66

matter of course that 66 a gentleman," or one whom they conceive to be a gentleman, must not be punished with the same severity as a common" person. This revolting mixture of indiscipline and snobbishness underlies all the pathetic appeals to the pity we are asked to bestow on the individuals imprisoned under the Crimes Act; and it is widely believed, and possibly with some correctness, that the fact of Mr. Wilfrid Blunt having broken the law and been condemned for law-breaking, together with his propounding an atrocious calumny against one of its defenders, will procure for him an electoral triumph at Deptford.

These, we say, are social and political phenomena greatly to be deplored and reprehended. But they must not cause the Executive to quail or falter in its task of vindicating the law, and of arraigning those who conspire. against it; and we are happy to observe that so far they have not done so. Prosecutions under the Crimes Act, both of Members of Parliament and of Irish priests, are still being instituted without fear or favour; and if Mr. Shaw Lefevre had only been as valorous as, at one time, he promised to be, an ex-Cabinet Minister would assuredly have been added to the list of incarcerated culprits. It is weary and unwelcome work, no doubt; but we have got to see who tires first, the breakers or the upholders of the law. We suspect that the former are tiring of it already; and Mr. Parnell exhorts his adherents to do and say as little as possible, in the hope that the Conservative and Liberal Unionists will fall out over the measures of legislation concerning Great Britain, that must shortly engage their attention. In that hope he is pretty sure to be disappointed; but the advice is dictated by sound and judicious strategy, and indicates that the shrewd politician who gives it already despairs of separating Ireland from Great Britain so long as the Unionist Party maintains its cohesion. That it will do so during the coming Session, even more steadfastly than it did last year, we do not doubt. In his speech at Liverpool, the Prime Minister reminded his followers of their imperative duty in this respect, and Lord Hartington is not less impressed with the obligation of preserving an unbroken front against enemies who, though at present greatly discouraged, would at once again take heart if they perceived signs of discord among the supporters of the Government. No doubt the Local Government Bill, no matter what its provisions, will try the cohesion of the Unionist Party, for, on such a subject there must perforce be many differences of opinion when details have openly to be discussed. But there is no reason to fear that these differences will not be adjusted; and we look for a Session, at the end of which the Government will be rooted more firmly even than it is at present. Even in debating power, the

supporters of the Government are superior to its assailants; while, in the invaluable quality of weight,jauthority, and character, there is no comparison between them. The rapid advance in public estimation of Mr. Balfour is, no doubt, to a certain extent exceptional. But we regard it as a proof that the ConservativeParty contains numbers of young men who only require a favourable opportunity to show that their capacity and courage are equal to all emergencies.

The main interest of the past month has been abroad rather than at home; for never have the issues of War or Peace hung: more tremblingly in the balance. It is yet an unsolved question whether this year is or is not to witness a great European conflict; and no one can doubt that a formidable advance has been made towards a struggle which everybody must feel to be sooner or later inevitable. The breach between Russia and her former Imperial Allies is manifest; and it is not to be disguised that not Austria alone, but Germany also, is adding to its armaments, in: anticipation of a conflict with the military Colossus of the North. The military situation is clear enough, and cannot be dissembled. Russia is massing, and has for some time been massing, troops on the Austrian and Roumanian frontiers; and both Austria and Germany are taking military precautions against the events to which these operations may lead. It is the political situation that is to some extent ambiguous, since our view of the situation must depend mainly on the question whether Prince Bismarck wants to maintain peace or to bring about war, and on this point experts differ. That Russia does not want war as yet, is certain; partly because Russia is not yet ready, and partly because Russia would at this moment, in the event of an armed conflict, find itself overmatched. Austria never wants war. Neither does Turkey, nor Bulgaria, nor Roumania. How, then, it may be asked, can anyone suppose that the preservation of peace is imperilled? The reply must be that, because it is absolutely certain that Russia will, at some time or another, again plunge the East into bloodshed and misery in order to recover its hold over the Balkan Peninsula, and thus not be cut off from Constantinople, we can never feel sure that the Powers which have most to dread from Russia will not precipitate the date of the inevitable struggle, in order to take Russia at a disadvantage, and not allow the Czar to elect his own time for striking at his prey. Austria has been compelled to incur great expense, worry, and inconvenience in preparing against attack in Galicia; and the Austrians, and still more the Hungarians, are beginning to ask if these sacrifices are to be perpetual. They are more disposed to

ask the question, because they seem to think that the relations of Germany to Austria on the one hand, and to Russia on the other, are utterly unintelligible. The more impulsive and impatient among them are disposed to enquire somewhat irritably what Prince Bismarck means by urging Austria to arm against Russia, when at one and the same time he seems to be abetting Russia diplomatically in its pertinacious and cynical manœuvres against the peace of Bulgaria. Our own explanation is one we on a previous occasion offered to our readers, that Prince Bismarck seeks to encourage Russia into striking, while at the same time he encourages Austria to strike back. If this explanation be the true one, it is manifest that he is trying to bring about a conflict, at a time when he considers Russia is sure to be worsted. On the other hand, there are those who believe that he wants to bring home to Austrian statesmen the necessity of coming to terms with Russia, even at the price of sacrificing to Russia the independence and welfare of the Bulgarians. To the best of our judgment, this is an incredible theory. In the first place, the relations of Germany and Austria are so intimate, that Prince Bismarck could easily convey such an intention as this to his friends and allies at Vienna, without putting Austria to all the expense and anxiety of additional armaments. In the second place, it is simply impossible, unless Prince Bismarck has taken leave of his senses, which no one has suggested, that Germany can wish to see Russian influence supreme in Bulgaria, and once again menacing Constantinople. Russia, that was once the powerful patron of dependent Prussia, is now the powerful enemy of independent Germany. Not to know this, is not to understand European politics at all. It is to the interest of Germany, indeed it is indispensable to Germany that the power of Russia should not be augmented, but should, if possible, suffer diminution. No doubt, Prince Bismarck would like to see Russian power destroyed or diminished without Germany having to join in the operation. But an increase of the power and influence of Russia means the curtailment, if not the annihilation, of the power and influence of Austria; and were that end accomplished, Germany would stand alone, surrounded by potent and vindictive enemies, who would at once join hands in order to destroy her. Bearing this important and central fact in mind, and remembering, moreover, that Russia will never consent, save after military defeat, to allow the Bulgarians, and indeed the populations of the Balkan Peninsula generally, to dispose of their own destinies, we are driven to the conclusion that the maintenance of peace for any length of time is simply impossible, and that it may be interrupted at any moment. Moreover, to suppose that, in a war

substantially provoked by Russia, with such intentions and such objects, England would be able to look on from first to last, an unconcerned spectator, is to display an amount of ignorance of the general affairs of the world with which it would be waste of time

to argue.

The relations of France and Italy have not been improved by the curious quarrel arising out of the testamentary dispositions of Hussein Bey. Happily, the quarrel itself has been composed; and it must be allowed that the fact of its having been adjusted peacefully may fairly be pleaded by those who believe that Germany and Germany's allies are anxious that peace should be maintained as long as possible. But sight must not be lost of the circumstance that, in these days, when public opinion carries so much weight, even a Power that is bent on war has to dedicate its best diplomatic abilities to the task of throwing the onus of breaking the peace, to all appearance, on the State with which it wishes to quarrel.

Jan. 26th.

CORRESPONDENCE.

[N.B.-The appearance of a letter in the National Review in no way implies approval of the opinions expressed by the writer. This portion of the Review is reserved. for remarks that Correspondents may desire to make upon papers which have been published in the National Review, or for letters upon such other subjects as the Editors may think deserving of discussion.]

[The paper in the January number entitled "Mercantile Ireland and Home Rule," which was signed "A BELFAST MERCHANT," ought to have borne the signature of "RICHARD PATTERSON."]

GENTLEMEN,

State Emigration.

TO THE EDITORS OF THE "NATIONAL REVIEW."

The letter, on the subject of State Emigration, contributed by Mr. W. Allen Smith, complains that no practical suggestion has been made by which emigration on a large scale, is to be promoted. Mr. Smith then lays down plans of procedure, plans which, in his opinion, will overcome all difficulties and attain the desired end.

If simple facilities to emigrate favour emigration, then Mr. Smith's plan will not be successful, for he has managed to devise about as complicated a scheme as it is possible to imagine. If Mr. Smith would investigate the causes which hitherto have induced emigrants to leave their native land, I think that he would find that the inducement has been, the opportunity of finding employment. If so, is not Mr. Smith putting the cart before the horse?

Our attention ought rather to be given to find means of creating employment, than to educating people to be capable of doing work of a character they may never be called upon to do. In discussing these subjects there is always an assumption that in agriculture there is unlimited scope for the doing well of any indefinite number of human beings; but is this so? and if, already, those engaged in agriculture have a difficulty to exist, how will the difficulty be overcome by adding seriously to their number? No! Emigration alone appears to me to be no remedy for our labour trouble. To solve the problem we must increase the purchasing power of the people, and by increasing consumption, increase demand for production. We must realise facts.