On March 17th, the ratifications of the treaty between Russia and Turkey were exchanged at St. Petersburg. Now note the situation. Russia has but three or four towns and the fortress of Kars on the frontiers of Armenia, and the seaport of Batoum, from which to compel the Porte to protect the Armenians from Kurds and Circassians. But there is a Bulgaria freed from Turkish despotism. Four millions of Christians are given the privilege of self government while still tributary to the Porte. The frontier of Russia is restored as it was before the treaty of Paris by the addition of Bessarabia. This is the only political advantage to compensate for the expenditure of blood and treasure in the liberation of Bulgaria. What does England want? What does she mean to fight for? How is she injured? The Dardanelles are opened for the free passage of merchant vessels both in peace and war. What right has she to interfere now that the treaty has been signed? Yet on March 28th, the Disraeli government announces that the first class of the Army reserve numbering thirteen thousand, and the militia reserve of about twenty-five thousand men were to be called out. This determination led to the resignation of Lord Derby as Foreign Secretary and the Marquis of Salisbury was appointed in his place. On April 1st, Salisbury addressed a circular to the Powers, and after giving Russia's refusal to consent to England's demand (by what right?) relative to placing the treaty as a whole before the Congress--which Germany was endeavoring to secure to avoid another war--he goes on to complain of the terms imposed by Russia on Turkey: and the violation of the treaty of Paris, etc. Prince Gortchakoff in his reply among other questions asks Lord Salisbury how he would reconcile these treaties with the benevolent ends to which the united action of Europe had always been directed and the attainment of which one learns with pleasure the English government desires, namely, good government, peace and liberty for the oppressed populations. Having allowed Russia single handed to chastise the Turks for the massacre of the Bulgarians--and we think that any one can see that she had done it with neatness and despatch, and had delivered four million Christians from the cursed rule of Islam, England now comes forward and demands that the treaty of San Stefano shall be broken and a new one made. We may well exclaim "Cui bono?" In whose interest? For the greater security of the Christians in Bulgaria? For larger liberty and protection to the Armenians from Kurds and Circassians, or the protection of the Balkan populations from Circassians and Bashi-Bazouks?