rather sell to Germany than to England; but the German Radicals strongly oppose any further increase of colonial obligation in East Africa.

For a year past, efforts have been made for a transfer of control over the colonies in Southwest Africa now belonging to Germany. A Hamburg syndicate had undertaken to establish an Anglo-German company to which the rights of the German Colonial Society in Southwest Africa should be transferred. Negotiations had gone so far that £10,000 had been deposited as security by the English delegates. February 19 last was the time fixed for the completion of the transaction. At the final meeting, the English delegates definitively refused to complete the contract; and they have allowed their deposit to be forfeited. The British public, it was felt, could not be depended upon for subscriptions in the present unfavorable condition of the London market; and, when an attempt was made to raise by other means the amount required for the purchase of the rights of the Colonization Company, it was learned, that in the event of the failure of the Hamburg syndicate to raise the capital required, the German Government contemplated the abandonment of its possessions in Southwest Africa, in which case the colonies in question would readily pass under British rule. This rumored intention of the Government roused considerable opposition from the Colonial party in Germany; but, for the time being, all agitation has been allayed by the announcement of the Imperial Minister of Foreign Affairs, made to the Budget Committee of the Reichstag on February 26, to the effect that the Government had determined not to abandon its possessions in Southwest Africa. Matters, therefore, remain in stata quo.

The British House of Commons, on March 4, voted $100,000 for the preliminary surveys of a railway line from Mombasa, on the East Coast, to the Victoria Nyanza, in British East Africa.

The Morocco mission sent to Touat to negotiate for the formal transfer of the oasis to the Sultan has failed. The Touatians told the envoys that

they had reconsidered their desire to have the Sultan for their protector, and that they were going to form a connection with Algeria-or, in other words, with the French. When the envoys reported the failure of their mission, the Sultan was deeply incensed, put them in prison, and had them strangled.

THE BRUSSELS ACT.

On January 11 last, the United States Senate finally ratified, with certain reservations, the general act passed by the Anti-Slavery Conference of Brussels on July 2, 1890. In previous issues of Current History, we have traced the negotiations concerning this treaty. It will be remembered, that notwithstanding a universal sympathy with the humanitarian motives that underlie it, and an almost universal recognition that some such measure is necessary to enable the Free State of the Congo to accomplish the civilizing tasks it has undertaken, there were objections raised in various quarters against the final ratification of the treaty. Portugal withheld her immediate assent for economic reasons; France also stood aloof, objecting to those clauses which brought Madagascar and the Comoro Islands within the operation of the anti-slavery measures, objecting against allowing to the signatory Powers the right of searching vessels suspected of being engaged in the slave trade, and possibly jealous, also, of the Belgian claims upon the Congo Free State. Besides, in the United States, it will be remembered (see Vol. I., p. 98), a ratification of the treaty was refused during the closing hours of the Fifty-first Congress on March 4, 1891. This adverse vote was, however, immediately reconsidered, and a promise thus secured that the treaty should have adequate consideration at the next session.

As July 2, 1891, had been fixed as the date on or before which ratifications had to be deposited at Brussels, the treaty would have lapsed on that day, were it not that further diplomatic efforts secured the consent of the signatory Powers, that the time for the exchange of ratifications should be extended to February 2, 1892.

The principal objection to ratification was based upon the argument, that, as the United States had no territory in Africa, and did not desire to have any, she should not commit herself to any measure which might be construed as giving assent to the schemes of other Powers for the present or future partition of the continent. It was pointed out that this objection was not insuperable; for the 18th article of the treaty reserves to the signatory Powers "the right to impose such conditions as they may deem necessary to their adhesion." The treaty was, accordingly, ratified, with a reservation defining the policy of the United States in regard to schemes of territorial partition. The resolution of ratification contained the following words:

That the United States, not having in African territory any possessions or protectorates, hereby disclaims any intention, in adhering to this treaty, to declare any interest in such possessions and protectorates established by other Powers, or any approval of the wisdom, expediency or lawfulness thereof, and does not join in any expressions in the treaty which might be construed as such a declaration.

Portugal has now ratified the treaty, and France has also done so partially. With regard to the latter Power, the articles including Madagascar and the Comoro Islands within the

operation of the anti-slavery measures, were agreed to in a protocol signed at Brussels January 2 last; but those concerning the right of the signatory Powers to search and seize suspected vessels, were reserved for ulterior negotiations. This partial withdrawal of France from the provisions of the general act, was accepted in the resolution of ratification which passed the United States Senate January 11. It will have to be acquiesced in by the sixteen other signatory Powers.

In substance, the Brussels Act provides for the occupation of the interior of the Congo basin by the Powers, who shall establish strongly fortified stations as bases of operations against the slave traffic; the building of railroads; the establishment of steamboat and telegraph lines; the limitation of imports of firearms and ammunition; the settlement of tribal disputes by arbitration; the gradual training of the natives in the arts of peace; and the rooting out of cannibalism. The act also prohibits the importation of spirituous liquors into certain territory to

be hereafter defined.

Accompanying the general act, and in fact combined with it, was a treaty of commerce and navigation with the Congo Free State, the necessity of which was involved in the conditions imposed by the act for the suppression

of the slave trade. In 1884, as a result of the Berlin Conference, the Congo Free State was recognized as an independent Power; and certain provisions then made granted the privilege of free commercial entry into the new State. No duties were to be levied for twenty years. Annual expenses, however, proved to be in excess of revenues; and, when the anti-slavery act of the Brussels Conference of November 18, 1889, to July 2, 1890, imposed serious financial burdens upon the Congo State for the suppression of slavery, it was quite evident that the State would be utterly unable to do the work expected of it, unless it could increase its revenues. Hence the clauses added to the general act which define the extent to which import duties may be imposed. They cannot exceed ten per cent of the value of the merchandise at the port of importation, during fifteen years from July 2, 1890, except for spirits, which are regulated by special provisions.

The eleventh and twelfth articles secure to the United States, the "most favored nation" treatment, and all the other privileges, immunities, etc., accorded to any other of the signatory Powers. The act contains no extradition clause, an elaborate article of that nature having been struck out at the suggestion of President Harrison and Secretary Blaine, as technically imperfect in various features.

THE SANITARY CONFERENCE. In view of certain phases which the problem of immigration has recently assumed in various countries, great interest attaches to any attempts of an international character, to check the spread of infectious diseases. Important results may be expected from the sessions of the International Sanitary Conference, which were held in Venice January 5 to 30. The object was to consider means of more effectually guarding against the spread of epidemics, and particularly against their transmission from the East to Europe. The deliberations concerned most directly the interests of England, France, Italy, and Austria, although other countries also were represented at the Conference.

The movement toward organized action against the dangers in question, dates back over forty years. In 1851, the first conference assembled in Paris; and subsequent meetings of a similar character have been held in Constantinople, Vienna, Rome, and Washington, D. C. Their object commands universal sympathy; but so intricate are the practical commercial and po litical questions involved, and so divergent the ideas as to the most expedient sanitary measures, that unanimous action has heretofore been an impossibility.

The Suez Canal is now the great avenue of commerce between the East and the West. Fully four-fifths of the trade which passes through it is controlled by Great Britain, who also exercises a dominating influence over the policy of Egypt. Now, were Egypt, as a result of a compact, to be made a quarantine station for all vessels going westward through the Suez Canal, British commerce would be put under very severe burdens, inasmuch as the commerce of all other countries taken together, with the East, by way of the Suez Canal, does not amount to more than one-fourth of what belongs to England. A delay of several days, probably ten at least, would be added to the length of the voyage. It is not, therefore, surprising that the British ship-owners and merchants felt great concern as to the outcome of the deliberations at Venice.

In contradistinction to a considerable number of the nations on the Continent, who rely upon quarantine regulations, England has practically discarded these in favor of sanitary reform. Fortunately, in this view, she is supported by the most intelligent opinion in France. That the view is sound, seems borne out by the fact, that although England's trade with the most unhealthy parts of the East is vastly greater than that of any other country, in fact of all put together, yet the importation of pestilence into English ports is very rare, and, when it occurs, is easily controlled by ordinary sanitary measures.

Where a vessel proposed to call at a port before reaching its destination,

the English ship-owners had no objection to such quarantine regulations as might be regarded necessary for the protection of such port; but they contended, that on renouncing the intention of touching at Egyptian ports before reaching their destination, ships should be allowed to escape quarantine, and to pass on without delay. To this contention on the part of the English delegates, Italy and Austria agreed; but French opposition necessitated the modification which was finally reached. In a word-England argued, that provided a ship can start from a port with a clean bill of health, and does not touch at an infected port, the delay of quarantine at Suez is not only unnecessary, but hurtful to trade. France, on the other hand, contended, that were the English proposition accepted, European ports would be exposed to the possibility of an epidemic outbreak, the evils of which no amount

of money could counterbalance; and that in case of an actual outbreak, quarantine would simply have to be established at Mediterranean ports instead of at Suez.

The regulations ultimately drafted by the Conference were a compromise of the French and English propositions, the most important feature of which is that it provides for the substitution of disinfection and isolation for quarantine, which latter term practically disappears. The delay at Suez will thus be only slight. Everything to which disease cannot be imputed is to be allowed to pass without further question. Only the parts of the ship which may have been in actual contact with the disease, are subject to disinfection; and, where vessels are equipped with a medical service and all the requisite materials, disinfection is to be effected without external interference.

THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT. N February 9, the twelfth Parliament of Queen Victoria assembled for what is generally regarded as its last session. Both Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Balfour have given announcements of a semi-official character, that the year 1892 will witness another general election; but the exact time no one can yet fix.

The Queen's Speech briefly referred to the evidences of universal sympathy with the royal family over its bereavement in the death of the Heir Apparent, alluded to the death of the Khedive of Egypt as leaving British relations with that country unaltered, expressed confidence that England would not suffer from foreign tariff legislation, and congratulated the country upon the pacific character of the foreign outlook. It then proceeded to a brief outline of the business of the session, the principal measures for consideration being: an Irish Local Government bill, an Irish Education bill, a Small Holdings bill (Agri

cultural), a District Councils bill, and bills to reform the India Council and Scottish private legislation. The last measure proposes to put Scotch private bills under the consideration of judicial committees sitting in certain. districts in Scotland, instead of leaving them, as heretofore, to committees of the House of Commons. It thus affirms and extends the principle of local government.

Both in the Queen's Speech and in the Address in reply, there was reflected the sorrow which had just come upon the nation in the death of the Duke of Clarence. The gloom was deepened as the Members looked around and saw the gaps in their ranks caused mainly by the hand of Death. Mr. Smith, the late leader; Mr. Parnell; Sir Charles Forster, for two generations a familiar figure in the House; Sir John Pope Hennessy; Mr. Raikes; Mr. Bond; Sir J. B. Corry; and popular "Dick" Power-all were gone. Rarely indeed has there been seen on a similar occasion such a gathering of new Members waiting to take the oath and their

seats. Mr. Frederick Smith, who succeeds his father in the representation of the Strand, London, was received with a warm ovation from both sides of the House; but the only strong ebullition of feeling that marked the opening sitting was the enthusiastic cheering of the Liberals when Mr. Lambert, the victor at South Molton, and Mr. Maden, the Gladstonian successor to Lord Hartington in the representation of Rossendale, proceeded to take the oath.

In the debate on the Address, the most memorable incidents were those

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE (LORD HARTINGTON). connected with the amendments moved by Mr. Redmond and Mr. Sexton. The former demanded amnesty for the dynamiters now undergoing penal servitude; but what followed served to show distinctly that there is not perfect accord between the Irish Nationalists and the most influential section of the English Home Rulers. Sir William Harcourt refused to vote for the release of prisoners convicted under the Treason Felony Act, and he showed plainly that there are forms of Home Rule to which he is not yet prepared to give his unqualified support.

Mr.Sexton's amendment condemned as futile the operation of the Land Purchase Act of 1891. It had mani

festly failed, he said, to afford a basis for an extension of the class of occupying tenants; not a pound of the guaranteed land stock, he pointed out, had been taken; and the failure of the measure he cited as a crowning argument for the establishment of Home Rule. It had deepened the conviction of the Irish people that the Imperial Parliament was utterly unable to deal adequately with the Irish question. In the vote on Mr. Sexton's amendment, the Government secured only a small majority, the vote standing 179 to 158; after which the Address was immediately adopted.

On February 18, Mr. Balfour introduced the Irish Local Government bill. A double interest attached to the occasion. It was Mr. Balfour's first appearance as leader of the House in charge of a measure, and the bill itself touched upon the question which many are now coming to look upon as the crucial test upon which will hang the fate of the Ministry at the approaching general election.

The bill is said to be the result of a compromise, reached only after many stormy meetings of the Cabinet. Whether so or not, it was received without enthusiasm by Mr. Balfour's own party, although the Ulster Conservatives have since shown a disposition to heartily support its main principles. By the Irish Members of both factions, it was received with execration. Mr. Morley characterized it as "the rottenest reed the Irish minority had ever leaned on for the retention of privileges," being framed "in absolute distrust of the Irish people." Mr. John E. Redmond, the Parnellite leader, called it a "sham bill." Mr. Justin McCarthy spoke of it as "an unclean thing," and advised the Government to burn it. Mr. Healy said he never knew of a more contemptible bill; and Sir William Vernon Harcourt said that a bill more insulting to the Irish he could not conceive of.

At present the local government of Ireland is nominally in the hands of two separate bodies, the Baronial Sessions and the Grand Juries. The former are composed of county magistrates and a number of cess-payers,