Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

peace or a safeguard of peace? Should English peacemakers "the friends of all and the allies of none "-support the triple compact or oppose it? There ought to be no haziness in men's minds as to that question. Our readers know that we insist upon the sacred duty of peacemakers to master all such international problems; and not content themselves with sentimental and abstract propositions. It is a hard task to get them to do so; and "the International League of Peace and Liberty " seems to us to be almost the only society besides our own which does grapple with international problems. Perhaps the Italian Societies will adopt our course in this respect; but at present they seem to us to be rather partisans than judges. We are ready, however, to admit ourselves to be wrong in this opinion, if they will prove it.

To repeat our question, Does the Triple Alliance make for peace or for war, for conciliation or for enmity in Europe? This question is raised in a very able article in the Spectator of the 4th instant. To our profound regret, we differ toto coelo from that journal on the peace and war question; but its editors are always thoughtful, always well-informed, always supremely honest. In another column we give extracts from their article on this subject, in order that our readers may judge for themselves.

As regards the argument stated in the beginning of that article, that the Triple Alliance involves a war, if war comes, on an enormous area, we have always said so in these columns, and we have therefore thought it far better that States which have a quarrel should settle it, or fight it out by themselves, without involving other countries in the conflagration. The Spectator produces other arguments against alliances for mutual defence, which are very strong; but then it proceeds to urge that there are still stronger arguments in favour of them. It thinks that the very "bigness" of a war between one set of allies and another so frightens them, that they recoil from it. We venture to think, on the contrary, that if a State knows that it will be alone in a war with another State, it will have a greater, because undivided, sense of responsibility and of risk. The Spectator says that although the present alliance burdens each ally so heavily, these burdens would be even greater for a State which stood alone. Is this so? Would the Italians, for instance, if left to themselves, unfettered by engagements with Germany and Austria, keep larger armaments than at present? Surely not! Surely her people would find a way to conclude commercial and territorial arrangements with France, to such mutual advantage as to render peace obligatory.

The last argument used in the article under

notice that the Alliance has hitherto maintained peace, and will, therefore, continue to do so, seems to us a strong point; but is there not this answer-that perhaps war has not broken out because Russia and France have not been quite ready for it? Alliance or no alliance, there is no security against war, except in a settlement of the disputes which lie at the root of all these armaments-a settlement permanent and thorough, based on justice and on the mutual advantage of the disputants, as well as on the interests of Europe at large.

The damning fact remains that Europe is being slowly ruined by this feud between France and Germany; and Europe has a right to stop it if it can. Is it possible to find some disinterested Power outside the disputants who shall, at their request, end this intolerable evil and give peace to 345,000,000 of human beings? Why not ask the President of the United States to be the referee? We submit this suggestion respectfully to the Emperor William II. and President Carnot.

There is nothing else to be done; for Germany will not render itself defenceless against its great rival by abandoning Strasburg: while France will not allow Metz to remain in the hands of Germany--" a pistol presented at its heart."

There is, however, a solution which we think we begin to see growing in favour in France, if not yet in Germany, under which Lorraine would return to France, and Alsace remain with Germany. As even Bismarck himself did not desire the annexation of Lorraine, will not the Emperor disregard the military argument, which is, perhaps, unsound?

If President Harrison is chosen umpire, let him consider this proposal. H. P.

THE RENEWAL OF THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE.

Extracts from an article in THE SPECTATOR, July 4th. IT is not difficult to state the objections which a disinterested statesman of experience who was only watching events might bring against the Triple Alliance. The first, perhaps the greatest, is that it must render war, if war should break out, so fearfully big. If Germany, Austria and Italy are allied, they cannot be attacked except by another Alliance, and another Alliance able to cope with them must neces sarily include or draw with it the remainder of the Continent. War under such circumstances must be on a tremendous scale, must, in fact, involve, directly or indirectly the whole of civilised mankind, and must produce, for a time at all events, almost unequalled destruction of the conditions of civilisation. If one Power, however great, encounters another, the re mainder can look on, and within their bounds progres can be continued; but when all are engaged, the life of Europe is arrested, and the entire white race, without which the world would stagnate, must not only pause in its work, but become from deaths, wounds, expenditure of energy, and loss of disposable capital, less competent to do it than before. In the second place, the Alliance

disinclines each Power to make the concessions by which permanent peace might possibly be secured. Germany and France, France and Italy, Austria and Russia, Russia and Germany, might each, if left alone with its foe, agree to a working compromise which would remove the pressing grievance, or even, if war happened to be distasteful, might arrange a disarmament which would last for a term of years, and render a sudden rush into the field out of the question, or, at all events, as unlikely as any other incalculable misfortune. The Alliance, however, by its very existence, forbids all arrangements or compromises between single Powers. In the third place, the Alliance increases the dominance of the military spirit. Each nation is compelled to arm itself to the uttermost, lest it should seem to be asking aid which it refused to render in return, lest, in fact, it should either seem to be, or really be, cheating its allies for the sake of its own selfish ease. This necessity, which presses everywhere, and as we see is obeyed everywhere, is nearly as fatal to progress as war itself, while it is far more fatal to social peace, pressure of the kind always developing among those who work a bitter grudge, partly just, partly a mere result of envy, against those who spend. Socialism grows fast while the nations wait for war. And finally, the Alliance does deposit too much power over human happiness in the hands of individuals. It is foolish to deny that, as matters stand, the German Emperor could to-morrow, by a single despatch, plunge all Europe in war, and that the Emperor of Austria or King Humbert could with nearly as much ease do precisely the same thing. The power may not be abused, but it exists; it was fancied when the late Emperor died that it would be exerted; and it is not wise, not for the welfare of civilisation as a whole, that such a power should continue to be deposited in such few hands.

All the arguments given above are sound, but they are all answerable, and experience has shown that the answers are correct. The Alliance will render the war, if it breaks out, fearfully big; but then, that bigness of itself frightens statesmen, until they regard war with a horror which, before 1870 at least, was nearly unknown in Europe. They used to think of war as lawyers think of legal processes, as weapons, indeed, costly to use, and wearisome in the using, but still weapons which they understood, and which they could guide to tolerably definite forseen results. Now they regard war as the poor regard Law Courts, as instruments which, once set in motion, are irresistible, which are too strong to be guided, and which, whatever else they may do, will probably involve pecuniary ruin. There is not a king in Europe, and probably not a soldier, who does not feel as if the next war would be too large for his grasp, as if he would rather avoid touching an engine with such delicate machinery and such prodigious powers.

[blocks in formation]

Then, though it is true that the Triple Alliance prevents concessions, its absence would not ensure their being made. Germany left alone would not give up Alsace; France, even if solitary, would want her provinces and the leadership: Austria by herself would still struggle for the Balkans; and Russia would still feel that jealousy of German success which is with her military party the great incentive to war. Nor, though the Alliance burdens the nations with preparation for war, does it burden them so much as fear would induce each State to burden itself singly. Each would be awaiting inevitable attack from at least an equal foe, and each, therefore, would be armed capà-pie, or would force on war rather than live any longer in an unendurable suspense. Moreover, the Alliance averts a danger which is little noticed, but which experience proves to be a terrible one,

the danger of sudden alliances arranged by two or three men almost in a moment for an offensive campaign. Austria and France, for example, cannot, while the Alliance lasts, combine for a single campaign_intended to break up Italy, or to resolve the German Empire back again into its elements. And finally, though it is true that the Alliance confers on individuals far too great a power of disturbing mankind, experience proves that the power will not be misused, that in its very greatness there is comparative safety. You may trust even a mischievous man with the key of a powder-magazine sooner than with a squib, particularly if, when the magazine explodes, his own house must be shattered first.

[blocks in formation]

LORD SALISBURY ON MOROCCO.

WHEN the Premier gave utterance at Glasgow to his views as to the danger threatening from Morocco, his lordship showed that he was no better informed as to the source of that danger than the generality of the British public. At all events, his words would seem to imply that Europe would one day be startled by an upheaval brought about by some purely local agency, the explosion caused by the action of gases now being generated in its political atmosphere. Those who know Morocco as it is and has been, are aware that its condition is more that of a water-logged vessel, which, left to itself, will go on floating, perhaps for centuries. It is not Morocco which threatens trouble, it is the looming struggle among the birds of prey which hover round it. To refer to the simile of the vessel, the present action of those of the European Powers which take a lively interest in bringing about its dissolution may be compared to throwing dynamite bombs into the hull, each one trusting to circumstances for a good share at the final catastrophe.

Spain and France are the chief offenders in this respect. Germany and Italy are determined not to be far behind, to be equal on an emergency with these two. England, misinformed and prejudiced, plays but a sulky part. That no one else shall take the country while she can help it she is determined, but does not wish to be plagued with it herself. The minor nations and the United States need not be taken into account.

The poor Sultan, meanwhile, is afraid to move hand or foot, for fear of giving one or other of these harpies a chance. The advice bestowed by each upon him is nullified by the warning with which it is followed from the others, and he perceives that his only chance of safety consists in pitting one foe against the other.

Thus he secures for himself some sort of

security in the centre of an equilibrium of forces, and Morocco, instead of being opened up, as it should be, remains in an unenviable status quo.

Abuses, discontent, and corruption - both moral and political-continue to exist within the Empire, but in a form very much modified from that of even a century ago, which modern dabblers in matters Moorish are wont to picture as of to-day. Nothing, however, which takes place in that country, or is likely to take place there, can be sufficient warrant for outside forcible interference. The petty disturbances among the hill tribes, and the Sultan's annual expeditions among them, are of too trifling moment to cause the least anxiety. The fevered brains and empty pockets of the Tangier correspondents of Madrid journals are alone accountable for the majority of canards which eventually find their way through the Press of the whole world. We residents hear little or nothing of the fearful rebellions and massacres which interest the Continental newsmongers till we read of them in their publications. Even the occasion for looting afforded by the interregnum on the death of a Sultan is certain to be greatly enhanced by the action of the European Powers,

or the fear of them.

Could the leading Cabinets of Europe realise their present false position, and see how utterly impossible it is for any one to make any headway in the face of the combined opposition of the others, something might be done. There would then be some hope of their coming to an agreement to act in unison, which would give them the power to do what they liked in Morocco. So long as they abstained from making demands which would arouse the religious or racial prejudices of the people, they could then secure what reforms they wished. great bulk of the people would rejoice to see their Government reformed and their country fully opened to trade, if certain that this was not to be followed by conquest. Till some such accord is come to, peaceable Europe must continue to fear trouble from Morocco, not internal, but external, as soon as an opportunity arises for a struggle over it among the Powers. JAS. ED. BUDGETT MEAKIN. (Formerly of The Times of Morocco.)

ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION.

The

THE Annual Meeting was held on Wednesday, the 1st instant, at the Westminster Palace Hotel. Sir THOMAS H. FARRER, Bart. (Vice-Chairman of the London County Council), occupied the chair. Among those present were the following:-Miss Amy Baker, J. C. Baker, Samuel P. Backshell, J. Barrat, R. S. Boles, Thos. Briggs, Ayrton Chaplin, Miss Christie, Miss Colgate, Michael Cook, W. Evans Darby, Mrs. Drugman, Thomas Earp, Hugh Ellis, Francis Wm.

Fox, John M. Grant, G. Hagopian, Edward S. Howse, Lady Hobhouse, J. W. Humphrey, Surgeon R. W Jones, J. H. Lloyd, Walter Lovell, C. E. Maurice, Miss M. A. Mills, Mr. and Mrs. Mackay, Sigismund Mendl, Mr. and Mrs. Felix Moscheles, F. D. Mocatta, A. Merkel, H. Myers, J. M. Paulton, M.P., Miss Peppercorn, H. Westbury Preston, Mrs. Willis Ramsden, Miss Saunders, Mrs. Southey, D. B. Squire, Miss Stephens, Jno. Symonds, William Tallack, Alderman Stephen S. Tayler, C. Harrison Townsend, Miss Viles, M. P. Viles, P. T. Volprignano, W. Vort, Mrs. Weiss, C. Weiss, W. M. J. Williams, Mrs. T. H. Williams, W. Martin Wood, Major G. de Winton.

LETTERS REGRETTING ABSENCE.

The Secretary read the following letters :Professor MAX MÜLLER: "I can assure you my interest in your work is as strong as ever. I may say it is even stronger than it was when this movement began, because it seems to me that there is land visible at no great distance. I hope I may live to see some kind of result, however small. But whatever happens, I shall never lose my faith in the final triumph of the principle of arbitration. But I have found it absolutely necessary to shut my eyes to many things which are very near to my heart. I had become entangled in ever so many movements that I had at last to say "Stop"! At my time of life one has to throw ever so many things overboard, if one wishes to keep one's ship afloat. I want rest, and I cannot find it if I have to read and to answer twenty letters every day. I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot be with you on Wednesday, July 1."

Dr. PANKHURST: "I wish I had more time to give to our work. It is the most valuable line of influence

existing in the world. Peace won-the path of progress would be a grand triumphal march."

Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD, L.C.C.: "I hope you will kindly say how much I regret that a long-standing engagement prevents me from attending your meeting upon a question which has all my heartiest sympathy and support."

Mr. SIMON W. HANAUER (corresponding member of the Association at FRANKFORT) after regretting his inability to be present at the meeting, continues: "That the great principle which we advocate will be generally recognised is in my mind a conviction as firmly rooted as my belief in the continued advancelong ere the chiefs of the nations of Europe will come ment of my great country (U.S.A.). . . It will not be

to the conviction that it is not their armies that will protect their exclusive interests and those of their people, but that the only salvation for themselves, and the maintenance of social order lies in the adoption of the Peace principle, in International Unity, and in Free Institutions, politically and socially. . . . I hope to be able to write and publish a pamphlet on Peace' ere we meet at Rome. In it I shall not appeal to the hearts or reason of the dull people of the Continent, but show them in a forcible and convincing manner how War will affect their pocket-books, and prove that their civilisation is a flaunting lie, that men who claim to be Christians and send out missionaries to Turkey and Africa while they, at the same time, are devoting their main energy to slaughtering their fellow-being, are blaspheming Christ, whose teaching and whose life was Love and Charity to Humanity. Though not present when you meet, I am with you in heart and thought, and bid you 'Good cheer!'

M. FRÉDÉRIC PASSY also wrote, sending his congratulations, and announcing that he was making a tour in the South-West and South of France, in order to address meetings on Peace and Free Trade.

CHARLES LEMONNIER (for League of Peace and Liberty): "We appoint our friend, Major G. de Winton, member of our Central Committee, to represent our League at the annual meeting of your Society. We applaud most heartily the efforts which you are making

to advance our common work for peace, and the success which is every day becoming greater of your generous propaganda. You contributed largely last year to the striking success (réussite éclatante) of the second Universal Peace Congress, and you are preparing, as we and all the societies are, to help our Italian brothers to celebrate this year the third Congres at Rome.

"Let us unite, dear friends, more than ever our forces, our ideas, and our sentiments. We send you our fraternal salutations."

Letters of regret were also received from the following:-Lord Francis Hervey, M.P., Right Hon. G Osborne Morgan, M.P., Sir Walter Foster, M.P., Lewis Fry, M.P., W. S. B. McLaren, M.P., Professor Henry Sidgwick (Cambridge), Rev. H. R. Haweis, Miss Cons, L.C.C., Miss Isabella M. S. Tod, and Dr. Charles Richet (Paris).

LETTERS OF CONGRATULATION FROM FOREIGN
SOCIETIES.

[ocr errors]

Signor MONETA (for Milan Society): "We heartily congratulate you on your persevering work. We shall always be united to you." Captain F. SICCARDI : Hearty good wishes." FRANKFORT PEACE ASSOCIATION: "Sends its best wishes and greeting to the I. A. and P. A., the indefatigable pioneers of universal peace, and wishes best success to all they may do. The path of progress is long and slowly trodden, but the advance is irrepressible. The most stubborn opposition will be conquered by steadfast and serious efforts."

THE BELGIAN SOCIETY: "Our earnest wishes for your success. We should be glad to see the smaller States grouped around England, and that they should then negotiate with France and the Triple Alliance to diminish armaments. We hope your Association will take the lead in forming a federation of the Peace Societies in Europe and America, with a central bureau for those in Europe."

FREDRIK BAJER (for the DANISH ASSOCIATION): "The I. A. and P. A. is, so to say, the mother of our Danish Association. Ours was formed in 1882 in consequence of the encouragement received from yours. And Mr. Hodgson Pratt was the first honorary member of our Association. In the name of this Association I send you our filial good wishes for the great cause which unites us."

THE PEACE SOCIETY OF THE FAMILISTÈRE, GUISE: "We seize this occasion to address to your Society, which has given so many proofs of its devotion to the cause, the expression of our entire sympathy. . . . . Courage and hope! for progress and justice are the result of inevitable laws which humanity, consciously or unconsciously, obeys."

[ocr errors]

M. AUGUSTE DESMOULINS (for the PEACE UNION OF BERGERAC, DORDOGNE), writing to Mr. Pratt, says :"Kindly present to the annual meeting of the I. A. and P. A. the respectful and cordial greetings of the Peace Union of Bergerac.

"Started on February 2nd of this year, our Society of the Friends of Peace in the South-West of France has no past; it can then to-day only make you aware of its existence.

"But the Society counts on your sympathy and on your co-operation, because it is, to a certain extent, a daughter of the Association that you have founded and 80 largely developed, in spite of so many difficulties.

"Indeed, the Society of Bergerac, in its programme, in its laws, and above all in its federal organisation, is connected closely with your work, and our ambition will be satisfied if this Society can later on appear as a continuation of your Association.

"We are yet very far from this end, and our ideas are so novel in the eyes of the public here that it will necessarily be some months-perhaps even some years before we shall be able to establish any progress in the world's opinion. Nevertheless,

one

at the present time, one fact is certain, no wishes for war in this district. People make much, in conversations more or less heated, of the hope of revenge; but the most excited persons sober down very quickly when they discover the fact of the possibility of immediate warfare. In our opinion it is not sufficient to be afraid of war, we must love peace. But the love of peace is a state of heart and mind which takes for granted a high condition of thought. But the misfortune of this district is that universal and generous ideas are not yet developed.

"We do not despair, however; I remember the time when our Parisians themselves were refractory at the idea of arbitration and peace. My friends and I were very badly received at the beginning of our propaganda in 1871. We are not discouraged; we have laboured, and we have the happiness of seeing in twenty years the idea of arbitration adopted by several societies as much in Paris as in the provinces. The movement is now launched. Let us hope that after having gained the regions of the Centre, the East and the South, at last the South-West will yield.

"It is to this end that I work with all my strength."

Mr. HODGSON PRATT briefly stated the substance of the Annual Report.

Sir THOMAS FARRER said: Admirers of Cobden know that that great man-whose statue we relegate to remote Camden Town, whilst we place the statues of our second-rate generals in the finest situations of our capital-preached Free Trade even more for its moral than for its material consequences, and, above all, for its tendency to promote peace. He thought, and was right in thinking, that nations which do a great trade with another-such, for instance, as we do with the Americans would not be likely to cut one another's throats. This is quite true, and has been proved more than once. But it is not the point to which I wish to call attention just now. My point is this: Most of the great wars at the end of the last century had trade for one of their great objects. Under the erroneous notions which then actuated nations-and none more than ourselves-it was thought a most desirable thing to have foreign possessions and colonies, in order that they might be kept then as our exclusive preserve for the national trade; and when we and others had got them they were rigidly forbidden to trade with other nations. With these objects in view, we fought the French and Spaniards in America and in Asia. We quarrelled with our own American Colonies, and we half ruined Ireland. We have changed our views, whilst other nations have changed theirs much less or not at all. France, Portugal, and other foreign nations still confine the trade of their colonies to their own flags; and wherever the Russian Bear advances he refuses to allow his subject races to consume the produce of other than Russian looms and Russian furnaces. This helps to make the struggle for the remaining waste places of the earth far more fierce, and far more dangerous to the cause of peace than it would otherwise be. If, for instance, we knew that France, or Portugal, or Germany, when seeking "spheres of influence "in Africa, would do their best to develop that country by inviting trade from whatever quarter; if we knew that Russia in her forward progress would leave Turkey in Europe, and Asia Minor, and Persia, open to all merchants and all goods without distinction of flag; if we knew that the United States in annexing California, or Texas, or Mexico, would not subject those countries to the iniquities of the MacKinley Tariffone great reason for grudging and opposing these advances would be gone, and we and all other nations should in some, at any rate, of the above cases be glad that the countries I have mentioned should take upon themselves the burden of policing the wild places of the world. But if we know that they intend to monopolise

46

the production and consumption of those countries, we look upon their advances with jealousy, and may run a serious danger of war in trying to limit them. "Now," you may say, "this is a matter for the foreigner, and there is no use in preaching colonial or other free trade to Protectionist nations." I believe this is true, and that more harm than good has been done by Englishmen preaching free trade to foreigners. They don't believe that we are disinterested. I have seen lately in an American paper a statement that the poor Cobden Club, which has difficulty in paying for its annual dinner, is spending hundreds of thousands of pounds in opposing the MacKinley Tariff. You must have free traders in those countries to preach the true gospel to them. But there is one way in which we can preach, and in which we do preach, viz., by example. There is happily not one of our own colonies or possessions which we seek to retain as an exclusive preserve; there is not one in which we should attempt, were it in our power, to impose any restriction on their trade with foreign nations. With the large English-speaking colonies we could not do it if we would. But in India, the largest of them all, and the most important in the way of trade, and in other smaller possessions, we deliberately abstain from doing so, and are rewarded by their prosperity, by their immense and growing trade, and by the large share of it which, in a natural way, comes, by direct or indirect channels, to ourselves. There can be no better objectlesson. Now, there is a school amongst us which, under specious and often really innocent names, such as Imperial Federation," "Čommercial Alliance with the Colonies," "Fair Trade," &c., &c., seeks to alter all this and to bring back the exclusive system of the last century. They wish, not that we should open our ports to the colonist, which we do already, but that we should close them against the foreigner; not that the colonies should freely accept our goods, which in many cases unfortunately they do not, but that they should accept our goods to the exclusion of foreign goods. They wish, in fact, to make the English empire an exclusive preserve for English trade and to revive the monopolies of the last century, which, as I have shown, were so great incentives to war. Lord Salisbury has told us lately that there are two classes of Imperial Federationists-that one desires an Imperial Kriegsverein," whilst the other desires a "Zollverein." In the present state of the world an Imperial Kriegsvevien may be necessary, and is developing itself as fast as circumstances require. But let us beware of a Zollverein, so long as a Zollverein means, as it does now, the re-introduction of Protection. Such a Zollverein might well make new work for a Kriegsverein. Let every true lover of peace amongst nations beware of the insidious proposals which are made to us under the names of "Fair Trade," of "Commercial Federation of the Empire," and so forth, however modest their immediate proposals. Protection, exclusion, monopoly, international jealousy, with war in the background, are the ends to which their proposals must lead them. Obsta principiis. It is the interest and duty of this Association and of all true lovers of peace to be on their guard against this dangerous policy. It is with a view to the amity of nations, still more than to their material prosperity, that we condemn and oppose, at home and abroad, any attempt to palter with the principles of Freedom of Exchange.

The Right Hon. G. J. SHAW LEFEVRE, M.P., moved the first resolution as follows:

Resolved: "That the Report submitted by the Committee of the International Arbitration and Peace Association, for the year 1890, be received and adopted; and that the thanks of this Meeting be accorded to them for the efforts they have made on behalf of the principle of Arbitration in International disputes."

I came here (said Mr. Lefevre) with the expectation of taking only an unimportant part in the proceedings, such as to move a vote of thanks to my old friend, Sir Thomas Farrer, for his excellent address; but I find myself called upon to move the first resolution. I need hardly point out to you that in the past year a very great advance has been made in the direction aimed at by your society. Two very difficult and longpending disputes between this country and other powers have been referred to arbitration, either of which in other times might have led to war. In the one case a part of the questions in dispute between England and France with regard to the Newfoundland Fisheries have been so dealt with, and we hope that the settlement of this portion of the dispute may lead ultimately to the other questions being dealt with in the same way. The other case is the dispute between England and the United States, with reference to the Behring Straits Fishery, which at one time seemed likely to lead to great complication between the two countries. I have nothing but praise for these two transactions, which reflect great credit on the Government, and bring the Tory party into line with the Liberals on the great question of Arbitration. They remind us that it is now nearly twenty years since another great question in dispute between ourselves and the United States was also dealt with and disposed of by Arbitration, namely, the claims in respect of the Alabama depredations on American commerce. I have always looked back with great satisfaction that one of my earliest speeches in Parliament was made in moving a resolution, in the year 1867, calling upon the Government of the day to take steps for arbitration of this great dispute. The motion led to a very important debate in which Mr. Gladstone, Lord Stanley, then Foreign Minister, and others took part. It so happened that the Atlantic telegraph had then just been laid, and Mr. Cyrus Field was sitting in the Strangers Gallery and heard the debate. He determined to give an object lesson of what the telegraph cable could do by telegraphing the whole debate across the Atlantic. I suppose my speech was so heavy and dull that the cable broke down under it, and it resulted that my speech alone was delivered on the other side of the Atlantic, and was thus the first that was telegraphed in this way. I have always thought that the arbitration of that dispute was one of the most important acts of policy in the present century. It has made it impossible that any dispute between ourselves and the United States can ever be dealt with otherwise, or ever result in war. It has formed a precedent which can never be departed from. It was not popular with large classes of people at the time. There was about the same time a large increase in the consumption of spirits, and the political wags said that the English people were drinking themselves out of the humiliation caused by this arbitration. I have not observed that the recent increase in the consumption of spirits has been attributed to the more recent arbitrations. I think any one now will admit that no more beneficent act of policy was ever carried out than that I have referred to. I am not myself sanguine enough to believe that all great questions of dispute between nations can be settled and disposed of in this way, and that never again will there be an appeal to war. There will, I fear, arise questions between nations in the future as in the past, which can only be settled by force. What we may hope is that these questions may be narrowed down to meet excep. tional cases, and that nations may learn by practice that the way out of the disputes may be dealt with in the manner advocated by your society. It seems to me that the most important part of the work of your society consists in forming bodies and associations of able men in the several countries in Europe who, when disputes occur, are prepared to examine them in a calm and temperate spirit, who will bring influence to bear

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »