BRITISH AND FOREIGN NEWS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVII, Issue 73, 27 March 1909, Page 13

BRITISH AND FOREIGN NEWS.

SPECTATOR SUMMARY. (For week ending 30th January, 1909.) TURKEY'S FRONTIER. The most important European news «of the week is that Russia has proposed to the other Powers that common representations should be made to Turkey and Bulgaria deprecating military measures on the Turco-Bvrigarian frontier, •or any suggestion from either country that the frontier should be rectified. This is a very welcome action, and it comes better from Russia than from any ottier country, as she has been in not•sMe sympathy with the new movement in Turkey, and at the same time she has a traditional friendship with Bulgaria. Bulgaria has given more or less -definite promises that she means to come to a peaceful arrangement with Turkey; but Europe was made anxious at the beginning of the week by the announcement that Bulgarian troops were being mobilised on the frontier. ■The excuse for this was that there were rumours that Turkey was about to seize -some strategic positions. There is not a shadow 01 evidence that Turkey had iany such intention, which, indeed, -would be opposed to the policy she has followed for many months. There is no doubt, however, thafe Turkey would like to secure a rectification of the fron»tier in lieu of part of the money compensation to be paid by Bulgaria, and a, proposal in this sense has actually been made' by the Porte, as stated in The "Times of Friday. , We can only hope ! tfcat in the circumstances Turkey will not urge this demand in the face of Bulgaria's determined opposition. As matters are at present, a shot fired by <» nervous sentry on the frontier might lead to the open conflict which all Europe earnestly desires to avert. No -exception can be taken to the wording of the proposed representation to Turnkey and Bulgaria, which is admirable in sense and in manner. AUSTRIA'S NAVY. In the 7ery valuable series of letters which Sir William White has contributed to our columns, he shows what a formidable navy "is in process of being built up by Austria-Hungary. Recent events are not likely to induce the Austrian* to modify their programme. Indeed, they are more likely to make them expedite it. x Nq sensible Englishman will, of course, dispute for one moment Austria-Hungary's right to create a strong Navy. If we were subjects of the Austrian Empire, we should, in view of Austria-Hungary's geographical position and the policy she has adopted, deem a powerful Fleet essential to our safety. But while we have no right to be jealous qi Austria's naval schemes, we are bound to take them into consideration, for they ' have a serious bearing upon our -retention of that command of the sea winch is absolutely vital to our national life. Though we feel nothing but goodwill towards Aus-tria-Hungary, and sincerely trust that the friendship which has for- so long existed between this country and' me dominions of the house of Hapsburg will never be broken, we cannot but bear in mind the fact that, while the Triple Alliance has been weakened in one direction, it has been strengthened in another.. There never was a moment when the ties that bind Austria-Hun-gary and Germany together were closer. That is not a reason for resentment or alarm, but it is a reason for careful consideration of the amount of naval power that must be maintained by this countryrin order to secure the command of the sea. With the additions which will be made during the next three years -to the fleets of Germany and Austria, their combined strength will be very great. It is true ..that Austria's Fleet is tied to the Mediterranean, but the aid it can bring her allies is hardly diminished by this fact. The existence of the Austrian Fleet would in the case of a war, with the allied Empires mean the retention by us of a pow«rf ul battle fleet in the Mediterranean, and a consequent diminution of our fighting force elsewhere. INCONSISTENT UNIONISTS. Lord Robert Cecil, who addressed the Marylebone Constitutional Union onFriday week, devoted his speech to the campaign of the Confederacy against the Freetrade Unionists. They were urged to quit the party or be driveii out. Personally, he had no intention whatever of cutting the painter. "He was, and always had been, a member of the Unionist Party, and was never likely to join the Liberal Party." He then proceeded to examine the credentials of those who claimed the right to .give this advice to lifelong Conservatives. There was the Morning Post, which treated even the question of Home Rule not as finally decided for Unionists, but as an open question, and which, therefore, could scarcely be regarded as a mouthpiece of orthodox Conservatism. He did not know who the "Confederates*' were, and he was ready to believe that they were in themselves a foolish and unimportant body of young men who greatly overestimated their importance in the affairs of this world. But they did not stand alone,' and it was more serious when a sober organ of the press "supported and approved their strange methods and anonymous attacks. Lord Robert Cecil then exposed the ridiculous inconsistency of those who interpreted his compact witE~his constituents as an insidious attack on Mr. Balfour's leadership, although they were the very people, who a few months ago were clamouring for t Mr. Balfour's deposition ! Even mbre astounding was the. suggestion that he (iord Robert Cecil) would, if given office, use his influence to. burke Fiscal Reform. Such suggestions recoiled on their authors, and showed the kind of mind from which they issued. Finally, he dealt with the familiar and self -destructive theory — on which the campaign against the Freefooders was largely based — that Tariff Reform could be forced on the" country,! by, a small Unionist majority. I A NEW PEER.' It was officially announced on Thursday that Mr. Sinclair, tho Secretary for Scotland, had accepted a peerage with a view to securing the presence in the House of Lords of a Cabinet Minister responsible for the administration of Scottish business. Mr. Sinclair's personal popularity has not safeguarded his transference to the House of Lords from adverse criticism in Liberal circles. In particular, the Manchester Guardian notes that a similar arrangement was repeatedly attacked in the last Parliament by the Liberal Opposition, whose view, as expressed in the debates by Mr. Sinclair himself, "was that, 'as the Scottish Secretary is the chief executive officer for ' Scottish affairs, and the entire power of administering the country is centred in him, it is necessary that he should be in the House of Commons.' Mr. Sinclair supported his speech by his vote, and took with him into the division lobby several other members of the present Government, including the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Burns, Mr. Buchanan, jwid the Solicitor-General."