received a letter from a gentleman this morning with a resolution enclosed, condemning the war, and asking me to second it at the meeting. I have called a meeting of our committee for to-night to see what course we shall take. Can you in the meantime suggest anything? No. 4. Your obedient servant, F. BUTTERFIELD. SIR,-I send, as you request, copies of the Newcastle Chronicle, with notice of Mr. ANSTEY. We wrote a letter explaining what the writer professed not to be able to understand, viz., the case of Hong-Kong, but they did not insert it. We keep busy. Some time ago JOHN ELLIOTT (the blind man) and my brother DAVID took up the parable against the Quay side "orators," and in open discussion have fairly driven them out of the field, by exposing their ignorance of public affairs, and exploding their fallacies about reform and all the other nonsensical things they talk about. They have, generally, an audience of about two thousand. Yester evening the subject was the Crimean War. They exposed it thoroughly (ELLIOTT leading off, and DAVID RULE following), and demonstrated Mr. URQUHART's proposition, that “the war was for Russia, not against her." No. 5. Your obedient servant, GEORGE RULE. 48, Station Road, Chesterfield, Jan. 21, 1874. SIR, I have used the six copies of the Diplomatic Review (article on "Naval Strength") you sent, and I think I could use a few more to advantage. The Presi dent of the Young Men's Christian Association has promised to bring it before the members; and the librarian of the Mechanics' Institute said he would lay it before the committee of that body at their next meeting. I had also a promise that it should be brought before the members of the working-men's clubs. I left the other copies at the hair-dressers' shops and other places of public resort, and received the promise that they would show it to their customers. But I should like to send, as you suggested, to the M. P.'s; at least to the two members for this division of the county. No. 6. Your obedient servant, G. MAWBY. Keighley, March 1, 1874. SIR, Mr. BUTTERFIELD being engaged, I write to inform you that our interview with Sir MATTHEW WILSON, on the Declaration of Paris, took place yesterday afternoon in the Town Hall, Skipton. Lord CAVENDISH left an apology, having been unexpectedly called to London. The interview lasted about two hours. There were upward of twenty members of committee, and more than that number of Skipton people. The meeting seemed to be interested by the various speakers, and Sir MATTHEW said that he had learnt more on that subject that afternoon than he had ever known before; and that he would not give a vote until he had examined more fully into the question, as he believed it to be of the greatest importance. Yet he seemed to think that England, being the greatest commercial nation, would suffer the most by the Right of Search. Mr. LUND, a young man who has not taken any part with us before, gave a very good illustration of our power by putting our arguments into a few words, thus :-"If we were at war with Russia or Prussia, we with forty thousand merchant ships, they with five thousand, and they may send out any portion of their fleet as privateers, we could send out five thousand of ours to watch the whole of theirs, being one for each, leaving thirty-five thousand of our merchant ships a free sea to range in." There were two reporters for the Keighley papers, we will send you a number next Saturday. Your obedient servant, JOHN F. PICKLES. Printed and published by C. D. COLLET, at 22, East Temple Chambers, Fleet-street, London, and may be had of all booksellers and newsvendors. LES QUATRE GUERRES DE LA REVOLUTION. EXAMINÉES JUDICIAIREMENT POUR DÉMONTRER QU'ELLES AURAIENT ÉTÉ IMPOSSIBLES SANS LA SUPPRESSION DES FONCTIONS DU CONSEIL PRIVÉ PAR L'ACTE DU PARLEMENT DE 1705. PAR M. URQUHART. I. INTRODUCTION II. LE CONSEIL PRIVÉ ET LE CONSEIL DU CABINET Quatre Guerres entre la France et l'Angleterre L'Ignorance la Cause des Guerres Caractère des Hommes d'État Anglais L'Angleterre, la France, et la Russie L'Angleterre effacée par le Congrès de Vienne IV. L'HISTOIRE APPENDICE. 1. LOIS DE MAHOMET SUR LA GUERRE ET LA PAIX 2. REMÈDES CONSTITUTIONNELS 3. LES COMITÉS DES AFFAIRES ETRANGÈRES 4. LE VICOMTE CASTLEREAGH À L'EMPEREUR DE RUSSIE 7. DÉCLARATION DE 1807 LONDRES: "DIPLOMATIC REVIEW" OFFICE, 24, EAST TEMPLE CHAMBERS, WHITEFRIARS STREET, E.C. PARIS: LIBRAIRIE GÉNÉRALE, 72, BOULEVARD HAUSSMANN. THE DIPLOMATIC REVIEW. "SO NATURAL IS THE UNION OF RELIGION WITH JUSTICE, THAT WE MAY BOLDLY DEEM THERE IS NEITHER WHERE BOTH ARE NOT."-Hooker VOL. XXII., No. 3. JULY, 1874. CONTENTS. PRICE 2d. MR. URQUHART'S SPEECH AT KEIGHLEY. The Press and the Congress The Link between the Washington Treaty, the Geneva Privateers. How is England's Commerce to be defended in War? Behind the Scenes in Russia England and France among the Smaller Powers 178 190 Questions that ought to be asked in both Houses of Parliament 190 A Rule of Business in Public as well as in Private Affairs An Interview with Mr. John Stuart Mill 192 197 207 NOTICE. DAVID THE FOUR WARS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, BY URQUHART ESQ.-The conclusion of this work, commenced in our number for April, will be given in October. THIS number is devoted to assisting the Foreign Affairs Committees in the greatest enterprise in which they have yet been engaged, great both in reference to the difficulties which they have to encounter, and the object at which they aim. The object is to prevent England from becoming a party to a scheme of which she is herself to be the principal victim. The scheme is so transparent that it may be asked, why, then, is the enterprise so difficult? It is so because of the progressive deterioration which is going on in the mind and character of each man who has anything whatever to do with public affairs, or rather with politics, and who, therefore, supposes that he has some voice in public affairs. The nation has not a mirror in which it can see itself reflected at N each successive moment of time, and so it never knows what it is capable of doing, having forgotten what it was, and not foreseeing what it will be. The picture now before our eyes is this. It has at last become generally known, although no "leader" in the Times has yet announced it to the nation, that a "Congress" has been summoned by the Emperor of RUSSIA to meet at Brussels, that the object is to form a code of laws respecting War, and that the date was fixed by him for the 27th of this month of July, according to our calendar, being the 15th of the Russian calendar. "Code of Laws" is the word used by the Under-Secretary of State in answer to a question in the House on the 11th of June last. The meaning of the answer appeared to be that the Government did not object to the fact that a new Code was to be formed, nor to the idea of such Code being formed by a Congress; for the answer was that "Her Majesty's Government had not yet determined whether it would "be useful for them to take any part in this Conference, but are in "communication with other Governments with the view of ascertaining what are their intentions in the matter." Since those words were uttered in the House twenty days have gone by, and no Member of either House has moved; no public man, whether small or great, whether a supporter of the present or an adherent of the late Government, has spoken in the House or appealed to the country; no one, whether pretending to be a preserver of what exists, or a reformer of what ought not to exist, a stickler for the royal prerogative, or a supporter of the rights of the people, has proposed to do anything in consequence of that announcement. But for the petitions emanating from the Foreign Affairs Committees, or got up by the work of individual members among their neighbours; but for some words which have been said in private to individual members of the Administration, the Government would have every reason to suppose that it was a matter of absolute indifference to every single member of the community called Great Britain, whether an Assembly composed of foreigners and meeting in a foreign town is to legislate for him or not. There is no mistake about the matter. It is a Code of Laws that is to be formed, not a Treaty that is to be entered into. Nations cannot form Treaties between themselves in peace as to what they will do in time of War, because Treaties come to an end by the fact of War. Besides, a Treaty is of the nature of a bargain, or a mutual engagement, in which there are parties opposed to each other, who by the Treaty become at one again. There has been either a war to be concluded, or some difference to be arranged; out of which come Treaties of peace, Treaties of commerce, boundary Treaties, &c. Or a common necessity has arisen to provide for a common danger, and thence come Treaties of alliance, offensive and defensive, in which two or more Powers bind themselves towards each other to act in a certain way in the view of certain contingencies. There is nothing in common between such transactions as these and a Congress called expressly to frame rules for the general conduct of |