THE JOURNAL OF THE International Arbitration and Peace Association. OFFICES: 40 & 41, OUTER TEMPLE, STRAND, LONDON, W.C. "A vast International Association ought to be formed having for its sole object to make the system of CONTENTS. [PRICE TWOPENCE, THE Revolution of 1789, notwithstanding the errors and excesses which the misery, ignorance and passions of men rendered inevitable, inaugurated a new Era. It proclaimed the principle that the poorest and humblest human being has rights absolutely sacred. They are sacred because man is immortal, endowed with a divine nature, capable of boundless life, and of eternal growth. Consistently with the enunciation of the true "rights" of man- necessary to him that he may fulfil the "whole duty" of man-it was proclaimed that human society must be organised for the highest possible welfare of the greatest possible number; and, consequently, that the irresponsible rule of the few over the many must close for ever. The Revolution was the knell of privilege and of privileged classes, of autocratic and despotic systems of government; and for a hundred years that principle has been working itself out in many forms, and under many disguises. In every country which has been under the influence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, distorted, disguised and travestied as it has been, the idea of equality of rights and of fraternity has made will grow steadily, however slowly, in spite of A hundred years have rolled round since the Well, then, what is the duty of 1889, if we, like the men of 1789, are to see the special need of the time, to save society from ruin, and to do our special work? The people have a power they did not possess a hundred years ago, and they should use it. They must strike the sword from the ruler's hands everywhere. That sword means ruin and death. The people must no longer allow the governing classes to say "force is the only remedy," and to continue this hard and cruel race of mutual impoverishment and destruction. Let 1889 declare that every ruler, every statesman, and every Parliament shall be denounced that does not consent to a "CONGRESS FOR DISARMAMENT." Let that be the thought and the work of 1889, and render that year even more immortal in the hearts and minds of men than was the year 1789. It is time, indeed, to know and feel that on universal concord and co-operation, not on universal strife and destruction, are based every highest hope of man's true destiny, his greatest and most lasting interests, his progress, and happiness. It is time, indeed, that " be liker man, and universal peace lie like a shaft of light across the land, and like a lane of beams athwart the sea." H. P. INTERVENTION OR MEDIATION. man ADMIRAL MAXSE'S remarkable historical retrospect (Pall Mall Gazette, January 29th), regarding what he describes as "England's Dereliction of Duty, 1870-71," is worthy of more thorough examination than can be given to it in these columns. Therefore we trust that some of our friends will investigate the gallant officer's statement in the light of duly authentic records of that period. Here we can only briefly indicate the scope of the then secret episode now just brought into daylight. He tells us that, during the Siege of Paris, Mr. Odo Russell (afterwards Lord Ampthill), who was British representative with the German headquarters at Versailles, came over to England to urge on Lord Granville and Mr. Gladstone the duty of offering to mediate between the belligerents. In this, the diplomat "acted entirely on his own initiative"; but to cut the interesting story short-these two statesmen "had no foreign policy at all beyond pacific intentions. They dismissed the messenger of peace; they would do nothing. Mr. Odo Russell returned to his post at Versailles disheartened and discomfited. The siege went on to its bitter end." Here, before disclosing the sequel of Mr. Russell's courageous but abortive proposal, it is desirable to refer to the public part taken by Admiral Maxse and several of his political friends, shortly before that demi-official propo To sal to the Foreign Office. They held a public meeting in St. James's Hall on January 10th, 1871,* at which they called upon our Government "to intervene and ascertain what the German terms of peace were, and to resist, if necessary, the dismemberment of France." Those are our italics, so printed in order to indicate the crux of the contention that has since arisen between the admiral and Mr. Cremer regarding that meeting, and the policy advocated in its resolutions. Here it is necessary to explain that the moral or political force of the movement was almost neutralised by certain deliberate opposition in the meeting. As the admiral puts it, "there is, unfortunately, a Peace Society in England"; and he proceeds to remark that these "well-intentioned persons did their best to secure a continuation of the carnage by damaging the only movement that there was in favour of intervention by England." this Mr. Cremer has replied (for it was the Workmen's Peace Association which formed the opposition on that occasion); and the reply puts the admiral's movement in quite a different light from that presented in the Pall Mall Gazette. Except for the merely incidental phrase we have specially marked, no reader would suspect that the admiral and his friends had any other desire than to promote such an entirely pacific, impartial, and neutral offer of mediation as that which, as described above, was shortly afterwards formally proposed by Mr. Odo Russell. But Mr. Cremer-writing with a full knowledge of the circumstancestells us that the promoters of the St. James's Hall meeting advocated armed intervention, which is a totally different policy from that of mediation. It is not needful here to enter intoargument to show that the former policy would be as likely as not to increase the "carnage,' while it would have gratuitously plunged this country into war for a cause in which our people had no quarrel or responsibility. This clears the ground for us to welcome. everything that Admiral Maxse says on behalf of the policy of mediation. So forcible are his remarks, and so striking is the lesson taught by the disclosure he makes as to the then readiness of the German authorities to listen to overtures of pacific mediation from disinterested England, that we must quote the passage fully : "Now for the climax. After the war was over, and when Lord Ampthill was our ambassador at Berlin, Prince Bismarck informed him, and the Crown Prince informed him also, that the German authorities had expected England would have offered mediation when they were before Paris, and that they would have accepted it! "There is not the smallest doubt but that if mediation had been entertained at any time during the siege, before the city had surrendered, it would have resulted in far more honourable terms of peace for France than * Paris capitulated on the 28th of that month. those which were dictated after its capitulation by conquerors flushed with success, and without any neutral Power to act as a mediator between them and the crushed enemy. Lorraine, with Metz, would certainly have been saved to France. The terms of peace actually imposed were in reality not terms of peace at all, but terms of an armistice. Europe has been preparing for war ever since. It was the territorial spoliation of France which destroyed all hopes of a permanent peace. It was vain for Germany to proclaim peace when she carried off Alsace and a large portion of Lorraine, including Metz and Thionville. Austria sustained terrible defeat at the hands of Germany in 1866: why has durable peace been established between them? Because not an inch of territory was annexed." This is terribly true: it is an "armistice," not permanent peace," that describes the situation in Western Europe. Impartial lookers-on, such as ourselves and our branch societies on the Continent, are free to say this; though responsible statesmen in France must abide by the Treaty of Frankfort, until some sufficiently weighty and combined movement from without shall open the way to pacific revision of that treaty, by voluntary action on the part of the rulers of the two great countries concerned. For the present, it must be owned, no such way seems open; but it is at least permissible to hope on, even through this dark hour, whilst the populations of Europe are groaning beneath the intolerable burdens that fill society with unrest and dire apprehension. Meanwhile our rising statesmen would do well to record for future instruction the lesson taught by the rejection of Mr. Odo Russell's nobly conceived project, which, as it is now too late made evident, the proud conquerors would have been induced to accept. Intervention is a policy full of peril: mediation is a course full of promise. W. BURN THE SHIP TO SAVE THE SHIP? SUCH a proposal as that of Lord Wolseley that the English people should adopt conscription shows extraordinary ignorance of the English people. Never at any time in past history would such a suggestion have been received with such an outburst of popular indignation as it would now, if there were the least fear of its adoption. The military profession renders most of its followers morally and intellectually incapable of relying upon anything but brute force in this world; and there is nothing which so much blinds men to moral forces as the habit of seeing masses of men obey orders, however. monstrous-like mere machines-“theirs not to reason why theirs but to do and die." The real answer to all such proposals is to point to the Continental States, and to ask: "What has conscription done for them?" The answer is: The ruinous expenditure of men and money, the depletion of the farms and workshops, desertion of the laboratory, class-room, library and museum for drill and parade ground; the diversion of thought, knowledge, and power from fields of science, industry, and commerce to the arsenal, the foundry, and the barrack. It means waste of national wealth, and a fatal blow at the sources of all wealth. Above all, this blood tax has utterly failed as an insurance." Not one of these nations thinks itself safe from attack. On the contrary, each feels less and less secure from war as every day passes, and each continues to make preparations for "burning the ship to save the ship." Each follows more and more madly the game of "ruin my neighbour," and Lord Wolseley now proposes that we, too, should enter ourselves for the race to ruin! These considerations clearly show that the disastrous state of Europe demands some other solution, wholly different, and it should not be beyond the wit of man to find it. What is really wanted is that instead of arming, nations should disarm. It is roughly estimated that the naval and military budgets of Europe amount to 190 millions sterling. If that amount were reduced to one-half or onefourth, the relative strength of all would be precisely the same as at present, and a saving would be effected of ninety-five or of one hundred and forty-five millions annually. But the only true and certain means of securing Europe from peril is that there should be no longer any reason for war. That condition of things can be brought about when the people insist that every dispute shall be submitted to mediation or to arbitration, or be settled by adequate treaties and engagements, to be drafted and ratified, not by Ministers in secret, but by the nations concerned, in the light of day. There is no other remedy whatever; and Europe has to choose between reason and ruin. We shall then no longer need generals to propose measures which provide no insurance, but which provide despair and insurrection. PHIL. THE SOCIAL ASPECT OF WAR. IN a most learned and intensely interesting book by Emile de Laveleye, entitled "Primitive Property," he points out that both in Rome, as well as in Greece, inequality, after stifling liberty, destroyed the State itself. It was the struggle between the rich and the poor, between the patricians and the plebeians, which destroyed the ancient democracies, and will destroy modern societies, too, if they do not take precautions in time. Aristotle was right when he asserted that liberty and democracy cannot exist without equality of conditions. "Inequality," he tells us, "is the source of all revolutions." Pliny explains all ancient history in the words "Latifundia perdidere Italiam." We are now face to face with the problem which antiquity failed to solve, and the situation at the present day is far more critical than ever it was in the days of Greece and Rome. Socialism is everywhere making rapid strides. "As yet," as Mr. Disraeli said, "it is a light breeze which hardly stirs the foliage, but soon it will be the hurricane, overturning everything in its path." In Germany, in France, in Austria, in Spain, and in England, it has penetrated the masses with its ideas. Well may Henry George ask, "What shall we say of Europe, where dams of ancient law and custom pen up the swelling waters, and standing armies weigh down the safety valves, though year by year the fires are growing hotter underneath, whence shall come the new barbarians? Go through the squalid quarters of great cities, and you shall see even now their gathering hordes." Notwithstanding all that may be urged to the contrary, the rich are growing richer and richer, whilst the poor are growing poorer and poorer every day. The great gulf between Dives and Lazarus is becoming broader and deeper and more impassable than ever. What the poet says is still true "Landless, joyless, hopeless, restless, Struggling still for bread and breath, Even Prince Bismarck in the German Parliament admitted, not long ago, that there was a solical question, although he had not had time to study it, as all his time had been occupied in the consideration of questions of foreign policy and of peace or war. Notwithstanding his low estimate of the value of "the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier," even the man of "blood and iron" is alive to the pressing necessity of dealing with the great social problem of the age in which we live, as his attitude with respect to the questions of State insurance and the Tobacco Tax conclusively prove. In 1877 he stated that "the idea itself did not strike him as absolutely preposterous and absurd." Lassalle's red mark then has left a visible stain even on Bismarck's white uniform. Now what is it that has produced this inequality and has brought this great social question into such ever-increasing and dangerous prominence? We believe that this terrible state of things, which is daily becoming a greater danger and menace to Christianity, to morality, and to civilisation itself, has been chiefly brought about by the intolerable taxation which the people have been called upon to pay for war and preparations for war. How can we expect the social condition of the masses to be satisfactory whilst we are spending £19,500 on one single 110 ton gun? Why, the cost of this single instrument of the devil would feed 390,000 starving, houseless, hopeless, restless, and faithless poor at a shilling a head! This one cannot is only one of the items which neighbouring nations who have absolutely no quarrel with each other have to pay to maintain the steel traps and spring guns with which to injure each other. What would be thought of individuals in civil life who should ruin, starve and reduce themselves and their estates to bankruptcy in order to protect themselves against an imaginary enemy with whom they had no quarrel. We are paying £100,000 for Bremen torpedoes, and allowing the inventor £5,000 a year to make experiments with them, at a time when our poor are starving like rats in our streets, and at a time when men, women, and children, are allowed to sleep on the cold, hard pavements during this bitter winter weather, whilst in thirty of the population go from the cradle to the grave without coming to the workhouse, and when one in ten are totally unable to put by against a rainy day, sickness, or sudden calamity, work as hard as they will. Millions are being spent on ironclads, whilst the "Bitter Cry" is ascending to heaven as a protest against our neglect of the poor. Even in time of peace Europe's war bill is something like £400,000,000 per annum, whilst her white slaves," and those "new barbarians" of whom Macaulay prophesied, are gathering together and preparing for social war in the slums of all her large cities. Can we wonder that such a policy as this is fast driving millions of the working classes into the arms of such fanatics as the Nihilist Bakunin, with. his amorphism, solidarity, anarchy, collectivism, and pan-destruction? Europe at the present moment has under arms, including the naval and reserve forces, no less than 14,149,915 human beings trained and disciplined to cut each others throats. Can we wonder, then, that the statesmen of Europe are face to face with a great social problem which will not be shelved, and which surpasses all their wisdom and statecraft to solve? Mr. Bright tells us that fourfifths of the revenue of this country is swallowed up in war and preparations for war. every £1 of imperial taxation that is wrung from the people, 14s. 6d. is swallowed down in this vortex. Should it then be a matter of surprise if the smouldering ashes of discontent and unrest should at any moment burst into a flame, and we should find ourselves in the midst of the greatest of all curses, red revolution and civil war? We have it on the authority of the same great statesman that, since the commencement of the present century, we have spent no less than £4,414,000,000 sterling on war and preparations for war. Do our statesmen fondly lay the flattering unction to their souls that the victims of cornering, sweating, monopolies, and ringing, will permit them to spend such a sum as this in the next century? May not such a May not such a policy be summed up as the Out of most absurdly absurd absurdity of all human absurdities? Mr. Adams, in his interesting book on public debts, tells us that the United States Civil War cost the victors £450,000,000, whilst the Austro-German War added £60,000,000, the Paraguya War £40,000,000, and last, the Franco-German War, £390,000,000, to the sum total of national burdens. And, be it remembered, battles are becoming more bloody and murderous than ever. The Spartans won the battle of Corinth with the loss of only eight men; the victors at indecisive Gettysburg confess to a loss of 30,000. How long, then, are we to believe and act as though all men were nothing but fiends and wolves, half beasts and half devils? How long will the starving proletariat permit our statesmen to carry on this game of beggar-my-neighbour at their expense, for it is they who have to pay the piper as well as supply the fighting material? How long will our statesmen be allowed to pluck the pigeon by indirect taxation without its crying out? Last year we spent no less than £37,000,000 on the army and navy, including pensions. Now if we add to this £27,000,000 as the interest on the national war debt, and carry out the proposal to suspend the sinking fund of £7,000,000 for strengthening the navy, we shall arrive at the grand total, in round numbers, of £72,000,000 as the cost of our army and navy for this year. Taking the figures at the very lowest estimate, Christian England in times of peace in the nineteenth century is spending between £6,000 and £7,000 per hour by night and by day, Sunday included, throughout the whole year. How long will the starving poor, without homes, without food, without creed, altar or faith, in rags, in dirt, without hope, and totally unable to procure employment, allow, what John Ruskin calls, "the peacocky motives" to ruin the nations of the earth in this way? "Lord, let the human storm be stilled, L'UNION FAIT LA FORCE. C. D. WE rejoice to announce that the cause of Arbitration and Peace has gained the great advantage which must certainly result from the amalgamation of our sister society," Le Comité de Paris," with the the older society long and honourably known as "La Société Française des Amis de la Paix." The former was founded in January, 1884, by the joint efforts of M. Auguste Desmoulins and Mr. Hodgson Pratt; and the latter was founded twenty years ago. Le Comité de Paris, as our readers know, has done excellent work, and has co-operated with our Association most heartily and most usefully for the common aims under its very able and well-known hon. secretary, M. Desmoulins, and under its distinguished and indefatigable president, M. Hippolyte Destrem. The Société des Amis de la Paix has had at its head successively two men well-known throughout Europe-M. Adolphe Franck (member of the Institute of France and professor of International law at the College of France), and M. Frédéric Passy (member of the Institute of France and member of the Chamber of Deputies). The chairman of our committee having ventured to suggest to these two excellent battalions of the Peace Army that it would perhaps tend to promote the success of their great and difficult work if they were to unite their forces, the proposal was received with the greatest cordiality. Mr. Pratt was invited to attend meetings of the two Executive Councils, held for the purpose of considering the question and of arranging the terms of fusion. No difficulty occurred; and every officer, however distinguished or great his services had been, was eager to put aside all personal considerations, and to retire to the second place if necessary. The monthly journal-L'Arbitre-of the late Comité de Paris, which will continue to be the organ of the united body, announces in its February issue that at the general meetings of the two societies the proposed fusion has been ratified, and that the new society has been definitively constituted under the title of the SOCIÉTÉ FRANCAISE DE L'ARBITRAGE ENTRE NATIONS. We offer our hearty congratulations to all our many friends and fellow-workers in France on the accomplishment of this important step, alike honourable to those concerned and a pledge of new strength and progress. OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENTS. FRANCE. ON my way to college this morning to deliver my lecture, I met a professor of the Faculty of Theology, and he said to me, "How old are you?" On my replying that I was twenty-six, he said, "Well, then, you will soon have to take your rifle." "Why so?" I enquired. "Because here is Boulanger in power, and he must try to keep at least one of his promises, which means that he will make an effort to restore AlsaceLorraine to us. That means war before six months are over." If it were not that my friend is a little inclined to mistake his fears for accomplished facts, and if M. Boulanger were really at this moment our master, we should, indeed, have to resign ourselves to the prospect of a war with our neighbours. We should enter upon that struggle with saddened hearts, but resolved to do our duty manfully, though without any great illusion as to the probable issue of the contest; an army led by such a chief is almost sure to march to defeat. We should have to resign ourselves to this because for the soldier whom France had had the folly to choose for her master the only means of remaining in power |