become essential to know whether it could in that event depend upon
the armed assistance of the other.

I agree that, if either Government had grave reason to expect an
unprovoked attack by a third power, or something that threatened
the general peace, it should immediately discuss with the other
whether both Governments should act together to prevent aggression
and to preserve peace, and, if so, what measures they would be
prepared to take in common. If these measures involved action, the
plans of the General Staffs would at once be taken into
consideration, and the Governments would then decide what effect
should be given to them.

Yours, &c.,

E. GREY.

Was Parliament Deceived?

A few members of the English Parliament who on Aug. 3 dared to gingerly
protest against the war may have had reason to complain about the hiding
of facts from the House of Commons. When such understandings can be made
without any one having an idea of their existence, then--so far as
England is concerned--the supervision of the Government, theoretically
being exercised by a Parliament, becomes a fiction.

Veiled Defensive Alliance.

As a matter of fact, Grey does not desire to have accepted as political
obligations the conversations of the French and English Army and Navy
General Staffs concerning the future plans of campaign which took place
from time to time in times of peace. However, the true tendency of this
agreement, for such it is, gives itself away in the promise to
immediately enter with France into a political and military exchange of
opinions in every critical situation; it means in realty nothing less
than a veiled defensive alliance which by clever diplomatic
manipulations can be changed without any difficulty to an offensive one,
for inasmuch as the English Government promises to consult and work
together with France, and consequently also with its ally, Russia, in
every crisis, before a serious investigation of the moments of danger,
it waives all right of taking an independent position.

How would England ever have been able to enter a war against France
without throwing upon itself the accusation of faithlessness against one
with whose plans for war it had become acquainted through negotiations
lasting through years?

Here a deviation may be permissible, which leaves for a moment the basis
of documentary proof.

If one considers how this agreement o