Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 879, 4 January 1889, Page 29

Mb Gladstone’s advocacy of International Arbitration in lieu of war does more credit to his heart than to his head. Most people will agree that such a reform is most desirable ; that 'the spirit of Modern Enlightenment, to say nothing of Christianity, demands it.; and that the mere existence or possibility of sanguinary and destructive wars at this stage of the world’s history is a bitter satire on our boasted progress in civilization. All this may be readily

conceded, but still we are no nearer Mr Gladstone’s international millennium than ever. A Court of Arbitration must have some means of enforcing its awards or it would be not only impotent but mischievous. Yet what other means of enforcement can be devised except war % Of course if all nations acted on the principles of honesty and equity the matter would be simple enough, but will anyone suppose that Russia would be deterred by the verdict of an Arbitration Court from pushing her designs on Bulgaria or Constantinople or India, unless she knew that her acceptance of the decision would be forced upon her in the event of her proving contumacious ? It was only the knowledge of the power that lay behind the Berlin Conference that compelled Russia to submit to its award. Again, would France be restrained by any Court of Arbitration from the recovery of Alsace and Lorraine unless the alternative were a conflict with overwhelming forces ! And could a European Court of International Arbitration be trusted in all cases to do justice ? We honour Mr Gladstone’s effort to avert the scourge of war, but we fear the scheme is Utopian.