that, when ten men well armed enter into conflict with one man in his shirt, the man in the shirt is nearly sure to be beaten. In the present case, not indeed ten but six men well armed have fought with one man in his shirt, and that a very ragged one, but the man in the shirt has thus far been victorious, and has exhibited his consciousness of victory by the periodical repetition of his crimes now blazoned throughout the world. Nor (to do the six men justice) has this been because they were insensible to the enormity of the offences. On the contrary, though we do not know all, yet it has become known even to us on the outside of all charmed circles, through channels which if accidental are authentic, that a remedy the strongest and most direct of all has been deliberately proposed and variously advanced in their deliberations, and has only failed to take effect through certain reciprocal jealousies, independent of the merits of this particular controversy before us. Now it may be laid down as a general rule that the failure of strong remedial propositions is not a mere return to the status ante, but vorsens the general position. They are sure to have become known to the criminal who is unhappily also a sovereign; their collapse is like an assurance of impunity; and that assurance of impunity becomes for the time absolute, when the six powers cast aside their weapons of offence, and descend to the prosecution of an illimitable diplomatic war, which has been based upon the method of stillborn remonstrance, and which, not from fault of execution, but from the law of its nature, was doomed from the first to be, and to become with the lapse of time more and more, a thing pitiable and contemptible. The last feature of strangeness, in this successful contumacy by the single hand, remains to be stated. When a particular sovereign defies the world, it is sometimes with the love and veneration, always at least with the assent and support, of his subjects. There is no evidence that the sultan has any one of these props to sustain him. His people are not indeed permitted to express their sentiments; but all the evidence before us is to the effect that as a body they, the Mahommedans as well as the Christians, are thoroughly disaffected. The motive power, which has directed these atrocities, and is only watching the movement of the hand on the clock to direct more, consists in the sultan himself, sitting in the Yildiz Kiosk, with his dishes tasted lest his cook should poison him, and surrounded by ten or, as some believe, twenty thousand troops in his capital, whom, contrary to his general practice, he regularly pays, feeds, and clothes, and on whom, rightly or wrongly, he thinks he can rely. Such is the unexampled character of the Eastern controversy in its present phase. The interrogation, however, of the hour, to which the British nation is from day to day heaping mountain high the materials of an affirmative reply, is whether, besides being unexampled, it is also intolerable. I venture to add that we have already passed the point at which a doubt could be raised whether the Eastern question had been really opened or not. Quite apart from the present national movement, or its immediate consequences, opened that question is by the weight of facts, and so effectually opened that unless by the application of effective remedies it never can again be closed. Upon the humiliation, which Europe has been suffering for the last eighteen months through its diplomacy, the people of this country appear to be well agreed. They seem also to be of one mind in the belief that action is absolutely demanded by the intolerable character of the situation. Further they have no doubt as to the title of the powers collectively, or it may be individually, to undertake such action; the ground or reason of it being found in the hideous character, and the vast extent, of the Armenian massacres, together with the certainty that nothing but fear on the part of the Assassin will prevent their indefinite repetition. For, though the wonder be scarcely less than the crime, it really seems as if he had marked out for himself as an infernal mission, even the extirpation of the race whose blood, as we understand, he shares; and as if he would not consider his business was at an end until the last Armenian was at his last gasp. Now, the action which is contemplated is humane; and it is also of the class which is called humanitarian. But, as between nations, the fact that a given course is agreeable to humanity does not of itself amount to a sufficient justification for entering upon it. Neither is it enough to say that we have made a careful examination of means and ends, and are well convinced that the undertaking is within our power. But there is still something more that we lack; for we have not had the sword of the Almighty entrusted to our keeping, and while we are bound to follow and require humanity in our own house, we may not have a title to enforce it in the house of our neighbor. We ought therefore to examine whether our case is complete, and whether we have the specific rights and obligations, which suffice, in the case that may be before us, to invest us with a jurisdiction that, apart from these specific rights, would not properly belong to us. The specific right, then, which the powers of Europe possess, and which entails a corresponding obligation, to prevent the recurrence of atrocious and wholesale crime in the Turkish Empire, is the right conferred, and the obligation imposed, by treaty; let us say nomination by the Treaty of Berlin. This right, and this obligation, attach to all the powers. It is the shameless violation of it by Turkey which entails her liability as towards them all. There are two of them, however, from whom sound moral judgment would entitle us to expect a special forwardness. One of them is Russia, who by the Treaty of San Stefano had promised so much to the Christians. And the other is England, to whom unhappily were owing in a principal degree such shortcomings as attach to the Treaty of Berlin in com parison with the Treaty of San Stefano. But while the argument for action as opposed to mere expostulation is under the Treaty of Berlin complete and even imperative for all the powers, it cannot be too pointedly borne in mind that over and above everything which belongs to the five sister States, England is invested with an altogether separate obligation, in which they have no share whatever. Were the Treaty of Berlin swept to the bottom of the sea, the five powers would have no rights in the matter save those of generalized humanity. But, in that same contingency, the rights and obligations of England would remain absolutely unaffected, as tively, from another source. she draws them, distinctly but cumula It pleased us, in the year 1878, to conclude, without the interven'ion of the powers, a separate treaty with Turkey, which however became known to them before the transactions at Berlin were completed. It was thus tacitly accepted or allowed by them; but, whatever their attitudes in regard to it may now have been, it is absolutely binding as between the contracting parties. This treaty differs from most others in two important particulars, of which the joint effect is, if I mistake not, to give a great amount of additional point and force to the obligations we have spontaneously incurred. The name of honor is one, which has often been abused in political discussion. It has been made a cover for miscarriage, for mistake, for crime. It has been profaned for evil purposes quite as much as the name of Liberty, even (perhaps) almost as much as the name of Order. But it is a great and a sacred name; and, where it can be invoked under a valid plea, the man who hesitates to make whatever sacrifices it may require, degrades both himself and the nature which he bears. Under the Treaty or Convention of 1878, a great advantage was obtained by Turkey; for England became engaged to defend not Armenia only, but the whole Turkish Empire in Asia against Russian attack. On the other hand, the sultan undertook to reform his government in concert with England. So that we actually made ourselves in honor partakers of the government of those widely extended Countries, and such we should have been in act, had the sultan fulfilled his promise. He not only did not fulfil it. In Armenia, he read Reform to mean "Massacre." The peculiarity of the treaty was that his promise of reform was stipulated as being "in return" for the truly valuable engagement he had already obtained. Not only was the pledge broken, but it was broken after he had received actual and weighty value in return. The Armenians were no parties to the Convention. They have no treaty rights, no international existence. They are only men; for, though they happen to be also Christians, this does not affect the substance of the case. But who can deny with "honor" that, when we made this treaty over their heads, we undertook not only heavy juridical obligations as towards Turkey, but also real and profound moral obligations as towards them? But there is another enchancing consideration, which has not, I think, as yet been sufficiently borne in mind. We too in this treaty took "value received;" and we have it, so to speak, at this moment in our pockets. The sultan made over to us, without limit of time, the occupation and administration, that is the virtual dominion, of the Island of Cyprus. Perhaps it may be said, and I might concur in the opinion, that Cyprus is of no value to us. But that reply is wholly foreign to the purpose. If it did not add to our strength or resources, it added, as we were told, to our prestige. It was boasted of in Parliament at the time as a territorial acquisition, and was highly popular. We cannot now turn round upon it and declare it valueless. We took it as value, and as value we have now to abide by it in the present argument. The case then stands briefly thus: We are entitled to demand of the sultan the immediate fulfilment, under his treaty with us, of his engagements, and to treat his non-compliance as, under the law of nations, other breaches of treaty are, or may be, dealt with. We have in the face of the world bound ourselves to secure good government for Armenia and for Asiatic Turkey. And for thus binding ourselves we have received what we have declared to be valuable consideration in a virtual addition to the territory of the empire. And all this we have done, not in concert with Europe, but by our own sole action, on our own sole responsibility. However we may desire and strive to obtain the co-operation of others, is it possible for us to lay down this doctrine: England may give for herself the most solemn pledges in the most binding shape, but she now claims the right of referring it to some other person or persons, State or States, not consulted or concerned in her act, to determine whether she shall endeavor to the utmost of her ability to fulfil them? If this doctrine is really to be adopted, I would respectfully propose that the old word "honor" should be effaced from our dictionaries, and dropped from our language. W. E. GLADSTONE. CURRENT SPANISH DISCUSSION. Emilio Castelar contributes monthly to the chief magazine of Madrid, the Espaua Moderna, an International Chronicle. In the latest number he discusses the present condition of Chinese affairs, the Greek church, and the later literature of France as shown in the books and life of the Goncourts. Señor Castelar gives one characteristic page to a review of the Spanish-Cuban relations: "In Spain the legislative debates have just been finished on the subject of the message to the crown, and fortunately also the debates in both houses on the great affair which concerns us in Spain so closely, the affair of Cuba. These burning and dangerous controversies always to be expected in time of war, controversies wherein verbal blood flows and fire consumes have given us all just cause to fear that the origin and occasion of our troubles would be imputed to one party or another, since all embroiled in the struggle. "Fortunately, however, national sentiment rises superior to party strife. A new danger threatens our country, forcing the hearts of all Spaniards to make that sacrifice most difficult to a people eloquent and fond, the sacrifice of their eloquence, forcing them to bridle their tongues. "The Liberal party desiring reform has shown much circumspection, and their chief has made glowing promises, but there are to-day no Spaniards who indulge in any vacillation concerning the grave problem which confronts us all. The Liberals ask to have the methods of the war reformed. The Conservatives push it to the extreme of violence. The Liberals know that it is not possible to hold by violence sovereignty over a people without an autocratic dominion in that country. The Conservatives understand that they cannot continue to tyrannize over a people who breathe with every breath the free air of liberty. Fortunately the Spanish Conservative party, with my beloved friend Señor Canovas as its illustrious leader, is not oppressed by its over obstinacy. It knows enough to change when change is called for. Experiments already made in Cuba have proved that she will not be ruled with an absolute dominion. The vital logic of events points us therefore to the adoption of the progressive code which has been unanimously adopted in both houses of our Spanish government as a part of our future progress. Indeed we all look forward to the application of this code as indispensable to our future progress. "We do not doubt that democracy and liberty are needful for all the world,that they are the saviours of the world. Cuba deserves her punishment for having attacked our national supremacy, for having flung against our national peace the blazing hand of parricidal insurrection. "But even in this punishment may be found regenerating elements, which will in the end free the island from all devastating horrors, and envelop it in the living light of our national spirit." II. Señor P. Dorado contributes to Espana Moderna a review of a little book recently published, containing an address given by Señor Don Vicentè Santamaria de Paredes before the Royal Academy of Political and Moral Science in Madrid. This review gives a glimpse of the present condition of social science in Spain: "Señor Santamaria de Paredes having been asked to deliver the last anniversary address before the Academy had the happy thought to choose for his subject, for the lucid and self-explanatory title of his work, "The Conception of Society as an Organism." Whether society is or is not an organism is our modern question. If the answer is affirmative, therein are contained all the other sociological questions, large and small, which are discussed to-day, and the solution of one is the solution of all. "In this new book by Señor Santamaria are found the qualities which distinguish all his works, great clearness, a fine order in the exposition of his subject matter, and no little knowledge of its literature. His research in these lines is singularly complete, and his knowledge of current important scientific works is indisputable. "But he shows a certain zeal, surely praiseworthy, but from my point of view not readily fruitful of result, for the reconciliation, without union, however, old social tradition, springing from primitive conceptions, with the results of modern investigation. The practical sequel thereof might prove a dose not to be exactly relished by this truly philosophical spirit, whose genius for organization and synthesis, whose solid and ample culture are revealed in this book, in the style which always dis tinguishes the genuine man of science waters swelled hissing landward, from the mere amateur. under the cold, hard wind that led in the tide. "The work is divided into three parts, general, historical, and critical, and there is a valuable introduction demonstrating our need of accurate definition of the word 'organism,' and of rescuing it from the vagueness which still hangs over this word. The historical part of the book is especially full. The author has brought under discussion all the best known material regarding the consideration of society as an organism, drawing from ancient authorities, limited enough, as well as from those since the time of the French Revolution, and he indicates the roads which all converge to one particular point, in the sphere of purely speculative and abstract philosophy, as well as the sphere of naturalistic, anthropological and sociological investigation, I believe, none the less, that there remain, outside his picture, several schools and many authors who might well have figured there. "In the critical part of the work Señor Santamaria occupies himself with the possible application of his idea of an organism to the conception of state and society, and of the reconciliation between a social organism and individual liberty. The position of the author here is very similar in form and general tendency to that of Fouillée and many others. While he admits the conception of a social organism with individual liberty, his thought is at bottom in the traditional position, the position of the old writers, with Krause and his disciples. On the whole, the discourse of Señor Santamaria may worthily attract the attention of our students of sociology, particularly as we have in Spain but a very slight body of literature on this subject." Teige, son of Diarmaid Bhade, bending forward in his seat in the long boat behind the rowers, looked with all his eyes into the inky space about him. The ceaseless plunge and lifting of the boat gave him well enough the measure of the waves they rode. In good time would come the guiding clamor of the breakers tearing at the cliffs which stood as watch-towers to his haven. There was no fear in his thoughts, or in the minds of his men, of harm from the sea that bore them. Yet ever he stared with anxious gaze into the darkness, and now he gasped and put forth his hand. "You would have seen it this time?" he demanded of the man nearest him. Flann, kneeling in his place, pushed his paddle through the weight of water that held it. Then, as the boat glided downward, he spoke without turning his head. "What is it a man would be seeing with this blackness on him?" "It is the third time!" answered Teige, in eager tones. "A small burning light at the top of the wave-close here to our side. And I have knowledge now what it signifies. It is a corpse-candle, Flann, that I have seen on the waters! Three times it has been lit for me, and not at all for you-and what should be the meaning of that?" He lifted his head and put out a strong voice: "Bend your weight upon the stick, Manus, and you, Tomaltagh,, and those before you! There are tidings for us on the land. At the first gate we will be hearing new things!" But at the first gate there was black silence. Teige and his nine men had brought their boat safely round Translated from the Spanish by Minna Caroline between the unseen crags, and through Smith and Jean Raymond Bidwell. From The Pall Mall Magazine. The old moon would be seen no more, and the night was very black. The the foaming ridge of weed-laden breakers beyond, and dragged it up into the shelter of the higher rocks without a slip of the foot. They had gathered its burden of wreckers' booty into their arms, and, thus laden, had climbed noiselessly along the dizzy path from one narrow foothold to another, up the |