permissible by the Law of Nations, and would effectually bar such a contingency. But to send troops to enforce interference in its internal affairs is not permissible.

It has, to our cost, already produced consequences terribly disastrous and humiliating, and, if persisted in, may lay prostrate the British Empire.

Gateshead.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

DAVID RULE.

A MYSTERY PARTLY REVEALED.-So far back as January, 1871, the invasion of the Balkans by Russia was predicted at the "White House," then Count Bismarck's head-quarters in Versailles. That a Conservative Government would be in power in England at the time, was not looked upon as probable. Bismarck had just previously offered Egypt to England as an exchange for the Black Sea Clauses of the Treaty of Paris. This offer Mr. Gladstone declined somewhat curtly. On Mr. Odo Russell handing to the German Chancellor the English Premier's reply, Prince Bismarck left the room, and hurrying to Baron von Kendell remarked, "Gladstone refuses Egypt! By God, he shall go there before I die!" clenching his assertion with a blow of his clenched fist on the desk before him. And Mr. Gladstone "did go to Egypt," as every one now knows, that is to say he bombarded Alexandria, occupied Egypt and the Soudan, surrendered the Soudan, sent General Gordon to Khartoum, deserted him, then again invaded the Soudan, both from the Red Sea and the Nile, then again abandoned the Soudan, and wasted both British lives and British treasure to no good purpose and for no earthly reason.-Fairplay, 3 June, 1887.

Russia and France.

There have been few instances of a condemnation so universal as that of the Egyptian "policy " which Lord Salisbury and Mr. Gladstone united in inaugurating in 1882. It is true that the grounds for the concurrence of judgment were not identical, some complaining of its aggressiveness, others of its half-heartedness. No one has been more severe in censure than Mr. Gladstone himself, who declared nearly two years ago that we had to expect for our conduct in Egypt, not reward but retribution. But though we are all agreed to censure our own Government, we are surprised that we do not get a generous aid from France, whose interests we have ignored from the beginning, not out of justice towards the inhabitants of the country, but out of a determination to do all the interference ourselves.

We

Though Mr. Gladstone has repeatedly blamed his own proceedings he has often represented that they were approved by the whole civilized world. We beg to call the attention of our readers to a French criticism on the present demeanour of the English press. find nothing unjust in that criticism, and we deeply regret that when the French refused to join in the bombardment of Alexandria, their influence was not strong enough to induce or even to compel us to follow their example. Certainly Russia, for her own purposes, was very adroit in persuading the Germans to take possession of Alsace and Lorraine. The quarrel for these two provinces puts both Germany and France at the feet of Russia, and weakens any power for good that they might otherwise possess. England has been able

to set France at defiance in Egypt because France is occupied with Alsace and Lorraine. Everybody in England laughs at France for her folly in believing that Russia will help her against either England or Germany. But is her trust in Russia more ridiculous than ours? In no part of the world do we resist Russia; in no part of the world does she fail to do us all the injury in her power; yet we stand godfather to Russia's admission into the Concert of Europe. We accept with easy good humour the enmity of Russia throughout the world, and we scarcely respect the secret jealousy of all the other Powers, whose real quarrel with us is that we will not resist Russian encroachment even against ourselves. By her universal real enmity and pretended friendship Russia rules the European Concert and keeps each State at variance with some other State. One of the most unfortunate instances is this interference of ours in Egypt, which we should not have ventured to carry out, if France had not had her temper soured and her hands tied by the consciousness that if she provoked a war with England the Germans would cross the Rhine.

A FRENCH VIEW OF OUR OCCUPATION OF EGYPT.

(From Le Courrier de l'Europe, 3 July.)

The refusal of France to recognise the Convention of which Sir H. D. Wolff is the author, and the pressure which, in concert with Russia, she exercises over the Sultan to hinder its definitive ratification, are diversely appreciated by the press of London. The comments of our British brethren, with some rare exceptions, are not without sourness. As a matter

of course France is in the wrong, and meddles with what does not concern her; or, rather, with what concerns her no longer, since she refused —this is the principal argument of the English journals-to take part in that act of doubtful morality and necessity, ordered by Mr. Gladstone, Liberal Prime Minister, let us state in passing, which brought on the Egyptian occupation; the bombardment of Alexandra.

It is no longer to the point to inquire if the intervention of England was justified, and if, in taking sides with the Khedive against Arabi Pasha and the Egyptian army, this Power did not act with the precipitation which she always displays when she thinks that her financial and commercial interests are menaced, and if, with this selfish object, she did not stifle a truly patriotic movement whose success would have delivered Egypt from the abuses and the dangers to remedy which the English Statesmen and Generals undertook their mission.

This is no longer the question. The question is the execution of a promise solemnly made at the moment when the Statesmen and Generals voluntarily imposed this mission on themselves; the execution of a promise without which the intervention would probably never have been permitted, at least on the conditions on which it took place.

The English occupation which was to last hardly a few months has already lasted five years.

During these five years the British Government has not ceased to repeat that it waits only for an opportunity of abandoning Egypt; and at the end of this rather considerable lapse of time, the said opportunity seems to it so distant that it proposes tranquilly to prolong its stay for three years more, at the expiration of which it will consent to withdraw its troops from the country occupied, on the condition, always, of sending them back again if it thinks fit.

These fashions of acting are perhaps rather cavalier, and the proposi

tion is so singular that one is inclined to believe that it has been made only in the hope of seing it rejected.

In fact, the English organs seem to make up their mind easily about the matter, and, with remarkable unanimity, they agree already to say that in case the Sultan, yielding to the representations of France and Russia, should refuse to ratify the Convention, England would easily console herself for this little diplomatic check, since things would remain in "statu quo," that is to say in indefinite occupation. Some journals congratulate themselves on this result and one of them carries its frankness so far as to indulge in the following comments :

"Certainly we shall not go to war against anybody if the Convention breaks down; but we shall remain in Egypt; and while we are there we imagine that it will not be easy to turn us out. If the Turkish Empire must fall in pieces some day, those who will be on the spot will have more facility in keeping what they occupy already than those who shall have remained outside will have in obtaining what they desire."

This declaration, if it is brutal, has at least the merit of being clear, and on this account we prefer it to the policy of tergiversation which, returning to evil traditions, the British Government, in this Egyptian affair, seems to have recourse anew.

The Bulgarian Election.

A telegram in the Times from Bucharest dated 8 May, says :"All the leading newspapers here published articles upon the election of Prince Ferdinand, and congratulated the Bulgarian people upon the choice made by them, and upon the return of a settled state of affairs.

The Presse of Vienna said at the same time:

Apart from Russia the whole public opinion of Europe sympathizes with the candidature of the Prince of Coburg, as Europe must have an interest in finally divesting the Bulgarian question of its disquieting character."

Strange that anybody should suppose that a Bulgarian election made "apart from Russia' can facilitate a "return of a settled state of affairs," or can divest them of a "disquieting character.” From St. Petersburg the Times informs us that Russia attributes no importance to the election, and considers it as so illegal that she cannot suppose that the sanction of the Powers, which is indispensable, will be given to it.

First, then, who is the new Prince of Bulgaria? All Europe, "apart from Russia," gives him a high character. We have nothing to say against it. Against those who have in singleness of heart elected him, or caused him to be elected, we have only one thing to say, namely, that they ought first to have found a way to elect a Prince "apart from Russia." This would, however, have been an impossibility, and this impossibility has been at once recognized by Prince Ferdinand. He has answered that he will accept the throne if the Powers will accept him. The Powers will doubtless accept him if he be first accepted by Russia, but otherwise they are not likely to accept him. The question is then reduced to whether Russia will accept him. Therefore again we ask, "Who is he?"

His Serene Highness Ferdinand Maximilian Charles Leopold Maria, Duke of Saxony, born at Vienna 26 February, 1861, is the first cousin once removed of the late Prince Consort. He therefore belongs to a family which in England, in Belgium, and in Portugal has with some success discountenanced Russia's lawless intrigues. The head of the family, who is said to have approved the

candidature of his cousin, is the Duke of Saxe-Coburg, who, as our readers will recollect, once published a pamphlet, "The Despots as Revolutionists." Prince Ferdinand is also a grandson of Louis Philippe, his mother being the Princess Mary Clementina of Orleans. It is impossible to suppose that Russia has been surprised by his election to the throne of Bulgaria, and it is equally impossible to suppose that she regards him with a favourable eye. But his election by the Sobranje may be very well suited to her purposes.

In the first place, she may oppose his election. He is not defying her. In this case the provisional state of things will be continued, and may even break down. Should he give way, this will be represented as a victory over England. The Bulgarians threaten that if not allowed to elect a Prince, they will declare themselves independent. This will put an end to the fraud involved in the Treaty of Berlin, viz., the government of Bulgaria by the European Concert, but it may very much aid Russia in carrying out her means by force. It will be difficult for Turkey to give her countenance and active support to what will be technically a fresh rebellion against herself, and it will form an easy excuse for England to leave Russia a free hand.

It has to be recollected that Russia has all along, though in an underhand manner, given out that the Revolution of Philippopolis was planned by the Queen of England. From the time when Russia refused to consent to the re-appointment of Aleko Pasha in Eastern Roumelia it was clear that she herself contemplated revolution then, though the direction taken appears not to have been that which she intended. That the Queen does not approve of Russian encroachment in Bulgaria, or any where else, is true, and the ruin of Prince Ferdinand's chances will be as great a blow to England as would have been her defeat in regard to the Egyptian Convention. This blow will be all the greater because it may be believed by the Bulgarians that England has just put forward the Coburg Candidate without the intention of giving him any real support.

England is now reduced to the point that, if she does not carry to a successful issue the candidature of Prince Ferdinand, she will utterly lose her position in the East.

It is already rumoured that the Prince is about to withdraw from his candidature. This will not diminish the blow to England. It will only make Russia appear the stronger. Yet it is possible that she may be alarmed at the danger of making it too clear that she is the reverse of the "Peacemaker of Europe," as which she has so long posed. She may accept Prince Ferdinand "on conditions," that is, that he may bind himself towards Russia in a manner which will give an appearance of legality to the assumption of that right of Suzerainty over Bulgaria for which Russia is contending, the "conditions" in question being accepted by the European Concert.

Should it turn out that the Concert is to be broken up and that Prince Ferdinand is to be supported bona fide against Russia, we shall be no less delighted than surprised.

15 July, 1887.

C. D. COLLET.

Forty-Seventh Anniversary of the Treaty for the "Pacification of the Levant."

Sixty Years' European Concert.

AN ANTITHESIS TO THE BRITISH JUBILEE. The harmonious celebration of the Queen's Jubilee has occupied the minds of men during the last month; it is an evidence of how much there is in which we are all agreed, and of how much is done well where the work is done by those who have no interest in mischief and have an interest of some kind, personal or benevolent, in taking pains to do their work well.

The Jubilee Party have sung the triumphs of our Colonial Extensions, but they have not boasted of our triumphs in the European Concert, of our fifty years "Pacific" management of Egypt, of our share in the "Liberation" of Bulgaria, or of our success in "civilizing" Burma, Ashantee, and Zululand.

There have been, however, some events in Queen Victoria's reign at which we cannot rejoice. No one has reminded us that the very first days of Queen Victoria's reign were used by the Foreign Office to sacrifice the Vixen to Russia, and that in spite of her constant resistance similar surrenders have been repeatedly accomplished, our Maritime Power being destroyed by the Declaration of Paris, although she has never given it her sanction; without which a Turnpike Bill cannot be passed or the limits of a chapelry altered. Least of all has it been remarked that this country has become one of the United States of Europe, that it has entangled itself in difficulties in every country in the world, and that in every country in which the Government of England has interfered, affairs are conducted in secresy, while she herself is struck with paralysis, and is exposed to constant expenditure of men and of money for purposes of which she is not cognizant beforehand, and which she always regrets afterwards.

Surely with so much benevolent, sincere, and patriotic feeeling as has recently found expression, some persons might be found who would take the trouble to ascertain why our modern system of taking, or attempting to take, part in every foreign government is persisted in, while it is evident that it has no result but confusion and disappointment. We are disposed to hail it as a favourable omen, that while Royal Princes and Princesses took part in the ceremony in Westminster Abbey from numerous parts of Germany; from Austria, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and Greece; from Japan, Persia, Siam, and Hawaii; no member of the Russian Royal Family was present except the Grand Duke Sergius, who is the husband of the Princess Elizabeth of Hesse, granddaughter of the Queen.

When we recollect the pains taken by Russia to obtain as a wife to the Czarèvitch the sister of the Princess of Wales, we ask whether the Russian Cabinet has any object in thus neglecting an opportunity of appearing to be on good terms with the Queen of England. At any rate this attitude accords with the pretence that Russia requires protection against the rivalry of England in Egypt, in Bulgaria, and in Afghanistan. No such rivalry has existed on the part of England since, on this day sixty years ago, she signed with Russia and France the Treaty for the "Pacification of Greece." At that time her plan for England was that she should take