if they lose by joining Russia, the alliance of the Sultan and the Czar will be a fearful blow to England, a blow of which attempts to secure compensation will only aggravate the deadly effects. In this, perhaps, they find some consolation, though a sorry one, for the evils they will yet have to endure.

1 January, 1887.

ΤΗ

(From Vanity Fair, 29 January.)

A PASSING PANIC.

As

one

HE war scare got up by the Daily News on statements evolved out of its internal imagination, though it was, and was soon shown to be wholly unjustified, has frightened out of their senses all those nervous people who listen attentively to what politicians say and what newspapers print, in the conviction that these are " signs of the times." a matter of fact, they are only signs of what the politician who speaks, or the paper that prints, wants people to believe for the moment; they are no more to be taken seriously than a miraculous pill advertisement or of Mr. Labouchere's speeches. The politician desires to produce a momentary effect on his adversaries, the newspaper to produce a momentary effect on its own sale and that is all. The truth or falsehood, the wisdom or unwisdom of the statement is not so much as thought of-the effect is everything. And that effect is not lessened, but rather increased, by the fact that the thing said is false. This is well illustrated by what Mr. Greville tells us in the last series of his Memoirs of the way in which the Emperor Napoleon III. deceived Lord Clarendon and Lord Cowley (both of them his personal friends) into believing, on the very brink of his war with Austria, that he was determined to discountenance the King of Sardinia and to support Austria, although months before he had actually pledged himself to fight with Sardinia against Austria, and was at that very moment completing his arrangements for the fight which was so soon to come off. He intended to deceive, and he did completely deceive two such old hands as Lords Clarendon and Cowley; and all those who had the signs of the times from them were deceived with them. Instances of the same kind might be multiplied ad infinitum, from the siege of Troy to the bombardment of Alexandria.

It is no doubt tempting, because it is so easy, to judge of events by words, and to forecast national action by paying regard to politicians' declarations and newspaper reports. It is tempting enough, because so easy and so comforting, to prattle of "civilization," "progress,'

humanity," and the rest, and to believe that Wars, and Treaties, and Conventions, and the Removing of Neighbours' Landmarks" happen" accidentally, that they come upon us out of the skies like hail and thunder, without anybody being at fault, and without there being any possibility of

preventing them. Those who are behind the scenes know and those who have ever so little knowledge of history should know better. They know that these calamities do not happen; that they are contrived, arranged, invented, worked out, and finally brought to pass for definite objects; and that, without such an object and such a contrivance of means for attaining it, they never do happen at all. But the simple-minded, who know none of these things, continue to scan eagerly the utterances of politicians and the leading articles of newspapers for signs of hail and thunder. The utterances and the articles do but mislead them and mystify them-are indeed mostly intended for that purpose-and those who judge by them are invariably mistaken as to the course of events-until the events themselves come to enlighten them. The only true way to judge is to take no account whatever of what is being said or written at the moment (all this being said or written for a purpose of some kind other than purpose of enlightenment), but to look to the permanent condition of things, to the nature of Peoples and Governments, and above all to Geography. Duly to consider and to collate these is however not a rapid nor an easy task, and it is therefore one for which many men are incompetent, and from which most men shrink. Most men therefore are gulled with the greatest ease by the lightest word of a politician, or the silliest leader of a newspaper. Hence the ease and rapidity with which the panic was raised this very week.

a

We ourselves entered three weeks ago upon this very question of Peace or War, and, in opposition to the general apprehension then entertained, we set forth our conclusion that there would be no war either over the Bulgarian Question or over the Franco-German Question, for which conclusion we gave our reasons at length. Three days afterwards (on the 11th January), Prince Bismarck made to the German Reichstag his menacing speech, denouncing France, and expressing apprehension of French aggression on Germany, which added to the already existing alarm of those who believe in speeches; and thirteen days afterwards (on the 24th January), the Daily News published as the first words of its first leading article the statement that

"there is imminent risk of almost immediate war between France and "Germany,"

together with another article, headed "War Impending," which declared that

"information accumulating at the Foreign Office with respect to the "movements and intentions of France and Germany has, we learn, "created a feeling of grave apprehension in the minds of Her Majesty's "Ministers. The first movement will probably be on the part "of Germany, which, it is reported, will, on an early day, ask France "what is the meaning of the recent military movements towards the "German frontier."

If those who believe in speeches were alarmed by Prince Bismarck, those who believe in newspaper articles were panic-stricken by the Daily News. A complete scare took place on the Stock Exchange, stocks and shares tumbled

down in price, and the public mind is even now agitated by the mere opinion of a newspaper editor, pretending to be based upon information, the whole of which has since been demonstrated to be false.

All this does not in the least affect our own conclusions. We adhere still to the belief we expressed three weeks ago, that there is no war impending either as regards Bulgaria or as regards the Franco-German quarrel. It is perhaps worthy of note that we had already taken into account the possible contingency which twelve days later the Daily News falsely declared to have arisen. We wrote on the 8th January

"We are convinced that there is no war in France; nay, we go further. We are convinced that, if Germany should formulate and present to France a formal demand for disarmament, France would rather disarm than fight."

To that belief we still adhere; and, therefore, even if we had believed the Daily News's assertion-founded perhaps on our own suggestion-that the Germans had formulated and were about to make such a demand, we should still not have believed at all in "imminent risk of almost immediate war."

66

If, then, we are right in our belief that France will not have war, what about Germany? We again repeat and reaffirm what three weeks ago we said :-

As regards Germany, so long as she feels safe from French attack, which, in spite of all newspaper pretence to the contrary, she now does -for she has Russia with her-she will not move. Nor will she, unless forced, move at all again against France, until she has settled what for her is the next question-that of Holland."

Prince Bismarck's own speech is a proof that, if he feared war with France at all, it would be a war that would not take place during the next three years; for he was offered the increased forces he demands and all the conditions he demands, for three years; it was on the question of increasing the three to seven that he was defeated. This is a proof that the French danger against which he professed to wish to provide is not a danger of the next three years; for what he was offered, and rejected, would have provided for that. But, in truth, it is not France at all that is in his mind. He uses France as a bugbear, but he does not fear France, nor is it his object to provide against her. His object is to have a huge, permanent standing army, entirely removed from the control of the German people and the German Reichstag, and under the sole control of the Emperor and himself, or his successor. It is not France he aims at or fears; it is the German people he apprehends and would muzzle.

But the believer in speeches and articles has already begun to recover his equanimity. It is now apparently allowed on all hands that we were right as regards Bulgaria, and that there is no war there; and it will soon be equally admitted that we were right as regards France and Germany, and that, for the present and for some time to come, there is no war there either.

Printed by R. B. HART, 12, Tavistock Street; and published by C. D. COLLET, at the Office of the Diplomatic Review, 6, Adelphi Terrace, Strand, London, W.C.

Vol.

DIPLOMATIC FLY-SHEETS.

No. 229-30.] TUESDAY, 22 February, 1887. [Price 4d.

SIR

RUSSO-TURKISH ALLIANCE.

To the Editor of the Diplomatic Fly-Sheets.

IR,-The article on this subject in your last number is excellent as an answer to the Standard, and it does not go further than I have actually known some Turks go when complaining of England; but, still, it would not be the right course for the Turks to join Russia because of our misdeeds. In the light of suggestion to the Turks, I do not approve of the article. It seems too much of the policy of despair. So far as it is possible to influence the Turks, it should be in the direction of selfreliance.

I remain, Sir,

Haughton Castle,

Your obedient servant,

GEORGE CRAWSHAY.

Humshaugh-on-Tyne,

10 Feb., 1887.

་་

THE EGYPTIAN DEBATE.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WAR AND MILITARY

OPERATIONS.

"It is useless now to go into matters of ancient history."—Sir James Fergusson.

IT

Tis seldom that so complete a display of ignorance, injustice, and imbecility has been given in the House of Commons as was exhibited in the Debate on 4 February on the Motion for recalling the British forces from Egypt. That demand, than which nothing is more imperatively demanded by the honour and interest of the country, inspired Mr. Cremer, M.P. for Shoreditch, and Secretary of the Workmen's Peace Association, with no better Resolution than the following, which he moved as an Amendment on the Address of reply to the Queen's Speech:

"And humbly to represent to Her Majesty that, inasmuch as the expenses of the prolonged occupation of Egypt by a British force have to be borne by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, the great majority of whom have no direct interest in the Government or affairs of Egypt, and that the retention of our troops in Egypt is a cause of suspicion and irritation to Continental Governments, and calculated to weaken the influence of this country in the councils of Europe, humbly to pray Her Majesty to take immediate steps for recalling the whole of her forces from Egypt."

Mr. Cremer began by saying that those whom he represented were only common people who were not great financiers or holders of Egyptian Bonds. He went

on:

"These people did not understand the difference between military operations and wur, or between permanent annexation and an occupation extending

over four and a-half years. Such ignorance on the part of our masters was no doubt lamentable and very inconvenient, but we should have to face the fact."

This "fact" is very far from inconvenient to the Government. The inability to discriminate between war and mere military operations is exactly what has caused the military operations in Egypt. There being no injury committed upon us by or in Egypt, the formalities which constitute a Declaration of War, without which the Law of England holds that war does not exist, and that mere military operations are matter for the Old Bailey, were impossible. This was suggested to Mr. Gladstone at the time of the bombardment of Alexandria; but Mr. Gladstone was in the condition of Mr. Cremer's constituents. So the military operations were ordered, and have never ceased. Mr. Cremer went on :

"He did not propose to discuss who was answerable for our original occupation of Egypt."

This is consistent. His constituents, not knowing that the occupation of Egypt and the bombardment of Alexandria were crimes, it does not occur to him that there was a criminal to be punished, or, if not punished, to be pardoned; so he holds that there is no necessity to inquire who he was.

Sir Wilfrid Lawson followed Mr. Cremer. He was glad to see, in Mr. Gladstone's election address in 1885"We must not expect recompense for all we have done in Egypt; what we must expect is retribution."

This retribution is not to fall on Mr. Gladstone, or on Lord Alcester, or upon those who hounded on Mr. Gladstone. It will fall on Mr. Cremer's unfortunate constituents, whom he has not taught to discriminate between war and military operations.

Sir Wilfrid Lawson did in 1882 distinguish himself honourably by opposing the military operations from the first; and he was one of the seven English Liberals who voted against the grant of £2,300,000; but last Friday he contributed his share of ignorance to assist in the oppression of Egypt. He said:

"He did not think we had had much to do with Egypt prior to 1876."

It is impossible to show greater ignorance. On the 28th February, 1884, the Russian Ambassador said to Lord Granville :

"The Russian Cabinet had looked upon it (the Egyptian Question) from the outset as an essentially European Question, as much from its antecedents and the Treaties relating to it as from the international interests concerned. They remembered that it was the Concert of the Great Powers which, since 1830, had not only pacifically solved the numerous and equally grave crises provoked by the Egyptian Question, but had also succeeded in establishing a state of things in the country which had worked for fifty years under the control of Europe.

Now this pacific management of Egypt by the European