New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-05-20
pEJCE OK WAR.

Mr.. Stead is seeking to box the compass in
each of the European capitals and to ma out
whether the needle points toward peace or war.
In the series Of articles begun on another
page of this issue he gives his impressions OF
the situation after taking counsel with Mr.
Gladstone and Mr.. Balfour in London and NJ.
de Laveleye and General Brialmont in Liege.
His conclusions are necessarily reserved until
he shall have completed the circuit of the
great centres of European diplomacy, but it
is not probable that in the end he will dissent
from NJ. de Laveleye's opinion that while the
Car has the deciding voice an outbreak OF
hostilities is not to be expected this year.
Armaments will continue on a large scale and
exposed points like the Belgian frontier and
the Rumanian capital will be fortified, but
there will be no European war while Prince
Bismarck lives,
The best passage of Mr.. Steads opening
article is that containing rough notes OF
characteristic talk with Mr. Gladstone. That
many-sded statesman complains OF Mr.
GOschen's revival of Protection in taxing
bottled wines as an act that will be resented
by France, but rdicules the idea of military
campaign between the Channel Powers, Bull
garia, in his Judgment is the storm centre OF
Europe, and loyal to all the honorable tradi-
tions of his career he declares that no arbitrary
interference with liberty in the Balkan is to
be tolerated at any time. Mr.. Gladstone, while
disclaiming sympathy with the nom interference
on non-interventop school of English diplo-
macy, expresses dislike of entangling alliances
and international leagues even when formed
for the purpose Of preventing war. He prob
ably remembers that elaborate diplomatic ar
engagements and treaty covenants did not pro-
tect Denmark when two great Powers violated
their engagements and invaded its territories.
But does he not forget his own share in the
proceedings for securing the naturalization OF
Belgium? His assertion that independence OF
action is the indispensable condition of sue
cessful intervention on behalf of peace is one
that may be seriously questioned. England
was virtually free from entangling alliances
on the eve of war between Germany and
France in 1870, but was unable to intervene
successfully on behalf of general peace. IL
must be added, however, that If Russia had
been in the same position and had been willing
to cooperate with England that terrible con-
fict might have been averted.
IL is, indeed, difficult to understand how Mr.,
Gladstone can justify his opposition to league
of pacific Powers formed for the avowed pur-
pose of preventing war. Such league now
exists in Europe Germany, Austro-fiungary
and Italy are united in an offensive and de-
fensive alliance for the maintenance of peace
and the combination of these Powers is more
effective than the isolated action of England
That league operates benelicially for the well
fare of Europe and is to be defended on the
highest grounds. England as Mr.. Gladstone
contends, would have no moral right to enter
into engagements for securing the retention
of Alsace- Lorraine by Germany or the restora-
ton of those provinces to France. Such action
would be on a level with German or French
intervention on behalf of Ireland's right to
govern itself without interference from Lon
don. Leagues and alliances of that nature
however, are very different from Prince Bis
marck's present arrangements for preserving
the peace of Europe.