The Anglo-Russian Convention has now been completely thrashed out in both Houses of Parliament; and for or evil it will henceforth forma the basis of the relations between the two great empires in Asia. Even the most severe of its critics, Lord Curzon of Kedleston, has never denied the absolute need of some such convention; and most of the others have even gone the length of acknowledging that if His Majesty's Ministers have not made good " bargain with Russia as they might have done, it was better to con-lade this doubtful bargain thea not to come to any agreement at all. Consequently the opposition to it has not been pushed to " division in either House. Sir Edward Grey's defence of the Convention in the House of!
Commons this week was s very fine sustained effort of argument, though it was less rhetorically effective than Lord Percy's attack on the Conveotion which opener the debate. Lord Curzon's strongest point against the Convention was the admission of Russia to equal rights with ourselves in Tibet, in spite of our undeniably greater interests there bat against this Sir Edward Grey was ably to urge that Mr. Balfour's Government entirely disclaimed any intention of parsaing a "forward" policy in Tibet, and that the concession to Russia would hamper us only in case of our adopting a forward policy there. The really weak side of our bargain is the di-sion of Persis into spheres of influence, in such s way as to include in the Russian sphere nearly everything that is of commercial value. On this point Sir Edward Grey pleads that the bargain is only a recognition of existing facts, Russia having for twenty years past been steadily ousting us from Northera Persia; and he further claims that in exchange for our abandonment. of the chance of winning back what we have lost, we have gained a strategical advantage in the establishment of a buffer territory on the Afghan border at Seistan.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.