The New York herald., 1877-01-21

through the relations of those people to the
rites of her Church. BY the most fragrant
and outrageous violations that the world
ever saw of her own pledges which were one
of the conditions of the treaty Turkey had
in October last forfeited every claim to the
protection of the treaty. If protection is
assured on condition of the performance Of
certain acts, and those acts are not per-
formed after twenty years waiting, how can
it be claimed that the protection is due?
Europe's protectorate over the Eastern
Christians instituted by the treaty had
therefore failed Turkey was not only out
side the limits Of the treaty as to her acts,
but she was so far outside the limits Of hu-
manity as to be in that condition when by
the recognized usages of nations she was
amenable to the restraints of force mdjeure,
no matter by whom applied; she had justi-
fed by her course the act OF any Power
that should invade her territory and put
her down, and such correction at the
hands Of Russia was imminent. Then
England, fully cognizant of all this. and
always equally eager to prevent Russian
activity in Turkish affairs. proposed the Con-
ference and appealed to the Powers to take
part in it ii order to reconstruct this lnpsed
protectorate. in order to place Turkey once
more inside those limits Of international
law within which the Powers would protect
her against the aggressions OF Russia but
Turkeys fiat refusal TO accede TO the terms
England had secured with such labor has
.,,, loxy aJ bar cop, y, 1atalv
For n prominent English journal to con-
template Turkey in such a case ms the de-
fender of treaties is a strange perversion Of
facts. 1t would argue great ignorance Of
contemporary history if such an explanation
were admissible. which it clearly is not.
But if an organ inspired within the tory
party puts forth particular view OF events
which cannot result from its ignorance, must
we assume that the view thus given is thrown
out rs the basis and indication Of party
policy? An inquiry in this connection
likely to make noise in Europe is, Did
England deal sincerely with the Confer
ence? We should not like to doubt the
straightforward quality of British diplo-
macy in q case like this. There are in
stances in diplomatic history where states
men have organized conferences to bring
nations to terms and organized the resist
ance Of the nation to the terms, and thus
played extensively double game, but this
is not in the spirit of English politics. 1t
is repugnant to John Bull to run with the
hare and hunt with the hounds at the same
time.
But English journals well informed de-
clare that some Power encouraged the
Grand Vizier to resist the Conference, and
it is declared in Constantinople that this
Power was England that while the Marquis
of Salisbury was with the Conference the
British Ambassador Sir Henry Elliot, under
instructions, more or less secret, from his
government, was with the Porte against the
Conference. Such views of the Conference
as we have quoted from leading tory organ
can but strengthen this impression. But if
there is any truth in this the Marquis of
Salisbury will know it, and he is the last
man in England to accept with impunity an
indignity such as this would constitute.
II such o scandal exist it will therefore be
impossible to smother it.