violates individual liberty, and is a source of demoralisation.

I need not dwell on the incidents of the Peace Congress, and its successes, nor on those of the InterParliamentary Conference. Your delegates will doubtless have given you all information; and I will only add that I think arbitration and peace must have made progress by means of this Congress. Setting aside the important resolutions passed by both assemblies, there has been a perfecting of organisation, and the creation of permanent official Bureaux at Berne. It is indisputable that such bureaux will do much to add efficiency and weight to the work of propaganda. It was well observed by M. Ruchonnet, in his closing speech to the Congress, that, if the emissaries of peace had hitherto been irregular troops, they were now banded together into a regular army; or, if you will, a federation of societies, having a common link, a species of associated executive power.

The large part taken by women in the Fourth Peace Congress, the nucleus of an Association of Students of all countries, and the steps for organising the propaganda further by means of schools, all hold out encouraging prospects for our Associations. Such cheering news will doubtless be a source of pleasure to the peace apostle who was not with us at the Congress, Mr. Hodgson Pratt. Though absent, he, however, was well represented by his written communications and proposals, and, last but by no means least, by Mr. F. Moscheles.

There would have been a much larger attendance of Italians both at Congress and Conference but for the electoral conflict now waging in the Peninsula. This cause prevented S. Bonghi and Senator the Marquis Alfieri from taking part in the deliberations of the Congress. Amongst those present, however, were General Guaita, E. T. Moneta, Angelo Mazzoleni, F. Maineri, Cesare Teso, and others. And at the InterParliamentary Conference were present S. Nocito and the following M.P.'s:-Danieli, Passerini, Fabrizi, Cefali, and the Marquis Pandolfi.

I must add that the last named deserves special mention for the indefatigable part taken by him both at the Congress and Conference. I might truly say of him, "Pars magna fuit!" VITTORE PRESTINI.

Berne, 2nd September.

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE UNION OF THE STATES OF EUROPE. FOUNDED BY RUSSIA IN 1815 IN THE TREATY OF HOLY ALLIANCE, AND ESTABLISHED IN 1878 IN THE TREATY OF BERLIN.

[To the Editor of CONCORD.]

SIR, When, in your July number, I said that Mr. Roberts had not dogmatised as to how far East of the Atlantic the unity of Europe should extend, I did not doubt that he included in his plan all the States which, on their West, have an Atlantic coast; including, of course, Great Britain.

It seems invidious, since I agree with Mr. Roberts in wishing to exclude Russia, that I should object to such of his reasons as differ from my own; but when he speaks of "an absolute autocracy," I cannot help feeling that a belief that such a thing exists in Russia embarrasses any attempt at dealing with the case.

I do not

believe in the autocracy. On the contrary, I find nothing more difficult to ascertain than the degree in which each of the last five Czars has shared in the views and designs of the permanent conspiracy which directs foreign relations in Russia. The only thing certain is that the "autocrat" is under the permanent threat of assassination, and, though Alexander II. is the only

Czar who has gone away in a chariot of fire, there is reason to believe that the other three did not meet with a fair-straw death. But, says Mr. Roberts, "Let us not destroy, but fulfil." With this motto on his lips he calls on us to take Switzerland for our model. Far from bad advice this.

But what was the commencement of the Swiss federation? A Swiss Count was elected Holy Roman Emperor. Then the hereditary throne of Austria became vacant. He appointed himself to it, which he had a right to do. His Son who, after an interval, was his successor in the Empire, took upon himself to annex some Swiss cantons to Austria. Uri, Schwytz, and Unterwalden were tributary to the Holy Roman Empire of which they formed a part, and they were entitled to protection from the Emperor. But these were not his hereditary dominions. The Emperor having replaced protection by usurpation, the Swiss left the Empire, and when the Archduke of Austria sent his troops to enforce his usurpation, they defeated them and kept them out. The first resistance to the usurpation was in 1307. By the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the Swiss cantons were recognised formally as independent of the empire. These three cantons first turned out the usurper and destroyed the usurpation, then gradually united with other cantons in a federation.

If we follow the example of the Swiss we shall quit the Russian Federation (which calls itself the European Concert), before we form any other federation, and into our new federation we shall admit no State that forms a part of the Russian Federation.

Whether it would then be wise to form a federation so close as Mr. Roberts and Professor Sidgwick desire, I do not propose to discuss; if they are wrong in their belief, as I believe they are, they are, at any rate, in respectable company. During the last 300 years some of the foremost and most well-intentioned statesmen have thought that something of this sort might be so directed as to be a blessing to mankind.

I admit, moreover, that at this moment no State of Europe except Russia appears to desire to increase its dominions, at least, in Europe, though the determination of England and France to seek territory in Asia and also, in common with Germany and Italy, in Africa, must give much trouble and may perhaps give Russia a new lease of her noxious life.

Your correspondent, Mr. James Prelooker, enters, not into but upon Mr. Roberts's friendly controversy with me, and tells us both that we are wrong, and that so long as the present system exists "there can be no hope of the Russian despot ever entertaining the idea of joining the United States of Europe' or associating himself with the anticipated Peace projects." As if we had expressed a hope to obtain the alliance of the Czar in any Peace projects! Mr. Roberts said that Russia must be excluded from his United Europe, and I said she is included in our "Europe as united at present, and the first thing you have to do is to turn her out."

To prove his proposition Mr. Prelooker enters at length into details of the internal government of Russia, which will make her entry into the Union something that she will persistently avoid.

This line of argument might have been legitimate in the last century but it is not available against the fact that Russia has for seventy-seven years actually taken the line which we are now assured she never will take. I can account for the use of such an argument only by supposing that Mr. Prelooker, though a literary man and an intelligent politician, has perforce confined his studies of the Russian Government to its action in Russia, and is not familiar with her action in foreign countries. Nor does this supposition imply in our Russian friend a want either of industry or of intelligence. The documents which record the exploits of Russian diplomacy, which are to an Englishman in

terested in foreign politics as the air he breathes, are a kind of literature the study of which the Russian Government is very far from endeavouring to make popular.

My thesis then is this: That in 1815 Russia designed and published, in what she called the Treaty of Holy Alliance, a scheme for the union of all the States of Europe, with the professed object of ensuring a permanent peace in Europe, in which the Lord Jesus Christ was to be the only sovereign. That though the name of this Treaty was soon disused, because England refused to join it, its great principles, the interference of every State with the internal affairs of every other State, has been gradually insinuated into Europe, and has culminated in a series of Treaties by which, under the hegemony of Russia, England, France, Austria, Germany, and Italy have become partners with Russia in the government of Europe, while the minor States are being led into the Union by European Treaties on matters in which they are, more or less, concerned ; the Treaty of Berlin being a consolidation of previous Treaties which I have previously alluded to, signed in 1827-1833-1840-1841 and 1856.

As no one has come forward to advocate any fresh Treaty alliance with Russia, I need not go back to these Treaties. In your August number I gave you a document which shows how Russia, after having obtained the Treaty of Berlin, violates it day by day, and uses for that purpose a systematic assassination, in comparison with which the brigandage of Italy and Greece is mild, humane, and almost virtuous.

What I have to prove is, not that Russia (that is, the conspiracy which manages the Russian foreign relations) is mendacious, fraudulent, and murderous, but that from the 14/26th September, 1815, till now, she has professed to be a divine vicegerent, aiming only at a union of European States for the best and holiest interests of mankind, and that her professions, accepted not without reluctance and pain by the Governments of Europe in these Treaties, were, on their first appearance, hailed with enthusiasm by members of the Society of Friends in Republican America, who avowedly had formed upon the principles of the Holy Alliance the Massachusetts Peace Association.

I fear that my description of the Treaty gave but a faint idea of the reality. Uncover, then, your heads, and read with pious awe the revelation which the Sovereign of Holy Russia pronounced to the frightened Sovereigns of the old, and to the admiring philanthropists of the new world.

THE HOLY ALLIANCE.

(Text of the Treaty.)

"In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity Their Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, and the Emperor of Russia, in consequence of the great events which have signalised in Europe the course of the last three years, and more especially in consequence of the multiplied benefits which it has pleased Divine Providence to shed upon their States, whose Governments have placed their confidence and hope in Him alone, having attained the intimate conviction that it is necessary to base the plan to be adopted by the Powers in their mutual relations, upon the sublime truths taught us by the eternal religion of our God and Saviour ;-Declare solemnly, that the present Act has no other object than to manifest, in the face of the universe, their unshakable determination to take no other rules for their conduct, whether in the'administration of their respective States, or in their political relations with every other Government, than the precepts of this holy religion-precepts of justice, of charity, and of peace, which, far from being applicable solely to Private life, should, on the contrary, directly influence the resolutions of Princes, and

guide all their steps as being the sole means of consolidating human institutions and remedying their imperfections.

"In consequence, Their Majesties have agreed upon the following articles :

แ

"Art. I. Conformably to the words of the Holy Scriptures, which order all men to consider themselves as brothers, the Three Contracting Monarchs shall remain united by the bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity, and, considering themselves as compatriots, they shall afford to each other, on every opportunity and in all places, assistance, aid, and succour; regarding themselves, towards their subjects and armies, as fathers of families, they will direct them, in the same spirit of fraternity with which they are animated, to protect Religion, Peace, and Justice.

"Art. II. Consequently, the sole principle in force, whether between the said Governments, or between their subjects, should be that of rendering reciprocal service, of testifying by an unalterable benevolence the mutual affection with which they should be animated, of considering themselves only as members of one and the same Christian nation, the Three Allied Princes only looking on themselves as delegated by Providence to govern three branches of one same family -namely, Austria, Prussia, and Russia; confessing also that the Christian Nation, of which they and their peoples form part has really no other sovereign than He, to whom alone belongs all power, because in Him alone are found all the treasures of love, of knowledge, and of infinite wisdom-that is to say, God, our Divine Saviour Jesus Christ, the Word of the Most High, the Word of Life. Their Majesties recommend in consequence, with the most tender solicitude, to their peoples, as the only means of enjoying this peace which arises from a good conscience, and which alone is durable, to strengthen themselves every day more and more in the principles and the exercise of the duties which the Divine Saviour has taught to men.

"Art. III. All the Powers who shall be willing solemnly to own the sacred principles which have dictated the present Act, and who shall recognise how important it is to the happiness of nations too long. disturbed that those truths should henceforth exercise upon human destinies all the influence which belongs to them, will be received with as much eagerness as affection into this Holy Alliance.

"Done in three parts, and signed at Paris in the year of Grace 1815, 14/26th of September.

"(L.S.) FRANCIS.

"(L.S.) FREDERICK WILLIAM. "(L.S.) ALEXANDER."

In such manner did holy Russia reveal her scheme "to protect Religion, Peace, and Justice," by a union into " one and the same Christian nation" of all the Powers who were "willing to own the sacred principles which have dictated the present Act."

What is there in this Imperial Proclamation which can save us from "the trouble of pondering over the desirability of the exclusion of Russia from the anticipated United States of Europe?" What sign has Alexander III. shown of any desire to repudiate the feeling of "Peace, Religion, and Justice," inaugurated by Alexander I. ? What reason is there to suppose

that he, or his masters, will allow a rival Union to exist unless their power is cut down from the Union over which they now reign by Murder, Persecution, and Mendacity?

The philanthropists, contemporaries of Alexander I. accepted his proposals with enthusiasm.

On the 9th of April, 1817, the Massachussetts Peace. Society addressed the Emperor Alexander, saying:

"The very week in which the Holy League of the Three Sovereigns was officially announced in Russia, a society was formed in Boston, by the name of the Massachussetts Peace Society, the object of which is to

conducted a most extensive correspondence, and constructed a coloured diagram dealing with and depicting the dates and cost of our wars for the last fifty years. As a public speaker and debater, he appealed more to the intellect than the passions of his hearers."

THE GROWTH OF THE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE.-Mr. W. R. Cremer, M.P., in his speech at the Berne Conference, referred with justifiable pride and satisfaction to the steady increase in the number of members of Parliament attending these annual Conferences. At the first meeting, he said, there were only forty persons present. The number which had sent in their adhesion on the present occasion was no less than 200. At first only two nations were represented— England and France; and now there were seventeen.

RUSSIA AND GREAT BRITAIN.-In a recent interview, Sir Charles Dilke, M.P., said "that Afghan-Turkestan deserved more serious notice than the Pamirs. He thought it most probable that the present aggressive action of Russia in the Pamirs was intended to remind us that it would be better for England to keep clear of the Triple Alliance, as Russia could make it unpleasant for us in Asia."

MOROCCO AND GREAT BRITAIN.-In reference to this subject, Sir Charles Dilke "expressed the opinion that it was a great mistake to suppose, as some people in France supposed, that this country has, or ever had had, any designs upon Morocco. The policy of successive Governments in this country had been quite steady, and our position had been very well expressed by Lord Salisbury in his despatches."

[We commend this statement to the notice of our French colleagues. They are too ready, even in Peace journals, to suspect England of ceaseless intrigue and perfidy. On questions of foreign policy, Sir C. Dilke knows more than most men, and he belongs to the "Extreme Left," which will recommend him to the Republicans.]

FRESH BURDENS !-The German newspapers inform us that the Imperial Government will introduce a Military Bill in the next Session of Parliament for five millions sterling, and that the number of men in each company will be doubled.

MONETA ON A EUROPEAN FEDERATION. -The_great peace journalist, in advocating a federation of the European States, said that they were a body without a head, that conflicts between them would never cease until there was a federal bond founded on a law to be created by all the Parliaments. The Federation would have a moral authority amply sufficient to make its decrees respected, and then disarmament would necessarily follow. "One day," said our eloquent friend, “Bismarck declared that the States of Europe resembled 'a body of armed men who had lost themselves in a dark forest.' Well! what we desire is to give them light!"

"THE MOST CONCILIATORY MAN IN THE CONGRESS."-Such is the designation given by the President of the Congress to our colleague and delegate, Mr. Felix Moscheles. If we may judge from numerous criticisms in Swiss newspapers, this was not the character which distinguished our countrymen generally at Berne. They are, in fact, severely rated for their persistent "obstructiveness," while the French delegates are chaffed for their "impatience." Both might advantageously take a lesson from the Swiss Parliament- a peaceful mosaic of various tongues and races.

FRANCE, ENGLAND, AND EGYPT.-The view taken of the Egyptian Question by our Association is well

We

known to the readers of CONCORD. We have demanded that England should keep its word, and withdraw our troops, after arranging with European States for its neutralisation, under international protection. shall, therefore, not be misunderstood when we accord high praise to that distinguished Frenchman, Barthelemy St. Hilaire, for the moral courage which he has shown in telling his countrymen that "evacuation at present would be the decapitation of civilisation in Egypt." "The Suez Canal belongs to the whole world. Europe has the right to ensure free navigation through it, and with that object in view to exercise a certain supervision over its banks." "To all the French demands, England has the right to reply that during the last ten years she has, unaided, protected the liberty of the Canal and secured order and prosperity in Egypt." "The true solution of the Egyptian question would be for England-who is prudent and wise, much more so than we to take the initiative of an understanding with the Powers. I have always been convinced that the English have not the ambition to annex Egypt." We have one friend, at least, in France, and one who does not fear to be unpopular with his countrymen.

THE BEHRING SEA ARBITRATION.-On the 7th inst. a copy of the United States case was delivered to Sir John Thompson, the Canadian Minister of Justice.

COUNT VON MOLTKE'S MEMOIRS. THE publication of the new, that is the fifth, volume of Count Moltke's memoirs calls fresh attention to the character and opinions of that remarkable man. Always modest and obviously sincere, successful above most, if not of all contemporaries in his profession, that of a military commander, his memory attracts praises from all sides; so that here, if anywhere, we have the practical type of Wordsworth's ideal of The Happy Warrior. As regards the man himself we make no reserve in the eulogium passed on him by one of the many commentators on the record of his private correspondence, who speaks of "the high and unselfish feeling of the Field Marshal, the keenness of his intellect, and the goodness of his heart." So that here we must be free from personal bias, except in his favour, in coming to judge of his value to the world when measured by his profession, its objects, its methods, and its results. Seldom has the question of the claim of the military profession as an element of modern civilisation been more fairly put than it is, of course undesignedly, these memoirs. And as argument on this subject seemsoften to be vain-mainly because of the immense preponderance of tradition, usage, and supposed necessitypractical illustrations, drawn from an unimpeachable record such as this biography, may be of more serviceto advance our cause and raise in a new light the question whether the military profession is admirable, taking it at its best, and whether the soldier is really an indispensable element of the modern social and political system.

in

There must be many passages in these five volumes that will afford pertinent material for reviewing this subject in the clear light of modern thought. Here we can only deal with one that seems to afford a sort of typical test. It relates to the period of 1867, long after the short but sanguinary conflict by which powerful Austria and Prussia rent the province of Schleswig from little Denmark; and after the German Empire had secured imperial and federal unity subsequent to the overthrow of the Austrian army on the field of Sadowa-when that eminent exemplar of absolutism, Cardinal Antonelli, exclaimed, "The earth shakes!" Prussia had become, not only the premier State of Germany, but had virtually, though not then formally, secured the imposing idea of imperial unity. Surely,

if war can afford true security, that was a time when the statesmen and patriots of the "fatherland" might have been content to rest and be thankful, and assiduously set themselves to the tasks and victories of peace.

Such was, indeed, the disposition alike of the leaders of thought and the masses of the German people; though meanwhile the huge military machine kept grinding on, turning ever more and more of peaceful citizens into tools of waste, destruction, and carnage. But what, in that blessed opportunity for happier thoughts and true progress, were the opinions of this amiable soldier and model commander? This is what Count Moltke contributed as the highest wisdom that the professional warrior could supply. In a quasi-confidential conversation with one of the leaders in the Reichstag, he thus remarked :

"After a war such as we have just had, one can really feel no desire to have another, and nobody is farther from cherishing such a desire than I. And yet I cannot but wish that the occasion given for a war with France should be taken advantage of. Unhappily, I regard this war as absolutely unavoidable within the next five years, and within this period the now indisputable superiority of our organisation and weapons will diminish every day. The sooner, therefore, we come to blows, the better. The present occasion is good. It has a national character, and ought, therefore, to be taken advantage of."

Now what was "the occasion given for a war with France?" We must leave the historians of the period to work that out, if they can. So far as the general knowledge of affairs goes, there was at that time neither "occasion given" nor, humanly speaking, was there any predestination which made "war as absolutely unavoidable within the next five years." It is high time the superstition were exploded that wars are the result of occult elemental causes, or as much beyond men's control as cyclones or earthquakes. Though this accords with popular belief and is used as a sort of conventional formula by political writers and official demagogues, it is at once seen to be blind and irrational when the question is fairly and dispassionately faced. Let Count Moltke's professional opinion be frankly challenged, and we shall find it was only a soldier's prepossession and foregone conclusion. We defy any impartial observer to prove that there was in 1867 any "occasion given for a war with France" that could not have been set aside by the exercise of common-sense and reasonable forbearance. But it is plain that the 66 occasion," the motive, and, virtually, the resolve was a figment of the Field Marshal's own brain. And we find a condemnation of the whole forecast in the purely military basis on which it rested. It was the Count's confidence in the "indisputable superiority" of the armaments at his disposal over those of France, which prompted the unworthy-we had almost said the base-desire "to take advantage of" that heavier weight of metal and men to maim or crush the power of a nation then at peace with Germany. No sense of political justice, no true patriotism could justify, only the overweening passion of nationality and desire to dominate could excuse the deliberate malign resolve to "take advantage" of the presumed weakness of a rival nation.

Count Bethusy-Huc, the narrator, frankly explains how the poison worked. He himself took means to propagate the evil thought. He admits that even his own imperialist party "shrank" from the responsibility of actively working for the fulfilment of the General's self-conceived prediction. But, under the insensate propulsion of the foregone conclusions to which we have referred, the mischief worked its way. And now we find another proof, unconsciously recorded, that there was no irresistible fatality in the results of these assumptions, for which, however, three years later, fresh

occasion was given. It is from a somewhat unexpected quarter that we derive this proof, and it is no less telling because it reveals, so to speak, the protest of humanity and good sense asserting itself in the mind even of the man "of blood and iron"

"Count Bismarck recognised the justice of Moltke's remarks, both from the political and from the military point of view, but declared that he would never be able to bear the responsibility of conjuring up the misery of a war on his country, unless the latter needed it, as was the case in the Austrian war, in defence of its vital interests or its honour. The personal conviction of a ruler or a statesman, however well founded, that war would break out one day after all, could not justify a war. Unforeseen events might alter the situation and avert what seemed inevitable. When I told the General this next day, he answered, 'Bismarck's standpoint is invulnerable, but it will cost us many human lives one day.'"

Here, indeed, are just thoughts and wise considerations that ought to be engraven on the consciences of statesmen and politicians in whose hands skill or chance may have placed the destinies of helpless millions. "The personal conviction . . . . that war would break out one day after all, could not justify a war," is a sentence that should be written up on the walls of every Cabinet in Europe. But we shall be reminded that Moltke's observation, that Bismarck's reserve and reasonable moderation "will cost as many human lives one day," may be regarded as confirmed by the events. Again we affirm that this is a doctrine of superstition. That "cost" was due, not to Bismarck's passive resistance, but to Moltke's foregone professional conclusions and his grim desire to "take advantage." And this, in spite of all the eulogies we read of the wisdom of the great Marshal, we dare to say was not statesmanship, but the malign working of the purely military idea, essentially barbaric; and we arraign the action founded thereon as a crime against humanity. It is of the earth earthy, and has no place in political ethics.

"

It is quite true that the heavier censure must revert to the other side. There came a time when unhappy France-helpless under the yoke of an unprincipled usurper, himself in his decadence become a blind worshipper of military force-did give something like real "occasion for war;' but recent history, as gradually unfolded, and such retrospects as those of the "Englishman in Paris," may yet show that the catastrophe of 1870-1 was really precipitated by the foregone conclusion, the consciousness of "indisputable superiority" of military force which was the dominating thought in the purely soldier's mind of Moltke in 1867. Bitterly has France suffered for the "occasion" given by its demented ruler and his creatures in 1870; and the calamity still weighs on the mind and heart of that country, as it does also on the whole of Europe. Therefore it is well we should seize such rare opportunities as this before us to trace out the real origin of the great curse of modern civilisation. W.

LITERATURE.

THE FOREIGN POLICY OF EUROPE.-(Simpkin, Marshall & Co.)

UNDER this title Mr. Lewis Appleton has published a comprehensive work giving in brief the history of The Wars of Queen Victoria's Reign; the History of the Ottoman Empire and Russian Interventions; the History of the Policy of England and France in Egypt; of French Policy as regards Annam and China; of Servia, Austria, Turkey, and Russia from 1356 to 1889; of the Newfoundland Fishery Question, 1713 to 1891; and of the Suez Canal from 1852 to 1888.