to the other Great Powers of Europe exhibits the annexed results:-Germany-peace footing, 557,000 men; war footing, 4,300,000 men, with 2,964 pieces of artillery. Great Britain-peace footing, 211,000 men ; war footing, 624,000 men, with 600 pieces of artillery. Austria-peace footing, 309,000 men; war footing, 1,427,000 men, with 1,912 pieces of artillery. Spainpeace footing, 100,000 men; war footing, 700,000 men, with 800 pieces of artillery. France-peace footing, 572,000 men; war footing, 4000,000 men, with 2,880 pieces of artillery. Italy--peace footing, 220,000 men ; war footing, 2,980,000 men, with 1,620 pieces of artillery. Turkey-peace footing, 170,000 men; war footing, 1,100,000 men, with 2,500 pieces of artillery.-Daily News.

ENGLAND AND THE "TRUCE OF GOD."

Now loud and clear through Europe's weary camp,
England! thou home of Freedom, raise thy voice,
That all the world may hearken and rejoice.
"A Truce of God!" The word shall be a lamp,
A coin from God's own mint, marked with His stamp,
Bearing His image, aye, a trumpet blast,
Keen as the call men listen to, aghast,
When the Earth trembles 'neath the soldiers' tramp.
A blast less clear than this will not avail.
Say, did the trumpets give a doubtful call,
Or moan in fitful notes upon the gale,
When at the sound the Canaanitish wall
Tottered, and all men saw the bastions fall?
If England's voice sound thus it shall not fail.

ISOLATION.

"GOD bless the narrow seas"! you say. Not so.

The narrow seas will prove but England's bane, If once her honour takes this deadly stain. Not that in careless ease the land might grow Callous and heedless of a brother's woe

Did God environ us, that we should feign This selfish ignorance. The curse of Cain Yet lives, though Retribution may be slow. Our brother's blood up-crieth from the ground; And she who once alone had borne the weight Of Europe's sorrow, she the world-renowned,

Would fain escape the grandeur of her fate. Take heed! Ere yet be heard that dreadful sound Amid the clash of arms, the cry: Too late! B. R. WARD.

GREAT BRITAIN AND VENEZUELA.

THE following correspondence has passed between the Committee of the International Arbitration and Peace Association and the Foreign Office :

་་ 40, Outer Temple, "February 5th, 1895. "MY LORD,-I am desired to express the thanks of our Committee for the acknowledgment in Mr. Bertie's note dated December 31st-of receipt of our letter of the 19th of that month on the subject of the prolonged boundary and other disputes, between your lordship's Department and the Republic of Venezuela. But our Committee regret that no response was made to the request in the closing sentence of their letter for 'such full and specific information as may serve to place the issues at stake in their true light."' Neither

was any answer granted in your lordship's reply either to the concise statement of the question, or to the com

prehensive reference to former correspondence, both comprised in paragraph 3 of our letter. Hence we still hope to be favoured with fuller and more definite information that may serve to elucidate this now urgent matter of international controversy.

"2. The immediate occasion of our renewed appeal in December was the then recent prominent mention of the dispute with Venezuela in the Message to Congress by the President of the United States. That reference has since met with response from members of the House of Representatives; but, owing, no doubt, to the urgent financial business claiming the attention of the President and his ministers, no further step appears to have been as yet taken by the United States Executive regarding this question, which, while it concerns American interests, more directly claims the attention of Her Majesty's Government. This aspect of the matter was spoken of in paragraph 4 of our last letter; and we are willing to believe that it may have since obtained serious consideration in your lordship's office.

"3. It can scarcely be needful to urge on Her Majesty's Government, that in so far as just and equitable considerations form an essential portion of the subject of dispute, the claims of Venezuela cannot be disregarded as being those of a state politically and financially weak as compared with the position of the all powerful country. In view of these considerations, my Committee again respectfully crave that due reference may be made to our previous correspondence on this important international question, and that some adequate answer may be granted to our representations of those aspects of it that are before the public-representations made with all due reserve and deference.

"I am, &c.,

"J. FREDK. GREEN.

"To H.M. Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."

"Foreign Office,

66

February 12th, 1895. "SIR, The Earl of Kimberley has received your letter of the 5th instant, renewing, on behalf of the International Arbitration and Peace Association, your request for information respecting the differences between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Venezuela in connection with the boundary of British Guiana.

"I am directed by his lordship to state that the subject is one to be dealt with by Her Majesty's responsible advisers in such manner as they may deem most expedient, and that he cannot enter into a correspondence with the Association on the points raised in your letter.

"I am, Sir,

Feb. 12-APPOINTMENT OF MONSIEUR L. TRARIEUX AS MINISTER OF JUSTICE IN THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT.-Resolved, that a letter be forwarded to Monsieur Trarieux congratulating him on his appointment as Minister of Justice in the French Government, and expressing the hope that his well-known sympathy with peace, as evidenced by the prominent part he has taken in the Interparliamentary Conference and in other ways, may ensure a peaceful policy on the part of the Government of which he is a member, and also serve to maintain those good relations between the Governments of Great Britain and France which are so essential to the welfare of both nations, and to the peace of the world. -DEATH OF SILAS MAINVILLE BURROUGHS.

-Resolved, that this Committee has heard with much regret of the premature decease of Mr. S. M. Burroughs, who was a warm supporter of the peace movement, and a member of the Council and liberal con

tributor to the funds of this Association, which he represented on various occasions at Peace Congresses.

Mr. Burroughs was also well known as a

model employer of labour and generous friend of many progressive movements, by which his loss will be severely felt.

This Committee desires to offer its respectful sympathy to Mrs. Burroughs and her family in the irreparable loss they have sustained by the death of this true-hearted man and upright citizen. 26-FRANCE AND MADAGASCAR.-The Secretary reported that he had written to the Bureau at Berne urging their communicating with the King of the Belgians with the view to his tendering his good offices to the two Governments with the object of bringing about a peaceful settlement of the dispute. -PEACE-TEACHING IN SCHOOLS.-Resolved, that the London School Board be asked to receive a deputation on this subject, and that the Rev. A. W. Jephson be asked to introduce it.

-NEW MEMBER.-Herr Wilhelm F. Brand,
London correspondent of the Frankfurter
Zeitung, was elected a member of the
Committee.

LEOMINSTER.

ESTABLISHED 1851.

BIRKBECK

BANK,

Southampton Buildings, Chancery Lane, London.

TWO AND A HALF per CENT. INTEREST allowed on DEPOSITS, repayable on demand."

TWO per CENT. on CURRENT ACCOUNTS on the minimum monthly balances, when not drawn below £100.

STOCKS, SHARES, and ANNUITIES purchased and sold.

SAVINGS DEPARTMENT.

For the encouragement of Thrift the Bank receives small sums on deposit, and allows Interest monthly on each completed £1.

BIRKBECK

BUILDING SOCIETY. HOW TO PURCHASE A HOUSE

FOR TWO GUINEAS PER MONTH.

BIRKBECK FREEHOLD LAND SOCIETY. HOW TO PURCHASE A PLOT OF LAND

FOR FIVE SHILLINGS PER MONTH.

THE BIRKBECK ALMANACK, with full particulars, post-free FRANCIS RAVENSCROFT, Manag

Printed by ALEXANDER & SHEPHEARD, and Published by th MUTUAL PRINTING AND PUBLISHING AGENCY, 337, Strand London, W.C..

Le..

INDAT.

VOL. X., No. 121.]

REGISTERED FOR TRANSMISSION ABROAD

[PRICE TWOPENCE,

FRIENDS,-Does it not appear to you that a very grave and pressing duty devolves upon you at the present time? The writer of these lines ventures to think that the state of feeling in France and England, on the part of the citizens of one country towards those of the other, is such as to give cause for anxiety, and, therefore, for some effort on your part to remove it. This is an occasion, perhaps, when the peace-makers may, by a timely and practical effort, render an immense service, and show the world that they can act effectually as well as preach eloquently. Can we not do something at what is, perhaps, a critical emergency, to bring about a better understanding between the two Peoples in question? Can we not awaken our fellow-citizens in either country to a sense of the supreme duty of observing a spirit of mutual forbearance, of mutual respect, and true fraternity? This may be one of those critical occasions when it is essential to counteract the evil influences of a false conception of patriotism, of blind traditions, of unreasoning hatreds, and of a belief in brute force as a right mode of settling conflicting interests. Surely, then, it is the duty of the peace-makers to do everything in their power, by wise co-operation, to to arrest those dangerous tendencies of opinion. Otherwise, some hasty step or thoughtless word may cause an outburst of passion which neither Government nor People can control, and which may lead to calamities of infinite magnitude.

Alas! greed and ferocity in man are not yet

or 2s. 6d. Yearly prepaid.

exorcised; and when nations are intoxicated by passion, all sense of right, of reason, and of their real interests, is lost. We cannot therefore afford to trust to the "chapter of accidents," or indulge too implicitly in an optimistic confidence that all will be well, and that no effort on our part is necessary. We must not be sure that the forces of evil can be kept at bay, without a vigorous appeal to the divine forces which also lie latent in man.

Let no undue confidence in the wisdom of statesmen, which has so often failed us-lull us into indolence and inaction.

Remember that, within the last forty years, there have been at least two European wars of the first magnitude-in which five great nations were engagedwhich could have been avoided, and for which there was no adequate cause; and which have inflicted shameful burdens on the toiling masses, until this very hour. These nations "drifted" into sanguinary conflict-hardly knowing how or whybecause they had not statesmanship, or moral courage enough, to settle their disputes by reason, argument, and mutual concession.

Take care that you the advocates of Peace, in England and France-do not let our brethren drift into a fatal quarrel, through inaction and a false sense of security! Too many of our fellow-citizens on both sides of the Channel may be led away, at such a moment as this, by the mad or wicked language of irresponsible journalists, or by imprudent controversies between ambitious politicians.

There is not one of you but will acknowledge that any question about more or less "influence" in the Dark Continent should not weigh a hair's weight, in comparison with the supreme need of

66

unity, peace, and concord" between two such nations as France and England. Every man and woman in Europe, who cares one jot for the progress and happiness of the human race-for the supremacy of the moral law-and the reign of God upon the earth, would cry out against the very thought of an internecine conflict between those two peoples.

It seems to the present writer that there is no reason whatever why a friendly understanding should not be arrived at respecting any supposed and shadowy claims of European States to the torrid plains which stretch from the Equator northwards. How miserable and hateful are these absurd

invectives, ignorant, and often false statements, which are published by the Press in a mere frenzy of international antagonism and supposed rivalry of interests! All that is necessary to render an agreement practicable is an honest desire on both sides for justice, and a due recognition of the rights of indigenous races, the owners and occupants of these lands, and a profound conviction that any thought of settling the questions in dispute by a resort to armed conflict would be infamous. Let the peacemakers, then, regard it as their imperative duty, at any personal sacrifice whatever, to bring about an understanding based upon some general principles, which a few of us should at once try to formulate. Only by such a course will it be easy to arrive at an agreement of practical value and to reach sound conclusions.

Perhaps, through some such declaration as that I will now try to indicate, we may find a common ground, and so lead the way to a definite course of action.

In point of fact, neither England nor France can probably show that they have any "rights" to occupy territory in Egypt, in the Valley of the Nile, or on the Watershed of the latter. Surely, Egypt and the Soudan constitute territory which belongs to its inhabitants and their rulers. As to the usual pretext of introducing "civilisation," possibly such a people as the Egyptians and Soudanese are far happier under their own forms of government, and ruled by men of their own race, than under the systems of administration invented by Western peoples. It would, therefore, appear to lovers of justice, above all things, to be absolutely contrary to right for Europeans to force their administration upon an unwilling people.

On the other hand, the free use of the Red Sea and the Suez Canal is necessary to the prosperity of many nations of the West and East; and Europe may well claim to preserve that great highway from all obstruction or interruption. Partly on that ground, as well as for other reasons, England and France exercised for a time a joint control over the affairs of Egypt; and England has, on the same ground, continued to exercise control, subsequently to the rising of Arabi Pasha, and the retirement of France from that task. Although England has administered Egypt with considerable advantage to the people, she has not done so under any mandate from Europe, or from the Khedive, or his Suzerain, but in opposition to the wishes of the latter. England has, therefore, placed herself in a false position by her occupation of Egypt, and has virtually acknowledged the fact by her repeated declarations that the occupation was temporary and would cease so soon as order and good government had been fully secured.

The question whether any control over Egypt in the future should be provided by foreign Powers, is one for Europe at large to consider, in concert with the Sultan and the Khedive. It is not a question which belongs exclusively to France or England. The country of Egypt and its dependent territory belong to its people or their rulers. All that European States have any right to demand is, the security for the free and uninterrupted passage of the Canal and the Red Sea.

Surely, on some such general principles as these, it should be possible for France and England to come to an agreement, and in concert with the other European States.

The secondary question, which has recently arisen, and has caused serious controversy as to the Power which is entitled to protect the Watershed and Basin of the Nile,-that question ceases to exist so soon as the administration of Egypt and the Soudan reverts to their legitimate rulers. The present writer will not attempt to speak authoritatively on questions of great complexity, but it seems clear that when the British occupation of Egypt ceases, her responsibility for safeguarding the interests of Egypt in the Valley of the Upper Nile ceases also.

If the present controversy be viewed in a spirit of impartiality, and of a single desire for justice to the people of Egypt, there is surely no adequate cause for quarrel between England and France. It would be a crime towards the masses of their fellow-citizens in both countries to indulge in dangerous recriminations or invective. Any such dissensions, carried to extreme lengths, would be a fatal blow to the moral and material well-being of both nations. It would endanger the prosperity of Europe at large, and retard the cause of international justice and fraternity among the most civilised nations of the world.

Is it not then the sacred and very urgent duty of those Frenchmen and Englishmen, who are identified with this movement for international peace, to be up and doing? Will they not take steps to arrange for an early meeting-say at Berne-in order to deliberate upon the question above submitted to them? That question is, whether it would be practicable to draw up a united declaration that, there is common ground for a solid and just settlement of the controversy which has recently taken place in the Parliaments of France and England; and that a great effort should be made on both sides for the preservation of amity and mutual respect, and for concession on the part of both

nations?

Such a declaration by the friends of Peace in both countries would in itself exercise a beneficial influence upon the public mind, and tend to bring the two Peoples together. Such a declaration would, moreover, be an act of practical pacification worthy of and incumbent upon the pacificators; one calculated to raise public confidence in the wisdom and efficacy of their efforts to establish the reign of Peace in the world. Beati pacificatores! H.P.

GERMANY.-There is nothing in the contemporary history of the Peace Movement more remarkable and hopeful than its rapid development in Germany. We now record a few, out of many, illustrations of this fact. The German Peace Society, whose headquarters are at Berlin, has requested Herr Cyprian Eberle, the founder of the Ulm branch, to visit a number of towns where no such societies as yet exist, and to deliver public addresses, in order that public interest may be aroused and societies created.

THE ECONOMIES OF PEACE.

"We wanted the economies of peace. We had peace, but had we the economies of peace? Let them look at the monstrous, the insane armaments of Europe. In his view it was time to speak out on the subject. The insane armaments

were eating into the very vitals of industry and prosperity and of the peace and order of Europe. Why, therefore, in the matter of the diminution of armaments and warlike expenditure should not England take the initiative?" (Mr. Stansfeld, M.P. at Eighty Club, April 5th, 1895.)

THIS was a pronouncement of a most notable kind. Regretfully do we say that it is reported that it was not warmly received. Coming from a man of great experience, knowing the predilections of his audience, he was bold with a noble determination to "speak out" to those gathered to do him honour. We take it as the ripe conviction of a competent man; and would that it were heeded by all parties in our land. It is perfectly clear that it was spoken with commendable absence of party bias, and as such deserves from all parties a respectful and earnest attention. Mr. Stansfeld as he lays down his parliamentary trust may well ask where are the economies of peace. He may well feel sad after a long day of labour in the public cause to find us in the van of those who are spending hard-earned treasure in " armaments and warlike expenditure." He had looked for improvement, what exists is "progress backwards." Contrast the state of things disclosed by the following facts, with that declaration and aspiration which we quote from Mr. Stansfeld's speech. Having done this, we shall feel that "charity begins at home."

Every year we have to devote £25,000,000 to the service of the National Debt, which must be regarded as a millstone hung around our necks by fighters. But we as a nation will not learn even by experience the most dire and costly. This is abundantly clear from recent fiscal events, which too eloquently echo the cry for the economics of peace. This is the peace record; what, then, should a great war bring? In 1875-6 our Naval and Military expenditure was £24,804,000; in 1885-6 (swollen by a vote of Credit of £9,701,000) it was £39,534,000; this year, 1895-6, it is computed to be no less than £36,684,000 ordinary expenditure, no vote of Credit, or extras known or unknown, being included. This shows an increase of annual warlike expenditure in time of peace, within twenty years, of £12,000,000 a year. This sum represents a large addition to the burdens of each family, say, about an average of £2 each family. Nor is this all, for in addition to the extra £3,000,000 annually devoted to the Navy by last year's Budget, and the further annual addition disclosed in the Estimates now before Parliament of £1,250,000 we have the Naval Works Bill. Permanent works for Naval purposes at home and abroad are projected to cost no less than over £8,500,000. It is proposed to spend one million. on this work within the present financial year, and the money for the purpose of the whole scheme is to be borrowed and made payable

within thirty years. Of course, this adds to the annual charge, and every expansion promises an increase for maintenance. It may be safely asserted that our fighting services now cost us a cool £40,000,000 a year; nor does this sum cover all that is involved. India is also left out of the reckoning. "Peace in our time" is prayed for constantly, but we seek it in a very warlike fashion. Let our readers ponder Mr. Stansfeld's Will warning question in the light of these facts. they not seek to get the right answer to his proWe trust posal, then, with a renewed ardour? they will. W. M. J. WILLIAMS.

NOTES.

THE reply given by Sir Edward Grey in the House of Commons to the question addressed to him by Mr. Byles, on the subject of the boundary dispute between this country and Venezuela, will hardly be considered satisfactory by those who have carefully followed the history of this long-pending subject of controversy between the two Governments. The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated that Her Majesty's Government had no information tending to confirm the suggestion that since gold had been discovered in the debateable territory, the dispute had grown more acute. In that case the Government must be singularly deficient in information which is open to everybody. In the Times of January 5th and March 9th appeared letters from a correspondent at Georgetown, Demerara, which conclusively prove that the Government must be wilfully ignorant of the circumstances of the case. Then, again, the Government now speak as though the Schomburg line were a recognised boundary, or, at any rate, had always been claimed as such by the British Government; whereas, in a despatch dated April 8th, 1842, the Governor of Demerara officially notified the Agent of the Venezuelan Government that the marks set up by Sir Robert Schomburg had been removed; and Lord Aberdeen, who was Foreign Secretary at the time, stated that the line laid down by Schomburg had no official character, but should be regarded as merely a record of exploration, the question of frontier remaining open to be settled by mutual agreement. Again, in November, 1850, England, through the Foreign. Office, voluntarily bound herself not to encroach upon the disputed territory. Now a British police-station has been built at Uruan, a point at least 100 miles to the western or Venezuelan side of the Schomburg line, so that it is clear that we have de facto annexed the "debateable land" which in 1850 we promised not to enter on; and now the British Government offers to arbitrate on another tract that it desires to acquire outside the said debateable land. That the Venezuelans have committed some foolish acts is very likely but we submit that some excuse must be made for a weak Power which finds itself unfairly treated by a strong Power like Great Britain, which refuses to refer the crucial points of the dispute to arbitration. We confess that we know the Venezuelan case better than the English, for the simple reason that it has been published openly to all the world,