LIC LI ONS CONCORD 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 International Arbitration to prevail.”—LAVELEYE, GOLD MEDAL awarded by the Section of Social Economy, Universal Exhibition, Paris, 1889. PRACTISE AS WELL AS PREACH! OLD Bishop Butler was profoundly wise when he said that when the declarations of the love of virtue are not accompanied by corresponding practice the love itself grows cold. Applying this truth to the great doctrine professed by the peacemakers of international fraternity and unity we cannot too often insist upon the duty of performing what we preach. We must all-Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, Danes, and Russians -take care that, in our several spheres of influence, we put aside an arrogant, suspicious, and unjust temper towards our neighbours. Europe, at the present time, presents a singular and unhappy aspect. The Press of each nation teems with indictments against its neighbours; and this condition of things involves the greatest danger to peace. It is certain that when the inhabitants of nation A. are told every day by their newspapers that the inhabitants of nation B. are hatching plots against them the former must become bitterly hostile, and ready to believe all evil of its neighbour. In such circumstances it needs but a spark, some hasty word or act, some trifling misapprehension or dispute, to create a conflagration, When, that moment comes, all the pleadings and protests of the peace societies will be too late, and of no more use than a garden-hose to put out a volcano. There is no use in preaching against war unless you also preach against the temper of mind which produces it. Again we say: Practise what you preach. The excellent sentiments so eloquently expressed at peace meetings and congresses will not accomplish their great aim so long as the newspapers read and supported by peacemakers in their several countries continue this outrageous crusade of international hatred. Now, let us ask how many members of the societies endeavour, in their own respective countries, to awaken the conscience of their countrymen as to the evil work done by the Press in this respect? How many of them inquire into the accuracy of the indictments for treachery and intrigue which are brought every week against some foreign neighbour? In nine cases out of ten neither the societies nor their members make any attempt to investigate the facts which form the basis of such accusations. They do not hesitate to support and encourage newspapers which circulate this poison; nor do they denounce, on the platform or in the Press, this determined hostility, which is the staple of all articles on international affairs. Until they do so the mass of the people in each country will regard all "foreigners" as dangerous plotters against the national security and welfare; and they will believe every lie and misrepresentation which ill-informed writers put forward as part of their professional business. Observe, however, that all these attacks are based on certain definite international questions which at present divide European nations, and as to the true facts of which not one man in a thousand really knows anything. How long will the peace societies persist in their refusal to make efforts towards the thorough and impartial comprehension by the public in each State of all such questions? Do they prefer to leave their fellowcitizens to the influence of these false and virulent incitements to armed conflict? That is the question which we have often asked in this journal during the last five years, which our late friend Mazzoleni asked, and which Fredrik Bajer still asks. It is the question which Captain Moch has asked, in vigorous words, in the Almanach de la Paix, and to which many of our colleagues have replied in La Paix par le Droit at the invitation of M. Jacques Dumas. It is the question of the hour for all the peace societies, and their future influence for good will greatly depend on a right answer. Let everyone try to answer it for himself. H. P. FRANCE AND MADAGASCAR. WE learn that a certain number of societies have requested the Hon. Secretary of the International Peace Bureau to forward, in their name, a memorial to the King of the Belgiars, praying His Majesty to offer his services to the French and Malagasy Governments, so that the unhappy dispute may be referred to mediation or arbitration. In adopting this course, the friends of peace have been faithful to the sacred cause which has been entrusted to them; and, indeed, it would be a great dereliction of duty, on their part, were they to remain silent whenever an opportunity occurs for advocating a judicial settlement as a substitute for war. We can quite appreciate the delicacy of their task, and their anxiety not to say a word which may create resentment or misapprehension on the part of nations concerned in such disputes. Nevertheless, however difficult the duty, it must be performed, because if it were neglected, the peace-makers would soon lose their influence in the world, and come to be despised as feeble folk who have not the courage of their opinions. Silence on such occasions would be treachery to a great principle. When our French colleagues rightly called upon us to be true to our doctrines, and to protest against Lord Salisbury's ultimatum to Portugal, the English societies at once united in calling a public meeting, and frankly declared in favour of arbitration. This was all the more difficult, because the Portuguese had resorted to force. As regards this quarrel with the Hovas, there is a question of interpretation to be given to solemn engagements, and it is just the kind of case in which the interested parties are morally incompetent to decide for themselves as to their respective rights and duties. In this instance, it is averred that the signature of the Queen was given to the treaty of 1886, on the distinct condition that it should be interpreted by the letter annexed to it. That letter appears to distinctly exempt the Malagasy Government from the claims which France now makes. Moreover, there would appear to be nothing in the treaty itself which would warrant the further claim on the part of France to exercise a PROTECTORATE. Under such circumstances, we consider that Lord Salisbury's recognition was absolutely unwarranted and worthless. In making this statement, we do not, for one moment, assume to be judges of the case. We simply desire to show how strong, primâ facie, is the recommendation of the peace societies that the points at issue should be decided by a qualified and impartial tribunal, or that mediation should be resorted to. H. P. [NOTE.-The Chairman and Committee have no wish to express any decided opinion on the points in controversy between the French and Hova Governments. We shall be glad to elicit the views any of our friends on either side.] of BOTH SIDES OF THE EGYPTIAN and cons AN Englishman and a Frenchman, the former signing F. begins by trying to show that French interests in Egypt have a greater right to consideration than those of England. His grounds are that the former has been "the privileged nation" for nearly a century; that she chiefly contributed to give Egypt autonomy; and, up to the time of Napoleon III., exercised the greatest influence over the Viceroys, and held the most conspicuous posts, promoted the loans and subscribed to them. E. replies categorically to these claims, and quotes important Government despatches. He shows that the Treaty of 1840, which practically gave autonomy to Egypt, under the family of Mehemet Ali, was signed by Great Britain, Austria, Russia, and Turkey, in spite of opposition by France. As to the superiority of French interests, E. says that, taking population as a test, the French rank third among European nations, and fourth, as regards the amount of commerce (exports and imports); Great Britain coming first with £10,719,000, and France fourth with £1,829,000. Of the total commerce England has 50 per cent., and France 8 per cent. As regards loans, E. gives the names of the Banks which brought them out-none of them being French. F. replies that Frenchmen reorganised Mehemet Ali's administration, and gave him an army and a fleet, thus enabling him, in 1839, to win autonomy by arms; whereas in 1840 England intervened to restore Egypt to the Sultan. As to trade, F. suggests that the large proportion falling to England is due to her occupation of Egypt. E. then quotes French official despatches showing that France demanded that Mehemet Ali should remain "in the condition of a vassal towards H.H. the Sultan." The Treaty of 1840 secured, in fact, the autonomy of Egypt, in subjection to the Porte. As regards trade, E. shows that English trade had actually fallen to the extent of 13 per cent. since her occupation, and French trade only 24 per cent. English trade with Egypt has always been five or six times that of France. As regards the notion that the volume of British trade is due to the construction of the Suez Canal, and that Egypt has benefited thereby, E. replies that it is British trade alone which brings a profit to the shareholders, that the Canal has only changed the trade route, while Egypt has lost the whole of her transit trade. As regards F.'s argument that France has an "historic influence," E. says that a French fleet was defeated on its shores, and that two French armies capitulated in Egypt. [We suppose a nonsense argument must be met by a nonsense reply.] As regards the general question of the British occupation, E. declares that M. Barthélemy St. Hilaire has publicly recognised the legality of our position in Egypt. He concludes by saying that the universal belief in Egypt is that the retreat of English troops, coupled with the engagement that no other European troops should take their place, would result in the exodus of the wellto-do population-a rising against Europeans, the cessation of all trade, and a fall in the price of present securities to 60-a loss of forty millions sterling. Who would gain by this? Either England or France must garrison Egypt. Which shall it be?" [We have purposely omitted a controversy upon another point-whether France does not occupy TUNIS under precisely the same circumstances, and has infringed a formal treaty by doing so, Two wrongs cannot make a right, and tu quoque is no argument.] He Another French correspondent, signing himself a "Friend of England," endeavours to show what conclusion should be drawn from this discussion. admits that "the civilising influences" of the two nations are about equal, while the commercial interests of England are far greater; but "can it be contended that a superiority in commercial relations can give it superior rights ?" Moveover, " England has undertaken to quit Egypt so soon as it is in a condition to manage its own affairs. Every unprejudiced person must admit that that time has now arrived; and what can be more binding upon a great country than the performance of a solemn engagement?" As regards the argument that England is obliged to keep open her route to India, the writer replies that that object is equally important to France and Russia. Finally, it cannot be for "the interest of Great Britain that seeds of defiance and distrust should continue to be sown between her and two great nations." [NOTE. We utterly repudiate the notion that commercial, political, or military superiority gives either France or England "rights" in Egypt. For the management of her home affairs her rulers are probably as competent as many another independent and self-governed Mahommedan State. All that European nations have a right to demand is that the great canal-highway, constructed by European skill and capital in the interest of the whole world, shall be protected. But England has no exclusive interest in that object, and therefore no exclusive right to provide for its protection. It is a universal and collective interest, and if either the Canal or Egypt itself needs protection let all the Powers, great and small, combine to provide a gendarmerie of Swiss, Belgian, or Dutch troops, as suggested long ago by that clear-headed and impartial obM. Albert Tachard.-H. P.] server, to adopt practical to adopt practical methods of enlisting the sympathy and aid of the working classes; while a message of goodwill was sent to the Trades Union Congress, with a respectful suggestion that at their annual meetings international arbitration should find a place on the programme. It must be confessed, however, that more than this is needed; and we trust that at every future Peace Congress steps may be taken, in conjunction with all working-class societies, to hold a public meeting for the purpose of manifesting the wishes of the people in regard to conscription, armaments, and the settlement of international disputes. Another important step would be that workmen should be invited either to join existing organisations, or to form societies of their own. The latter course would probably be the most effective, where adequate resources of time, money, and leadership are forthcoming. This is not always the case in and administrative obstacles. In England the some countries, where, too, there are often political great cause has been well served by the International Arbitration League, formerly the Workmen's Peace Association; and few men have done more for it than Mr. W. Randal Cremer, M.P. On the other hand, there are Labour questions which naturally have a more direct and pressing interest, and men have but limited time at their disposal. They may, therefore, find it more convenient to join the Peace Societies now increasing in number throughout Europe. This is not a class question, and there is no reason whatever why the friends of international unity should not heartily combine for a common end of equal importance to all. When thousands, instead of hundreds, are enlisted in every great city and province, candidates for Parliament will be obliged to pay due attention to this question, and enter into engagements which will, in turn, influence the Governments. matter of making head against militarism and Jingo, or Chauvin, policy, the working classes are far more unanimous and far more sound than any In the THE WORKING CLASSES AND THE other section of the community, at home or abroad. PEACE MOVEMENT. (From "International Unity," in the Echo.) RECENT editorial articles in The Echo have pointed out that, for the success of the Peace movement, the active support of the mass of the people everywhere is indispensable. It was further suggested that, to attain that object, a great Working Class League should be called into existence. This is unquestionably true, and too much attention cannot be given to the necessity of securing the overt Support of the labourers and artisans of all countries. Nor has there been, I think, any indisposition on the part of the Peace advocates to overlook this consideration. Thus, at the annual Congress, held recently at Antwerp, a series of resolutions were adopted, with the view of securing the active co-operation of workmen's associations everywhere; and the best means of obtaining it was referred to a special committee for report. At the same time, all Peace societies were called upon Parliamentary electors of every country should have their attention called to the fact that there are now no less than fifteen Parliaments in Europe, in each of which a branch of "The Inter-Parliamentary Conference" has been constituted to promote international arbitration. This must have a great influence on the future of nations, although this new agency is not yet recognised and appreciated. It means that in all the European States there are groups of Parliamentary representatives pledged to watch every opportunity of taking an important part in their respective legislatures for the maintenance of peace. Their total number already amounts to several hundreds, and the creation of this organisation imposes a new and sacred duty upon the electors of every country. It is the business of the latter to see that these representatives of international unity and concord are well supported and enabled to maintain their ground. We hope that soon it will become the universal practice at elections to ask the candidates whether they will join the Parliamentary branch of the International Conference for Arbitration; and, if not, why not. Increase the numbers of that body in every Parliament, and you create a leverage for our cause which no Government can resist. At the future yearly gatherings of the Conference in question it is intended to call upon the members for each national group to report what has been done in its Parliament, during the preceding twelve months, towards the accomplishment of arbitration treaties, reduction of armaments, and so forth. The saine question must be put by the electors; and very soon no candidate who desires working-class votes will dare to omit the question of arbitration from his programme. All this means that at no distant date the pacification of Europe and the introduction of a new era, founded on justice and reason in international relations, will become a predominant question. And thus the mass of the people will come to take their part in a great reform which must vitally affect their interests and welfare. In the meantime let the trusted leaders of the working-class organisations associate themselves with the Peace Societies, and help these latter to make it plain to the people at large that peace is the condition of prosperity. The special aims, indeed, of all Trades Unions and similar bodies will be immensely promoted when the attention of Governments is no longer given so largely to foreign politics as at present. The national resources, the time and industry of Parliaments and statesmen, will then be given in larger measure to home questions. Above all, when a great tribunal and its code of law have been organised, there will be a rapid diminution of armaments, and that shame of our century, the universal conscription, will disappear. The peoples will then have a higher and nobler purpose than to maintain twelve millions of men in the prime of life ready for mutual ruin and murder. HODGSON PRATT. NOTES. THE debate on the Military Budget in the French Chamber casts a lurid light on the condition of Europe. It affords another proof of the real barbarism which reigns among us, in spite of our talk about "Progress.' Here, at the end of the nineteenth century of the Christian era, a nation which considers itself at the head of civilisation complains that it is not enough to have an army of 406,000 men ready at a moment's notice for battle; they must have 540,000 because Germany has 550,000; as if war between the two nations might break out at any moment! The open declaration made in the Chamber as to the necessity of keeping pace with Germany in armaments necessarily reinforces the spirit of antagonism between the two peoples. M. Ribot talks of "National defence." The phrase disguises the real truth. He knows that Germany will not attack France, because the former has all she wants. As was shown by the plain speaking of the Socialist deputies, this fresh demand for more troops, ready for any emergency," is 46 founded wholly upon the consideration that "France is mutilated," to quote the expression of M. Jaurés. He added, however, in common with the two other Socialist speakers that, while they protested against the mutilation, "no war of revenge would bring the necessary solution; that solution lay in the development of liberty and justice in Europe." That is true; but how long will it take to bring about that great change? While the new régime is being developed, how many years of daily apprehension, danger and ruinous waste are the peoples of Europe to endure? These vague aspirations afford no practical remedy; and we regret that in the course of such a discussion as this, no one points to the real and only solution of the problem which causes all the danger. Why has no one the courage and the common sense to demand the neutralisation, independence, and inviolability of Alsace, under the guarantee of Europe? Yes! We are barbarians, and the régime in which we live is one of barbarism. Steam, electricity, and anti-toxine do not constitute civilisation. Those things are mere varnish as long as hate, revenge, thirst for plunder, and readiness for massacre are the motive force of Governments. We are savages-try to disguise the fact as we may! PHIL. WHERE ARE OUR JURISTS? IN our issue of October last appeared a paper headed "Declaration of War-Where are our Jurists?" The text taken was the outbreak of war by Japan on China, the primary incidents of which were the invasion of Korea, and the destruction of the British transport vessel Kow Shing, having on board large numbers of Chinese troops. Both these, and other similar breaches of the peace being perpetrated without any declaration of war, it was pointed out that thereby the Japanese commanders had placed themselves under the category of pirates and murderers. These officers were, however, only accessories; as, no doubt, they claim to have acted under orders of the executive authorities in Japan, who thus stand accused as principals in these crimes against public law. That other executive authorities nearer home may have acted in similar lawless fashion does little, if anything, to mitigate the force of the accusation, which, if valid, must be applied all round impartially. As none of the jurists or other public men challenged in our indictment have put in an appearance against it, our case must, so far, be held to stand good. Its form, and the grounds on which our protest against this and similar breaches of international law proceeded, may be perused in our October number, so that there is no need for further repetition here. It would be seen that we expressed no opinion on the merits or demerits of the questions supposed to be at issue between Japan and China. These stand as they did, and remain entirely unaffected alike by the lawless violence by which the rulers of Japan sought o secure their alleged claims, or by the amazing success that has attended their superior force and skill. And ough with men of our energetic race the imbecility the Manchu rulers at Pekin and the helplessness of their commanders are necessarily regarded with contempt these merely superficial circumstances-albeit pregnant with, as yet, incalculable results-make no difference as to the equities of the case as it stood at first between the two nations. It makes little difference in this respect, but subsequently China issued its protest and Japan its rejoinder. The latter nation, by disregarding the juridical obligation of publicly stating its claims before resorting to murderous hostilities, had put itself out of court. Having "taken the law into its own hand" Japan stands before the world as hors de loi; and as regards the initial stage of this destructive war remains under the condemnation of impartial nations. The few pleas put in by some of our degenerate jurists as in anticipation of that inevitable censure were touched upon in our October article and dismissed as unworthy of serious notice. This estimate of that great international case was emphatically corroborated by "A Former Resident in China" in his valuable letter reviewing the history of this lamentable conflict, which appeared in the Standard of January 22nd. As that writer said, "No such right, based on priority of attack, can accrue to a nation that deliberately and secretly plans an assault on a neighbouring Power; and Japan has acquired no right because superior skill and secret preparations have enabled her to spring at the throat of her antagonist in an unguarded moment." These are golden words, which may be commended to the attention of pinchbeck jurists in these later days. The same writer also states, "The fact that the Japanese have for years past surveyed the coasts and the interior of China, (and) made every preparation for a long war," and this malice aforethought renders their violation and sinful disregard of International Law only the more flagitious. Hence it becomes all the more obligatory on those who with us desire to uphold the well established juridical restraints on the irrational arbitrament of war, to take care that this flagrant example of defiance of those restraints shall be rubbed well into the public mind. Not even the strongest European Power can afford to be indifferent to audacious defiance, in the East, of one of the most essential safeguards of modern civilisation and the comity of nations. W. DEPUTATION TO THE FRENCH AMBASSADOR. ON Tuesday, the 5th inst., the French Ambassador, M. le Baron de Courcel, was good enough to receive a deputation from the Committee of our Association, consisting of Messrs. W. Martin Wood and Timothy Holmes (Vice-Chairmen), L. P. Ford, Felix Moscheles, Russell Scott, and J. Frederick Green (Secretary), who presented an address of welcome to the Ambassador as representative of the French Government in this country. The Secretary, having expressed the regret of Mr. Hodgson Pratt, the Chairman of the Committee, at his inability to be present owing to his absence abroad, read the address, which alluded to the good influence on the relations between France and Germany exercised by the Baron de Courcel during his tenure of office as Ambassador at Berlin; to his conspicuous services to the principle of International Arbitration by the manner in which he discharged his duties as President of the Behring Sea Tribunal; and to his presidency over the meeting held last year in Paris for the purpose of instituting an International Olympiad. Finally, the address expressed the hope that his Excellency's residence in this country might result in the forging of new links of mutual esteem, friendship, and interest between France and Englandtwo great nations alike distinguished for their efforts on behalf of liberty and progress. The Ambassador, who received the deputation in the most cordial manner, expressed his sense of the honour done him by the flattering terms in which his services were alluded to in the address. While of opinion that in the present condition of things standing armies were still necessary, partly as bringing the less civilised portion of the community under discipline and control, his Excellency was strongly convinced that the armaments of Europe were at present excessive, and that the efforts of the Peace societies to bring about a reduction in them, and to promote friendly relations between the various nations, were eminently praiseworthy. He also looked forward to athletic exercises taking the place of military training in developing the physical powers of men. With regard to the relations between France and England, the Ambassador stated that he could not conceive the possibility of war between the two countries, and that, although from time to time there had been friction, at the present time he was glad to be able to state that the relations between the two Governments were of the most cordial and satisfactory nature. He urged that too much attention should not be paid to the strong language of newspapers on both sides of the Channel. It is impossible to give in these few lines any adequate impression of the extreme affability and courtesy of the Ambassador; but we are sure that all the members of the deputation came away fully convinced that the Baron de Courcel was emphatically the right man for the honourable and responsible position which he holds. THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE IN FRANCE. THE following reply has been received in acknowledgment of the resolution congratulating M. Trarieux on his appointment, which will be found in the usual column : "Ministère de la Justice. Les "Paris, le 18 Février, 1895. "MONSIEUR LE SECRÉTAIRE, Le bienveillant témoignage que vous m'avez adressé au nom de votre Comité m'a causé la plus vive satisfaction. sentiments de Justice et d'Humanité que vous invoquez si noblement ont toujours été partagés par moi, et rien ne peut nous donner plus de confiance dans l'avenir de nos patries respectives, que de constater combien de progrès font ces mêmes sentiments dans le cœur et dans l'esprit de nos compatriotes. "En souhaitant qu'il se trouve un nombre toujours plus considérable de gens pour penser et pour agir avec l'élévation de vues dont vous faites preuve, je vous renouvelle, ainsi qu'à vos aimables collègues, l'assur ance de ma considération la plus distinguée. "L. TRARIEUX," OUR FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE. FRANCE. THE violent attacks on the Khedive made by the English press, the almost minatory attitude taken by the majority of the English papers in this regard; the singular, not to use a stronger word, views of Mr. Edward Dicey on the obligations contracted by England in the face of Europe concerning the evacuation of Egypt; the strongly marked tendency in the speeches of a certain number of Members of Parliament to regard as null and void the treaty of protectorate which had been signed between France and the Hova Government, and to consider the struggle on which the French Republic is engaged with its protégé, on the express refusal of the latter to conform to the engagements to which it had set its hand, as a war between two |