The Otago Daily Times. MONDAY, JULY 28, 1884.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 7004, 28 July 1884, Page 2

The Otago Daily Times. MONDAY, JULY 28, 1884.

The June number of the " Fortnightly Review" contains an article on " England's Foreign Policy," over the mysterious signature " G.," which has attracted the greatest attention both at Home and abroad. The intimate acquaintance with foreign politics which tho writer discloses, and the ease with which he goes to the heart of the subject lie discusses, are perhaps less remarkable than the literary merit of his vigorous style, and the tone of authority which he employs in making a proposal for an entirely new departure in our Foreign policy. Additional importance has been given to the article by a general belief that it represents the views of Mr Gladstone, and has been put forward aa a " feeler" for a new Liberal Foreign policy. The Times, indeed, fell into the mistake of attributing its authorship to Mr Gladstone, which it is difficult to understand, since ifcß pregnant, pointed sentences are very unlike the rounded periods which the Premier's flowing pen delights in. But this mistake, though immediately set right by Mr Gladstone, is very significant as showing the belief of wellinformed persons as to what Mr Gladstone's views of Foreign policy are. Since the Liberal Government came into office it would be difficult to say what the aims of our Foreign

policy have been. We have drifted away from the cordial friendship which Lord DeaconsPield established with Germany aod Austria without improving our relations with Russia, and we liav.ef truckled to France with the result that for a quarter of a century we have never been on such bad terms with her as at present. Iv Egypt we embarked upon a policy of Beacoaslieldian boldness, aud ever since we seem to Lave been trying in vain to withdraw from its consequences. We are in closer contact with Continental States than we have been for years past; with France the contact is so close as to occasion no little friction, and yet we have not a friend in Europe. We fully agree with the Fortnightly reviewer that it is " not so much opportune as imperative that Englishmen should examine their position."

The basis on which he founds his policy i 3 that the real measure of the interests of England abroad is to maintain the Empire intact. This, it will be noticed, in itself constitutes a marked advance upon the GoldwinSmith doctrine which threatened to be adopted by the Liberalism of the period immediately following Lord Palmerston's death. There is no question here of comparing the Colonies to fruits which drop off the parent tree as soon as they are ripe, nor of the " Perish-India" policy of tho Rusao - Turkish War period. To us colonists it is satisfactory to know that the Liberalism of 1884 recognises the importance of maintaining intact the vast Empire which Englishmen have created. Indeed the reviewer puts the case exceedingly well. " Our Colonies and our Indian possessions supply a genuine and growing national want. In thi case of other European countries this requirement is either unknown or else is artificially exaggerated* With England the existence of qualified colonists haa always been the antecedent condition cf the planting of a colony. Can this be affirmed of France or of any other European State?" We do not know that we have ever seen the distinction between the natural growth of English Colonies and the artificial growths of France and Germany so well put. Starting on this basis of the necessity of protecting and strengthening our Imperial d welling, the reviewer declares that the responsibilities of this homely mission are as great as we can undertake with any prospect of success, aud lajs it down that, to this duty our exertions should be confined. It is impossible for us to rival the great European Powers, equipped with an enormous military machinery. Let us recognise existing facts, says " G." We cannot take a leading part as a European Power. Let us discreetly scruple to intermeddle where we are powerless to control. Why gratuitously assume responsibilities for which we are unprepared, and encounter perils which we might just as well avoid? At present, he declares, "we are paying the maximum cost of a policy of intervention, and scarcely securing the miaimurn of benefit." Let us abnegate opposition as a European Power, and follow the example of America, which, in spite of a polioy of the strictest nonintervention, eagerly and persistently asserts the Munroe doctrine, enforces its respect, and exercises an influence in the councils of Europe, although it does not take part in them.

Such is the new principle—if new we can call that which ha 3 been often discussed before, though never laid down as a syatem. This is the new principle laid down to guide the Foreign policy of England. The mean 3 proposed to carry it out are not less remarkable. Germany, Austria, and Italy, it is pointed out, have nothing in common with England. Our paths lie in altogether different directions. So long as these Powers desire peace, it is prudent for us to co-operate with them. Else, the leas we have to^ay and do with them the better. It is ill playing with sharp knives. There remain Erance and Russia. " With each of these countries we have intimate and diversified relations. But they are not European; they are mainly Asiatic and African. French and English interests march side by side, elbow each other, meet each other face to face in every part of the world. Our relations with Russia affect the future, and may even touch the very existence of ourlndian Empire." It is therefore proposed that the main end and object of our Foreign policy should be the maintenance on a satisfactory footing of our relations with Erance and Russia. Constantinople, it is pointed out, is no longer on the road to India, and Germany aud Austria are far more interested in preventing Russia from establishing itself there than we are. Let us keep on good terms with Russia and Erance, because they are the two Powers with whose ambitions and interests ours come into contact;. We are impotent to prevent them from doing whatever they please, nor does it matter to us so long as their acquisitions are not made ab our expense. It is enough for us to be firm and determined where our possessions or interests are menaced.

These are the main points of the argument. It is a very plausible caae, elaborated with great talent. None the less is it radically false. " G." commits the same fault of which he accuses the nation. He does not recognise existing facts. An Empire such as ours cannot remain stationary within artificially fixed boundaries. To fulfil the law of its creation and of its existence it must grow. Else it will fade and die. There can be no standing still. If we do not advance we shall recede. The instance of the Pacific islands in our neighbourhood suffices to show the impracticability of such a theory. No one can suppose that Australasia will not eventually expand into these islands. No Government or polipy could prevent this. It would be as easy to make water flow up hill. Even the United States find it necessary to be constantly extending their boundaries. We are asked to take up the same attitude towards European nations which they have adopted. But is our position the same? They have plenty of room lo develop in directions where they do not come into collision with any European nations, and no European nation is likely to develop in their direction. With England it is quite the contrary. It ia our natural development which brings U3 into contact with France in the Pacific, aud there is no getting over the fact that our interests are opposed to those of France there, as in many other parts of the -world. Russia is developing rapidly towards India. " G." recommends that we should allow her to absorb Afghanistan, and take no notice until she knocks at our door and interferes with our possessions. If we are impotent to take a position as a European Power can it be supposed that Russia will treat India differently from Afghanistan 1 Shall we alone escape the consequences of our weakness 1 When you see a burglar entering your neighbour's house you do not open your door to him under the idea that this will induce him to spare your house. If it were possible, which it is not, for all nations to resolve to remain within existing boundaries, Eogland might adopt such a policy of stagnation, but until then it would be the policy of the ostrich. The

best defence lies in being ready to act on tho offensive at times. What is likely to be the value of a policy of conciliation towards Erance and 'Russia founded on our impotence ? It could but hasten the time when they would reach our frontiers and attack our possessions. It is foolish as well as ignoble to meet misfortune half way, but ir, is wise and prudent to be forearmed when we are forewarned. Not only do tho interests of Germany and Austria ia no Way clash with those of England ; their danger lies in the same direction as ours. Russia and France are, by the force of circumstances, the nations with whom they are most likely to come into collision, as they are tho nations with whom we are most likely to have difficulties. England, alone and isolated, may be as impotent as the Fortnightly reviewer believes. In that case it would fare ill with her when, having -allowed Russia to gain possession of the key to India and France to seiza the Pacific Islands, she had to defend her possessions from invasion single-handed. The facts which are so well brought out in this article seem to us to prove the advantage we should derive from a defensive alliance with Germany and Austria —an alliance whicli is natural, sines we all come from one stock; which is righteous, seeing that none of the parties are aggressive; and which might be depended upon, because there will bo advantages in it for all three nations.

Letters to the editor and other matter appear on our fourth page.

Our cablegrams this morning announce the resumption of hostilities by the French in Madagascar, where a pitched battle took place between French troops and the Hovas. The result is not, however, known. A severo earthquake haa wrecked the town of Masaowah, a town on the Red Sea, on the border of Abyssinia. Tho intelligence concerning the ffosten meat trade is not very cheering, the cargoes by tho Oamaru and Lady Jocclyn being reported as in an unsatisfactory condition, and a fall in the price is aunounced.

The match between the Australian Cricketers and a team from the county of Sussex haa been drawn in favour of the latter. The Australians had to follow on in their second innings. The play ceased with Sussex requiring 32 runs to win and six wicketa to fall, and it would seem as if the want of time had saved tho Australians from suffering another defeat.

The Zealandia, with the San Francisco mail on board, arrived at Auckland at 1 p.m. yesterday. Amongst the passengers by the Zealandia for Sydney are the English poet, Gerald Massey, and General Sheridan, of the United States Army. The name of Mr Denniston appears among the passengers for New Zealand.

Yesterday was ths most miserable day of the present winter. The change set in on Saturday afternoon, and all the evening a strong cold south-wester, with a good deal of rain' prevailed. This lasted all day yesterday, and kept people indoors, so that the various places of Divine worship were poorly attended. The rain was almost continuous all day, but in the evening it ceased for a time, though occa. sional heavy showers were experienced duiiag the night. As will be seen from our telegrams the weather at Timaru and Christchurch was if anything worse than here, for heavy snow fell on the neighbouring hills. Our country exchanges inform us that heavy snow fell during Wednesday night, and at Naseby there waa about a foot of snow on the ground on Thursday