I am really ashamed to trespass upon your space, but surely direct questions solicit direct replies. Is it not so? Besides, as I am leaving England in a few weeks, I will not trouble you again till next winter. When I read English comments upon my plain-speaking exposition of “Russia’s Policy in the East,” it almost seems as if it were a mistake to be too scrupulous. Russia’s great fault, in your eyes, is, it would appear, that she has been too virtuous. You actually blame her for her resolute resistance of temptation.

Such comment is not very well calculated to encourage us to persevere in the painful path of strict legality.

You upbraid Russia because she did not “anticipate the invasion of Crete by Colonel Vassos by making her present proposals with regard to Prince George.” This reproach is simply amazing. Why did we not propose Prince George as Governor before the Cretan invasion?

Pray let me ask you: What has been the reproach constantly levelled by Englishmen against Russia, ever since the beginning of the century? Is it not that she has been persistently trying to upset the tranquillity of the East, by pushing forward the pretensions first of one then of another Christian State? Has not our generous policy in the East always been suspected of some selfish arriére pensce? You have repeatedly said: “Pence would never be disturbed but for Russia’s continued interference. If Russia would only abstain from trying to alter the status quo in the East!” Yes, you declared emphatically over and over again, “Peace and tranquillity have no greater enemy than Russia.”

So well known was the inveterate suspicion of Russia’s policy and of Russian designs that it became practically useless for Russia to take any initiative in the affairs of Turkey. The fact that any proposal was ours sufficed for the English Government to condemn it.

That systematic opposition during a whole generation was, with a few generous exceptions, the watchword of your patriots.

It became absolutely necessary, in the interests of the Christians themselves, that Russia should persist in an attitude of abstention and reserve, nay, even of apparent support of the Turks!

Do you think for one moment that the pro-Armenian agitation in England would have been so general, almost universal, if Russia had taken the initiative in defending the Armenian cause?

I wish she had done so, even at the risk of alienating the sympathies of the majority of England on that behalf, but our Government took a different line.

The same thing happened in the case of Greece.

If we had taken the initiative and had proposed Prince George twelve months ago, everybody would have blamed us for stirring up the Hellenes to grasp their share in the inheritance of the “Sick Man.” We should have been accused of having given the signal for the partition of the Ottoman Empire, and with the exception of Fiance, all the Powers of Europe, England by no means excepted, would have refused to listen to the suggestion.

I ventured to remark the other day that England delighted, sometimes, in kicking at an open door. Perhaps, if it were recognised that Russia had withdrawn the bolt, all the other Powers would proceed to lock and double-lock the door.

Even now, when the display of continued hostility in the disturbed regions ought to have convinced the world that the situation has become too serious for obstinate inaction, Germany and Austria still strongly oppose the Russian proposal, which, nevertheless, is, for the above reasons, very opportune.

Alas! without the bloody battles and widespread misery in Crete. Russia would probably have failed to earn English support even at this moment. Russia buys her prudence at the cost of great and painful self-restraint.

Nor is this the first time that Russia has suffered reproach for her scrupulous adherence, both to the letter and the spirit of her treaty obligations and her diplomatic assurances.

Have you already forgotten the grave displeasure manifested by Russia when the union of Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia was illegally effected?

The division of Bulgaria was one of the cruellest blows ever inflicted by Europe upon the Russian heart. It brought home to us once more all the agonies and sacrifices of our beloved ones on the Balkan battlefields. With our best blood we had liberated the Bulgarians, and made Bulgaria free and united from the Danube to the Ægean. At Berlin Lord Beaconsfield, your then Premier, aided by Lord Salisbury, your present Premier, dismembered the liberated Principality, re-enslaved Macedonia, and divided Bulgaria from Eastern Roumelia. Thus was the crime consummated. The Treaty of Berlin was signed, and Russia has loyally honoured her signature.

After a few years that absurd and wicked division between the two Bulgarian was abolished by popular movement. The reunion of Bulgaria was accomplished by revolution in the face of Europe. The Russian people at large rejoiced, but the Russian Government, represented by that very type of perfect honour and truthfulness, the Emperor Alexander III., protested. In his eyes a treaty could not lose its solemnity without the declared consent of the participating parties. At first many amongst us, I confess, regretted the attitude of our beloved Emperor. But honesty was the best policy after all. For if we had supported, instead of having opposed, the reunion of Eastern Roumelia with Bulgaria, Europe would have been absolutely certain that we had promoted the rising in the hope of fishing in troubled waters and of tearing up the cursed Treaty of Berlin.

But when even Lord Salisbury and Prince Bismarck became convinced that our Emperor was inexorably opposed to the action of the Bulgarians, they gladly acquiesced in the disappearance of Eastern Roumelia, which otherwise they might have attempted to re-establish, even at the cost of war.

No, no! Until you appreciate Russia’s honesty and disinterestedness in the East better than you do to-day, the best service she can do to her Christian protégés is to secure them, the support of Europe by never taking the initiative on their behalf.

“O.K.”

4, Portman-mansions, W.