether or not the war should be continued. Both
Lord Palmerston and his Foreign Secretary knew the
responsibility which rested upon them, but the war was
continued another year. The victors did not demand the
Crimea; they did not demand any indemnity for the ex,
Penses of the war; but, as a full measure of satisfaction,
they insisted that the neutrality of the Black Sea should
he observed, and this was secured by the Treaty of 1856.
There was no reason to suppose that the circumstances
had since changed. When the statement was made that a
revision of the treaty would be asked for, Sir A. Bu-
chanan expressed to Prince Gortschakoff that be looked
k:1 the matter with a serious apprehension, and that 4e
k,Pected his Government wouldat once ask for his pass-
ibll°rt. Could the House therefore doubt that Sir A.
'"lehanan had been furnished with instructions from the
'overo.ment as to the course he should adopt. The Go-
l'ernraeut, finding themselves in a alif6Pult position, re-
Sorted to the extraordinary course of sending a special
-,-,11.v03r to Count Bismarck. Having referred to Mr. Odo
J-iussell's visit to Versailles, and having again drams at-
tention to the Vital importance of the neutralisation of the
Black Sea he alluded to Mr. Gladstone's reply on the
'night of the Address,when the right hon. gentleman joined
Issue as to the vital importance of the question, and
said that in 1856 he expressed his conviction
that it was impossible the treaty could be
naaintained. He (Mr. Disraeli) aiao pointed out the
statement of the Prime Minister that Lord CLarendon and
,i
rd Palmerston looked upon it as an arrangemek,,,t that
could not be continued. He complained that the Prime
Minister had been mixing up in his statement his own
()Pinions with those of other Governments, and he re-
tairuled him that when he made that speech, in 1856,
=against the infraction of neutrality in the Black Sea, he
Iv as not a Minister of the Crown, he was not the loader of
(4le OPposition, but ,belonged to a smail body who were