CONFERENCE

THE FOURTH PARLIAMENTARY AND THE FOURTH PEACE CONGRESS.-These meetings will be at BERNE. The Congress of Peace Societies will commence on TUESDAY, August 23rd, and terminate its sittings on the 27th.

The Conference of Parliamentary representatives will commence its proceedings on MONDAY, August 29th, under the Presidency of Dr. Gobat, Member of the National Council of Switzerland. It is hoped that the health of M. LOUIS RUCHONNET, formerly President of this Confederation, and member of the Federal Council of Switzerland may permit him to preside over the Peace Congress.

ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
ASSOCIATION.

THE annual meeting of the Association will be held on Monday, 30th May, at 3 p.m., at the Westminster Palace Hotel. We have great pleasure in announcing that the LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM has kindly consented to preside. From the great interest Dr. Westcott has shown in the cause we are sure that we may expect a most interesting and useful address on this occasion. We appeal to our friends and supporters to do their utmost to make the meeting a success.

HONORARY TREASURERSHIP OF THE ASSOCIATION.

IT is with much regret that we have to announce that Mr. William Fooks, who has for several years filled the position of Honorary Treasurer of the Association, has been obliged to resign that office, owing to urgent private affairs which occupy all his time. Mr. John

M. Grant, a member of the committee, has very kindly undertaken to fill the vacancy.

LESSONS FOR THE YOUNG ON PEACE AND WAR:

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

We have great pleasure in calling attention to the circular printed in another column, which suggests the preparation of a "Model Chapter" in school Readers on the subject of Peace and War. It will be seen that our Association offers a prize of £50, in order to elicit a satisfactory response to this demand, and to make it worth the while of competent persons, in this or other countries, to give their time and labour to the preparation of such a chapter. We heartily trust that this step will not only produce this direct result, but that our announcement may do good indirectly by creating increased attention to this important question, on the part of all persons interested in the right education of the young. No resolution adopted by the Peace Congress at Rome created more interest, or obtained more general assent, than that which related to this subject. It was urged that if the hateful and stupid antipathies which have done so much to make war possible are ever to be overcome, this must be done at school and college. The foundation of right sentiments on these, as on other subjects, must be laid during the most impressionable period of life. It is then that our future men and women must learn that all nations need and supplement each other—that no people can claim a monopoly of good and great qualities; that Co-operation, not Conflict, is the true mission of humanity.

It will be seen from the circular that the principal Peace Societies of Europe and America are requested to receive papers and select the best for transmission to our office in London. The Committee will then ask the co-operation of a few specially competent persons to aid them in constituting a jury for the careful examination of the papers received, and the award of the prize. We appeal to all the members and friends of our Association for their co-operation. in making this proposal widely known, and especially to persons connected with educational work.

PHIL.

AUGUSTE DESMOULINS.

DEATH has again removed a trusted and wellbeloved leader from our ranks. He could ill be spared. Auguste Desmoulins was a man whom it was happiness to know, so gentle and so firm, so full of deep sympathy for the poor and the oppressed, yet so wise in his judgment and so practical.

When in his company the words "suaviter in modo, sed fortiter in re" were always present to our mind. The same thought was expressed by one of his countrymen, who said that he was "a keen rapier in a velvet sheath;" but it was a rapier never used to wound purposely it was only used for the defence of sufferers,

and as a terror to evil doers.

During his whole life, this "exile of 1848," this consistent social and political reformer; this advocate of conciliation and justice, alike in the strife of classes and in that of nations, laboured incessantly, not for fee or reward, but with unsparing sacrifice of self in obedience to heart and a tender conscience. a generous

Our readers will remember what yeoman service he rendered to the cause of goodwill between France and England, when he was leader in the "Paris Cominittee of the International Federation of Arbitration and Peace." Our Committee were always in most close and friendly relations with that body, and the success of our common work was wholly due to his truly international spirit. We deeply mourn his loss.

In the monthly record of the resolutions of our committee, published in the usual column, will be found a suitable expression of their esteem and regret. Copies have been sent to his widow, to the French. Press and to the Municipal Council of Paris, of which he was vice-president. In CONCORD for November, 1890, will be found a biography of him, under the head of "Foreign Visitors to the Peace Congress.' H. P.

PERILS WHICH BESET ARBITRATION; AND THE SAFEGUARD.

THE TREATY RATIFIED AT LAST. To the long list of dangerous disputes settled by reference to arbitrators, we may now add this question,-whether Behring Sea is open to the seal-catchers of the world or only to those of the United States. The Treaty of Arbitration was signed at Washington on the 29th February last, and was ratified by the American Senate on the 29th ult. Seven arbitrators will decide what were the rights of

Russia before Alaska was ceded to the United States; how far those rights were recognised by Great Britain; whether the phrase "Pacific Ocean," in a Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia, included Behring Sea; and what rights the States have to the fur seals in the open sea, outside the limit of three miles from the shore.

for March last, there was some apprehension lest When we wrote on this subject in CONCORD the Treaty might not be ratified, on account of the sharp controversy which had arisen between President Harrison and Lord Salisbury, because the latter had refused to renew, for another year, the restriction on seal-catching by the Canadians until the claims of the States to an bury suggested, as a compromise, that the right exclusive right had been settled. Lord Salisof seal fishing should be restricted to those owners of vessels who would give security for payment of all damages which might be awarded by the arbitrators under the Treaty. The President having rejected this suggestion, Lord Salisbury proposed that the arbitrators should be asked "to decide whether either Government has since 1885 taken any action in Behring Sea of the other" (Spectator for April 2nd); while directly inflicting wrongful loss on the subjects the fishing during the present season was to go This was accepted at Washington, and the Senate no longer hesitated to ratify the Treaty.

on.

"All's well that ends well"; but we think it important to emphasise the opinion which we expressed last month, that, when once two Governments have agreed to refer a dispute between them to arbitral decision, it is essential that the completion of the agreement should not be imperilled by delays. In the present case, the British and American Governments agreed to arbitration more than a year ago. This long delay has given too much time for changes of mind on either side, or further occur. rences of inopportune and unexpected questions. Now, we contend that the inherent obstacles which stand in the way of this reasonable and necessary mode of settling dangerous international differences are sufficiently great, and should not be enhanced by allowing time for secondary obstacles to arise-which may come from electioneering needs, or other accidents of that sort. Fortunately, the great majority of the people of both nations, in this case, abhor the very idea of a war, which would be fratricidal, and would not allow their Governments to do more than palaver and bluster. Suppose, however, that this dispute had been one between Russia and Great Britain, there would have been no such security for a good understanding and peaceful settlement.

The lesson which these delays and their

possible consequences teach is this: the need of a "Permanent Council and High Court of International Arbitration," such as we find in the scheme of the late Professor Leone Leviapproved and revised by so high authority as Lord Hobhouse. As suggested in that project, any two States might in the first instance agree to constitute such a council, by nominating as members their best judicial authorities. This step once taken, other nations would probably offer to associate themselves with this council; but Great Britain and America should take the lead, as becomes them. Such a council once constituted, it would soon become a matter of course for Governments to resort to it; and all the arrangements which must precede an arbitration would be taken in hand by this body, such as appointment of a "High Court" specially created to try the cause in question-its members being so selected by the council, as regards nationality, as to afford every guarantee for absolute impartiality. The council would similarly prepare a statement of the case, after hearing the representatives of the two nations, indicate the points to be considered, and prepare rules of procedure.

The experience and special qualifications of such a body would render these preliminaries far more expeditious than at present, and the whole matter would be taken out of the hands of the two Governments concerned, and so remove the perils we have just indicated.

Such great and necessary changes, however, will never be initiated by Governments until they find that the representatives of the people in Parliament demand action, and these latter, as a rule, do not take the initiative until their electors require them to do so. On the other hand, such reforms have to be pressed upon the electorate by societies, leagues, and associations like our own. This must be done.

THE SOUDAN ONCE MORE:

A MONSTROUS PROJECT.

H. P.

THE question of the evacuation of Egypt-that is the withdrawal of the comparatively small British garrison (3,000 strong), which is one of the standing provocations to international strife is one that must not be lost sight of for an hour. This has recently been brought to public notice under a new form by Mr. Henry Norman, in the current number of the Contemporary Review, and deserves close attention from those whose

duty it is to keep vigilant watch over military

schemers and their insinuating exponents in the press. This article affords an instance in point. After the thinly-veiled sarcasms of our Premier and his cynical references to the indefinite therefore, as Continental observers aver, interminable-period for withdrawal of our military

This is plausible enough; and in comparison with the crude flouts and gibes of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs the journalist's way of putting the case is far more dignified and statesmanlike. But, under cover of the second of the above conditions, Mr. Norman has "a text of his own to vend," to which we have to draw special attention as one of sinister and perilous import. It is, in its naked form, that, before "the Egyptian army can be sufficiently strong to guarantee continuous progress of internal organisation," a 'British-backed army" must be used to re-conquer the Soudan.

"

Now, to those who have followed the ghastly story of Egypt's ruinous and futile attempts to subjugate and hold the Nubian provinces in subjection, as we and our readers have done for years past, this demand may well appear as the acme of folly and recklessness. Every authority of any weight, including even the heroic but misguided Gordon, has abandoned this phantasm of plundering and ruling the indomitable tribes of the vast tropical desert, struggling, and rightly struggling, to be free." We have justly complimented the journalist's facility of expression, which is conspicuous on every page of this article; and we can admire the intrepidity with which, after denouncing Cairo as a city of malaria and lies," he, himself, after a very few weeks spent in Egypt, seizes on one of the malarial lies of that city of intrigues and reckless schemes and rushes into print, at this time of day, to review and champion a new version of the most baneful and delusive of those schemes. It is grand; but it is not politics or sanity. But we will quote him again, and against himself:

"Whatever the Egyptian ariny might become after evacuation, it will always be easily equal to the task of preserving internal order, and, as Lord Dufferin remarked long ago, Egypt is fortunate in having no external enemies. There is only one quarter from which Egypt is threatened, and against which the British-backed army alone guards it-the Soudan. If this reasoning is good, the conclusion is obvious: before the British occupation of Egypt ceases, the Egyptian army must

replace the Soudan under the authority of the Khedive."

But we deny, and that on the strength of authorities, including Lord Dufferin, who outweigh a hat full of journalists, indulging in a holiday freak, that "the reasoning is good." Facts of geography, of race, of conditions of commerce, of religion, prove

abundantly that the Soudan is not, and cannot be, and will not be part of modern Egypt. Very much to this effect is shown in Mr. Russell's volume, which we reviewed (too imperfectly) last month; also by Mr. Wylde and others, who know the Soudan most thoroughly under present conditions. Mr. Norman merely touches on the hideous failure of the united Egyptian and British forces to reconquer the Soudanese: his own words are, "three-fifths of the inhabitants of the Soudan have been destroyed since 1882, by disease, famine, and war.” But the remnant is yet un

subdued; for the awful desert, and the forces of race and of nature are against this monstrous project, so lightly reviewed in such insinuating guise by an adventurous journalist.

From our experience in the record of a long course of subtile intrigues regarding the Soudan, we feel justified in warning our readers that there may be more in the new plot than meets the eye. Mr. Norman is just a trifle too eager in this business, there is a lack of finish in such a crude remark as this:-"Curiously enough the rumour - laden air of Cairo has recently borne the whisper of a southern advance of the Egyptian troops." There is nothing curious about such whispers during the last few weeks. The clever and determined officer whose fixed idea is the re-subjugation of the Soudan, whose devious but persistent intrigues we have had to track in that direction during the last few years, has recently been promoted to a high military post, may now think there is a chance of carrying out his dream. Mr. Norman, of course, does not mention this potent person amongst those whom he thanks for their aid and counsel; but if he cannot trace this "6 whisper of a southern advance" to its source, there are others who can. Therefore it behoves, not only the opponents of war, but our responsible public men of both parties to exert vigilance and determination in time to check the schemes which, if unwatched, may drift into such a monstrous crime as would be another expedition into the Soudan under British auspices. It is our Foreign Office, and not the young Khedive, who would be responsible for such a scandal and wickedness.

With much that the writer says in personal praise of "the excellent piece of social, political, and economic disinfection and restoration that stands to the credit of Sir EvelynBaring, and the little band of Englishmen in the Egyptian service-with a few equally worthy French coadjutors," we fully agree. Why, then, should this good work be marred by the carrying out of the sinister scheme we have exposed?

W.

THE GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTIONS TO AN ARBITRATION TREATY.

ON the 4th instant, Mr. Labouchere asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the fact that both Houses of the American Congress had authorised the President to conclude a treaty of arbitration with any other power, Her Majesty's Government would enter into negotiations with the American Government for the conclusion of such a treaty between Great Britain and the United States. We may here remind our readers that the resolution referred to was adopted by the Senate on the 15th February, 1890; and by the House of Representatives on the 4th April, 1890.

That

Mr. J. W. Lowther's reply was not at all satisfactory. In the first place, he thought it a good argument to quote an unfavourable reply of Mr. Gladstone to a somewhat similar question in the year 1883. Mr. Gladstone, however, held many opinions eight or nine years ago which he does not hold now; and the important Resolution of the American Congress, above referred to had not then been adopted. great historic incident makes all the difference in the world. It constitutes a direct invitation from one nation to all other nations to enter into permanent treaties with the former, whereby all disputes shall, for ever, be settled by reason and justice instead of force. We wonder how soon the British public will understand the momentous character of that Resolution!

In the next place Mr. Lowther observed that "Her Majesty's Government have shown that they are not averse to referring to arbitration several matters of dispute which have arisen between themselves and foreign governments, but there are questions, such as those involving the title of the British Crown to territory or other sovereign rights, which Her Majesty's Government could not pledge themselves beforehand in all cases to refer to arbitration."

Thus, we know the stock objections of the official world upon which our opponents will rely when Mr. W. R. Cremer brings this question of an Anglo-American treaty in the shape of a formal motion before the House of Commons. The late Charles Lemonnier, in the course of his continued advocacy of permanent treaties of arbitration, always made one important reserve as to the subjects suitable for arbitration. It was this, that no such agreement could be allowed to affect the Sovereign right of a nation to maintain its independence. This, however, is a very different thing from saying that "the title of the British Crown to territory or other sovereign rights" must be excluded from the purview of an impartial tribunal of arbitrators. International disputes turn mainly upon the question whether this or that nation has a "title to territory." It is a

constantly increasing cause of quarrel in these days, when populations "swarm" over every bit of territory which they think they can appropriate by hook or by crook.

Who, then, shall decide the question of " title when two rival claimants appear on the field? Each of course puts forward what he calls his "sovereign rights;" but neither can be judge in his own cause; and to refuse to refer them to the judgment of a third party is virtually to leave the settlement to the decision of the sword, if neither party will give way.

In the next place, if the American people are willing to leave whatever claims they may at any future time have against another people to the decision of a tribunal, it means that they are willing to run the risk of losing what they claim. That being so, why should not the British people be equally willing to run the risk of failing to substantiate their claims? Is not success in a disputed claim, as dear to Americans as to Britons? Why then should the latter not be as willing as the former to take the risk of a legal decision? To refuse would be to accept a lower moral position before the world than that occupied by the United States on this great question. It is for the British public to say whether they will adopt the higher law accepted by their brethren on the other side of the Atlantic.

We have faith in the supreme love of justice which distinguishes our people; and on great questions of national duty, they have often shown more tender conscience than the governing class. We believe they will do so in this case, when once the principle at stake has been fairly brought before them. Mr. Cremer is a better exponent of the true feeling of his countrymen in this matter than Mr. Lowther.

H. P.

ITALIA FARA DA SE ?"

IT has been the fate of every great movement worthy the name, to have attached to it some catchword or phrase which roughly indicates the nature of the enterprise. The time has not long gone by when "three acres and a cow" were supposed to indicate the trend of one political party; while the very names of Tory or Whig were the outcome of popular sentiment at the time the expression was coined. Thus, when the French soldiers were seen no more in Rome, and the first exultation of joy at the withdrawal of foreign supremacy possessed the whole Italian people as one man, the phrase arose, born of new independence and the sense of power-Italia farà da Se. This simply means, “Italy can manage for herself," and under this title, which has been changed into "Italy cannot manage for herself," a noteworthy article has been written in the Nineteenth Century for last month by W. Frewen Lord.

It is a sad corroboration of the circular sent forth in the interests of our movement by Signor Arnaudon, of the Turin Society, last year. S. Arnaudon then said,

in his address to the Italian working-men, "We want these questions considered (ie., peace and public economy), so that people may be able in quiet to pursue agricultural and other enterprises favourable to our working-classes. Only by facilities for the further employment of labour can our industries be rescued from the depression caused by the heavy taxes which so weigh on us that the sources of industrial life are dried up. In Belgium the price of bread is always from ten to fourteen centimes less than with us. We pay one franc fifty centimes for sugar, while in Paris it can be had from one franc per pound; and there lamp-oil costs only thirty centimes, whilst here we pay seventy. It is the same with everything."

The

Mr. Lord says that at the present time one-fifth of the land of Southern Italy is out of cultivation, and that no country, not even the Colonies, needs capital so greedily as Italy. And, at the same time, he points out that in Italy, it costs next to nothing to live. average daily wage of labourers is but 9d. Italy has, again, "a vast invalid population. Every great town has its resident malady, either typhoid, typhus, or smallpox, and an epidemic of some kind is always raging in some part of the country. Then the malarious chills and fevers are endless. If England had acted as

Italy has done, her position at the present moment would be very different from what it is. Suppose that at the close of the Revolutionary War, England had neglected her coal, iron, and cotton, and had set her heart on vast military plans and Continental alliances, she would not be overloaded with debt, and perhaps would find Belgium and the United States underselling her in her own markets. But in truth Italy requires no heroic remedies. The simple application of a few homely maxims would set everything right in ten years. The first of these might be :-Cut your coat according to your cloth.' Italy has only to recognise as a nation, what every honest, private individual has to recognise, that she must not indulge in extraordinary outlay until she is quite sure of being able to meet ordinary expenses. And if her ordinary expenses threaten to outrun a stationary income, her establishment must be reduced." The moral of all this, surely, may be shown in the fact that Italy, notwithstanding all the national misery and poverty, is keeping up an absurdly disproportioned Army and Navy, and is consequently on the road to ruin. Mr. Lord says: "Abolish these enormous taxes on trade, and if this cannot be done without immediate loss of income, recall the expedition to Massowah."

There, indeed, lies the road to restoration. Is it not lamentable that, from a country where disease, pilfering, and poverty are rampant, where, in one city alone, there are no less than 2,000 homeless people who sleep in the streets, the citizens should be sent armed to conquer savages who are better off than they? What good will it do to Italian finance to possess a certain number of barren acres amid the burning sands of Massowah, watered, as they are, by the blood of those who might have been reviving the trade, and with it the prosperity of their own country?

Mr. Lord says:-"Italy has before her the iron necessity of immediate reform. To right and left lie two paths-one will lead her to a position slightly better than that of Turkey, the other to a position slightly better than that of Brazil. What the land cries out for is a man with strong common sense."

Will she get it? Italy is just now swinging, like Mahomet's coffin, between heaven and earth, and it remains to be seen what will happen. Has the nation sufficient vitality and perseverance to insist that the Government shall make the necessary retrenchments and inaugurate a new era of prosperity, or will she allow more and more weight to be cast upon her until, overburdened, she sinks to earth? Nothing can be more discouraging than Mr. Lord's account of the