contented and, from his point of view, dangerous Christian Armenians, the source of so much trouble and annoyance, would be wiped out of existence, and that he and his advisers would be freed for ever from their hateful presence in the capital of his Empire. It is impossible to say what actually occurred in the palace, but knowing the power of the Sultan, and the means at his disposal for becoming acquainted with all that was going on in his capital, and for suppressing at once any riot or disturbance, and considering that murder was permitted to go on practically unchecked for some forty-eight hours, and that 6,000 men lost their lives during that time, almost within sight of the palace of the all-powerful autocrat, the man who can acquit him of some share in these atrocious crimes must indeed be gifted with a charitable spirit.

'The Assassin who sits on the throne of Turkey. I wish always to call the Great Assassin.'

Such are the terms applied in recently published letters by Mr. Gladstone to the Sultan. To most men the name will not appear exaggerated or undeserved.

Righteous as is the indignation which we may feel towards the Assassin on the throne, we cannot, in justice, forget that there are exalted and distinguished personages in other countries who cannot be exonerated from all blame in regard to these massacres. We know from the despatches published in the official Blue-books that the Prime Minister of England was prepared after the first massacres of Armenians in Asia Minor to have put a stop, if necessary by force, to any recurrence of these horrors, had he received the smallest encouragement from the great European Powers, and that he reluctantly desisted from interference on hearing that Russia would not only not assist England in her efforts to stop further massacres, but would resent any independent action on her part. It has been stated, with what truth I know not, that private approaches were made by the Government of Great Britain to that of the United States (whose people had shown marked sympathy with the victims of persecution, and whose missionaries had been eye-witnesses of many atrocities, and had personally suffered from the disturbed state of the country), and that Lord Salisbury declared his readiness to risk the dangers of foreign hostility could he be assured of the support of the Republic of the West, but that such an assurance could not be given, as American traditional policy did not permit the Republic to entangle herself in European alliances, or to take any part in the political affairs of the Old World.

Whatever others may have done, the Prime Minister of Great Britain has, at all events, performed his duty. Short of plunging his country and Europe into a general war for the sake of the Armenians

an act of quixotic madness, which even such a righteous cause

would have failed to justify-he could not have done more. If he has failed to bring about a concert of Europe for the purpose of compelling the Turk to cease his murders and brutalities and to conduct himself like a civilised being, the fault lies not with Great Britain, but with those Powers whose selfish jealousy forbids them to combine with their neighbours in enforcing peace and respect for law and order on the bloodthirsty tyrant of the Bosphorus.

As I write, a telegram from Paris states that while at breakfast together on the journey from Breslau to Goerlitz, the German Emperor spoke with the Czar upon his approaching visit to France. His Majesty is said to have alluded to his projected stay in the French capital as a fresh pledge of peace, and then, referring to his late visit to Vienna, he announced that a complete understanding had been arrived at between Russia and Austria, with the object of effecting a pacific solution of the Eastern Question. In any case, the telegram continues, the Czar stated that Russia and Austria would only actively intervene in the event of any third Power endeavouring to act alone.

Of course, this statement may be perfectly untrue, and may have its sole foundation in the brain of a Parisian reporter; but if it be true, it means that whilst Russia and Austria decline to interfere in the internal affairs of Turkey, they will not permit any other Power to

do so.

In the meantime the blood of 6,000 men, murdered in Europe, in addition to that of the thousands who have already met their deaths during the last six months in the Sultan's dominions on the other side of the Bosphorus, cries aloud to Heaven for vengeance.

How long will the populations of Christian Europe permit these atrocities to be committed with impunity by the crowned assassin of the Yildiz Kiosk?

His object is evidently to sweep from his dominions the hated Giaour-either by death or banishment. Having murdered 6,000 Armenians, he is now deporting the rest to the inhospitable shores of Anatolia and to other distant portions of his Empire, where death awaits them either by starvation or at the hands of mobs of fanatical Mussulmans, who assuredly await their arrival.

Encouraged by the jealousies between the Powers, which in the past have ensured him impunity, the Sultan seems to have become reckless. If he be permitted to destroy the Armenians, who can guarantee that in his madness he will not attempt similar violence against Christian foreigners residing within his dominions? Are we to wait for justice to be executed until he commits such a final act of murderous folly? In such a case, the one remaining satisfaction would be that this scene would be the last in the horrible drama, as

the Assassin, his throne, and his dynasty would once for all be swept from the soil of Europe amidst the universal execrations of an outraged world.

Let us hope that the Powers of Europe will awake to their responsibilities and anticipate such a fell catastrophe by deposing the reckless Imperial madman before he can shed further blood, or finally exterminate the last remnants of an ancient Christian race.

MEATH.

THERE is a time in the history of a nation like Great Britain, whose
general interests are best served by permanent peace, when it should
face dauntlessly, and with a heart of steel accept, the alternative even
of war for a just, inevitable, and humanitarian act towards a suffering
people.

Such a time and crisis have arrived for our common country over
the Armenian atrocities.

By doing the right thing boldly, through the inspiriting influence and contagious example of a speedy intervention, England can palliate the awful reproach that Europe has incurred, stop the flagrant injustice to Armenia, and avert the continued stain on our common humanity. Unless some step is taken by England somehow, a further policy of drift will be disastrous, and our masterly inactivity in the East will cause us to regret, perhaps in India, the day when our statesmen construed indifference as neutrality and desertion as diplomacy. Further delay on the Armenian Question will be dangerous for England's prestige. The waiting upon others is inimical to her power and that strength amongst nations which have almost solely been sustained by the spontaneity and independence of her splendid isolation.'

The gravity of the last phase of the Eastern Question, serious though it be, is fortunately not accentuated by political partisanship. Our Ministry, without fear of men or favour for any particular method of intercession, can, if they have a prompt remedy, have a unanimous country at their back. Certain it is that other Powers are expectant of England's lead. In them that attitude is instinctive; because, as has been often proved, England is alone the one free voice in Europe.' The civilised world hopes and believes England will lead the way in telling the Sultan, and if necessary compel him, to cease the ruthless slaughter of an unarmed people. For less provocation England has often risked life and treasure. In her highest moral interests which have been assailed she should exercise her traditional responsibility and carry out the international obliga

.

tion due to a weaker people from such a first-class Power. time for active intervention by some Power has arrived is beyond question.

Whether through joint or by isolated action England does her bounden duty is immaterial. As the country to which oppressed people have always turned, and, I hope, will ever appeal, England is by virtue of her geographical situation and her political isolation the only Power that can take the initiative. I want that dutiful honour to be England's, and in so being and doing save the Armenians from that effacement evidently now intended. Any objection that may have been urged for delay has been removed. Every corroboration of past massacre has been produced, and the horrors of the recent holocaust established. The universal denunciation of the character and extent of Constantinople murders compels England, failing cooperation from others, which is improbable, to chivalrously suppress, single-handed if necessary, the satanic lust for blood that the Sultan has displayed.

A year ago, perhaps, active isolated intervention by England would have been premature and inexpedient, and might have led to international complications. But since then in other crises activity in well doing led to arbitration over Venezuela. A flying squadron to deliver a firm message taught an Emperor the art of polite letterwriting whilst England was daring to curb her own rebellious Prætorians in South Africa. These and other acts show that 'grasping the nettle' within and without our Empire pays. But is this alarm as to the possibility of war through our intervention justified? I think not. The undue apprehension of war over the right issue has often, by the excessive fear of it, made war inevitable, and enabled the daring despotisms to exploit the nervous scruples of their more civilised neighbours and opponents. Less consideration for the material and commercial interests at stake, and a greater regard for the moral obligation, has by its transcendent influence averted what under less noble impulses and ideals, would have been forcible action.

But why speculate upon results of intervention and hypothetical combinations of Powers and other complications when all the signs of the times point to practical unanimity? The co-operation of the Powers through their ambassadors by the collective notes to the Porte on the 27th and 31st of August would of itself justify any action England may take, and cause the chief Powers, if diplomacy is not duplicity, to support her demands upon the Porte. The refusal of France to hand over the bank raiders, our past waste of blood and treasure for Turkey, her indebtedness to England, all prove our bona fides. Whether or no, England, not for the first time, must do her duty, even though it be alone, in demanding reforms. What those reforms may be can best be determined as recent past action and present negotiation determine.