The

It is a good thing to have Sir Arthur Nicolson as the permanent New Indian Viceroy. head of the Foreign Office instead of Sir C. Hardinge. But it is possible to buy even diamonds too dear. And India is a long price to pay for the disappearance of Sir C. Hardinge from Downing Street. Sir Charles Hardinge, like Sir A. Nicolson, came to the Foreign Office from the Embassy in St. Petersburg. No one denies that he is an able man of wide experience. But he and his wife have ever been courtiers, and the suppleness which stood them in good stead will not count for so much in India as in England. The post of Indian Viceroy is one of the most difficult and dangerous in the Empire. Lord Minto, being a plain, fox-hunting country gentleman with a sportsman's straightforwardness, made a very good Viceroy. It will be well if we can say so much when the newly-appointed diplomatist, courtier, and bureaucrat retires from the Viceroyalty. Lord Minto was always straight. He may not always have been wise; but he could always be trusted.

The

Political Teetotum

Abroad.

A curious contrast has been afforded last month between the fortunes of Ministers in France and Germany. M. Briand, fresh from a General Election, has swept all his foes before him by a spirited declaration in the Tribune in favour of carrying on the government of France for the sake of France, instead of prostituting the Executive by making it the instrument of party intolerance and anti-religious fanaticism. Across the Rhine there has been no General Election, but the Ministry has crumbled to pieces in a very significant fashion. The first to go was Mr. Dernburg, the Colonial Secretary. His appointment was a daring departure from the bureaucratic precedent. It has been brilliantly justified by success. Mr. Dernburg was the first man to make the German colonies other than blank abstractions--pale and diaphanous ghosts before the semi-clairvoyant eye

Rheinbaben, the Prussian Minister of Finance. After them went the Prussian Ministers of the Interior and of Agriculture, men who bore the distinguished names of Moltke and Arnim. The 'débâcle is attributable to the fiasco that attended the Prussian Franchise Bill. The new Foreign Secretary, late German Minister to Roumania, is said to be much less conciliatory than his predecessor, who has been appointed Prince Radolin's successor in Paris.

The Cretan Question.

All through last month the Near East has been simmering with an uneasy expectation of possible trouble. The Turks have succeeded in temporarily disposing of the rising in Albania, and they are very much tempted to use their reconstructed army to work against the Greek. The conduct of the Greek Government, however, has been irreproachable; but this did not hinder a general boycott being organised in Turkish ports against Greek goods, and a stormy agitation being got up by the war party in the Turkish towns against Greece. The danger point was in Crete, where the Turkish intrigue and propaganda had succeeded in exciting a Turkish minority to resent actively the attempt of the majority of the Cretan Assembly to make them swear allegiance to the King of Greece. The four Powers who were charged with the settlement of the Cretan question showed for a time lamentable indecision. The French Government in particular distinguished itself by vacillating counsels. Ultimately the four Powers got into line, and for the moment the danger seems to have been passed. The Cretans have been told pretty plainly that they must not attempt to compel the Moslem minority to swear allegiance to the King of Greece; of Greece; and the Sultan has been assured that not his suzerainty, but his sovereign rights, which are strictly limited, and at the present consist in little more than a right to fly the Ottoman flag in Suda Bay, shall be respected. With that both sides must be contented. Should they be recalcitrant the four Powers intimate that they will have recourse to such measures as may appear opportune. There is also a plain intimation that in future the four Powers will throw the responsibility of dealing with Crete on the European Concert. There is no reason why Germany and Austria-Hungary should not take. their full share in coping with a troublesome segment of the Near Eastern question.

Mr. Venizelos.

The one hope in the situation in Crete is that they have at least produced a statesman of the first rank in Mr. Venizelos. And the best hope for the future would be if the Cretans would agree loyally to follow his counsels. Mr. Venizelos, from all accounts, appears to be far and away the ablest statesman among the Hellenes. If he has a fault it is that he is too chivalrous. He is rather more chivalrous than is compatible with the practice of statesmanship as it is understood in the modern world. At the time when Austria annexed Bosnia the Cretans would have declared their annexation to Greece if it had not been for the opposition of Mr. Venizelos, who considered that it was taking a mean advantage of the Turks to exploit their misfortunes. The moment passed and did not return. Mr. Venizelos was at first opposed to any attempt to expel the Moslem deputies who refused to take the oath of allegiance, but afterwards he was swept away by the popular opinion. It is hoped he will not be hindered in the fight he is making to induce his somewhat turbulent compatriots to recognise the necessity to abstain from lighting lucifer matches in the powder magazine of the East.

A Disquieting Symptom.

The most disquieting symptom in connection with the Cretan question has been been the extraordinary campaign carried on in the German and Austrian Press, apparently with the express object of inflaming international animosity. and prejudicing the Turks against England. The whole series of lies were elaborated and printed in the Viennese newspapers and telegraphed all over Europe. The net effect of which was to suggest that England was acting with the utmost bad faith, was betraying Turkey, and encouraging the insubordination of the Cretans for the purpose of pleasing King George's relative on the Greek throne, and of seizing Sudą Bay for herself. There was not a word of truth in the whole tissue of falsehoods, and Sir Edward Grey did not speak at all too strongly when he contradicted the lies seriatim. The question as to the motives which prompted this Press campaign. raises some ugly suspicions, which I should be very sorry to think were well-founded.

Russian Government to another prolonged and disastrous conflict with the Finnish people. Some fatality seems to preside over the Russian Government. It might have been thought that one experiment in Bobrikoffism would have been sufficient to dissuade the authorities at St. Petersburg from converting the free and semi-independent grand duchy into a Russian province. Russia has enough difficulties on her hands without wantonly manufacturing fresh ones in Finland. At the same time, the matter is one in which outside Governments cannot interfere, and nothing more fatuous than the appeal which is about to be made to Sir Edward Grey on the subject can hardly be imagined. All lovers of liberty and friends of Russia and Finland are justified in expressing their dismay at this criminal blunder. But to invoke the intervention of a foreign Government is sheer madness and calculated to aggravate all the difficulties of the situation.

Kaiser and other German princes. He at the same time forbade the reading of his letter in the pulpits of Catholic churches in Germany. This was to eat humble pie with a vengeance; but the mischief had been done. If he did not mean what he said, why did he say it? It is very little to the credit of Mgr. Merry del Val that he should not have been able to blue-pencil passages which could do no good, and which results show have done the Church a great deal of harm. The Liberals in Germany are entirely delighted, for this latest self-revelation of the intractable nature of their clerical enemies suits them down to the ground.

Germany and the Vatican.

[Stuttgart.

with sounding the praises of that admirable saint, he must needs introduce into his letter contumelious reflections concerning the leaders of the Reformation, whom he described as proud and rebellious men, and enemies of the Cross of Christ; adding thereto many other harsh criticisms of the men who made the Reformation. The letter fell like a bomb-shell upon the German people. It dismayed the Catholics as much as it irritated the Protestants. Indignation meetings were held in many great cities of Germany protesting against this outrage on the most sacred feelings of the German Protestants. The Prussian and Bavarian Governments both made representations at the Vatican, with a result that the Pope declared that he had been misunderstood, that he had no intention of insulting anybody, much less the ancestors of the

I very much regret to hear that Madame Novikoff Madame Novikoff's only son,

and Her Son.

Alexander Novikoff, was tried last month for the publication of a political pamphlet issued four years ago, when Russia was in the height of the revolutionary fever, and sentenced to one year's imprisonment in a fortress. Mr. Novikoff has long since repented and publicly recanted his revolutionary views. He has been a chronic invalid for the last two years, and devoted his leisure to the translation of the Latin classics into the Russian language. He is as honest as the day, and as patriotic as his mother. He spent almost all his patrimony in founding churches and schools for the peasants of his estate. He was Mayor of Baku, and in other ways has rendered admirable service to the Russians. But just because of the publication of a foolish

pamphlet, which the police allowed to be circulated freely for a couple of years, he has now been condemned to a year's imprisonment. Considering the services which his mother has rendered to the Russian Empire, the authorship of a dozen such pamphlets, which never did anybody any harm, could surely have been overlooked. Great sympathy will be felt for Madame Novikoff in this remarkable instance of justice as it is understood in Russia.

The

The women have last month made considerable advance towards their

Woman's Cause. goal. They succeeded in, persuading Mr. Asquith to receive them as if they were intelligent citizens, and not a petulant crowd of petticoated hooligans. He told them he was more strongly opposed to woman's suffrage than ever; but no one expected him to say anything else. The great thing was to induce him to stand up like a man and say it in the face of an influential deputation, instead of dodging and evading every attempt "to ask" him to receive a deputation. Not only did Mr. Asquith receive the ladies, but he promised them that at last. they should have facilities afforded them this session, not only for a debate, but for a division, which is a pledge that the Government will not tolerate the dishonourable and pettifogging tactics by which the opponents of woman's suffrage have often, in the past, cozened the women out of a division on the main question at issue. The Cabinet, the Premier said, was divided on this question, which, of course, is true. Every Cabinet is always divided upon every question until the time comes when it makes up its mind. Then it becomes united either by the submission or secession of recalcitrant members. Are there any members of Mr. Asquith's Cabinet who would resign rather than emancipate their wives and sisters? Possibly one or two who might be spared, but one of them would not be the Prime Minister. It is not differences of opinion in the Cabinet that is the obstacle. It is the lack of such a clear manifestation of the determination of a resolute majority in the House of Commons to force the thing through that is the great and indeed the only difficulty. Given such a demonstration, and the Cabinet will become the obedient executive of the will of the people.

serious and valuable the debate, the importance of these July days will depend not upon the arguments used by speakers, but by the dividing line which will be drawn between the sheep and the goats. It will be the valley of decision for many a member who has hitherto shilly-shallied between conviction and prejudice. "Under which king, Bezonian? Speak, or die!" The last time the House divided on the subject there was a majority of 179 for the women's vote. But that was a mere abstract counsel of perfection. Mr. Shackleton's Bill means business. It will only enfranchise a million women, but it demolishes the principle that sex should be a bar to the privileges of citizenship. It has never been a bar to civic responsibilities and national obligations. The one thing to be feared is that many will stay away. But the list of the absentees will be as useful as the lists of the Yeas and Nays. For it is more important to detect a coward than it is to know the number of your foes. We can all respect a convinced opponent. We only want them to come into the open to give their votes and to state their reasons for the unfaith that is in them. we all despise cowards. And after this division the House will be divided into three sections: For Woman's Suffrage,- Against Woman's Suffrage,and Cowards

The
Woman's

Demonstration.

But

Women in politics have acted like the effervescing element in a seidlitz powder. They have made things fizz. Last month showed

that. When they eschew for a moment the militant tactics, and pursue a quieter policy, they can still introduce welcome elements of novelty and interest into the political arena. The great demonstration which on Saturday, June 18th, displayed itself in miles of streets between the Embankment and the Albert Hall, was almost the first affair of its kind that was a thing of beauty as well as one of power. Flowers and bands and emblems and fair women never before had been seen in such an expression of public opinion. But in this the Suffragists are true to the primal instincts of their decorative sex. They beautify what they touch alike in the forum and in the drawingroom. It is not too much to say that the militants have done more in the last few years to brighten the streets of London with a perpetual succession of new, effective and artistic appeals to the ear and the eye than have been invented in a generation by the less imaginative and more stodgy male. The women bid fair to introduce pageantry into politics, and to add

elements of art and beauty to the somewhat squalid arena of party conflict.

The Outcome of the Divorce Enquiry.

The Divorce Commission has adjourned till October, but before it' rose the witness who had the last word was Mrs. Ankers, whose evidence as to the divorce law of Norway was very remarkable. Norwegian women, she said, are, to a great extent, economically independent. Marriage is almost always an affair of the heart. It is practically dissoluble by consent, but the divorce rate of Norway is only 54 per 100,000one of the lowest in Europe. Freedom of divorce, said Mrs. Ankers, had been all to the good. It does not follow, however, that it would work equally well in countries where women are not economically independent and where marriages are based on other grounds than those of affection. Another lady, who bears a Scandinavian name although she is British-Miss C. S. Bremner-sends me some notes on the marriage laws of various countries, of which she has made a digest which ought to be laid before the Royal Commission. Miss Bremner's chief point is that England alone in Europe, with the exception of Greece, which followed the English example, discriminates against the woman in matters of divorce. Adultery on either side is a ground for divorce in all civilised countries except in England, Greece, and in the Colonies which have framed

their legislation on English models. One thing that is quite clear is that the privileged position hitherto accorded to the English husband to commit adultery as he pleased, while still retaining unimpaired the possession of full marital rights over his wife, will disappear. It is not extended to the Scotch husband. If at the same time the Rev. A, W. Jephson's suggestion were adopted, and adultery were treated as a criminal breach of a civil contract qualifying the offender to three months in gaol on the declaration of a decree of divorce, the Divorce Court judges would not be so busily employed as they have been of late.

criticism of the New Testament? But the clergy, in their zeal against divorce, have apparently determined to offer up the authority of the Authorised Version as a sacrifice upon the altar of indissoluble marriage. In Matthew's Gospel our Lord expressly admits that divorce may be granted for adultery. But the word has apparently gone forth to discredit the authenticity of St. Matthew. This is the way in which the Right Reverend Lord Bishop of Ely set about to undermine the confidence of the simple laity in the sacred text:

When they considered the mode in which Christ's sayings were transmitted through the memory of many men, through oral tradition, and when, further, they took into account the fact that His words, having been spoken in Aramaic, had reached them in a Greek dress, they were precluded from supposing that they had an exact or verbatim report of what Christ said. On the most favourable theory the oldest manuscripts might conceivably go back to the time of Constantine. There were variations of the text in the different authorities, and that was just why, in the first place, they had to apply the method of historical criticism; in the second place they had to apply the science of textual criticism.

"Those

Tarnal Monks."

By a comical blunder the Daily Telegraph misreports "textual" as "sexual." "Sexual criticism" is good. Sam Slick once declared it was no use arguing theology with some people, because whenever you floored them with a text they always were ready to prove that the text in question was an interpolation by "those tarnal monks." The Rev. Dr. Paterson, determined to show that the Scotch Kirk can go one better than its Anglican sister in

discrediting the authority of the written Word, made

the following statement to the Commission :-

When Christ came to deal with the question of divorce, He said that marriage was indissoluble. The Church said, "This is a hard saying; we must tone it down." Again, researches into the sources and relations of the Gospels represented Matthew as an inferior authority. They had three authorities for the absolute rule, as against one for the exception. But, further, the general result of critical analysis was that the Gospel according to Matthew was based on two principal sources, viz., Mark, or an earlier form of the canonical book, and an older document usually described as the Logia, which was also one of the sources of Luke. Since, now, the exception was not found in Mark, and since Luke xvi. 18, which was probably drawn from the same source as Matthew v. 31-2, was also ignorant of it, it seemed probable that in both passages Matthew had modified the original tradition.

"The general result of critical analysis" is a fine phrase, but Dr. Paterson leaves us in doubt as to whether Matthew or the Church was the culprit who tampered with our Lord's sayings. Possibly Sam Slick was right, and it was "those tarnal monks" after all. But who can estimate the extent to which this way of getting out of it will undermine the confidence of the man in the street in the authority of the Scripture, which, after all, is the chief foundation of his ethical belief?