most vital issues and agreements of international diplomacy. One almost despairs of the working of democracy when he studies European diplomatic history since the days of universal suffrage. The only change is that the people elect their autocrats. The men they have elevated to power are just as irresponsible and as rebellious to democratic control as were kings.

One can go beyond the statement of an ignorant and misinformed electorate to set forth the ignorance and misinformation of the elected. A striking illustration of this is the action of the British cabinet when the Russians imposed upon Turkey the treaty of San Stefano. To destroy this treaty, the British were willing to allow themselves to be led into a war as foolish and as futile as the Crimean War had proved to be, less than a quarter of a cen

tury before. Beaconsfield and Salisbury declared that they had come back from Berlin bringing peace with honor. Yet it was not long until Salisbury confessed that they had "backed the wrong horse"! Freycinet took upon himself the responsibility of depriving France, by a decision formed from imperfect knowledge and without consultation, of the work of two generations in Egypt and the fruits of the vision of the builder and backers of the Suez Canal. Ever since the treaty of Berlin, France and Great Britain have been badly served by their foreign offices and their diplomatic representatives in the Ottoman Empire and the Balkans.

On October 23, 1916, Lord Grey, speaking at a luncheon of the foreign newspaper correspondents in London, said:

In what spirit is the war being conducted

by the Allies? We shall struggle until we have established the supremacy of right over force and until we have assured the free development in conditions of equality and conformity to their own genius, of all the states, large and small, who constitute civilized humanity. We shall continue our sacrifices until we have assured the future peace of the whole European continent.

Although the application of the principle of nationality is extremely difficult in countries where the population is mixed, and where the most numerous element has neither the wealth nor the education of the minority, nor the minority's bond of attachment to a neighboring larger state, it is manifest that if an equitable and durable peace is to be secured within every existing political unit and in each natural and economic and geographical section, the majority must be considered. Only thus can the settlement be regarded as the

triumph of right over force. Otherwise nationality will remain as it has been in the past and as it is now-a principle to be applied where it is to the interest of the dominant group of belligerents to apply it, and to be disregarded where it is to the interest of the victorious Powers to disregard it. If the new map of Europe is to be made by right and not by force, as Lord Grey and all other French and British statesmen have asserted, the same principle must be applied everywhere. Not only would it be a mockery of justice, but it would be an impugnment of the good faith of the Entente Powers before history and the leaving of questions unsettled for another test of arms if the aspirations of all the belligerent Powers and the claims of all the little states are not decided upon the same principle. Liberal public opinion in France and

Great Britain needs to be enlightened concerning the Balkan and Turkish settlements.1 If the If the press continues to be

1 The most important newspapers in France, which are read by the élite of the nation, are full of half-truths and untruths in regard to the condition of affairs in eastern Europe. Since the beginning of the war, no French newspaper, either in the news columns or editorially, has presented the problems of the Balkan States and of Austro-Hungarian and Russian subject nationalities in accordance with the facts, as they are commonly known by students and travelers. There are many thoughtful, accurately written, and clearly developed books on eastern and southeastern Europe available in the French language. But if ever read, they are now forgotten, and editors give their readers amazing misinformation about Russia and Austria-Hungary and the Balkans. The quotation from the Paris "Temps" at the head of this article is taken from an editorial commenting upon a recent interview given by Premier Bratiano to a "Temps" correspondent. The words are noble, and we subscribe fully to the elevated sentiment. But the "Temps" does not tell its readers that less than half the population of Transylvania and only a third of the population of the Bukowina are Rumanians, and that even among the Rumanians of the Dual Monarchy only a small class, which is without great influence, wants union with Rumania. The "Temps" has never informed its readers of the nature and meaning of Russian and Italian aspirations in the Balkans, and of the betrayal of the principle of nationalities by French and British statesmen to satisfy those aspirations.