Bulgar is something phenomenal, surpassing in bitterness all other race-hatreds of the world; in part to the military considerations which dominate the court of Athens-Bulgaria, it is urged, must not receive any accession of territory, for her military strength would thereby be increased; in part to the fear that a precedent may be created for concessions on the part of Greece. Such concessions, however, will be inevitable if at the end of the war the Entente Powers carry out their declared intention to vindicate the principle of nationalities; the regions of Kastoria, Florina, Yenidjé-Vardar, Vodena, Kukush, and Drama should go to their rightful owners. Kavala, hitherto mainly a Turkish town, should also be handed over to Bulgaria; it is inconceivable that this promising seaport should be cut off from its hinterland. Greece should seek her legitimate expansion in the twelve islands now occupied by Italy (that Power obtaining compensation in the Trentino) and on the western coast of Asia Minor, where the Hellenic element is strong. Greece should withdraw from Southern Albania in accordance with the Corfu Convention; and the Albanian State should be restored under a new ruler, receiving Ipek and Dibra in the north.

The Emperor William, who telegraphed to his Rumanian cousin that the Treaty of Bucarest was 'definitive' and who fought like a lion' to obtain Kavala for his Greek brother-in-law, will find that his family policy, more suited to the Middle Ages than to modern times, was a blunder. Nothing but an arrangement based on the sound principle of nationalities will ever bring peace to the Balkan Peninsula. A durable peace in South-Eastern Europe, followed by a revival of the Balkan Alliance, will, it is to be hoped, be among the beneficent results of the present calamitous war.

Art. 7.-THE ATTITUDE OF ROUMANIA. ROUMANIA is neutral. She declared her neutrality during the life-time of King Charles at a 'Crown-Council'—a political court improvised for the occasion. Subsequently she explained that this neutrality did not involve any departure from the line of policy she had hitherto pursued, which was recognised as the one best suited to her situation. Though discussions went on well into the autumn of 1914, and were characterised by a good deal of excitement on the part of that section of the public which delights in rowdy demonstrations, and by the urging of violent measures by individual groups such as the Universitaires' of Bucarest, they bore only on the question, under what circumstances military intervention might be either permissible or advantageous. The result was that Roumania, well aware of what she has owed of recent years to German Kultur,' with no illusions as to her own strength, and uninfluenced by sentimentalism, romance, or sympathy with the Latin race that race to which she herself belongs-made up her mind that she would not go to war to swell the triumph of Austria-Hungary. That this decision should have been approved by almost the entire nation, points to the fact that it was based on weighty considerations. We propose to lay these considerations before the British people, which has shown hitherto but a half-hearted interest in the affairs of Roumania; for it is important that the attitude of a country which remains neutral should be thoroughly understood.

In no country did the ultimatum, with its amazing terms, which the Austro-Hungarian monarchy thought fit to address to Servia, bidding that country to identify herself with the perpetrators of an abominable crime, and to proclaim the fact not only before her own army but before the whole of Europe, provoke graver apprehensions or a franker expression of disapproval than in Roumania. In the first place, there was no doubt that the ultimatum emanated from Budapest. For, though it was felt that Germany had a strong motive for provoking a European war at this particular moment, instead of waiting till her enemies had time for preparation, the haughty feudal spirit, the lordly contempt, and

the peremptory tone were unmistakably those of the group which, in the name of 'Magyarism,' directs the policy of Hungary. These modern representatives of a bygone suzerainty, mindful of the time when the kings of Hungary could add to their title that of Kings of Rascia, Cumania and Bulgaria, aspired to play the part of rulers of the Balkan Peninsula, of which in time they hoped to gain entire possession.

It is true that, after protracted struggles, in which she displayed great heroism, Hungary had (in 1867) at last escaped from the tyrannical and 'Germanising' yoke of the Court of Vienna. But, from the very day of her liberation, her dream was to regain by fresh struggles and renewed efforts-in which she looked for the support of that party in the Dual Monarchy which still remained Austrian-the position of political importance which she had enjoyed under the Arpadians, under Louis the Great, and under Mathias Corvinus. Magyar Imperialism differed from that of Vienna as embodied in the autocratic policy of a Prince Eugene of Savoy only in so far as it aimed, not only at political, but also at racial supremacy. Since the time of Széchenyi, in the early part of the 19th century, the Magyars believed themselves capable of denationalising the lesser peoples in their immediate neighbourhood, so that they might have the honour of sharing in the triumph of Magyarism. It was only, as they conceived, at this cost that their existence as a new nation could be justified. But, in cherishing this ideal, they entirely left out all consideration of the historical past of Hungary, which had left its mark in a medievalism entirely alien to the great national conflicts characteristic of the present day.

Now Roumania, a state founded, at the cost of great sacrifice, in the territory of Cumania, which the Arpadians of Hungary in the 11th century claimed as one of their provinces, was, along with Servia-the latest embodiment of a polity which originated in the contemporary Rascia -included in the Imperialistic programme of modern Hungary. It was therefore felt strongly at Bucarest that the efforts of the Dual Monarchy, to conquer and administer the Balkan Peninsula-where she has no rights to maintain, where her trade has been for some time on the decline, and where her mission of civilisation has

never been recognised or desired-were traceable simply to the aggressive spirit of Magyarism. Such indeed is the ideal of the Magyar aristocracy, which aims at the subjugation of the entire Serbian race (from whom they have wrested Bosnia and Herzegovina), and the expansion of their territory, by way of a conquered Albania, to the Adriatic, and, by way of Salonica, to the Ægean.

On more than one occasion, in the parliament of Budapest, attention has been drawn to the fact that there are in Western Moldavia some thousands of Hungarians of the old stock who, having clung to Catholicism and thus avoided denationalisation, still inhabit a certain number of villages between the Carpathians and the river Sereth. Of recent years these Hungarians, who have almost completely forgotten their nationality, have been subjected to a continuous propaganda; and every effort has been made to give a touch of Magyarism to the Catholic Church recently established in the Kingdom of Roumania, the Church of which these people are adherents. Even in publications of recent date one meets with the contention that the two principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, which together make modern Roumania, were originally provinces of the Kingdom of Hungary. The chiefs of these provinces, it is argued, were the humble tributaries of Hungary, forced to pay punctual tribute, and liable at the hands of their all-powerful masters to rewards and punishments according to their behaviour.

Roumanians are well aware that the theories propounded in books and newspapers, and preached in University courses and lectures, are not due merely to a wish for notoriety or originality on the part of some isolated scholar, but rather to a determination to further by every possible means the aims of modern Hungary in the direction of conquest and supremacy. Efforts are being made, moreover, even at this moment, to remove natural apprehensions on this score, by means of newspapers published openly under the auspices of Count Czernin, representative of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy at Bucarest, which draw a terrifying picture of the effects of Slav despotism. This expedient has been tried before. It was made use of more than a century ago, as much by way of suggesting to Roumania a policy Vol. 223.—No. 443.

2 G

of friendliness towards Vienna, as of gaining for themselves the sincere and enthusiastic adherence of those Roumanians inhabiting Austria-Hungary whose influence on the attitude of Roumania in the present European crisis we are about to sketch.

Differing in race from the various Slav peoples who are subject to the Hapsburgs, from the Yougo-Slavs of the Balkans, and from the millions of Slavs united under the sceptre of the Tsar, Magyars and Roumanians (we are told), while maintaining their own existence, share a common task-that of defending Western civilisation, with which they are identified, against the encroachments of a spurious civilisation based on Asiatic serfdom, of which Russia is the armed representative. Such is their theory. At one time it was the Germanic race marching in unison from the west towards the conquest of the east-the 'Drang nach Osten'—which was viewed with apprehension among the Magyars. But things have changed; and Hungary, anxious to gild the fetters with which she binds Roumania to herself, looks to this very Germanism for support in preventing Europe from becoming, according to the well-worn phrase, 'Cossack.'

In denouncing the designs of Russia, Hungary knows well that she is not preaching to deaf ears. The young principality of Roumania took an important part in the war waged by Russia in 1877 for the emancipation of the Christian peoples of the Balkans, which ended in the Treaty of San Stefano, a treaty subsequently revised at Berlin, to the detriment of Russia. But, by a gross error on the part of Gortschakow, who was anxious to wipe out all traces of the Treaty of Paris (1856), Roumania lost the three districts of southern Bessarabia bordering on the Lower Danube and its Kilia mouth, these being ceded to her allies. For many years the relations between the great empire and her neighbour Roumania remained profoundly influenced by these painful recollections.

Among the principal politicians of Roumania there were many who felt that Peter the Great's Will, which urged the policy of pushing towards Constantinople, was a greater danger than the German Drang nach Osten.'