that made by the Government in that debate; and there is something almost tragic in the thought that to one bearing the honoured name of Buxton-a name conspicuous for two generations for noble efforts to protect native races from cruelty and extermination at the hands of the "civilised" white man-should have been allotted the task of apologising for the exploits of the latest filibustering expedition of a company of greedy speculators. We entirely dissent from Mr. Gladstone's expression of opinion that Mr. Buxton's grandfather, the great Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton, would have listened with approval to the Under Secretary's speech. Rather, we think, would that strong, heroic soul have shuddered with dismay to think that a descendant of his should have been engaged on such a task, and should have descended to hairsplitting distinctions worthy of a Jesuit controversialist.

Another argument adduced by the apologists for the campaign is that we are bound to pay some respect to the opinions of our fellowsubjects in Cape Colony. Certainly, but we suppose that the Westminster Gazette and others who are fond of bringing forward this plea,

will admit that there must be some limit to the lengths which colonists are allowed to go, otherwise where does the control of the mother country come in? And those who remember what has usually been the conduct of colonials towards native races will feel that there is no subject on which the tendencies of the inhabitants of our African and other colonies require to be held so much in check. The real object of the colonists is evidently that which has brought so much misery on mankind in all ages-auri sacra fames. This is strikingly confirmed by a correspondent of the Daily News, writing from Fort Chartis:-"The shrewd colonists who form the bulk of our fighting force," he says, " are delighted with Matebeleland. The country has quite justified its reputation. It is full of reefs rich in gold, and the pasture is described as splendid. Consequently our men have gone to stay-that, at any rate, is the opinion of the men who have sent the news, and of every colonist here."

One more point. The Westminster Gazette still continues to indulge in its cheap sneer, which we should have thought rather played out by this time, at the friends of justice and humanity as little Englanders." We believe that the British Empire, extensive as it is, if governed on the lines of justice, mercy, and truth, may be a great instrument for good in the civilisation and progress of the world.

But

we think it of infinitely more importance that England should be just and righteous in her dealings with other nations, and with native races in her own empire, than that the sun should never set on her dominions. Better far

that England should be "little" than that she should set the seal of her approval on the acts of some of the least worthy of her sons, men who care nothing for the "honour of England," though they loudly prate of it; and nothing for civilisation save what they can make out of it. Never will there be a sound and healthy public opinion in this country until it is universally acknowledged that what is wrong in individuals cannot be right in nations, and that "righteousness alone exalteth a nation," and only by walking in the paths of righteousness and justice can any nation be a blessing and not a curse to mankind. CALVUS.

THE DESECRATION OF WESTMINSTER ABBEY.

It is difficult to find language strong enough to Abbey by the Protestant Bishop of Derry as a denounce the use of the pulpit of Westminster platform from which to urge the British people to a war of annexation in Africa, and to throw over the principles of the Sermon on the Mount. Abbey were unaware of the Bishop's real object We can only hope that the authorities of the when they allowed him the use of the pulpit. It is the old story: if some half-starved workmen are goaded into an act of violence, there is sure to be some reverend or right-reverend divine eager to denounce them, and to insist on the duty of following the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount; but if the same principles interfere with the greed of capitalists and profitmongers, as they are sure to do, there is always a clerical apologist at hand to absolve them from the duty of living up to those sublime teachings. The following letter which appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette at the time of the Bishop's address is so admirable that we reprint it in full:

"CAVE, CESAR, NE DAMNUM ACCIPIAS.' To the Editor of the Pall Mall Gazette.

SIR,-The appearance of an Irish Protestant Bishop in the pulpit of Westminster Abbey to incite the British people to a war of annexation, blood-shed, and land-grabbing, is an event not to be passed over unnoticed. It is well to have a giant's strength, but not to use it as a giant: it is well to be desirous to do good, but not to do evil on the chance, the mere chance, of good resulting. There are two sides in England's shield. On one side is inscribed patriotism, strength, commerce, restless activity; on the other, annexation, spoliation, annihilation of inferior races, importation of lethal weapons, gunpowder, and spirituous liquor-the last state of the poor African, Australian, or American regions is worse than the first. Nihil quol tetigit, non desecrare.' Where are the Tasmanians, the Maoris, the Polynesians, the Australians, the Iroquois, the great New England tribes? The echo answers 'Where?'

"The Bishop has picked up the one-sided story of the emigrant, desirous of an assignment of land; of the missionary, who, forgetting the holy principles of his profession, wishes, as in Uganda, to lein upon the arm of the flesh; of the mining company, who smells gold;

of the white man, who looks upon the black as vermin, to be shot down with the snake and the centipede. The Bishop wears the skin of a sheep, but he speaks up for the wolves, for the only persons who could possibly profit by the extermination of the Matabele would be the European immigrant. The Bishop's text is not given in the Times report, but one is easily suggested from the Book of Joshua or Judges. In fact, it is recorded that the Boers of the Transvaal applied to the British and Foreign Bible Society for a new separate edition of the Books of Joshua and Judges, as those books so entirely coincided with their views and environment, as regards the Be-Chuana tribe, the owners of the soil, who were described as being nearer akin to the boar and pig than to the Boer and Briton.

"The British taxpayer may ask this Irish Bishop in the words of Achilles, as repeated by Homer: 'What cause have I to war at thy decree? The Ma-Tabele never injured me.' The Ma-Tabele might cry out in the words of the Hebrew as reported in Exodus : 'Who made thee a prince and a judge over us (South Africa) ? Intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian yesterday?'

"With Egypt and Uganda on our hands we may well pause before we get up a second Zulu war in South Africa. The good ship 'England' may be found to be over-laden in the event of a sudden international tempest arising. The clouds are gathering in India, both in the interior and on both the North-West and South-East frontiers. We cry out at every attempt of the French to extend their influence and protectorate, but Truth cries out to us

AMONGST CHRONIC CAUSES of discord, and pending disputes that may at any time cause serious international difficulty is that of the Newfoundland Fisheries. This comprises the hitherto irreconcilable claims of France under ancient treaties with Great Britain, and those of our colonists under the entirely altered circumstances of the present day. Just now we only refer to this formidable difficulty in order that our friends may bear it in mind, and make such suggestions that may occur to them as likely to be of service. In our issue for August-September, pp. 156-7, the subject was brought up to that date in a careful abstract by our chairIn our July number the position was stated, as explained in Parliament by Lord Dunraven, who has laudably exerted efforts towards a solution. And in December last the whole diplomatic history of the question was skilfully set out in our columns by a well-known hand. Therefore ample material is obtainable in CONCORD for our readers; and much of it might

man.

very profitably engage the attention of jurists or other public men.

At present there is nothing to add, except the intimation that before our next issue this much vexed question may again have entered into an acute stage. There has been the election of the new Assembly in Newfoundland; and most probably, another attempt will be made. to induce that body to pass such an Act as is required from them before any effect can be given to the proposals for arbitration long since formulated. As a result of the election it is said that the Opposition have a majority; but that will probably render it only more likely that any Act committing the colonists to submit their interests to arbitration, on the basis of what they regard as obsolete treaties, will be emphatically rejected. Thus the negotiations between our Foreign Office and France will be again at a dead-lock. Some competent publicists who have looked at the subject all round consider that the colonists are entirely right in their contention, namely, that they ought to be relieved of the intolerable hardship inflicted on them by these antiquated treaties in regard both to their fisheries and foreshores. According to that view, the British Government would have to settle with France as it could. There might be two ways of doing this: first, to offer France a money compensation, a proposal which, in the present mood of the Parisians, if not also of French statesmen, would scarcely be listened to; the other is to make some diplomatic bargain with France in lieu of those old treaty rights. We have heard one experienced man of affairs say, if we could have Egypt and Newfoundland brought on to one green-table, some satisfactory adjustment might be arrived at.

As to this plan, one preliminary difficulty would have to be got over, namely, that no responsible French statesman has ever formulated what are their demands as against us in respect of Egypt. It will be remembered that our chairman and committee have, in every practicable way, endeavoured to induce our French friends to define those claims, but, as yet, without any tangible response. Still we must not despair in regard to this previous question; for it concerns many other matters besides this of Newfoundland. Another and desperate solution has been more than hinted at amongst the colonists themselves, namely, that they should ask the United States to take their island into the Union. As this would involve the secession from British allegiance on the part of our oldest Colony, it is manifest that the mother country would have much to say to that plan. But it is mentioned here by way of illustration of the intensity of feeling in the Colony against their Old-Man-of-the-Sea in the shape of our ancient treaties with the French. It might be noticed that in our Chairman's summary two

months ago he quoted Lord Herschell to the effect that such absorption of the Colony in the Great Republic would not rid the colonists of the obligation of the treaties. Now, if such audacity may be permissible as our venturing to differ with so eminent an authority, we may point out that the boot would then be on another leg that of Great Britain itself; so that it would be our Foreign Office, and not the Colony, that would be "face to face with the French nation." It is taken for granted that France, though so valorous against John Bull, would think not once but thrice before doubling its fists against Uncle Sam.

So we have here a pretty "kettle of fish" which our diplomatic cooks have failed, as yet, to serve up for the modern dinner table. The only thing that is quite clear is that the colonists must be relieved, though it may be at cost to the United Kingdom, but in some way that will put an end to the difficulty, and so remove the too long - endured friction with France on this subject, which her press, if not public men, seem to cherish as a sort of sweetbitter condiment. The one permanent lesson from this hundred years difficulty, is, that all treaties should, within their provisions, comprise one for revision at some specified date, say, five, ten, or twenty years, according to circumstances. Such prevision and reserve would serve to obviate future diplomatic difficulties and abate many possible causes of international conflict.

It seems that a certain Hamburg journal, the mission of which has of late been that of mischief-maker-in-general, has recently been taunting Italy with the gratuitous insinuation that her Ministers have been " hedging" with Russia, so as to be ready to free herself from the burden of the Triple Alliance, in case the northern power and its incongruous western ally should be getting the worse of it in any collision such as the Hamburg journal is doing. its wicked best to precipitate. This pernicious taint has been repelled by the Times correspondent in Rome, who points out with much force that Italy's inclinations and interests as a Mediterranean power must always tend towards friendship and agreement with England. He adds:

"As long as this is the case, Italy can have no apprehension of requiring Russian intercession. At the same time, Italy has no sentiment of antagonism to Russia; she, however, has no desire to conceal the fact that she would support England in any Mediterranean question, no matter what other Power were involved."

Then, as he further remarks, the foreign policy of few countries is more open and aboveboard than Italy's. She has no revanche to satisfy; she has no territorial interests to serve by a great war; and as her chief aim is to maintain the friendship of England-" even

the Triple Alliance is subservient to that"no secret treaty which would be derogatory to British interests is possible.

One would venture to point the moral a step further towards urging Italy to depend on herself, and to leave the great military powers to their own quarrels and burdens. Two of her own leading statesmen have recently been jeering at each other in a way that betokens, perhaps unconsciously to themselves, a feeling of intense dissatisfaction with the false position into which their overburdened country has been dragged at the heels of two military monarchies of the Continent. Is there not so me political genius in Italy who can take up as a practical programme that of withdrawing from the manacles of the Alliance at the first opportunity? W.

NOTES ON A PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION.

THE following memorandum is from Notes on the subject communicated by Sir Edmund Hornby to the International Arbitration and

Peace Association. It is not intended to be anything more than a rough basis on which a more complete and elaborate system might be founded:

The establishment of a Permanent International Tribunal of Arbitration, and a Council or College of International Law, pre-supposes the possibility of framing its constitution, jurisdiction, and procedure, on a basis which will secure impartiality of inquiry and decision on every question submitted to it.

The submission by nations of international differences during the last quarter of a century to courts of arbitration created ad hoc-is evidence of two facts:

(1) That nations are recognising the terrible effects of war on civilisation, on national wealth, and on national industry.

(2) That war affords no security that the object with which it is undertaken will be attained, whilst the misery and loss it entails on both parties to it-whatever the result-are certain.

Tribunals of arbitration created ad hoc, however, are unsatisfactory, amongst other reasons, because the members are not accustomed to the performance of judicial duties, or to act together-have seldom more than an amateur knowledge of the principles or science of law-and being generally in the service of their respective Governments, are under influences which practically impair their independence, and render them, in the public mind, open to the charge-whether well or ill-founded-of partiality. Even those members who are nominated by Sovereigns or Governments, other than those of the parties to the dispute, can hardly be considered free from partiality, since the parties naturally

select their nominees from those States which are bound to them by common interests, or community of political feeling.

Because the judgments of such tribunals are seldom guided by, follow, or, lay down principles of Law, which can serve as precedents for future decisions, and thus confuse and render impossible the application of a wellconsidered system of law to the solution of complex international differences.

Because such tribunals are not governed by any uniform system of procedure which simplifies and secures the evolution of distinct issues.

Because they are deficient in power to compel the production of evidence, and in experience in weighing its value.

Because they seek rather to effect by compromise that which ought only to be settled by the enunciation and application of definite principles of law.

Because the negotiations relative to their formation involve delay, irritating discussion, inconvenience, and considerable and unnecessary expense.

Lastly. Because in the private discussions between the arbitrators which precede the judgment, the spirit of partisanship makes itself manifest. It is curious to note how in the arguments before the arbitrators, and in the subsequent discussions, the real issue is subordinated to those which are addressed to the personal or national interests of the judges. The question very soon ceases to be--Did the one party to the matter in difference compass a legal wrong, or the other party refuse a legal right?-and becomes converted into a consideration of how the different possible decisions of which the matter is capable may bear upon the past, present, and future policy of the countries who have nominated the individual arbitrators. Each member of the tribunal ceases to be a judge and becomes a diplomatic or political representative of his Government, trying to foresee the effect-harmful or beneficial— which may result from his adherence to the one or the other views entertained by his colleagues.

The object of the arbitration is constantly lost sight of, and the evidence pro and con sinks to insignificance. Every legal consideration becomes merged in the possible effect of the decision, not so much on the interests of the parties to the dispute as in regard to the interests of third parties, and, according to the prevailing interests, of the majority, jumping as it were with the interests of either one of the parties, the decision is pronounced. Judgments thus obtained are worthless as expositions of international law, and but increase the confusion in which its principles are at present involved.

"Arbitrations ad hoc," however, are useful as examples of the evils which a "Permanent Court" by its constitution must provide against.

By appointing its members for a sufficiently long term-ie., ten years-absolving them from allegiance to any State whilst in office, rendering them capable of re-election, providing them with salaries and retiring pensions sufficient to place them for life beyond the necessity of truckling to Government, and assuring them a social rank sufficient to satisfy the highest ambition, whilst denying them the power to accept during

life any position, honour, or reward, not only will the services of men of the highest educational attainments be secured, but their ambition and talents will be devoted to rendering the tribunal the object of universal confidence and respect.

By confiding to them the elaboration of a system of international jurisprudence they will be induced to devote themselves to perfecting it, not only by research and study, but by care in administering and applying it in the special cases submitted to their decision, upon principles which will secure universal acceptance.

Although nominated by Governments, the Senators or judges should in no sense be regarded as the representatives or mouthpieces of Governments; and, having nothing to hope for, and nothing to fear from the authority nominating them, they will alone look for reward in the confidence and esteem their devotion to the interests of humanity in general-as distinguished from more isolated national interests-will earn for them.

The tribunal must itself establish a procedure having, for its sole object, the presentment and development of distinct and clear issues upon which its judgment is sought. It must have powers to indicate and procure all such evidence as it considers necessary, to enable it fully to elucidate the facts presented. It must safeguard all possibility of masterful will amongst its members prejudicially or mischievously influencing the corporate mind of the tribunal, by a rigid system specially framed to secure the fullest and freest expression of individual thought. Under no circumstances must the judgment be other than that of the tribunal-be it unanimous or only that of a majority— provision being made for recording the separate or dissenting judgments as interesting memorials of individual opinions, to be published, after a certain lapse of time, when deemed expedient.

The detailed reasons of an award or judgment should not be given until it has been complied with. With compliance or non-compliance, the tribunal, however, should have nothing to do. It is functus officio quoad the particular case submitted, the moment the award or judgment is communicated, under the seal of the court, by its chief Secretary.

The enforcement of an award or judgment is matter of consideration alone for the Concurrent parties to the establishment of the tribunal.

It is open to them individually or collectively to remonstrate on non-compliance; to compel performance by withdrawal or suspension of diplomatic relations (Consular or trade relations remaining unaffected), by the infliction of a pecuniary penalty, by seizure and occupation of territory, and even, in extreme cases, by war.

Under no circumstances must any member of the tribunal enter into communication, direct or indirect, with the Sovereign, Government, or the press of any nation; the tribunal, in its corporate character and through its chief Secretary, alone being able to enter

into such communications.

No member should reside in the country by the Government of which he is nominated. For nine months of each year every member must reside

within the college grounds, or within twenty miles thereof.

46

No member of the tribunal, by virtue of his position, should be entitled to any official title beyond that of 'Senator," but he should be awarded precedence, in every nation, over all laymen not being sovereign rulers. The "chief Secretary" of the tribunal should rank on a footing of equality with the principal Secretaries of State of all nations.

The site of the college grounds should be declared extra-territorial and neutral, and all persons residing, employed or found therein, should be within the sole jurisdiction of the tribunal, exercisable, at the discretion of the same, by itself or, at its request, by the judicial authorities of the Government of the State within the territorial boundaries of which the college is situated.

To the Government of such State should be entrusted the collection and custody of the funds. Each Concurring State should-in certain fixed proportions to be determined on-contribute towards the maintenance of the Tribunal and college, the payment of salaries and other expenses, and such Government should expend the same in accordance with the requisitions of the chief Secretary, countersigned by the President of the tribunal and two members thereof.

The tribunal should consist of not less than thirteen Senators (not necessarily jurists by profession, but statesmen and diplomatists, or men who have filled judicial offices), to be nominated as hereinafter mentioned, and at the commencement of each year such members should elect by ballot one of their number to act as president.

There should be appointed a chief Secretary of the tribunal, who alone should be in official communication with the Concurring powers. The duties of this officer should be, amongst others, to regulate the sittings of the tribunal, to receive all documents, and generally act as keeper of the archives.

In addition, there should be a Bursar, assistant secretaries, a librarian, and such clerks-interpreters, short-hand writers, printers, messengers, servants, &c., as shall be necessary.

All and every person employed should on appointment be sworn to keep secret all such information or knowledge as he may acquire by virtue of his office, under penalty of dismissal, forfeiture of pension, and incapability of holding any public appointment anywhere in the service of any one of the Concurring Powers.

Every Concurring nation should be entitled to name one member of the tribunal, such member not necessarily being a citizen of such nation.

In the event of a Concurring nation not nominating a member, the tribunal itself should, if the number of members be under thirteen, nominate and by ballot elect a member.

Every member of the Tribunal should on his acceptance, and previous to entering on the duties of his office, solemnly renounce and be absolved from allegiance to the country of his birth or adop tion, or to the Sovereign of the same, and take

an oath to perform his duties without fear, favour, or affection, and with perfect impartiality— undertaking to hold no communication with any Ruler or Government, and not to apply for or receive during life any rank, income, reward, decoration, or office from any Ruler or Government; and any member guilty of infraction of such undertaking should ipso facto cease to be a member, and should forfeit all right or title to any pension.

The first duty of the tribunal should be to frame a Code of procedure, providing for the mode in which disputes and difference between nations should be submitted to it.

This Code should provide that, immediately on it being shown that any difference cannot be satisfactorily settled by ordinary diplomatic action, as evidenced by the proposal of one of the parties to refer the same to arbitration, the tribunal be seized with the determination of the same.

From that moment neither party to the difference should directly or indirectly do anything which could be intrepreted as an attempt or indication of persistence in the conduct or acts which led to the difference.

If the nature of the difference is such that a modus vivendi pending the settlement is necessary and cannot be arrived at by mutual agreement, the tribunal should be requested to arrange the same, each of the two disputant nations sending in writing, within a time to be limited, its view of what the character of the modus vivendi should be.

On receipt of the same the tribunal should nominate a Committee of itself, consisting of three members, not being of the nationality of the disputants, to arrange the terms of the modus, and should, if the same be not accepted, sit as a court of appeal from the decision of such committee, and finally determine the same.

The tribunal should appoint a time within which the disputant powers should prepare and send in their respective cases and counter-cases.

On receipt of such cases the tribunal should consider the same, and therefrom frame distinct issues of facts and law for the decision of the tribunal.

Such issues should then be communicated to the disputants, and a day be appointed, when the tribunal will commence the hearing, if vive voce, and if on the cases submitted, the consideration of the same.

The disputant Powers should, if either think fit, nominate agents to represent them, as also counsel to argue the respective cases on the hearing.

All documents, including cases and counter-cases, may be in the respective languages of the disputants, but must be accompanied by verified translations in French, and all oral arguments must be in French.

The tribunal should have full power to call for the production of any documents it may require, and for such other evidence as it may desire; and it should be empowered proprio motu to issue commissions for the purpose of obtaining evidence, appoint commissioners, and enable them to administer oaths; and to receive and consider the evidence thus obtained, if it thinks desirable, in private; the same being preserved, under the seal of the court, in the archives thereof.