sible. But all this is now changed and France is considered, as regards her means of defence, much stronger than she was then. It will, however, take a long time yet before she can have reason to believe that the balance of power may not incline in her favour in an offensive war; and this because her probable antagonist is making preparations on his side, and is becoming every day more powerful for defence. We nevertheless see that France, conscious of this state of things, is showing a disposition to abandon the proud attitude she has hitherto maintained in the presence of other nations, and of grave European interests, and that she is willing to sacrifice her hereditary policy and her essential interests in Europe in order to secure to herself an alliance which, in exchange for this abandonment may aid her in the speedy realisation of her wishes. Is not this to sell her birthright for a mess of pottage? But what if she can have the mess of pottage without selling her birthright? If France only knew all her strength-that strength which she wasted so uselessly in 1856-she would know that, without contracting a compromising alliance, she is absolute mistress of the situation. Granting that her frontier is unassailable, and that her defensive position is such as I have described it, she is able, simply by the resumption of her maritime rights, and without sending a single soldier over her frontier, to reduce an enemy to the triple alternative of bankruptcy, of famine, or of rendering her justice. Not only is this course the simplest and the easiest to enable her to recover her rights, but it is, morever, to any who for a moment seriously considers the matter, the only one she has. The maritime position of France is derived from nature; it is the direct and indefeasible consequence of her geographical situation. Here, then, is an advantage which she possesses over what are called the purely military Powers of the Continent; and it is her only permanent advantage. Military power will always advance-cæteris paribus-in the long run with the increase of population. Germany is more thickly peopled than France, and her population increases more rapidly. Russia already exceeds France in the number of her inhabitants at the rate of 50 per cent., and at the close of the present century her population will amount to a hundred millions. It is clear, therefore, if the military armaments to be derived from this source are to turn the scale in the balance of power, that France will be unable to maintain her preponderance or even her influence; and, perhaps, not her independence against the logic of these figures. What advantage will she gain, if, after having crushed Germany by the aid of Russia, she is obliged, like the rest of Europe, to submit to the yoke of her ally? Such, however, is the lot which will inevitably await her, as well as Europe, if, neglecting the advantages which she possesses-advantages which no disproportion of population can change she accepts purely military preponderance as the arbiter of the destinies of the world. All this the friends of France in England see very clearly; and her probable antagonists on the Continent attach no less importance to it. It was the fear that the results of the late war would cause France to perceive where her true danger lay, which produced that remarkable proposition of the Brussels Conference, by which a new peace was to be inaugurated by preparations for a new war. An attempt had to be made to render the renewal of maritime rights impossible, by asking for and insisting on an immunity for all private property at sea in time of war. I ask you if the refusal of England to take part in the Conference could be charged with captiousness and discourtesy ? All maritime nations-France, England, Spain, Italy, Denmark, and Turkey (for when maritime rights are in question, there is amongst them the same solidarity of interest which exists among military Powers when their just claims are at stake) have escaped from a great danger. It will be their own fault if they do not profit by the occasion to reap a great advantage. In England the result has been that the eyes of the people have been opened, and six months will, in all probability, not pass over before there will be a withdrawal from the Declaration of Paris. As, in the present state of affairs, the interests of France and England are identical, let us act together, and let us oppose a maritime league to the military league which now dictates the law to Europe. Let the two great maritime Powers, in asking the co-operation of the secondary maritime Powers, announce their determination to resume the rights which nature, International Law, and the usages of nations have given them. I have for a long time been anxiously looking for some sign on the part of France that she appreciates these considerations. I have carefully read the newspapers, and the articles of M. EMILE CARRON are the first indication of it that I have met with. The argumentative positions he has taken are admirably supported, and I perfectly well understand how the fellow-countrymen of JEAN BART and CASSARD give their attention at once to the question of Privateering. But may I be permitted to observe how very illogical it is to stop at the first article of the Declaration of Paris, and to desire the re-establishment of Privateering while suppressing its object? The arguments against such a mutilation of maritime rights have a greater force to-day than they had formerly. Commerce was then an affair of good luck, of ability, and of risk, and the merchants of a belligerent nation, who for the most part carried their own merchandise, trusted to favourable winds and good fortune to escape from the pursuit of cruisers. But in our days of commercial and scientific rivalry, a very small increase in the insurance of cargoes is sufficient to take commerce from the flag of one nation and to place it under that of another. Of this we have had a striking example in the American Civil War. We may then conclude that in the event of a war the commerce of the weaker maritime Power, and perhaps that of both belligerents, will shelter itself under the flag of a neutral, and this, not only in isolated cases, but generally and universally, if the doctrine that the flag covers the cargo is maintained. You will in such case in vain cover the seas with your brave and redoubtable cruisers; for they will have nothing to capture. Your JEAN BARTS and your CASSARDS will have no other occupation but that of saluting the neutral flags under which the merchandise of their enemy is carried; merchandise that is destined to pay for the bomb-shells, the muskets, the guns, the powder, and the munitions of war which are to be employed on land to lay waste, and, it may be, to destroy their own country. The Let us endeavour to be logical. All Maritime Rights are of equal importance, and to those whose interest it is to exercise them it is important that they should be assumed in their integrity, as they are set forth in the "Consolato del Mare," which M. EMILE CARRON cites, and as they were exercised by France and England before the desire to "conciliate.' great Northern Powers, the authors of the Armed Neutrality of 1780 (the same Powers, be it observed, whose arms and connivance have just dismembered your country), had urged France partially to relinquish such rights. This fatal illusion of conciliation is the only obstacle to the recovery by France of her ancient power, her prestige and her glory. "It is necessary to conciliate the Powers." "Let us guard against the alienating from us the neutrals." Conciliate the Powers! not alienate the neutrals! As if the latter would be more afraid to ally themselves with you when it is not in your power to inflict injury on them in a war; or, indeed, as if all the probabilities were not that they would become your enemies the moment they had a guarantee that it was no longer in your power to injure them! Fas est et ab hoste doceri. How did England, when she was mistress of the seas in 1780, undertake to "conciliate" the neutral Powers who were coalesced against her? She did so by the seizure of their commerce, and by bringing into her ports ten prizes instead of one. The Armed Neutrality was "conciliated" by being beaten, broken up, and ruined. You may be sure, therefore, that you will much more easily "conciliate" the neutral Powers when you are strong than you can when you are weak; and you can only be strong by making use, and that boldly and in all their plenitude, of the advantages which France has providentially received from nature. Your enemies give no sign of a desire to "conciliate" the neutral Powers-whether Denmark, Belgium, Holland, or Turkey-if for such purpose it is necessary for them to abandon in the smallest degree their military rights. This will only happen when France, awakening from her dream of a weak and delusive policy, and confiding in her own strength, shall make use, in all their plenitude, of the advantages which her unquestionable naval superiority gives her, when she may hope effectually to "conciliate" neutrals, to crush her enemies, and to reclaim her rights. H. A. MUNRO-BUTLER-JOHNSTONE. Hotel Bristol, Paris, December 1, 1875. NEWS FROM THE HERZEGOVINA.-The Turkish troops have withdrawn to Trebinje and the Pasha has gone on a promenade to Popovo, where new incidents have attracted attention, and this time not to the credit of the Insurgents. About 250 families having been induced by the influence of the Catholic clergy to submit and return to their villages, the Insurgents at Grebci sent a detachment thither, and, turning them out, burnt their houses that they might not be able to return. The affair au fond is only an episode in the struggle going on between the Catholic and Orthodox clergy, the former urging submission and return home, the latter opposing; but in no circumstances are such barbarities to be excused, and, in the actual position, with so many homeless and even roofless creatures in the community, they should not be overlooked by the Austrian Government, which ought to give fair warning that if any such excesses are repeated the authors of them will be shut out from the hospitalities of the Austrian frontier. The Catholics have lately been very hostile to the movement, but this is no apology for such an act.-Times, December 27. THE TIMES CORRESPONDENT ON THE "EASTERN QUESTION."-"There are, perhaps, four millions of Mahomedans of different races in European Turkey, exclusive of Constantinople, and it is dfficult to conceive any solution of the Eastern Question that may be effected without the general massacre. or the wholesale plunder of them all." Constantinople Special Correspondent of the Times, after his interview with the Russian Ambassador.-Times of November 30, 1875. 171,900,000 159,092,760 8,702,816 9 per cent. Treasury 11,126,000 6,816,400 Bonds, 1872 Roumelian R. W. £214,706,000 197,417,160 £10,261,532 1,968,372 Repayable 613,476 £2,114,372 [The effect of this plan will be that Turkey, having hitherto paid interest on the actually received by her, increased by 10 per cent.; and will be liable only fa any time to redeem any portion of her debt by purchasing stock at the market |