New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-04-11

mer frontier. He apparently forgets that
Roumania has some rights which the Euro
pean Powers ought to respect. Bulgaria,
moreover, according to his view, VIII
no more be under Russian control than
was Roumanla, and the arrangements relative
to the government of the new principallty
are only development of principles estab-
lished by the Conference. Roumania, how
ever, was organized under European auspices,
in accordance with the Treaty of Paris, ana
the process was not supervised by Russian
commissioners with an army of occupation
behind them; and, to say nothing Oh
the conditions of administration, the new
limits of Bulgaria differ widely from
those which the Conference suggested.
But while the reply of the Chancellor ID not
conclusive on these points, he sums
up the case admirably. He holds that
if the Marquis of Salisbury himself
recognizes that great changes are nee
essary in the treaties hitherto regulating
the East, he is bound not only to raise OBJ
jections to the conditions of peace but also to
present some practical basis of settlement. In
a word. the British Foreign Office must find
out what it wants, and define its policy with
out further ado. 1t must do something be-
sides hedge.
From the moment when the embers of revolt
burst into flame in Herzegovina down to
this day, the British Foreign Office has adopted
a deyiating policy of let-do, half-do and not
do. At every stage of recent diplomacy 1t
has gone half way and turned back without
doing anything. At one time it encouraged
the Porte to suppress the instruction OF
Christian Subjects and then recoiled with
horror at the CHASTITY work in Bulgaria. 1t
defeated a European alliance against Tur-
key at Berlin, and subsequently united
with the European Powers in the demands Of
the Conference 1t has alternately cOaxed and
threatened the Sultan. At ConstantinOple 1t
has proclaimed the doctrine of nOn-interven-
ton, while in Europe it has undertaken to en-
force the policy of none )erciOn and lnactl0n.
Unstable diplomacy such as this could lead
To nothing. The Nation il to-day in a humil-
iating position before Europe. without having
a definite policy in the East or a cause of war
which Engishmcn in their sober senses can
recognize. In the recent circular to the Great
Powers the Foreign Office admitted that Its
opposition to the Treaty of San Stefano was
not based upon the language of any single ar
ticle but upon the operation of the instrument
rs whole The Marquis of Salisbury has
been complimcnted for the frankncss aud
simplicity of his circular. But was 1t well to
turn British diplomacy inside out like a pocket,
and enable Prince Gortschakof to prove that
there was very little init :
That what are known rs British interests
are mcnaced by the success OF the Russian
arms and the impending dissolution OF the
Ottoman Empire, there can be no doubt; but
the dipomatists of St. Petersburg have done
their work well and secured themselves
at every turn. At the close OF Il
war undertaken in the name Of Europe
they can well afford TO be conciiiatory, even
in their bearing to their rivals in London.
The tone of the Chancellor is in this respect
excellent. His reply will make 1t easier for
the two nations TO come to an understanding,
especially when one of them cannot afford to
undertake another war and the other cannot
find a reasonable pletext for fighting.