The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-01-04

Earl Carnarvon's speech to the South
African merchants. synopsis of which was
published in yesterdays HERALD, has
attracted considerable attention. The
Colonial Secretary has been known as one
ofthe peace members ofthe English Cabinet,
and the London Times Of yesterday. in it's
leading editorial, interprets his remarks as
u reassurirg aud decided pronouncement of
a peace policy. The governments position
of neutrality, it declares, is now affirmed,
and the Secretarys comments on the in
sanity of reviving the policy Of tho Crimean
war is accepted as guarantee that peace is
to DO preserved at any price. But
the significant point in Lord Car
narvon's speech appears to have been
lett untouched by the Times. If, as
the Secretary announced, England is
resolved to insist on her right to distinct
voice in the final decision" of the questions
arising between the two belligerents, how
is the resolution to be maintained short of
war. should Russia persist in ignoring or
denying that right? The neutrality of
England has never been called in question;
but that has nothing to do with the positive
position the government seems to assume
the settlement of the questions that must
be decided before peace can be restored.
The special correspondent of the London
Times at Vienna meanwhile points out that
the Powers which have admitted that Rus
sin may negotiate separately with Turkey
have recognized the claim SO long made by
Russia that she has privileged position in
the settlement Of the Eastern question and
have abandoned their own assumed right to
participate in such settlement. England's
objection to separate negotiations between
the two belligcrclts is attributed to the
governments recognition OF this point but
it must at last decide whether it will dis
pute, single handed, Russias claim to con-
clude peace in her own way and on her own
terms, or will be content, as the other Powers
are, to make paper reservations or secure
guarantees. The difficulty with the English
government appears to lie in the lack Of the
moral courage to flee the real issue. Eng
land desires to keep up show of maintain
ing what she calls her rights and of pro-
tecting what she conceives to be her interests
in this Eastern question, while almost pre-
pared to abandon them rather than 60 to
war single handed to maintain them. If by a
pretence Of frmness or through diplomatic
negotiations she could gain the privilege
Of having voice in the settlement Of the
terms of peace her self-esteem would be
satisfied although her words should be
wholly disregarded. But Russia has up
to the present moment evinced no dispo-
sition to permit mediation or intermeddling
in any form, and has steadily and firmly,
if courteously, rejected all approaches tow
ard interference made by England. The
big words OF the English government would,
therefore, bear a warlike rather than a
peaceful Interpretation if we could believe
that they were to be enforced by deeds. If,
however, peace OF any price is meant, then
all talk of claiming voice in the settlement
| to be made between Russia and Turkey
should cease. Nothing is more certain than
that England will have to allow Russia to
conclude negotiations with Turkey in her
own way, without interference, Oh to cut the
thread Of peace with the sword.