CONTENTS.

NEW YEAR'S ADDRESS TO OUR
MEMBERS.

FRIENDS, The need of our efforts and of yours has seldom been more manifest than at this moment. The sacred anniversary of Christmas -the festival of peace and good will offered to mankind-has been saddened by cries of anger and apprehension. The two great branches of the English-speaking race, proud of their Christian faith and advanced civilisation, are looking at each other across the Atlantic as possible foes instead of permanent friends! This, indeed, is an event full of humiliation and sorrow, not only for the two nations immediately concerned; but also for the disciples of the doctrine of human brotherhood throughout the world. This unexpected and lamentable event, however, is not a reason for despair as to the ultimate triumph of righteousness among mankind: it is rather a reason for greater and more practical fidelity to eternal principles, for more determined efforts to drive the spirit of Cain out of the world. This recent outburst of anger and hatred binds us more solemnly than ever-us, the friends of Peace in both hemispheres to labour for its ultimate triumph. Indeed, nothing could have happened which more clearly shows the urgent and constant need for that labour. If two nations inheriting such traditions as they have received from the same

great teachers of justice, charity, and righteousness in the past can harbour thoughts of hostility and conflict, then indeed is there an immense work to be done.

With regard to the question which has arisen between the Governments of Great Britain and the United States, we would utter no word which may embitter the controversy. It is, however, our duty to speak plainly of all that is done in America or In this parin Europe which makes for war. ticular case, as in every other, there is ground for blame on both sides; and our Association has earned a right to express an opinion, founded on its recognised character for impartiality. In this collected information respecting the facts, and present case we have, for more than five years, have made them the basis of repeated representations to the British Government in favour of

arbitration, as alike feasible and necessary.

No

one can therefore accuse us of national bias when we express regret that the President of the United States should have used words implying a resort to force in the event of the British Government refusing assent to his suggestion that they should accept arbitration. And we doubt not that our esteemed fellow-workers across the Atlantic entirely coincide with us in this expression of regret.

Nor are we less ready to blame the spirit of territorial greed and aggrandisement for which England has won an evil reputation throughout the world, and has thus brought upon herself anger, jealousy, and suspicion from all quarters, including the nations of America. Wrong ever breeds wrong, and British disregard for the rights of weaker races and peoples calls forth a passion of rivalry, competition, and jealousy on the part of other great nations.

Are we not right, then, in saying that such Societies as ours are as necessary as Churches to educate men in the love of justice and righteousness, in self-control, and in abstinence from plunder and massacre ? Yes, the peacemakers have a great mission before them in this respect, for even the most civilised nations are not free from the danger of wars-which, as time goes on, will become more and more appalling in their destructiveness.

In another respect this Venezuela quarrel shows how great is the need of such associations as ours. Governments cannot be left uncontrolled in foreign

Concord

affairs, any more than in home affairs, or the worst results may follow. In this particular case. a dispute has lasted for fifty years which ought to have been settled long ago by arbitration, as the Venezuelans desired. Not only has this neglect led them to break off, some years since, all commercial relations with England, to the loss of trade on both sides, but has now brought upon us peremptory demands and threats from a sister nation. If, everywhere, Societies like ours watched such cases and then brought popular pressure to bear upon the several Governments, these disasters and these dangers would be avoided.

On the other hand, if there had been a strong feeling in the United States in favour of the Arbitration Treaty with Great Britain, which was unanimously approved by the House of Commons in 1893, Congress would ere this have adopted some final step for the accomplishment of this great measure of security and peace. This neglect only shows that in the Western hemisphere also there remains much to be done for the education of the people on behalf of international unity.

As to the tangible results of these unrestrained passions of international jealousy, we teachers have an object-lesson, indeed, in the panic of the money market, felt even so far away from the centre of disturbance as Vienna. If even the mere cloud on the horizon, no bigger than a man's hand, could cause the loss of millions of money in a few hours, what would not be the result of the storm itself!

Alike, then, for the material and moral interests of Europe and America, there is need of a strong and universal organisation on behalf of "Arbitration and Peace,' This is a missionary and propagandist work which everyone having any love for God and man is bound to help forward. It is treason towards both to be careless and apathetic in this cause.

To save mankind from the dangers of war and ruin and barbarism demands great and widespread efforts. It is cruel and unworthy to withhold aid, encouragement, and co-operation from those who, in their several leagues and associations, are rendering this service to the world. then, be up and doing, all of us, in our several spheres of influence and action. We could undertake no nobler or more useful task!

Let us,

H. P.

THE CYCLONE FROM THE WEST: FLOTSAM AND JETSAM.

THE rumblings of the recent portentous cyclone from the West are now happily dying away. Whilst a few distant and intermittent murmurs of the disturbance in the moral atmosphere yet linger in the air, let us take note of such lessons and reminders as may be traceable amidst the war of words and gusts of passion which during December darkened counsel between the foremost brother nations of the modern world. These notes must be brief, for months must pass ere the full significance can be gleaned of the warnings and admonitions with which this diplomatic episode is replete.

First, is the grim vision of what would be meant by war between the two halves of the British race. Though only a corner of the curtain was uplifted, enough was shown to indicate the ghastly and destructive possibilities which such conflict would involve. What a catalogue of confusion, destruction, and misery would the briefest enumeration disclose. Canada invaded from the south, and New England from the north, with brothers' hands imbrued in each other's blood; the Atlantic cities shelled, and their public buildings left as smoking ruins; in return, Britain's mercantile marine chased or captured on every sea, with one or more of our colonies made to feel the price they would have to pay for dependence on an Imperial centre when they can secure no control in its policy; the shaking to its very foundations of that vast system of commercial interdependence and financial credit which, apart from the ties of kindred, unite the great Republic of the West with this great Empire, its mighty progenitor; and the unspeakable misery that would fall on the toiling millions, compared with which the nobly borne privations during the cotton famine, the destitution and demoralisation attendant on the great war with France, would be the merest trifles. Though this horrid, hateful nightmare has fled as flies a dream at opening day, it does not suffice to assert one's moral conviction that such catastrophes are impossible, for the possibilities were demonstrated; and while the conditions remain it rests on every man and every class in both nations to strive, in season and out of season, and rest not until these conditions, fraught with such awful possibilities to the human race, shall be removed, and replaced by more rational and stable principles and systems of international relations. Somehow, for the sake of humanity and civilisation, this must be done; we need not stay here to say how this can be accomplished. The peacemakers of our day may be a feeble folk in the estimation of politicians and journalists who are bound in fetters of conventionalism and tradition; but those who are determined to make war against the cursed folly of war are rapidly increasing, and it is now high time for every man aspiring to the rank of statesman to set himself to join in that struggle, or to stand discredited and condemned by the world.

The conception of international arbitration has been exposed to a severe test. On one side the allpowerful British Government has lowered its dignity and self-respect by blankly refusing to submit to that rational and judicial course, in a case in which, as demonstrated in these columns, it is the only honourable and reasonable method. On the other hand, the big, young Republic has vainly insisted on the paradoxical attempt to dictate that pacific plan by threats of force. But, in face of all the wild words and obstinate defiance on both sides, no one dare say that the principle has been discredited. Nay, rather, the value of the principle of reference to impartial and disinterested men of juridical quality and experience has been thrust on the attention of many who had not hitherto bestowed a second thought on the subject. In these columns it has often been admitted that there may be certain classes of international contentions or claims which are unsuited for arbitration. It was at once seen that the Monroe

Doctrine, more especially under its strained interpretation by President Cleveland's Foreign Secretary, was a claim of that intangible and onesided kind. But, by contrast, it was the more clearly seen that the dispute between our Foreign Office and Venezuela was, in its geographical and historical aspect, essentially one of those cases that invite conciliatory treatment by disinterested referees. It is not the less such merely because the Marquis of Salisbury, beguiled by the onesided version furnished him by the permanent officials, claimed that England should be judge of its own exaggerated demand, while contemptuously offering to submit to arbitration further claims about which no serious contention is possible. This ambiguous attitude pervades many portions of the despatches-such as this: Her Majesty's Government "have repeatedly expressed their readiness to submit to arbitration the conflicting claims of Great Britain and Venezuela to large tracts of territory which, from their auriferous nature, are known to be of almost untold value." In passing, we may remark this is an unlucky admission of recently developed colonial gold-hunger. Besides that, we have only the vaguest indication of what these "large tracts" are; and those who have followed the controversy long before his lordship too tardily, but hastily, plunged into it can estimate how very little these taunting offers of partial arbitration were worth. Those of our readers who have followed the results of the Chairman's and Committee's investigation of these respective claims-more especially in our November and December numbers-will be able to judge how seriously the Foreign Office statement of the case perverts the real and essential points at issue. As to the outside public, they have been enabled to judge how superficial and captious were these so-called offers of arbitration by the perusal of the dispassionate narration of the Venezuela case sent on by the Times correspondent from Caracas, which appeared in its issue of December 21st-a document of at least as much weight as our Foreign Office despatches. Lord Salisbury may, however, be thanked in that he has incidentally made one pertinent contribution towards defining the methods and conditions necessary to a successful system of arbitration-that is, where his lordship points out that" it is not always easy to find an arbitrator who is competent and wholly free from bias." Granted, it is not easy to lay hands suddenly on such men, or group of men. But that difficulty could be remedied by the establishment of a permanent International Tribunal of Reference, constituted on some such deliberate and substantial plan as that already worked out by Sir Edmund Hornby and other competent men who have devoted their skill and experience to defining the constitution of a High Court of International Causes which would command the respect and confidence of the civilised world. Thus, whilst in course of the recent hurricane certain false or superficial notions regarding international arbitration have been jettisoned and disposed of; on the other hand, the principle itself and sound precepts as to its application have floated securely through the storm, and are now seen to be more serviceable than before. At the same time, amidst the

attempts made from the American side to prejudice the principle by exasperation and discredit it by misapplication, and the equally injurious effect of the obstinate refusal of our Foreign Office to submit to arbitration in a typically suitable instance, the advocates of this pacificatory and conserving agency of the future must realise for themselves what strenuous efforts are yet required before politicians and statesmen can be compelled to accept the new method of settling international disputes, and cease from their constant threats of rushing into the irrational and destructive device of war. Men of that class, on both sides of the Atlantic, have had impressive warning; but it is for those who are determined to "make war against war to see to it that those to whom fate, or some party chance, has committed the life and fortunes of nations shall never again be permitted to drift so near the edge of the precipice. W.

THE MONROE DOCTRINE":

ITS HISTORY AND PURPOSE, AS DESCRIBED BY AN ENGLISH AND BY AN AMERICAN JURIST.

WE are glad to lay before our readers a clear statement on this subject, made by two jurists well known and esteemed in their respective countries. We take the following from the second edition (1885) of "Essays on Some Disputed Questions in Modern International Law," by T. J. Lawrence, formerly Deputy-Professor of International Law at Cambridge, and an author of repute on such questions :

"President Monroe laid down a wise and statesmanlike doctrine when he declared, in 1823, that while the United States would not interfere in purely European disputes, her people would consider any attempt by the Powers of Europe to extend their system to any portion of the American continent as dangerous to her peace and safety. .. All it does is to declare that the complicated state system of the Old World-the system of the coalitions against Napoleon, the Holy Alliance, the Balance of Power, the Eastern Question, and the European Concert-shall not be extended to the New World, and that the United States, while determined to prevent such a contingency, will on its part abstain from interference in disputes which concern the Powers of Europe only." "The famous message of President Monroe was in one sense itself an interference in European affairs; for that portion of it we are now considering was framed after careful negotiations with Mr. Canning, then Foreign Minister of Great Britain, and was directed against the Holy Alliance. It was an interference justified by American interests; for the Alliance was contemplating at the time the re-conqnest for Spain of its revolted transatlantic colonies; but nevertheless it was an interference."

"The

Monroe Doctrine objected to the trajection of European state systems across the Atlantic, but it did not declare for the closure of the American hemisphere to European diplomacy. This is abundantly clear from subsequent history, as well as from the words of the declaration."

We next lay before our readers extracts from "An Introduction to the Study of International Law," by Theodore D. Woolsey, President of Yale College (U.S.A.), of which the fourth edition was published in 1874. He says that the history of this doctrine is as follows: "At Verona the subject was agitated of attempting, in conformity with the known wishes of the Absolutists in Spain, to bring back the Spanish colonies into subjection to the mother country. This

fact having been communicated to our Government by that of Great Britain in 1823, and the importance of some public protest on our part being insisted upon, President Monroe in his annual message used the following language "[As this has already been quoted twice in CONCORD, and at full length by Mr. C. D. Collet in our last number, we need not repeat the words here.] Mr. Woolsey concludes: "The mere declaration of the President, meeting with the full sympathy of England, put an end to the designs to which the message refers." The italics in the above quotations are ours.]

Now as to the purport of the celebrated message. Our readers will recollect that in our last number Mr. Collet draws a distinction between Mr. Monroe's "doctrine" and his "message," designating the former

as

"fanfaronade." The words of the "doctrine" are as follow: "The occasion has been judged proper for asserting as a principle, in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonisation by any European Power."

As to the interpretation to be put on this, our American jurist affords most important information. He says:-"Mr. Adams, when President in 1825, thus refers to Mr. Monroe's principle while speaking in a special message of a congress at Panama : An agreement between all the parties represented at the meeting, that each will guard by its own means against the establishment of any future European colony within its borders, may be found desirable. This was more than two years since announced by my predecessor to the world, as a principle resulting from the emancipation of both the American continents.' Mr. Adams, when Secretary of State under Mr. Monroe, originated the 'principle,' and must have known what he meant. But the principle, even in this tame form, was_repudiated by the House of Representatives, in a resolution declaring that the United States ought not to become parties' with any of the South American republics to any joint declaration for the purpose of preventing the interference of any of the European Powers with their independence or form of government; or to any compact for the purpose of preventing colonisation upon the continent of America."" In a word, (1) the Monroe Doctrine was a British doctrine, and (2) it never had the sense now given to it. H. P.

་

GREAT BRITAIN AND VENEZUELA.

In addition to the resolution adopted at a special meeting of our Association on December 21st, 1895, which will be found in the usual column, the following statement, showing the action taken by the Association since the beginning of 1892, has been issued. It proves that our Association, at all events, has done its duty in calling the attention of the Government to the danger involved in not coming to a settlement of the dispute.

In December, 1892, the committee wrote to the Foreign Office stating that, from information it had received, the new Government in Venezuela, under President Crespo, would probably be favourably inclined to any proposal likely to bring about a renewal of good relations between the two Governments, and that if no agreement could be arrived at recourse should be had to arbitration. The Foreign Office replied that the Government of Venezuela was fully aware of the terms on which Her Majesty's Government would renew diplomatic relations.

In the autumn of 1893 the committee endeavoured to arrange a conference between Dr. Michelena (the special envoy from the Venezuelan Government) and

some British members of Parliament; but, Dr. Michelena considering he had better see only official members of the Government, this proposal fell through.

In November, 1893, the committee again wrote to the Foreign Office, pointing out the disadvantages of the then existing state of affairs, and urged that practical efforts should be made towards a settlement.

The Foreign Office replied that some of the claims of the Venezuelan Government were "so unfounded in fact, and so unfair to the colony of British Guiana, as not to be proper subject for arbitration."

In February, 1894, application was made to the Foreign Office as to what these "unfounded and unfair" claims were. The Foreign Office replied that there was nothing to be added to its former reply.

In June, 1894, on the occasion of the announcement of hostile resolutions to be submitted to the Venezuelan Senate as to trade with England and the suspension of the payment of interest on the English debt, the committee wrote to the Foreign Office submitting that England ought not to be judge in her own cause, and again urging arbitration.

This was duly acknowledged by the Foreign Office. In December, 1894, on the occasion of President Cleveland's Message to Congress, in which he stated that he had urged arbitration on Great Britain, the committee wrote to the Foreign Office suggesting the renewal of diplomatic relations as a first step towards an amicable settlement, and asking for full and specific information.

This having been acknowledged, the committee, in February, 1895, again wrote to the Foreign Office asking to be favoured with fuller and more definite information; but this was refused.

In April, 1895, Mr. W. P. Byles (then member for the Shipley Division of Yorkshire) put a question in the House of Commons, on behalf of the Association; but no fresh information was given by Sir E. Grey (then Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs) in reply.

Finally, in October last, the committee again drew the attention of the Foreign Office to the importance of some amicable settlement of the question being arrived at; which letter was duly acknowledged.

The following correspondence has passed with the Foreign Office: "INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION & PEACE ASSOCIATION, 40 & 41, Outer Temple, Strand, W.C., December 24th, 1895.

"MY LORD,-I have the honour to forward herewith, for the information of Her Majesty's Foreign Office, a copy of a minute adopted by the Committee of this Association on the present position of the boundary dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela. It will be observed that the Association does not consider it within its province to discuss the subject of the 'Monroe Doctrine,' or President Cleveland's interpretation thereof, though it has regarded with great anxiety the bare possibility of hostilities between the two great branches of the British race. As in the case of our former communications with the Foreign Office, it has been the aim of our Committee to treat the dispute with Venezuela on its own merits, and our Committee is glad to observe the statement in your lordship's recent dispatch that Her Majesty's Government have not surrendered the hope that it (the controversy with Venezuela) will be adjusted by a reasonable arrangement, and at an early date.'

"I have, &c.,

"(Signed) J. FREDK GREEN, Secretary. "To the Most Hon. the Marquis of Salisbury, K.G., Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."

Ir is a very long time since a year closed under a sky charged with so many threatening clouds, from which the thunder may burst at any moment. The massacres in the East continue; and it is, in my opinion, a disgrace to civilised Europe that, before this stream of blood which has flowed unceasingly for many months, it has not been able to silence the mistrust and hatred which divide the several countries from each other, and compel it to remain the unworthy and impotent spectator of these hideous hecatombs of women and children. No more eloquent demonstration could be given of the imperative necessity of that international unity, that greater fatherland, for which Mr. Hodgson Pratt pleads with such untiring and wonderful energy in the columns of the Echo. It is this cause, the cause of humanity, the glorious cause of that civilisation, the precious heritage of past ages, the preservation of which has devolved upon the great nations of the West. It would seem as though we had returned to the evil days of the sixteenth century, and that Turkish barbarism could, as before, glut itself with Christian victims, powerless from fear under the murderous shadow of the Crescent. It may be said that the Turks were hardly formidable except to their unarmed subjects, and that the armed Slavonic, Germanic, or Latin nations of Europe have nothing to fear from these explosions of Mussulman fanaticism; the interests which we must primarily regard are those of the Western nations, and all the Eastern Christians are not worth risking on their behalf a Pomeranian grenadier, a French soldier, or an English sailor. No one, indeed, is more opposed to war than myself, no one can deplore more than I do the fact that Europe groans under the yoke of this reign of militarisin which is ruining and depraving her; but since the terrible machine created by these standing armies and navies exists, it is well that we should use it against those against whom it can alone be properly directed, against barbarians. It is a narrow egoism which will not lend the powerful protection of civilised Europe to those who are being destroyed by the bloody and brutal whims of the Mussulmans of Asia. Doubtless the Turkish flag is not about to appear on the ramparts of Vienna or Rome, and England can sleep tranquilly behind the insuperable barrier of the ocean. But is not the fact that Europe looks on with an indifferent-I had almost said complacent-eye a notification to the entire Mussulman world that the hour has struck for undertaking a holy war; that, enclosed in its narrow and egoistic self-love, each of the Christian nations will allow any attack upon its neighbours without dreaming of assisting them, and that points of contact will not be wanting between the Mussulman world and the nations of the West? Moreover, beyond these barbarians, there are yet other barbarians-all the barbarians of the far East, civilised, educated, furnished with modern arms. Who can think without a shudder of the frightful struggles in which in time to come Europe may have to engage with these swarming millions of Asia, if it does not by its unity and energy arouse in its adversaries the feeling that any attack

would be hopeless, and that victory is assured beforehand to the old nations of the West, rejuvenated by a new fraternity? Besides, it is not a question of a war with Turkey; such a war would only be the signal for fresh massacres, and the Powers would no sooner have declared their warlike intentions than the Turkish yataghans would resume their horrible business with even more fury than before. But if the Sultan felt that Europe would no longer tolerate these hideous excesses, which make Anatolia resemble the Dahomey of former times, he would use the authority which he has from the high religious dignity with which he is invested by his Mussulman subjects to compel them to stop the crimes by which they are staining the East with blood. The reforms which would prevent the recurrence of similar disorder, and the application of which might not be unattended by some danger, since they would strike at the excited fanaticism of many, would come later at the proper time. For the moment what is important is that the killing should cease, and that it should cease because the Sultan is resolutely determined that it shall. Europe has the right to see that he is determined, by coming to the aid of his vacillating will. No spectacle would be more instructive to the Commander of the Faithful than the complete, entire, and active union of the Great Powers; that would be a lesson that, whether he liked it or not, he would understand. But Europe is doing its best not to give him this lesson. He knows well enough that if the Powers are in agreement, it is to do nothing; that they are too jealous of one another to determine on a joint intervention, the immediate advantages of which would be reaped by two or three of them; that all are watching with quite filial interest the state of health of the "sick man," because they are afraid that in the event of his death a frightful struggle would break out amongst them to divide the inheritance. The Press thinks fit to treat as "excited philanthropists, impatient bunglers, suspiciously zealous," those who are tired of this prolonged diplomatic comedy which is being played by Europe to the great delight of the Orientals, who find impunity and safety in the unbridled desires and brutal egoism of the great civilised nations. These gentlemen find 30,000 corpses insufficient to rouse them in earnest. I should like to know what they would do if it was their children that the Turkish soldiersamused themselves with by tossing them in the air and catching them on the points of their swords, if it was their money that was stolen, their houses burnt, their wives and daughters violated. Perhaps, after all, it would still be inelegant to trouble themselves about such things, if they were themselves spared, and only a neighbour was the victim-and Armenia is so far away! What wonder that the Sultan, who knows perfectly well that he has only diplomatic thunderbolts to fear, takes his ease! How can one hope that the Ambassadors will obtain any serious concessions from him, if his Ministers read the papers? And, as though this international anarchy-a more direct cause than is apparent of social anarchy-this absence of a strong and living organisation in our old Europe, were not a sufficient pledge of security for these Turkish exactions, behold, a conflict has arisen between two great nations which possibly more than any others were disposed to intervene with advantage, and to exert the necessary pressure on the Sultan! God forbid, however, that such a frightful calamity as a war between the United States and England should burst upon the world! It is cruel to have to say that if England had been willing to refer to arbitration this question of the rectification of a colonial frontier, no difficulty would have arisen, and that once again the amour propre of the chauvinists and the triflings of diplomats have outweighed the sacred interests of humanity. Undoubtedly in form President Cleveland was wrong; he should not have addressed an ultimatum of this sort to England. But is he not right at bottom? And is it wise and