THE FIFTH UNIVERSAL PEACE PEACE CONGRESS, HICAGO-Special attention is invited to the fact that during the week commencing the 14th August next, two Peace Congresses will be held at Chicago.

The first of these will be organised by the World's Congress Auxiliary," and form one of the numerous conferences to be held in connection with the International Exposition.

The second will consist of the Fifth "Universal Peace Congress," consisting of delegates from European and American Peace and Arbitration Societies, and these delegates are invited to attend the Congress just mentioned and which immediately precedes it.

The Universal Peace Congress" will be Organised by a special committee which has been elected by representatives of the American Societies, having as its Chairman Dr. Benjamin Irueblood, Secretary of the American Peace Society (Boston).

PRIZE OF £50.

We have received the following report from the Judges: "About 60 Essays (more or less) were sent in in competition for the prize of 250 offered by the Committee for the best chapter on 'Peace and War,' suitable for a school reader. After careful consideration, we

have awarded the prize to the Essay sent in by Monsieur A. Sève, of St. André-le-danoux (Oise), France. Many of the other Essays were more elaborate and possibly more learned, and some of these may be thought worthy of publication, as useful contributions to the liturature of the subject; but that of M. Sève, both from its simplicity of style and method of treatment, seemed to us most suited to the special object in view, viz., a chapter in a school reading book."

ARBITRATION AND ALSACE-LORRAINE BEFORE THE GERMAN REICHSTAG.

THE London newspapers paid but scant attention to the remarkable debate which took place in the German House of Commons on the 28th ult. Yet, the mere fact of a formal proposal being made in that assembly that the German Empire should accept the principle of arbitration in international disputes, was an event of no mean importance. It was the first in that long series of efforts which must precede every great triumph of human progress. Opposition and ridicule are a matter of course in the early stages of reform, when a fundamental change in the world's creed is in question. The change has, however, already begun when once the principle on which it is founded has come to be discussed by the people's representatives in Parliament. We are not in the least discouraged because the majority scoffed at the proposal. The most powerful statesmen are often the most blind to the growth of public opinion around them; and who does not remember how M. Rouher exclaimed, amidst unbounded applause, "Never! Never!" in reply to the demand of Italy for national unity? So will it be with those who in the Reichstag, or elsewhere, reject the demand of equity and common-sense in the settlement of disputes between nations. honour to such pioneers as Dr. Barth, the able advocate of free trade and courageous "Progressist," who proposed that the Imperial Government should join Great Britain and the United States in establishing a system of arbitration in international disputes."

66

All

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs replied that, as a matter of fact, the United States Government had forwarded certain resolutions of Congress respecting the establishment of international tribunals for the settlement of disputes. The proposal had not, however, so far as he knew, been considered by the Governments of Europe; and they had not, he thought, any intention of doing so at present. "As regards Germany, we have already, on several occasions, shown our readiness to submit differences to arbitration; and we shall continue to do so where the circumstances are suitable. We cannot, however, enter into an engagement beforehand to do this in all cases, more especially in the present state of Europe."

The next speaker was the well-known Socialist leader, Herr Bebel, who said the Government appeared to be opposed to the constitution of an International

Arbitration Tribunal, evidently fearing that such a Court might have to consider the question of AlsaceLorraine. There were people who believed that Germany was not altogether innocent of having caused the war of 1870, and she was, in fact, generally regarded as having begun the quarrel, which opinion had been strengthened by the proposed new organisation of the German army. It would be as well, added Herr Bebel, for Germany to show for once that she is also capable of extending the hand of friendship, and such an action would redound to the credit both of the Government and people of Germany.

This is not the first time that Herr Bebel has spoken his mind on this vital question; and his constancy has been maintained at great personal sacrifice. In 1870 he protested against the war; in 1871 he protested against the annexation; and in 1872 the renewal of these declarations caused him to be sentenced, for high treason, to two years' imprisonment in a fortress. Nevertheless, the intervention of a Socialist in the recent debate, and the immediate suggestion that the creation of a tribunal of arbitration must lead to the question of Alsace-Lorraine being brought before it, tended seriously to defeat Dr. Barth's object for a time, at least.

The reply of the Chancellor was as might have been expected, and concluded with these words: "Well! if any tribunal were, under any circumstances whatever, to express an opinion that Germany should give back Alsace-Lorraine, I am sure that the whole German nation would with one voice reject such a decision, preferring to shed the last drop of its blood."

The next speaker was Herr Baumbach, an advanced Liberal, who, like Dr. Barth, takes a leading part in the annual Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Arbitration. He at once said that the cession of AlsaceLorraine had been settled by treaty, and that there could be no question as to any restoration by Germany of territory which she had won at the price of the lives of her noblest sons. Such a suggestion could not, therefore, come before any international council. The proposal before them was simply that whenever a dispute arose between two nations, an effort should be made to settle it by an arbitral decision before having recourse to the ultima ratio.

We have thought it desirable to give a tolerably full report of this debate, in order that our readers may see clearly how the great controversy which convulses Europe is viewed by the German Parliament. That controversy, more or less, affects the well-being of three hundred millions of human beings; and may end in the destruction of the national independence of some States and in the ruin of others. It is, therefore, the plain right and duty of all who care for the sacred cause of Justice and Peace to make every effort in Parliament, or out of it, to get this problem settled.

Yet the rulers and statesmen look on with folded hands! They are afraid to make any proposal or suggestion to France or Germany, for fear of giving offence to these nations. Where then is our boasted civilisation-where our Christianity?

At such a crisis every honest suggestion demands attention; and to-day we will quote the words of a Positivist-Professor Beesly. Perhaps we are all the more ready to do so because he says exactly what our Association

has been saying for the last ten years. "It is certain that neither nation will ever be content to let Alsace-Lorraine remain annexed to the other; the only third course being that those provinces should be independent and neutralised." He then makes the following suggestion: "Why should not the French Chamber pass a vote that whenever the German Government shall offer to neutralise the two provinces for (say) a hundred millions sterling, the President shall have the power to conclude the bargain at once and to raise the necessary loan? Germany could not treat such a vote as a casus belli." Germany might feel that she had not acted under compulsion, and that the honours of war-such as they are-had remained with her." "It would be far cheaper for France to pay that sum than to go through a war, even if that war were to be a successful one."

At the same time we are bound in the interests of justice to look at all the facts, and a new aspect of the case begins to make its appearance. We refer to the allegation that a great change has of late taken place in the wishes of the people of Alsace-Lorraine the mselves. The French people have refused to recognise the final character of the Treaty of Frankfort on the ground that the annexation is maintained against the will of an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants. It is now, however, stated that through emigration from the provinces, and through German immigration into them, as well as through a growing inclination to accept accomplished facts, the people have ceased to oppose German rule. Even if this be true, however, the antagonism between France and Germany will continue, with all its terrible consequences. The five great States which have made themselves parties to this dispute can bring into the field twelve millions of trained men for mutual slaughter. Their battles, and the destruction of hundreds of towns and villages may lay waste the fairest part of the Continent, and leave results which will be felt for half a century. A solemn, duty therefore devolves upon the neutral Powers, and chiefly on the foremost of them -on Great Britain.

Let QUEEN VICTORIA complete the noble life which makes her honoured throughout the world. Let her undertake the grandest task which a sovereign could perform. Let Her Majesty invite the rulers of Europe to meet in solemn conference, to consider how they may rescue the toiling and suffering millions from the awful calamity which threatens them. It matters little how the dispute is settled-whether by neutralisation or by arbitration; and if by the latter, whether the decision be left to the wise and thoughtful man who presides over the Swiss Confederation, the best and oldest of all

"To see ourselves as others see us" is wise, both on the part of Societies and of individuals. Naught but vanity, stronger than the desire for etficiency, makes the one or the other shrink from honest criticism. Now, the judgment of those who belong to the Positivist School is worth attention, because they consider public questions in the light of a strict morality, free from all party bias. The fact that they seem to us to ignore the one element in human life which most gives a working force to convictions, is no reason why we should not profit by their dry light. We have therefore read with much interest a noteworthy address delivered by Professor E. S. Beesly, on the "Causes of Militarism." It is published in The Positivist Review for last month.

Throughout his address he adopts the principle which our Association has made it its special business to declare, viz: that those who would abolish War, must deal with its causes. He even goes so far as to say that the Peace Societies, in diverting attention from this duty by mere denunciation of war, and advocacy of arbitration, have done more harm than good. In this statement we can by no means concur; or admit that war will never "be discredited, or become obsolete by reason of an increasing condemnation of violence and horror of bloodshed." It seems to us obvious, that if such condemnation once becomes general, the evil must cease ipso facto. On the other hand, we do entirely admit that " as long as human beings vehemently desire any object, and are persuaded that they are entitled to it, they will resort to force to obtain it." It follows, as Professor Beesly says, that we should direct our efforts, (1) to wean men from vehemently desiring things which are of no advantage to a nation; and (2) to build up an international morality which shall be as obligatory as that which affects the relations of individual men. Accordingly, he would spread the conviction "that the wellbeing of a State, and of the individuals composing it, is in no way promoted by territorial and military aggrandisement." In this, we, of course, entirely concur; and so would all the members of the Societies upon whose shortcomings he is so severe.

We certainly do think that they have, on many occasions, entirely failed to protest against British and Foreign policy which tended to pro

duce armed conflict, and which could not be justified by international morality or a due regard to the rights of others. Yet there are exceptions; and we are bound to recall the fact that the Workmen's Peace Association, led by Mr. W. R. Cremer, made a vigorous protest against our conduct in Egypt, at the time of Arabi's insurrection; and that our own Association has, for years past, never ceased to protest against the continued occupation of Egypt. We also invited our sister Societies to join us in a public protest against Lord Salisbury's ultimatum to Portugal. Our committee has, on many other public occasions, both at home and abroad, urged the neutralisation of Alsace-Lorraine.

Again, we heartily agree that" the root of the mischief lies in the mistaken opinions which nations entertain as to their true interests and glory." Professor Beesly has little hope, however, in the growth of higher principles among mankind; least of all among the middle classes of society. He trusts to the growing power of the working classes for the ultimate defeat of Imperialist ambitions, because they impede due attention in Parliament to those changes which concern the comfort and well-being of the mass of the people. He denies that such an ideal is narrow or unworthy, because the true ideal of a State does not consist in "bigness," or in having numerous dependencies. He considers that the insular position of Great Britain affords such a degree of security that we need only a fleet adequate to defend our coasts, with a small army, because "with this Island, taken by itself, Continental nations have no quarrel." The danger comes from extending our Empire.

Here arises an important question which our critic, in common with many members of our Association, overlooks. This constant extension of "Greater Britain" is not due exclusively to the action of the Government. Does it not come from the incessant "swarming" of our British bees, from the adventurous energy of a population which ever grows too fast, and is bound to find fresh fields and pastures new because neither clerks nor artisans can find room at home. They will go and form fresh settlements, and then comes the question: "Are they to be left to themselves and to exterminate the weaker races whom they find in possession, or shall they be followed by commissioners and agents of the British Government who may see justice done, and make some provision for the preservation of life and property?"

Far more dangerous to the cause of peace and justice is such action as that we have taken in Egypt, which exposes us to powerful enmities. and involves the expatriation of regiments whose legitimate use is for home defence. That defence, as Professor Beesly plainly admits, may be rendered necessary by the very fact of our wrong and foolish policy in Egypt.