numerous cases by overwhelming expressions of it in the country generally, which legitimately conveyed the wishes of the people to that body which is their Constitutional representative. When questions of foreign policy, however, have to be considered, the case is entirely different. It is the right, as it may be the duty, of every member of the Commonwealth, in a free country like ours, to express openly and fearlessly his views on what he conceives should be the policy of the government of the day as regards internal questions affecting the rights and liberties of the people at large. But between such an open expression of opinion on internal questions, and agitations of a nature to mislead foreign States as to the real feeling of the country towards them, there is a vast and most material distinction. The reason of this is clear. In questions of conduct of the

home politics the views and Government, and the general objects to be attained, with the means of attaining them, are patent to all concerned; whereas in matters affecting the relations of this country with other Powers, none but those whose duty it is to

that public opinion, in a critical moment like this, should be practically unanimous as to the form which such action should take, and it happens only too often that differences of opinion on foreign questions arise rather from incomplete knowledge than from radical divergences of principle. I do not here allude to the premature judgments which have been expressed by some speakers of the Liberal party on the action of the The Ministry Government in the present crisis. Such judgments Opposition. are, in my opinion, only calculated to do mischief

and the

to the country, and are in no way compatible with the constitutional functions of Opposition. It is a fundamental axiom of our Constitution that these functions are, in their way, as much an essential part of the Government machine as those of the Ministry and its supporters. Some of the reforms which have so greatly contributed to make the British Constitution what it is have been achieved by the efforts of the Opposition, both in and out of Parliament. The value of such efforts is, of course, finally tested in the parliamentary arena; but the strength and tendency of public opinion have been shown in

numerous cases by overwhelming expressions of it in the country generally, which legitimately conveyed the wishes of the people to that body which is their Constitutional representative. When questions of foreign policy, however, have to be considered, the case is entirely different. It is the right, as it may be the duty, of every member of the Commonwealth, in a free country like ours, to express openly and fearlessly his views on what he conceives should be the policy of the government of the day as regards internal questions affecting the rights and liberties of the people at large. But between such an open expression of opinion on internal questions, and agitations of a nature to mislead foreign States as to the real feeling of the country towards them, there is a vast and most material distinction. The reason of this is clear. In questions of home politics the views and conduct of the Government, and the general objects to be attained, with the means of attaining them, are patent to all concerned; whereas in matters affecting the relations of this country with other Powers, none but those whose duty it is to

conduct the negotiations on the subject can possibly be aware either of their scope or their bearings. It is of the very essence of diplomacy that the details of a pending negotiation should not be made public; how then is it possible that the Opposition, which has no part in conducting the negotiation, can criticise and draw inferences from acts of which it can have no knowledge?

As to the conduct of a Government in the past, it is, of course, open to the Opposition to take exception to what has been done, and to urge arguments against a repetition of what they believe to be errors; but they have no right to assume, while negotiations are still pending, and must of necessity be kept secret, that the reluctance of the Ministry to imperil the success of its policy by disclosing it to the public, proves that it has no policy at all, or one opposed to the general wishes of the country. conduct as this can only be in the highest degree prejudicial to the national interests. There is, however, another fruitful source of divided counsels which proceeds from a want of sufficient

Such

information as to the facts which bear on our political relations with foreign States; and, in attempting to supply such information, I trust to be able to furnish some clear data for forming a judgment as to what should be our future policy in the present crisis.

Eastern

The first point which it seems necessary to What is the make clear is, what is the Eastern Question, and Question? how does it affect the interests of the various European States, and especially of England? The term "Eastern Question " may, in its broadest sense, be taken to mean, is the preservation of the Turkish dominion in Europe possible; and if not, who is to rule in the territories now under the government of the Sultan ? But it is usually restricted to the narrower issue of excluding those territories from the grasp of Russia. Much confusion has arisen in the course of recent discussions from the fact that one class of politicians in England have adopted the former of these definitions, while another class have looked to the latter, as representing the view of the question which is at present the only practical one. It must, indeed, be obvious, on a