able part of France. With regard to Russia, which was returning to Asiatic barbarism, it was a profound judgment which prompted Comte, more than fifty years ago, to substitute the West' for Europe,' thus counting Russia as completely outside the order and progress which he included in the former term. Europe' was a geographical expression, and they must never use the word as connoting civilisation or the vanguard of mankind. They must never forget that Russia and Turkey, alone in Europe, stood outside civilisation in its highest form, and could never be admitted without danger and disgrace to the political combinations of the Western aggregate. We could not reform them nor school them, and it was absurd to scold them; we had quite enough to do to reform ourselves, and we must leave them alone to work out their own destinies, as it was our duty to leave the Chinese."

Here, in passing, we may remark, whilst leaving. Russia to Mr. Harrison's tender mercies, there is something to be said for the much abused Turk from the international point of view. Whatever we may think of the administration of rapacious Pashas, the Sultan and his ministers have usually observed their treaty obligations when they have had a fair chance given them, and often to their own hurt. The speaker's remarks on the perplexing situation in France are worthy of note, he having very special knowledge of that nation; but we wish he could have made more allowance for the misfortunes of the French people, the chief of which is distinctly pointed out in the above passage. Let us rather consider our own ways, and see ourselves as others see us, even these Positivists. Certainly we have our own hands full. Thus proceeded the mentor of our professional politicians :—

"A new Ministry, charged with the hopes and promises of six years, had taken office, and yet, when they surveyed the Empire, how little it had changed. 'An Amurath, an Amurath succeeds.' It was the boast of the party lately in power, as of their successors, that 'moral continuity' was maintained. The British Empire was unchanged-there was but one Imperial

statesman the more. To those who were not so much convinced of the moral character of the Empire, it would seem as if the advent of the Liberal party to office were rather a sign of its inflation than of its retrenchment. When the Liberal party was in Opposition, its criticism was a check upon the standing conspiracy of fire-eaters, traders, and missionaries to enlarge our boundaries and absorb new lands. The empire had become rather a burden and a danger than a strength; it was an unwieldy, amorphous, and impossible agglomeration of heterogeneous fragments, with no element of permanent cohesion, often debauching the nation, leading it from one crime to another, and drawing it off from its true duties. With these sentiments, Mr. Harrison went on to consider the question of Uganda, quoting with approval from a protest written by Professor Beesly, on behalf of the Positivist Society, against the retention of that country. He termed it 'Midsummer madness,' the grounds on which this had been urged, and said he would not believe that Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Morley were bent upon it. He prophesied that long before we could obtain our tea, hams, and shirts from Uganda, we should be sore tested to find food for the forty million mouths at home, and that a score of different flags would be flying over those patches which were now marked red on the map of the world."

This, as we have intimated, requires to be worked out by our readers in their own way ; in such a necessarily compact review the ethical thread is not apparent on the surface; but it is there for those who have an eye to see it, as indicated in the ironical phrase "moral continuity." Thank thee, my Lord Rosebery, for that tag! As to the Uganda outcry, that has spent itself for the present; the ultimate results may serve Mr. Harrison for another New Year's Day oration, say in 1895. As to those "who are not so much convinced of the moral character of the Empire "-whoever may be hit by that curiously elusive dictumthere has been food for reflection in the wild shriek emitted by even the more ponderous of our daily journals at the bare prospect of some design on the part of the present Ministry to smash up Morocco. On the other hand, the same journals not only make no account of, but rather conspire to hide the grossly immoral character of the policy, pursued for months, if not years past, by the Indian Government W. against the Ameer of Afghanistan.

PATRIOTISM: TRUE AND FALSE.

WHAT is patriotism? Can the true be fostered and the false discouraged? These are important questions, which go to the very root of the peace movement; but they have hardly received adequate attention, we think. The recent address of Mr. James Bryce, M.P., to the head teachers of London, and the letter to the London School Board from the Earl of Meath, will, however, arouse general attention to this subject. Its discussion may make our ideas more clear than they are at present. That they are not as distinct as they should be was frankly declared at the Berne Peace Congress by the Dutch Society, "Pax Humanitate"; and its members expressed a desire that the Congress Committee for 1893 should prepare a full report on the ideas described as Love of

Fatherland," The Lombard Union and Mr. Felix Moscheles also moved resolutions-the first that the relations between the two ideas of humanity and nationality should be defined; and the latter that it should be considered "how the sentiment of nationality may be reduced to its just proportions."

It is high time, then, that we should, in these columns, commence the discussion. Before going further, let us see what light Mr. Bryce can give us. He fully acknowledged that "there is really less interest taken in our national life and achievements than there used to be," and he urged the head teachers to adopt such instruction as appeared fitting to strengthen "loyalty to the State and the municipality." The Earl of Meath has followed suit by offering £50 for the purchase of Union Jacks, and by

suggesting that periodical lectures of a national and patriotic character should be given to the children of the Board schools of London.

Now, it is easy to call names, instead of giving a careful consideration of these suggestions, by applying to them the term "Jingoism." Nick-names, however, are not arguments, and it always seems to us like striking below the belt to meet the honest opinions of those who differ from us by resorting to ridicule. That is all very well for sects and parties, but it does not become men entrusted with a great cause, which should be raised above all sectional animosities.

It is a very singular fact, which has often forced itself on the notice of the present writer, when travelling in foreign countries, that in England alone is to be found a large and increasing number of persons who-in the press and on the platform-never use the word "patriotism" except to mock at it. Yet this can hardly be because they are generally radical in politics, for alike in republican France and republican America, as well as in absolutist Russia and monarchical Germany, patriotism has unlimited influence, and evokes the highest enthusiasm. Indeed in French schools it seems more and more to take the place of religious teaching.

It is a matter, therefore, of great importance that we should, each of us, have a clear idea on the subject, and communicate our convictions to others. Now, is this sentiment, which is such a power in the world, and gives such strong gratification, and calls forth the greatest personal sacrifices-legitimate or not?

Is it a source of good or of evil? We reply that there is a patriotism which is powerful for good in national life, as well as one which is powerful for evil. The conception of a true patriotism may, we think, be obtained by giving personality to a nation, for indeed it has one. A nation, like an individual man, has its own character, the special circumstances of its origin and gradual growth; its history and hereditary influence, its special hopes and aims, and, above all, it has special duties to humanity and the world at large. It is therefore essential that every people should know what that purpose and duty is, by knowing their record of greatness and goodness, their past achievements on behalf of justice, truth, liberty, and religion. Surely, we need all the inspiration possible in this work-a-day life of ours, to lift us out of selfishness, materialism, petty and personal ambitions, love of ease, money, and pleasure. What, next to the love of God, can so arouse us to noble exertions as the desire to be worthy of what is best in our nation's past-worthy of our highest traditions, knowing that we are of the same blood as our great poets, teachers, martyrs, and statesmen? Are we to be ashamed

of such pride and inspiration as this kinship gives us? Surely not!

This justifiable, and, indeed, noble, pride need not, in any degree, diminish our admiration for true greatness or goodness, wherever it is to be found. It would be a folly, and a grievous fault, to shut our eyes to the great services which men of other climes have rendered to humanity. We are not to limit our sympathies nor our feeling of brotherhood to men of our own race; we are not to limit our horizon to that of our own country. Every race and every people has its special gifts, from which the world is the richer in knowledge and in joy. We all need each other, and none of us may say: "This people is the better or the greater than that other."

Yet, this readiness to recognise all that other communities than our own have done, or are doing, should not lead us to a false cosmopolitanism. I am not to forget my own capacities or my own responsibilities because

I find much to admire in others. Yet there is some danger of this error on the part of many Englishmen at the present time. There is such a reaction against false and inflated nationalism that they are ready to ignore altogether what is truly good in our history and in our character. They are even ready to depreciate their own country, and its influence for good in the world. Such exaggeration must, as it would in the individual, weaken selfrespect, and the sense of capacity for great duties towards mankind. Surely to dwell upon our national faults too exclusively is to take from us the inspiration for great national duties, and to destroy the roots of a high and worthy national ambition. Alike in childhood, youth, and manhood, the remembrance of what England has done for liberty, justice, and mercy, all the world over, must give us courage to go forward and achieve fresh victories of the same sort.

The false form of Patriotism which leads. men to think themselves braver, stronger or better than others, and the boastful spirit founded on ignorance of what others have done, has, we rejoice to say, greatly disappeared among the working classes, and is rapidly vanishing among the more cultivated sections of the middle class. If it were not so, neither Mr. Bryce nor Lord Meath would have thought it necessary to have called the attention of the teachers of Board Schools to the "decay of patriotism.

We may take this opportunity of referring to a matter of detail, which, however, illustrates our point of view; and of saying that we do not like that part of Lord Meath's proposal which includes the exhibition of the Union Jack" in schools. That sort of demonstration, although general in other countries, is not in

accordance with the higher type of Patriotism. The "flag" is unfortunately too much identified with associations of conquest and battle. We do not wish our young men or our old men to have any pride in such vain glories, involving, as they do, radically false ideas, which have been productive of so much injustice and misery.

Our association has done its part in attacking that worst form of false patriotism which is founded on notions of military pride and achievement, by inviting men of various countries to prepare papers on peace and war for the use of schools. The great work which has to be done is to teach a true patriotism and a true spirit of fraternity towards men of all nations. Surely there is room in the mind for both principles, and the one does not exclude the other. We should be glad if it were possible to supplement our model chapter on peace and war by one indicating the characteristics of true, as distinguished from false, patriotism. It might take the form of suggestions for the use of school teachers and managers, and we would recommend that the object should be effected by the delivery of popular addresses to young and old, and to all classes of the population, the duty being undertaken by the best informed and most eloquent of our public men. If the French celebrate their national anniversaries and the Americans theirs, why should not Englishmen do the same? There are many great events which should every year be celebrated by the whole nation, such as the Abolition of Slavery, the Bill of Rights, the Reform Bill, the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, the Repeal of the Corn Laws, the Education Act. We suggest these at hap-hazard; there are many others of perhaps equal importance. It would be equally useful for the true education of our people to celebrate the birthdays of men whose example it is good to remember and to imitate. Of such men are Wyckliffe, Shakespeare, Milton, Bunyan, Wilberforce, and many others. The celebration of such events, carried out under the auspices of our greatest citizens, would teach true and legitimate patriotism.

On the other hand, the international spirit might be fostered by deputations from our Universities on the occasion of great University celebrations in foreign countries, or of anniversaries held in honour of such events as the birth of Luther, the inauguration of the French Revolution, the Independence of the United States, and so forth. The delegates should be required to represent our nation, and, on their return, report in a fitting manner the results and circumstances connected with such anniversaries. This would associate our own countrymen with the citizens of other nations in the joint celebration of events which have

THE REAL FINANCIAL NIGHTMARE. FAR be it from us to intervene in the battle royal that is still raging in all parts of the great financial field between the monometallists and the bimetallists. Yet as that field is wide, and the struggle sometimes leads the combatants into byways where they have a few moments leisure to note the geological formation or the natural history of the region, we chance on some remarks or other of theirs that can be understanded of the common people. Such a passage we come upon in course of that set speech delivered as if ex cathedra by the eminent banker, Mr. Bertram Currie, who, on the motion for adjournment, proceeded to demonstrate that the cult of the British sovereign is as "all Lombard Street to a China orange when compared with the vagaries of bimetallism. That may be so, or it may not: this is nothing to us here. It is quite an incidental passage in his speech that concerns us and all Europe-let the Mints stamp and count their coins as they may. We regret not being able to quote the text of the passage here; but Mr. Currie, having been asked to explain what he meant by saying that the present financial troubles of the nation, and the "malady" that afflicts trade and industry (as witness our own shrinking trade returns) are due to causes 'political rather than financial," replied to this effect:

"What he had in his mind and also expressed wa this-that the assumed scarcity of gold is due to the accumulations of the yellow metal by Russia, Germany, and other nations, not for currency, but war purposes, and that the distress, if it does exist, is the result not of scarcity of gold, but of heavy protective tariffs, enormous and costly armies, and bad investments, such as in Argentina. These, in Mr. Currie's opinion, are the real causes of the distress from which the nations are suffering, and to the removal or minimising of these causes the bimetallists should direct their energies rather than to futile efforts to put silver on an equality with gold for currency purposes."

As to the latter remark, we leave that to Mr. H. R. Grenfell, Mr. A. J. Balfour, and Senator Jones. The evening paper (Pall Mall Gazette) from which we quote, made this comment : "While experts may argue and differ on the question of standards, there will be little difference of opinion as to the evils catalogued by Mr. Currie." And, if due notice be taken of the items italicised, we are much gratified to be assured that "there will be little difference

as to the evils" so specified, which we submit are of at least ten times more weight in the scale of international impoverishment than the "bad investments, &c." But it is not enough to have this admitted. Who are the men who will "direct their energies to the removal of these causes" that are depressing industry and making honest traders despair? For we want such men to help us. It is necessary, however, that men who see these facts should realise their overwhelming weight. Here and there a rising politician does realise that, above all other causes combined it is War, its deeds of destruction, its reducing to a cipher the productive powers of millions of men, its crushing weight of debt, and its intolerable annual charges that weigh down the nations and perpetuates that unrest of society which is the bane of our modern civilisation. And yet those same politicians, when they rise into the ranks of statesmen, become "troubled with many things," and succumb to the delusion of "Force, the only remedy." There are a few students of social and commercial dynamics such as the late Emile de Laveleye and others, whose names will occur to our readers, who always realise the crushing effect of this nightmare of the nations. But such men are seldom called into effective positions where they could give force to their convictions; and, meantime, the proletariat, maddened with misery, strike out against the "agencies of production" and are blind to the one great tyrant of war with its mockery of armed peace, that is really crushing them to the earth. One method of getting men of responsibility and influence to see what the enemy" really is, would be to promote a more practical and life-like study of the facts of the perpetual waste of war and its preparations. As a small contribution to this urgently needed course of study, we subjoin a striking statement by a French military statistician, for which we are indebted to the Paris correspondent of the Daily News:

THE GROWTH OF EUROPEAN ARMIES. Captain Molard, of the Military School of St. Cyr, has published a pamphlet on the armies of Europe and their relative growths since 1869. France had then militia and regular soldiers to the number of 1,350,000 men ; Germany, 1,300,000; Russia, 1,100,000; Austria, 750,000; Italy, 570,000; Switzerland, 150,000; and Belgium, 95,000. This year the French army has risen to 2,500,000, the German to 2,417,000, the Russian to 2,451,000, the Austrian to 1,050,000, the Italian to 1,514,000, the Swiss to 212,000, and the Belgian to 128,000. When the new military laws come into full effect the French will comprise 4,350,000 men; the German, 5,000,000; the Russian, 4,000,000; the Austrian, 1,900,000; the Italian, 2,236,000; the Swiss, 489,000; and the Belgian, 258,000. The military estimates of Russia, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Roumania have more than doubled since 1869. The Swiss army estimates were in that year 2,500,000 francs. They are now 45,000,000. Europe now devotes nearly five milliards of francs (£200,000,000)

a year to her fighting forces. In 1870 she could at the utmost bring 7,000,000 of soldiers into active service. She now disposes of 12,500,000, and will soon have 22,000,000. The conclusion Captain Molard draws is that Prince Bismarck's policy of blood and iron and the seizure of Alsace-Lorraine have given rise to these monstrous facts, and that every nation might be led to disarm were restitution made by Germany to France. He takes his military statistics, he says, from official sources only. W.

UGANDA; A REJOINDER.

IT would be difficult to exaggerate the feelings of sorrow with which some of the staunchest supporters of the principles usually set forth in this journal read the article on this subject in the last number, signed "H. P." These are the initials of one of the most trusted and devoted leaders in the Peace movement, with whose opinions as expressed in CONCORD the present writer has on almost every occasion found himself in entire agreement. Our regret, then, may easily be appreciated when we found in the article alluded to opinions expressed which we cannot help thinking singularly at variance with those usually proceeding from the same pen, and on one of the most burning questions of the day.

Now we venture to think that "H. P.," and some other good men who take the same side on this question, are misled by the missionary view. We are told that these missionaries have gone out to this country for the good of the natives, that they have already succeeded in converting large numbers of them, and that all their work will be destroyed unless we occupy the country. Well, it may be doubted, in the first place, whether the religion and civilisation which are said to be taken by the missionaries are necessarily the most appropriate for a race whose nature and whose nature and development is utterly different from ours; and, in the next place, even granting that our religion and civilisation are the blessings they are claimed to be, we cannot admit that for one moment as an argument in favour of this policy of annexation of territory which does not belong to us, of which we have seen so much in the last few years. We can understand and appreciate the heroic labours of many Christian missionaries both in ancient and modern times, though we though we may not accept their principles, who have gone with their lives in their hands and preached what they believed to be the truth to savage races, and frequently laid down their lives in the cause for which they worked. But of all the curious products of the latter end of the nineteenth century, we can hardly imagine a more amazing specimen than the Christian missionary demanding to be protected by Maxim guns and repeating rifles. These men we

they worked.

neither understand nor appreciate, and we decline to support this land-grabbing policy in order to please them.

But even supposing that the missionaries are all that their friends believe them to be, is it not perfectly clear that they have been mere tools very cleverly handled by the financial speculators who have had to acknowledge the inability of their officials to manage the country they were supposed to control? This it seems is the up-to-date" method of annexation. First of all, some missionaries are sent out, and then the trading company, really only intent on getting territory and "exchanging worthless beads or poisonous liquor for valuable ivory and pearls," steps in and claims that it is aiding and supporting the religious and civilising work of the missionaries.

In the case of Uganda the Company makes a mess of things, and its wonderful policy ends in a fiasco. Then the missionary argument is again trotted out, and we are told that the Imperial Government must step in and protect their work. Now, we say again, that we believe that this argument is used by interested perSons, simply for the purpose of throwing dust in the eyes of good men, who would not be influenced by arguments about trade or the spread of British influence. And, verily, they have succeeded, we should imagine, beyond their wildest hopes; and we have the curious spectacle of men who have all their lives been. opposing a policy of aggression and annexation supporting the retention of Uganda. suppose we shall next find these same supporters of the policy of missionary propaganda plus buccaneering proposing an expedition to reconquer the Soudan, in order that the blessings of Christianity may be put before the Dervish tribes. And we may naturally infer that we shall not hear any more from them of the policy which some of them have long advocated of "Egypt for the Egyptians."

We

But there is one more argument the supporters of the retention of Uganda bring forward, and that is the "terrible African slave trade," and the necessity of our putting a stop to it. Well, we suggest that there are slaves nearer home whose fetters we might do something to unloose before taking upon ourselves the duty of delivering those in Africa. And, supposing we did set to work to abolish the slave trade in that country, in the words of an able writer in a contemporary, "Who knows whether, after half-a-century's heroic effort at improving the industrial and political conditions of the Africans, we may not stamp out utterly the baneful institution of slavery and give him the glorious freedom of the Bombay factory hand, the liberty to earn his own subsistence wage by labouring fifteen hours a day (Sunday included, if we can square the missionary as in

India), so that in the end he may enjoy all the privileges of the pursuit of health and happiness enjoyed by the Sheffield grinder and the Staffordshire potter?"

There is, of course, much to be said on this question from the economic point of view, but in these columns we are only concerned with the ethical side of the question. If it is morally wrong to annex land which does not belong to you, no arguments as to trade and commerce can be listened to for a moment. And it cannot be too often repeated that what is morally wrong in the case of individuals cannot be There are unright in the case of nations. fortunately a few honourable and enlightened men like "H. P." who have honestly convinced themselves that the annexation of Uganda is right. But these men have not the power to insist that their policy is carried out, and they will find when too late that they have been, like the missionary, mere tools in the hands of unscrupulous traders, "men who care nothing for the honour of England,' though they loudly prate of it; and nothing for civilisation, save what they can make out of it."

One word more. Our forefathers in the days of Elizabeth roamed about the world annexing the land of other people, but they never dreamt of apologising for so doing, or pretended that it was done for the benefit of those from whom the land was stolen. They did not go about with cant phrases - "sphere of influence,"

suzerainty," ""mission of civilisation," and the like. We wish their successors and imitators of the present day would be as honest. We should then know where we were, and there would be less chance of good men lending their support to schemes of annexation destined, as we believe, to bring lasting dishonour on the British name. CALVUS.

UGANDA.

[Extracts from a letter by Mr. FELIX MOSCHELES to H. P.]

"For myself, I must say that I liked your article and approved of it without reserve. I start from the same standpoint that you take, when you say, of the Germans, Portuguese, English adventurers, &c., "They WILL go there!" All that I want is that we, or any other Government-they all, too, will go thereshould behave better than those adventurers. Spread we must. We meet our fellow creatures on the confines of civilisation, and we must either let them put us into their stewing-pan, or devise means to cultivate higher taste in them. If we could build a sort of Chinese wall, between us and them, that would, perhaps, be the best, but that being impossible, I should like our best men to undertake the task of weaning them from some of the vices we have already shaken off, as for instance, from stewing-pans and slave raids; but then we should come with new methods, introduce and act up to the principles of Christianity, not force upon them the Bible, the brandy bottle and our old blunderbusses. When I see that everything all round, at home, is based on disobedience to the