a Debate was to have taken place on this petition, the speakers were designated, the arguments they would use were known. This had to be prevented, and this has been prevented.

Unless those few Frenchmen who have become living souls can vivify some of the rest, the chance that France possessed of recovering her maritime power will have passed away, and she will have contentedly sunk into the acknowledged condition of a protected State.

Here is an example of the conviction established in the French mind, which is the more remarkable as it occurs in the same paper which but on the 16th of April last expressed its belief that Prussia would not attack France until perfectly assured that she did not intend to employ her marine.*

"The role played by the Czar in this affair must not be misrepre"sented. It has been that of a humane and generous pacificator. After "this incident, ALEXANDER II. is the true arbiter of the peace of "Europe."

Little does it avail to a modern man to have a key given to him; he cannot use it because he is not himself, but the mere echo of the sounds around him. To know that Russia could not allow of a war in which maritime power might again be called into play, was to know that BISMARCK was not going to attack France at this moment; that, therefore, there was no danger of war, and no occasion or opportunity for the Czar to play the part of arbiter of the peace of Europe.

It was also to know that the only way to preserve peace is to restore maritime power. The conclusion that the peace is preserved by Russia from humane and generous sentiments, leads to the result that to please her, maritime power is to be finally destroyed.

There is at this moment an "International" Conference going on at St. Petersburg. It is, indeed, only about telegraphs, and its members are only professional or official subordinates. But the occasion has nevertheless been put to profit; importance is given to it by the President being the Russian Minister of the Interior, General TIMASCHEFF, and he thus speaks in his opening discourse:

"During the sojourn which you will make in Russia, you will not "find the wordly pleasures of Paris, the artistic splendours of Rome, "or the animated and agreeable life of Vienna. But you will find on "the other hand some interesting subjects to study; some satisfying "convictions to carry away with you; this one, among the rest, that "the pacific sentiments, so loudly proclaimed by His Majesty the Emperor, are those of the whole nation." In common life it is not the sentiments which are the most ostentatiously put forward, that men believe the most. On the contrary, distrust is generally awakened by such a proceeding. Russia, however, enjoys the privilege of being always believed; for her, words are allowed to stand in the place of deeds; they are even considered to be of greater value.

The double part, played by Russia in 1870, with the result of first making the war and then prolonging it and rendering it fatal to France is notorious. It is notorious that the HOHENZOLLERN affair,

• See article from the "Décentralisation" in this number.

the comedy of Ems, the invasion of France, were all concerted between GORTCHAKOFF and BISMARCK; it is equally notorious that Russia at the same moment was telling the Emperor that she would take care that France should not lose territory, whatever might be the issue of the war.

Yet the same French journal, we have already referred to, publishes the words of the Russian general in its leading article (June 8) with the following commentary:

"How could the Czar have been induced to proclaim so loudly his. "pacific sentiments, unless he had found himself in presence of senti"ments of a contrary nature."

England, we grieve to say, has also fallen into the trap; that is, Lord DERBY has, acting in the name of England. How far the country in general has been deceived, remains to be seen. His role of pacificator, in humble imitation of the Czar, carries one back to the last time he was in office. The coincidence between the two periods is certainly not accidental. Then, too, war was imminent; France was going to rush upon Prussia about Luxembourg; England (Lord DERBY) stepped forward, warned both parties off, and with the aid of Russia, settled the question by a Congress, in which the neutrality of Luxembourg was guaranteed by the Powers, including those against whom the guarantee was required, and with the understanding that none of the Powers individually were bound to anything unless all joined.

The remarkable coincidence is that then as now Lord DERBY had just before opposed Russia, and in the same fashion as to-day, that is negatively. He had then refused to join in a collective note threatening the Porte unless she gave up Candia. We then supposed that the object was to bring back the English Secretary to his allegiance to Russia by flattering him with the idea of the influence he had exerted. The present case is much more serious. England's power is directly concerned; the averment of those who seek to get rid of the Declaration of Paris is that under it she is powerless. What better argument can be employed than to point to the powerful influence she has legitimately exercised at this important crisis? It is, therefore, not. Lord DERBY alone, but the whole nation that is to be prevented from forming an obstacle in Russia's way by being restored to its self-complacency, and so made willing to leave things as they are. If this be so, the more need is there for the forthcoming Motion, and the more credit is due to the Member of Parliament who has had the courage to propose it.

If he would allow us to make him a suggestion it would be this: By bringing forward such a Motion he shows himself to be different from his contemporaries. Let that consciousness carry him through. He will not then shrink from using those arguments which are alone the decisive ones because they are the true ones; which stand the test of time, because events will only come to confirm them. He will then have the satisfaction of knowing that he has not failed even should his act for the present appear to have done so.

Should the debate on Mr. O'CLERY's motion be, in a Parliamentary

sense, a failure, still it will be for us a triumph. We have had a series of triumphs beginning from the campaign opened by the Committees in April, 1874 against the Declaration of Paris, continued by the Brussels Congress-not an original plan of Russia's, but one adopted from a set of agitators and adventurers to meet the rising feeling in France in respect to maritime power-by the failure of that Congress, by the announcement of the St. Petersburg Congress, by its failure, by the debate on Mr. COCHRANE'S Motion, when a supporter of the Government was found to oppose the abrogation of the Declaration of Paris and members of Parliament to vote for it; by the formation of the Maritime League, and the Motion now in prospect.

The matter which contains the germinating power is very minute; the seed when put in the ground has long to lie, and the blade when it appears has to await its season for the harvest.

THE PRESS ON THE ALARM OF WAR.

The Emperor of RUSSIA is bound to Germany by powerful ties which he does not desire to break. An attack upon France, under the frivolous pretext that she is recovering too quickly, and must be once more put down, would completely reverse the bases of the arrangement of 1872.* -Times, May, 1875.

It is no longer a secret that if Europe has so recently escaped the danger of a serious conflagration, it is entirely owing to the personal efforts of the Emperor of RUSSIA. The energetic determination displayed by the Czar, that the world should retain the benefits of peace, triumphed over all the contrary ideas, so that at the present moment ALEXANDER II. is become the real arbiter of the destinies of Europe.-Memorial Diplomatique, June 7.

itself

The same uncertainty still prevails as to the real character of the late diplomatic incidents. The German Press declares that no difficulty was made by the Berlin Government, that consequently the Emperor of RUSSIA had nothing to intervene about, and that the English Cabinet gave useless trouble in giving orders to its Representative at Berlin. The Russian Ambassador at London advised England to make representations at Berlin, which was done through Lord ODO RUSSELL, and which led to pacific assurances on the part of Prince BISMARCK.-Paris Letter of the Gazette de Lausanne, May 31.

The

An occurrence so important and yet so obscure as the recent menace to the peace of Europe is certain to set speculation at work on future movements, and the probable combinations and alliances of nations. As a specimen of these speculations we may take an article in the St. Petersburg Golos sent us by our Prussian correspondent. writer discusses the possibility of a weakening or rupture of the alliance between Russia and the German Empire. He takes the view most agreeable to a Russian-that the Czar virtually compelled Germany to keep the peace. That this is a violent perversion of what really occurred will hardly be doubted; but it is the basis of the writer's speculations.-Times, June 16.

Known as the Alliance of the three Emperors, said to be consigned in a Protocol dated 10th September, 1872; the bases being that the actual possessions of each are guaranteed -Alsace and Lorraine therefore guaranteed to Prussia-that Germany in the common interest is to keep the peace in the West, Russia and Austria in the East; that is that the three Powers are to act in concert in all that concerns France and Turkey.

The full Powers of a Plenipotentiary.

MATERIALS FOR A PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, July 2, 1875.

"MR. O'CLERY-Declaration of Paris-Address for Copies of the Instructions given by Her Majesty's Government to the Earl of CLARENDON and Lord COWLEY, relative to the signature of the Declaration, dated the 16th day of April, 1856, annexed to the 23rd Protocol of the Conference of Paris:

"And of the Correspondence which passed between Her Majesty's Government and other Governments during the year 1856,

relative to the aforesaid Declaration of Paris."

Mr. BOURKE'S high character assures us that it cannot be his wish, by an ambiguous expression, to diminish in any degree the dignity of the Crown; nevertheless, one of his remarks in his reply to Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE had such an equivocal sound, that he must feel himself under an obligation to Mr. O'CLERY for bringing forward a motion for papers and thus giving him an opportunity for explana

tion.

The attendance of members is particularly desirable, that the explanation may be made to a full House.

Explanation of the last Debate on the Declaration of Paris.

Ir is now a century and a half since the audacious design was formed by an insignificant State of annihilating the power of a great Empire, and the process devised by which the apparent impossibility should be accomplished. It was England that was thus devoted to subjugation or perdition. It was a "Calmuck Prince" who devised the operation.

At the epoch of this conception a great European Power existed, who had, besides, extensive territories, powerful alliances, and dominating influence, was also possessed of wealth, trade, southern sea-coasts, and a splendid array of line-of-battle ships, so perfect, indeed, in their construction as to become the models for the British dockyards; and withal, a naval population, nourished by Transatlantic fisheries, and eminent naval commanders.

This was France, who, under her great monarch, not only designed, as did this Muscovite Czar, to destroy the maritime preponderance of Great Britain, but was actually engaged by the exercise of all physical means in endeavouring to effect that end.

But the design of France was based on material instruments, that of Russia on the construction of syllogisms and the adjustment of phrases. The first operated by the blows which her arm could deliver, the other by the conclusions or emotions which she was able to superinduce in the mind of her unconscious antagonist.

The first, after using up her own power so as subsequently to bring to the ground the fabric of that power, left her antagonist more powerful than before the attempt was made. The second, endued with the continuity pertaining to the nature of the conception, pursued her design, to all but its accomplishment, having enveloped in the toils, not the one only but both those great Empires whose destructive and bootless rivalry, has constituted in latter times the history and the curse of the world.

The plan devised for the subjugation of England and so pursued with the co-operation of France, has developed itself into the extinction of Maritime Power: whilst by the "creation of Prussia" as a first-rate Power (TALLEYRAND), planned in 1814 but accomplished only in 1871 -the extinction of Maritime Power leads to the virtual mastery of Europe and the world.

The design prosecuted thus successfully and thus perfectly concealed, was at length discovered by a contemporary; but unfortunately that discoverer did not perceive the method which she had employed, nor consequently the means of counteraction. Moreover he was a Frenchman, and France was touched at that time only in a contingent fashion; nor could he, even if possessed of these subsidiary means have effected anything directly on the important field, not being an Englishman, and being distrusted by Englishmen.

The perfect and full discovery of the tomb which was being hollowed out for Europe remained to be made in connexion with the progress of Russia towards India, only to be effected by a concert with Prussia; which co-operation was to be purchased by the concession of Germany. The same preliminary was here required-the suppression of Maritime Power as a generality. England's marine had to be suppressed that India might be held when acquired, France's marine had to be suppressed that Germany might be conquered.

This was accomplished in terms in 1856, and if it has not been so in effect it is only because of the discovery of the purpose which has called into action a force analogous to that which Russia herself had hitherto employed and alone possessed-the intellectual power.

Through this means it has come about that notwithstanding the prostration and dismemberment of France, England has now reentered into the full possession of that power which she had surrendered in 1856, and in consequence of which surrender she had remained a cipher, and thereby had been a co-operator in the fatal series of events, commencing with the Crimean War in 1854, and ending with the capitulation of Paris in 1871. France, in like manner, is no longer what she was in 1870; no Prussian army could now venture across the frontier.

This great revolution is unknown to the people of both countries. France and England are as unconscious of their own power or weak