got it because we were more businesslike and efficient than other people, and from no other cause, in fact, but our own natural superiority. In other words, we are supposed to be a patronizing power, and patronizing is always a cause of unpopularity."

The Speaker does not think there is any remedy for the evil. It, nevertheless, finds a crumb of comfort in the character of the English. It says:

"Fortunately, we are not a thin-skinned people, and, as we think, quite rightly, never bother about the opinions of our neighbors, whose competence to form an opinion worth having in regard to our actions is more than doubtful. But tho no attempt must be made, to get rid of our unpopularity, we must not ignore it or forget it. It is a most important fact, and must be noted by our statesmen, for it is a distinct and unfavorable factor in our dealings with foreign powers. It makes our duty plain on two points. We must go on at all costs strengthening our navy. While we have the undoubted and effective command of the sea, we can laugh at such combinations. If we lose it, God help us."

France is not the only country in which England's unpopularity is approaching actual hatred. The Grashdanin, St. Petersburg,

says:

"True Russians have felt for some time past, and are feeling more and more, that our one real enemy is England. England is infallibly destined to injure Russian interests. All her assurances of sympathy, all her desires to act in concert with us, are lies and crafty deceit, intended to lead us astray in order to do us harm. In her dealings with Russia England has not and can not have either honor or conscience. On the contrary, there is no villainy so low that she will not stoop to it. It would, however, be absurd to blame the English for this, as their hatred arises solely from a feeling of concern for the welfare of their country. But, on the other hand, we also should so love Russia as never to forget to injure England whenever and wherever we can. When we have learned this lesson, our triumph will begin."

It is not so very long ago that Britons would point with pride to their Indian army, in which they saw an equivalent for the enormous armaments of Continental nations. The French gave their colonial troops a chance to distinguish themselves in the Franco-German War, but the attempt failed. Still, English -opinion was inclined to place great reliance upon the troops commanded by British officers, because the English believe that no -one can administer the affairs of other nations as well as themselves, and they firmly believe that the people over whom they hold sway have sense enough to understand this. But it seems that British rule is unpopular in two of the most important lands at present belonging to England. Rev. Bonnar, in The Contemporary Review, declares that the popularity of the English in India not only fails to increase, but has actually fallen off. He writes, in the main, as follows:

"The English have repelled the Hindus by their unreasonable exhibitions of pride. Hence the liking which the Indian natives once had for their masters has cooled off. During the last thirty years this has become very noticeable. Nor is there any hope of a change for the better, unless Englishmen take a greater interest in Indian affairs, and influence their officials in India. A gentleman once invited a highly cultured and educated Indian prince to dine with him at his club in Poonah. The Prince was informed that no native would be allowed to sit down to dinner at the English club, and altho he had been received by the Queen and had dined with the Prince of Wales, the color line was not allowed to be infringed in his case. The English officials are generally too meddlesome, and show no consideration for the native nobles. Besides, they are not sufficiently in touch with the population. The only notable exception was the Marquis of Ripon, whose administration is still gratefully remembered by

the Indians."

While thus an English paper accuses the English officials in India of neglecting the welfare of their country, an Indian paper,

the Friend of India, Calcutta, finds fault with the administration of Egypt. It says:

"The people of Egypt complained that they were enslaved and oppressed by a clique of foreign adventurers—Europeans, Turks, Circassians, Armenians, Levantines, Jews. All they asked was that the administration and the finances should be entrusted to Egyptians. A more reasonable and just request was never preferred by one people to another, and if we had assisted the Egyptians to recover their natural rights, English ascendancy would have been established for good. Instead, we made common cause with the shameless oppressors of Egypt. By war, executions, exile, and proscription we trampled out the growing national spirit of the Egyptian people. We have made ourselves an object of scorn to the civilized world, as the most hypocritical people under the sun. We have estranged France. We have got a corrupt and effete Egyptian Government upon our hands, which we can neither wholly supersede nor abandon. We are responsible for all the oppression in Egypt, and, to crown all, we have discovered that the Suez Canal, for which we have thus besmirched ourselves, is of no value whatever as a military highway."

PROS AND CONS OF CUBAN INDEPENDENCE.

S the winter approaches, and with it the possibility that General Martinez Campos will stamp out the Cuban rebellion, Spain's struggle to retain her last remaining colonies creates increasing interest. The report that the insurgents are destroying the property of private individuals, especially of the sugarplanters, sparing only those who consent to pay blackmail, has done much to strengthen the opinion that the whole insurrection is a gigantic brigandage. The assertion of the Madrid Imparcial, that the American sugar-trust assists the rebels with funds, has added to this feeling. Here and there the attitude of the United States is severely criticized. The Kieler Zeitung, Kiel,

says:

"The United States Government was much displeased when England recognized the Confederates as belligerents. Yet the South had in 1864 an organized Government, which ruled over a large territory, an army of at least 200,000 men, three or four ports, and a fleet. The Cuban rebels have nothing of all this, neither administration, nor territory, nor communication with other countries, and their forces consist of disconnected bands of guerillas only. The United States forgot then, and they forget now, that the recognition of a belligerent can be accorded only as a result of an accomplished fact, and not because of sentiment. For the present the Cuban insurgents have not placed themselves under the protection of the United States. When they are in a position to do so, when they are in possession of some ports and can communicate with the outside world, it will be time to recognize them. Party organization in the United States would do much better to busy itself with giving the country a decent administration, rather than to free Cuba."

Similar opinions are vented in the leading English papers. In South America the insurrection still fails to arouse sympathy to any great extent. Most governments prohibit demonstrations in its favor, but even where this is not the case, as in Chile and Peru, little notice is taken of the insurrection. In the former country interest is kept alive almost exclusively by reports and letters sent out by the New York committee of the insurgents. Peru has lately been visited by a Cuban deputation. The Opinion Nacional, Lima, which favors the insurrection, says that "an enthusiastic gathering of at least 600 persons received the deputation," which made speeches in Matriz Square. To a reporter of the Lima Commercio the Cuban Committee said that the insurgents number some 20,000 men, 12,000 of whom are in the Orient. The French press rather admires the attitude of Spain in her trials. Says Count Kératry, in the Figaro, Paris:

"The Pearl of the Antilles is the best part of the colonies still retained by Spain, and who can blame her if she seeks to defend

modern methods, if taught by foreigners? The following, which we take from The Westminster Gazette, argues that it is extremely doubtful:

"A London syndicate five years ago leased a track of turf moors near Thorne, in Yorkshire, and engaged a number of Dutch workmen to show the Thorne people just how to cut the turf. The Thorne men appear to have received these pioneers not merely with civility, but with quite an extraordinary show of good feeling; but, all the same, so far as the innovation in the pian of working was concerned, they, with true British conservatism, made a point of not noticing it. There were reasons for their inaptness in learning. Hitherto they had cut the turf in large blocks, and these were carried away by boys, and stacked to dry; now the one block was to be cut into three, the boys were discharged, and the men themselves were provided with barrows in which to wheel the sods away. Obviously, the change was not one to be enamoured of, and tho the Dutch exponents of the new method, working deftly, could manage to make a good week's wages, the Thorne men stood out against a system which they declared they could not master. They had been used to earning decent wages and working a fair number of hours, but they could not make a living if they were obliged to adopt the fresh style. In face of this revolt, the firm determined to bring over a body of Dutchmen who would be willing to comply with their wishes, and accordingly early in the present year about eighty laborers from Holland came to Thorne and started work. Then the situation became interesting. The quiet little town woke up suddenly to find itself the scene of a somewhat bitter international feud. There have been accordingly rather lively times and police-court proceedings."

HOW THE LION TAKES THE TWISTING OF HIS TAIL.

"MR.

R. MUNROE is not in it," says The Mexican Herald, Mexico. "Venezuela must come to terms with Great Britain. There is no one to take her part," says the Amsterdam Handelsblad. These quotations will serve to illustrate how little reliance is placed in the power of that section of our press which advocates active interference on the part of the United States in the Venezuela boundary question. The English press is equally complacent. The whole agitation in favor of a vigorous enforcement of the Monroe doctrine is looked upon as the valueless "blether" of American newspaper men. The correspondent of The Daily News, London, telegraphed to his paper: "Nothing could be more grotesque than to pretend that the American people are in any way excited over the Venezuelan question. The fact is that nobody, except newspapers which seek to make cheap political capital by attacking the British position in all foreign questions relating to the Western Hemisphere, takes the slightest interest in the matter. It is doubtful if a hunpersons could be found in the United States who could give an intelligible statement of the question at issue. The mouthings of the Jingo papers are taken seriously by nobody, not even by

dred

their own editors."

And The St. James's Gazette says: "English newspaper-readers need not believe all the nonsense about Venezuela and Great Britain which appears in the American newspapers and is telegraphed over here by enterprising but undiscriminating correspondents. The New York World, for instance, is anxious to inform its readers that Mr. Bayard and Lord Salisbury have had almost a passage of arms over the Venezuelan ultimatum, that the former was angry and the latter arrogant, that Great Britain has flouted the American eagle, and that this noble bird is a-screechin'. The New York Sun persists that the Monroe doctrine is going to be 'enforced,' and that its latest version includes the assertion that no European power has ever a right to interfere with an American republic. Happily, the State Department does not take its politics from the newspapers, and it knows very well that the amusement of twisting the lion's tail is always profitable for an American journal with a

large Irish circulation."

The Westminster Gazette revives the ancient charge that

American journalists like to give a twist of the lion's tail as an electioneering trick.

"But nothing," says that paper, "will be lost by firmness on the part of the British Foreign Office, and if President Cleveland could speak his mind freely he would say the same. The pastime of twisting the tail of the lion will present attractions to certain sections of Americans just so long as those given to it believe that the good-natured creature will in no circumstances snap."

There are a few dissentient voices. Mr. W. T. Stead has sent a long letter to The Westminster Gazette, in which he warns the British public that the Monroe doctrine must be reckoned with. He says:

"The ebullition of American sentiment is serious, notwithstanding the froth and spume of sensational insult which conceals rather than reveals its existence. Its gravity consists in two facts, neither of which has anything to do with the merits of the particular question in dispute. The first is that, for the first time since their great Civil War the Americans have built a navy of which they have some reason to be proud, and which sooner or later they will use against somebody. The second is the equally significant fact that the American press assures us that the Monroe doctrine has now been informally adopted as the national faith by the American people. . . . The adoption of the Monroe doctrine by the American people is the second serious factor we have to take into account. This doctrine has never been formally adopted by the American Government; it has never been recognized by any of the European powers; and it has no status in international law. All this may be admitted, but if the American people, for any reason or no reason, choose to adopt the Monroe or any other doctrine as governing their action in the Western or Eastern Hemisphere, they are a sovereign power, and can do as they please. All that we can do is to note that the doctrine they have proclaimed will govern their policy, and act accordingly." Mr. Stead then states the English view of the case:

“England . . . is an American power just as much as she is an Asiatic power, and the mere fact that the capital of the Empire stands in Great Britain in no way impairs her claim to be regarded as being as truly an American power as the Government at Washington. In Canada, to say nothing of our other colonies in the West Indies and British Guiana and American governments, the English-speaking man sheltered by the shadow of the Union Jack is as much an American as those English-, German-, Swedish-, and Polish-speaking men who reside under the shadow of the Stars and Stripes. The Government of Canada, for instance, is as much of an American power as the Government of Washington; nor does the fact that they accept a GovernorGeneral from London impair the rights of Canadians to full liberty of action in all parts of the Western Hemisphere. That is the English view of the case. It may be right or it may be wrong. I am not dealing with right or wrong, but with facts and forces as they exist."

Mr. Stead is of opinion that the United States wants to establish a protectorate over all South and Central America without accepting the responsibilities of such a protectorate. But this,

T°

MISCELLANEOUS.

EQUALITY AS THE Basis of GOOD
SOCIETY.

what extent do we believe in the practise of that equality in social life which we subscribe to in religious professions? In an article on the subject of "Equality," in the November Century, Mr. W. D. Howells sets out by relating that a Shaker elder once said to him:

"If good society were what it appears to be on the surfacę, I could not find fault with it. If people in society behave toward one another from motives of real kindness, as they behave now from motives of politeness, society would be an image of heaven ; for in society you see people defer to one another, the strong give way to the weak, the brilliant and the gifted will not put the rest at a disadvantage, and they all seem to meet on an equality. The trouble is that their behavior is merely a convention and not a principle; they behave beautifully from politeness and not from kindness."

Mr. Howells says that he was struck by this philosophy of the fact at the time, and still thinks it interesting, and believes that it is essentially true. If not quite an image of heaven, good society appears to him to be an image of a righteous state on earth; and he finds that tho it is the stronghold of the prejudices which foster inequality, yet it is the very home of equality. We quote:

"People often wish to het into good society because they hope to be the superiors of those who remain out of it; but when they are once in it, the ideal of their behavior is equality. In ideal, at least, society is the purely voluntary association of kindred minds and tastes in a region of absolute altruism. If you are asked to a house, the theory is that you are the equal of every person you meet there, and if you behave otherwise, you are vulgar. You are as dear to your host and hostess as any others

the purest joy and sweetest pleasure of it-many people, especially society people, should fear to have its greatest blessings, its most delicate beauty and subtlest charm, imparted to the whole of life. To quote again :

"I do not believe one lovely or amiable thing would be lost if equality were to become the rule and fashion of the whole race, as it is now the rule and fashion of the best and wisest of the race in society. Men have believed that there was something to be gained by setting themselves apart from other men; and they have actually at times believed that those whom they excluded and depressed believed this, too, because they suffered it. But the inferior never believed, even in the depths of slavery, that inequality was a gain to him, whatever it might be to the superior, and he suffered it because he must. It never was a gain to the superior except in some advantages of food, clothing, and shelter. It never made him in any wise a finer, purer, juster man; and it very often made him arrogant, luxurious, bestial.

"Must we have inequality always? I do not think so. The disparity between the different sorts and conditions of men is not without its supposed remedy even in our conditions. The wellknown American theory is that all having the same chance to get on top, all will get on top. If this really happened we should have the dead level of equality indeed; but a great many do not get on top-so many of the gentle, the kind, the good, that it may be questioned whether the summit would not have its displeasures for people of taste, whether one would altogether like to be seen there. It appears that this specific no longer cures, then; and if inequality is a malady, an evil, we must seek some other medicine for it. What that will be many will be ready to say, but few to prove. Perhaps we shall be changed by the slow process of the years, and by a process no more visible in the present than the movement of the hand upon the clock, but destined to a greater and greater swiftness in the future."

But we

MIMETICS OF PRIDE.

T is reasonable to suppose that one like the expert Mantegazza, in studying the infinity of expressions of which man is capable, finds ample confirmation of the theory which declares mimetics to be clear and characteristic in proportion as it is provoked by powerful and distinct emotion. Writing for Werner's Magazine (October), he devotes the first part of his article to the mimetics of pride. Pride, he says, is one of the most apparent and powerful of the affectional forces; its mimetics is very expressive, and not to be confounded with any other emotion; for this reason all artists, even the most ordinary, can represent a movement of pride. With regard to mimetics, the affectional forces concentrated about self-love are said to give us three different groups of expressions, which are represented as follows:

“Exalted or Satisfied Pride: Elevation of the eyebrows; ele. vation of the head; elevation of the neck; elevation of the trunk; gaze directed upward or toward the horizon; projection of the lower lip; firm closing of the mouth; expansive mimetics of the arms; rotation of the fingers round the axis of the arms; elevation of the hands above the head; ample dilation of the thorax; arms applied to the pelvis or chest in such fashion as to increase the transverse diameters of the body in one way or another; ioose, slipshod gait, with legs wide apart; puffing, panting respiration; smiles, laughter, or tears.

"Downcast Pride: Depression of the eyebrows; depression of the eyelids; bowing of the head, neck, or trunk; gaze bent upon the ground; eye dull; general concentric mimetics; mimetics suggestive of a bitter taste; general tendency to diminish one's self, to hide, or to take flight.

Hypocrisy of Satisfied Self-Love: Lowering of the head; very brilliant eyes; shrinking of the entire person; gestures of excuse, thanks, and entreaty; alternate laughter and tears; contraction of the lips, as if attempting to make the mouth smaller; trembling and suppression of the voice."

The writer says that varied and numerous as these elements of the mimetics of pride are, they all tend to the same end-to enlarge and elevate our personality if the self-love be exalted or

satisfied; to diminish and depress it if the pride be cast down. Saying that it is with mimetics as with language, he continues:

"With all the strength of our muscles we strive to make ourselves bigger and taller than we are. From these two simultaneous and sometimes contradictory efforts very naturally results the inflated form of the mimetics of pride and vanity, and it is with perfect justice that we compare a proud person to a peacock strutting about. We raise our eyebrows, eyelids, upper lip, neck, trunk, and shoulders; we try to lift all the principal or accessory portions of our person. So much for the elevation. As for the enlarging, we swell our cheeks, dilate the thorax, place our hands on our sides or under our armpits, spread our legs far apart, and sway our body from right to left and vice versa. We run our hand through our hair and push it up to make it seem more abundant than it is; in fine, we try to occupy as much space in breadth as we have already gained in height, or in longitude as we have acquired in latitude.

"Having made ourselves longer and broader, and increased all the elements possible in our organic geometry, we also extend our movements. The fingers spread as far apart as possible; the legs tend to stretch away from the trunk; often we take large articles in our hands, such as handkerchiefs, papers, or books, to increase still further the dimension of our members and extend the horizon of our swollen individuality. There is a characteristic way of waving the handkerchief in the air, which betrays the proud man ninety-nine times out of a hundred.

"This prolongation, enlargement, and expansion in every direction conclude with noisy breathing caused by prolonged retention of the breath to inflate the cheeks and make the thorax sonorous. The air must find a vent at last and it issues noisily, thus serving to attract attention toward us. This is also the reason that proud people usually talk very loudly, make frequent exclamations, and use every means to make a great noise.

"We can not be swollen with pride without despising some one or something, or without disdaining all mankind; therefore, in an animated mimetics, inspired by this sentiment, there is always a certain mocking smile, which is ironical, sardonic, or simply haughty. The haughty smile is distinguished from the other two by a forward movement of the lower lip. This is so true that the muscle used in making this movement has received the name of the musculus superbus.

"But man can not strut forever. A state of slight and permanent inflation is the most habitual aspect of pride, and gives to the face a characteristic and enduring expression. The mimetics is always the same, but feebler, less strongly marked, so as to be borne by the muscles, which become accustomed to being always in a state of semi-contraction. Even when asleep a man may tell an on-looker that his self-love wakes.

"The habit of command, with which is always associated a certain degree of loftiness or even pride, gives many generals, princes, and sovereigns a peculiar look and an aristocratic expression which are very hard to define, but which are apparent to the most vulgar observer. We all recall the look of majesty and authority which sparkled in the eyes of King Victor Emanuel; this singular characteristic also strikes us in King Humbert. Eight hundred years of royalty naturally leave upon the features of a family an impress not to be acquired at will by the first

comer."

Thackeray on American Slavery.-Following is a quotation from a letter written by Thackeray, says the London Times, to a relative during his American tour, in 1853: "I have come away from the South not so horrified as perhaps I ought to be with slavery, which in the towns is not by any means a horrifying institution. The negroes in the good families are the happiest, laziest, comfortablest race of menials. They are kept luxuriously in working time and cared for most benevolently in old age-one white does the work of four of them, and one negro that can work has his old parents very likely and young children that can't. It Is the worst economy, slavery, that can be, the clumsiest and most costly domestic and agricultural machine that ever was devised. Uncle's Tom's Cabin and the tirades of the Abolitionists mayn't destroy it, but common-sense infallibly will before long, and every proprietor would be rid of his slaves if he could-not in the cotton-growing States, I mean, but in households and in

common agricultural estates.

CONDITION OF WOMEN IN BURMA.

PPONENTS of the Woman's Rights movement are wont to remark that women have never proved their ability to maintain a position of perfect equality with man, and the advocates of the movement often base their arguments upon cases of such hazy antiquity that it is very difficult to accept the testimony. According to the Journal of the Maha-Bodhi Society, Calcutta, there is no need for this. There is a country in which women are as free as men, right at this present time, and that country is Burma. The paper gives an enthusiastic description of the Burmese women. We condense its main points as follows: Before the law, in religion, and with regard to the moral code, men and women are here perfectly equal. The women administrate their property themselves, and when they marry it remains in their full possession. The Burmese husband has no jurisdiction over his wife's belongings nor over her person. She is perfectly free from the day of her birth. The age of the knights, who praised their women as goddesses and treated them like slaves, never came to Burma. No lover there composes sonnets in which woman is spoken of as a supernatural creature, only to look upon her as an inferior being as soon as he marries her. Religion in Burma has never described woman as the cause of all evil, and never warned man against her devices. On the other hand, no Pope has called her the "last hope of the church." No mediocre literature has imbued women with false ideas regarding themselves, men, and the world in general. Hence they are left to decide for themselves what is befitting.

Married or single, all Burmese women have an occupation besides their home duties. Among the upper classes they look after their property, among the middle and lower classes they generally manage stores. Most retail stores are in the hands of women. As business is conducted during three hours of the day only, it does not interfere with their home duties. Women may, however, adopt any calling they please in Burma, without fear of shocking public opinion. Curiously enough, sewing and knitting are specially male occupations. The great liberty enjoyed by the women of Burma enables them to extend their views of life, and makes them tolerant. They know their weakness and their strength, and reckon with them. Divorce is obtained very easily in Burma, but less than one of every hundred marriages is ever annulled.

or