- ential advantage. The House must also have in view a
third consideration with regard to a railway which goes through a very rich country and which . . . is likely after a certain period of development to add greatly to the riches of Turkey, and indirectly, I suppose, greatly to the riches of any other country which is ready to take advantage of it. Whether the British producer will be able to take advantage of it is not for me to say; but the House will have to consider whether he is more likely to be able to take advantage of it if English capital is largely interested, than if it is confined to French and German capital. The House will have to calculate whether . . . it will be prudent to leave the passenger traffic in the hands of those two nations, France and Germany, with whom we are on the most friendly terms, but whose interests may not be identical with our own."[6]
Mr. Balfour's presentation of the case was hailed in Berlin as eminently lucid and fair. The National Zeitung and the Vossische Zeitung of April 8 expressed the hope that British participation in the Bagdad Railway would be approved by Parliament and the press, in order that the German promoters might have the opportunity to demonstrate that no political ambitions were connected with the enterprise. The Russian attitude of refusing even to discuss internationalization, on the other hand, was roundly denounced.
The London press, however, saw no reason for enthusiasm over the Prime Minister's proposal. The Times, the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, the Pall Mall Gazette, and the National Review let loose a torrent of vituperation against German imperialist activities in general and the Bagdad Railway in particular. The Spectator, forswearing any thought of prejudice against Germany, constantly reminded its readers of German unfriendliness during the Boer War and suggested that the Bagdad negotiations
