Page:The New Europe, volume 1.pdf/265

 us, "established in the most definitive fashion the right of Russia to the Straits and Constantinople . . . and there is no doubt that after she has obtained sovereign possession of a free passage into the Mediterranean, Russia will grant freedom of navigation for the Roumanian flag."

While reserving further comment until the full text of Mr. Trepov‘s speech and further details as to the terms of the agreement are available. we associate ourselves most cordially with the public proclamation of a policy which provides the only sure basis for lasting concord between Britain and Russia. It marks the final stage in the renunciation of a quite needless antagonism, the final abandonment of that mischievous "Jingo" policy which identified itself with the catchword. "The Russians shall not have Constantinople." And as this abandonment is no mere party move. but a natural evolution on the part of the British nation as a whole — as the farsighted views of Gladstone were eventually accepted by the wisdom of Salisbury — so it is fitting that the final step should have been taken by a Cabinet composed of the political heirs of both statesmen. However glaring the errors of the Coalition may have been in other spheres of foreign and domestic policy, this agreement will stand to their lasting credit. As the Daily Chronicle aptly points out. "The future peace and freedom of the world depend largely on the future friendship of Russia and Great Britain; and, to achieve this, it was necessary as a first condition for Russia to be allowed to complete her destiny at the Straits, with British goodwill in place of British obstruction. Let us be frank with the expression of that goodwill now. Let us give more than a grudging assent to this great historic removal of an age-long barrier to the development and civilisation of the Russian race."

A Prophet of Defeat

It was only to be expected that would meet with the disapproval of those who desire a German peace in Europe; but we are surprised to find, among the advocates of such a peace, a man of the position of Professor E. V. Arnold, of Bangor. In an article entitled "Reckless Propaganda," in the New Age of 30 November, he admits that "the list of the supporters of this new journal includes names known all over Europe, and such as taken together may not unfairly be deemed representative of the intellectual atmosphere of all the Allied nations." He then denounces our "doctrine" as "immoral in its foundations and most dangerous in its consequences," and bases this verdict upon the fact that an essential point of our programme is "the emancipation of the subject races of Central and South-eastern Europe." The liberation of the Slav and Latin peoples from the yoke of Austria-Hungary and Prussia is described as "a great scheme for the destruction of European civilization, as irrational as it is unreal," and a clumsy attempt is made to confuse the issue by identifying our ideals with the long