However, this last supposition is challenged by the Diario Ilustrado of Santiago de Chile, which says: 'Argentina, which has no possible enemy in South America except Brazil, could not contemplate with indifference the latter country's military growth, and consequently drew up her own plan of defense. It does not seem probable that Brazil would be willing to lose the ground she gained, nor that Argentina would renounce her intention of organizing her national defense on a sound foundation. . . . We believe that, even in case Brazil should be forced to reduce her armament, Chile would maintain the small army she actually possesses because, upon due consideration of the principal factors, we only occupy the place which corresponds to our rank.'

La Prensa points out that the article from which the above quotation is made was written by recognized authorities.

Again, the frequent declarations of the Minister of Foreign Relations of Brazil upon the subject of an armed peace tend to indicate that the Brazilian Delegation has been instructed to prevent the Conference from discussing this question. Because, as the Chancellor quite ironically remarks, "Brazil is disarmed." Who, then, will be the one to initiate such debates? Brazil does not want to discuss the theme. Chile, who first started it, has since promised to remain "disinterested." The United States will not go against the wishes of both Brazil and Chile; Chile and Uruguay will most probably support Brazil; and, since a discussion of complete and legal disarmament is excluded, the subject becomes absolutely void of interest to Argentina.'

Nevertheless, it may be noted that

some authoritative voices in Brazil disapprove of their present Government's alleged militaristic policy. The important Jornal do Brazil says: 'In Europe, in the United States, and in South America we are considered to be essentially militaristic. In the preliminary meeting the whole South American press ranged itself unanimously against us; even Uruguay, our traditional friend, joined the current of hostility against Brazil.

"The Continent was enjoying the utmost tranquillity when Epitacio Pessoa initiated his military programme. . . We are a pacific nation, and all our interests point toward peace. But words are not sufficient to clear up the international horizon. We must act decisively in order to prove our sincerity; if not, it is better to maintain silence.'

But La Prensa says, "These ideas do not fall upon fertile ground in official circles in Brazil; and the initiative of frank international harmony without jealousies or plans of military supremacy will be shattered at Santiago.'

Another issue of the same journal informs us that 'there was much activity among the delegations aimed at avoiding discussion on the subject of the limitation of armaments.'

The Rio de Janeiro daily, O Paiz, after lavishing high praise on the address of Dr. Alessandri and expressing the hope that the Brazilian people would agree with what he had to say about the limitation of military expenditures, adds: "The whole world knows that, due to the unwise campaign inaugurated by our Chancellery in favor of a military understanding between the three leading South American countries, and due also to the abstention of Mexico, Peru, and Bolivia, the Brazilian delegation was instructed to pay no attention to Article XII of the agenda, so that the question

THE significance of the two articles bearing the simple signature * * which discuss Anglo-French relations in Figaro, and which are translated in this issue of the Living Age, has provoked a great deal of discussion in England and France. A suggestion that M. Poincaré was himself the author has met with a prompt denial. Some idea of the author's qualifications may be gained, however, from a book which has just been published in Paris. After reading this, a writer in the liberal Westminster Gazette says: 'Whoever its actual writer may be, - and he appears to be someone of standing, better-informed, more candid and acute in his judgments than the English "Gentleman with a Duster," also more interested in the art of politics, — it is clear throughout the book that he is someone in full sympathy with M. Poincaré's present policy, but with lurking sympathies with the monarchical system.'

M. André Tardieu has asserted that, although not of the French Premier's own writing, the articles may be traced to his inspiration. Certainly the author of the book is sufficiently friendly to him. M. Poincaré is presented as a man of high sensibility: 'legal studies have not withered his heart,' and the Socialist attacks upon him, especially those charging him with responsibility for the war, wound him deeply.

The outspokenness of the articles has stirred up the English press. A fair sample of English reaction to the stimulus contained in these two articles is to be found in this leading article by the former editor of the Westminster Gazette, Mr. J. A. Spender:

"The denial that it was written or inspired by M. Poincaré may be accepted without any reservations, and nothing less need be said about the assurance that M. Poincaré honestly desires to maintain the Entente with this country. But if the Figaro writer correctly describes the policy of his Government, he is undoubtedly right in his conclusion that that Government will have to find other than British support in carrying it out. I do not think we ought to take offense when that self-evident fact is pointed out.

Our late Government plunged up to the neck with the French in the Reparations follies committed by the Peace Conference, but it did at all events stand firm against any policy which would convert the Rhineland and the Ruhr into another Alsace-Lorraine. That, as Englishmen think, must have been the result of what was then called the Foch-Poincaré plan and must be the result of what now seems to be on foot in the Ruhr. If France takes that road, she must, so far as we are concerned, take it alone; and if acceptance of that idea is to be taken as the test of loyalty to our Allies, we must submit to be called disloyal.'

REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS

SINCE the decisive preponderance of power in the British Parliament passed to the Commons, little has been heard of the so-called 'reform' of the House of Lords. The subject has recently made its reappearance in political circles, and the Spectator of March 31 publishes the following rather conservative suggestions:

"The debate in the House of Lords on Thursday, March 22, was a milestone in the controversy about reforming the Second Chamber. Progress is being made. We admit that it seems rather paradoxical to say this when the

chief fact of the situation is that the scheme drawn up by Lord Bryce's Committee for reforming the Second Chamber has no friends left. It has been jettisoned, and no new scheme has taken its place.

'But in spite of that we insist that progress is being made, because the debate of last week proved that most members of the House of Lords are now thinking along much simpler, less ambitious, and more practical lines. If this tendency lasts, we shall get an arrangement that will enable the House of Lords to perform functions of the greatest national value without being very drastically changed and, above all, without provoking another Constitutional crisis like that of 1911.

'In considering the Reform of the House of Lords it is necessary to keep two main points in mind: (1) What is the true function of the House of Lords? (2) What should be the qualifications for membership?

"The true function of the House of Lords is not to act in any way as a rival to the House of Commons, but to be harnessed to the service of Democracy in such a way that it may act as Remembrancer of the people. Talk about a veto belonging to the House of Lords is obsolete. The veto rests with the people as a whole, and everybody knows it. That there must be a veto lodged somewhere is one of the surest lessons of history. The King used to have it; then it belonged to the Lords; now it belongs to the people; and within recent years the Lords have never claimed more than the duty of delaying doubtful measures till the opinion of the people could be expressed.

'If it should be arranged, as it easily can be, that the House of Lords in the case of disputed measures should have the right and the duty to demand the opinion of the people by means of a

poll of the people, or referendum, there would be no need whatever to repeal the Parliament Act. That act provided for three presentations of a measure within two years, at the end of which, if the House of Commons persisted, the assent of the House of Lords should no longer be deemed necessary. All that would be necessary would be to add a new clause declaring that a bill should not become an act until the people by means of the referendum had been asked whether or not they approved of it. The answer to the question, “Do you want this Bill or do you not?" would be a simple “yes” or “no.”

'In the past a strong and not unreasonable objection to the referendum has been raised by Liberals on the ground that the Lords would pass Unionist measures as a matter of course, but would hold up Liberal measures. The remedy for this is to give to any number of members of the House of Commons greater than one third of that body the right to demand a referendum. Thus the poll of the people would not be the weapon of any one party.

'Now as regards the qualification for a reformed House of Lords. It is admitted by all candid observers that "a full-dress debate" in the House of Lords on a matter of national importance is generally an impressive and very valuable thing. We want to keep this service at its full value instead of losing it. If the House of Lords were turned into a more representative Chamber than it is, it would infallibly lose strength in practice even while it gained it in form. This would happen for the simple reason that the House of Commons would very naturally be jealous.

'It may be said that a partly elected and partly nominated House of Lords we do not care whether the election

--