New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-05-24
ENGLAND AND RUSSIA.
VIE AGREEMENT FOR ARBITRATloN-IIo
MEANING AND RECEPTION.

tvpou THE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF THE IRlHushI
pAo" LONDON, May .;
IL cannot be said that the first impression VI M
GIadstone's peace with Russia is good one. ~
not even clear one. Nobody quite kno"o Or.
has been agreed on. or perhaps l should say %.
. ,s en- ,rord ooroenent. where Mr. Gladstone
and Russia are concerned, implying pein Isoo %
mucb. What Mr. Gladstone said IN 'no
Commons on Tuesday was tn's' o.hor +o nro-
M. a. .v,o Governments agree together W ply
vide means for any se eo them arising out of
ne anaaaement az Penjdeh the Brltl5 T @ th+
ment agreeing with the GoyernmehA oi on either
thew do not desire to see gallant oincers om liz
s;dSS mt nnon their trial. For this purpose uney
are ready 10 refer to the Judgment OF the
of n friendly State any difference when may .b bo
9nd 70 exist in regard to the Interpretation oil the
agreement between the two CABINETS of tIo a4tor
March, with view to the SettienehI " III. ny 6ttng
in mode consistent with the honor OF DOM olauo''
The House listened to this statement lhtehCi9'
Probably no single member of the House uhuer-
stood what il p cant 1t was received IN silence ny
the Oppositiou: with silence by the Liberals WIN
sit behind the Treasury bench. The hadica'S
below tie gangway cheered 1t; rs they WouIu n''o
cheered or some of them would, II MI. Oiaus'oho
had announced the surrender OF lndla 10 hussia
Sir Stafford Northcote at once asked what the pre-
else point is that is TO be referred to inedlatioh
He could extract nothing from Mr. Gladstone Dut ID
repetition of the written words he had previously
success. The attempt was renewed yesterday.
II came to nothing. The papers have discussed
the terms of the statement. No two of them are III
accord as to its meaning The feeling OF the cOun-
try seems TO me to be one of uneasy bewlldermeht'
With the possibility that any hour may bring
forth some disclosure of the real scope OF thlS
arbitration il would be rash 10 hazart n positive
opinion OH its merits; it is idle to resort to con-
lecture. But one must take the situation as one
finds it; as Mr. Gladstone has created 1t. do not
attempt to say what intention on the one side or
the other is velled beneath words that seem OF
studied ambiguity. There are. of course, persons
70 whom they seem clear enough. Lord Randolph
Churchill is one He found difficulty in de-
claring the same night that the Goyernment had
made base aud cowardly surrender. Lord Sails
bury is another To him 1t Is PLAIN that the
Government rushed into danger with light heart
and are now escaping from it with a light loot
These are but two ways of saying the same tnlng
Without Initiating the cOck-SureneSs OF theSe
noble lords, many friends of the Ministry hnd only
too much reason for anxiety in this turn of affairs
The one thing on which almost everybody agrees is
that the situation is in respect to which there
ought to be the clearest understanding expressed III
the painest words. What they fear Is that the
obscurity Of the words used reflects perplexlty OF
purpose This country is beyond doubt deslrous OF
peace, but of peace with honor with security Tor
the future, with indemnity for the past. These
things may be obtained under the present arrange
ment. but no man knows for certain whether they
will be OF not, ald dc ubt is stronger than nope.
In this as in other foreign matters there Is
difficulty in reconciling the declarations of the
Prime Minister ut different periods lie began by
describing the agreement of March 10 as an
arrangement. Last week he spoke of 1t as
solemn covenant Now we hear nothing more of
the solemn covenant. 1t has become simple agree
meut again, capable-as he was warned at ilrsi--ot
more interpretations than one. The only thing to
be referred 10 arbitration, taking Mr.. Giadstones
present language strictly, is any difference that
"may arise as to the Interpretation of the engage
ment But what said Mr. Gladstone last week.
We believed that it would be recognized as one
of the most sacred covenants eyer made DHtween
two great nations. aud that there would be
rivalry between the two towers 70 sIt ths 1cllent
that followed 10 the end, and how 1t had conc
about and who AMI where were the persons upon
when the responsibility rested.
And again;
Tire bloody engagement of the 3)th March
followed the covenant. shall Overstate notAing.
/ shall not purposey overSt3te anything. All
say is ths-that that wOeful engagement OF the
3Oih March Istinclly showed that one party or
both had either through illwl or through un.
fortunate mshap failed to fulfil the conditions OF
the engagement. ,
We con sidered and we consider it STILL to be the
duty OF both countries, land, above ALL Will say
forthe hOnorOf both countries-t0 examine now ana
bv whose fault this Calamity came about.
What / say Is that those who have caused such an
engagement t. fail ought to become known to their
own Government and to every contracting party.
Nothing could be more expressive and clear than
this language reiterated as 1T was, and every sue
cessive sentence pointing directly to the fixed
purpose of the Ministry. They had no doubt what
the agreement meant. The Ministry were then
resolved to sift the PeDjdeh incident to the end.
The Prime Minister SAID he would not close the
book till it had been determined how and by whose
fault it came about that the Russians mad attacked
and the Afghans had suffered In life in spirit and
in repute; how 1T was that blow had been struck
ut the credit and authority of a Sovereign, the
protected ally of England, who had committed no
offence II Russia refused to 60 into that inquiry,
refused to allow an examination into the conduct
of her officers, tho alternative, not declared III
words but signifed by the demand for Eli, 100000
of money, was war.
That was only last week Just seven days later
the House is told that the Government has no
desire to see gallant officers either side put upon
their trial. week ago, the question was by whose
fault it came about that the allies of England had
been butchered. To-day all thought of imputatiOn
on the gallant officers who butchcred them seems TO
have been put aside. The sole question is upon
the Interpretation of the agreement That and
that only is to be referred to arbitration. Cues
toned whether the terms of this agreement for
arbitration had not been dictated by Russia, Mr..
Gladstone declined to Many questions
have been asked; few have been answered. One
that might have been has not been put. ! should
have thought some one would have been careful
enough about the reputation of English officers to
ask why they should have been bracketed with the
Russians as possibly responsible for the attack
which not long since Mr. Gladstone described as an
unprovoked aggression by the Russians.
When arbitration was first mentioned as a means
of settling the Penideh difficulty, few EnglIshmen
favored it, few believed 1t would be adopted.