fame of Beethoven and Mozart. There is a difficulty about denying the rank of England in literature, and it is not attempted. The English, on their side, cannot deny that the French have a living school of painters and a living theatre, but they can say, "There is no university in France," and "There are no scholars in France," there being no such institution as a French Oxford. In these and a hundred ways, the international jealousy is continually betraying itself. It is not serious enough in the present day to produce war, but it permeates the entire thinking of each nation concerning the other. I have never been able to determine in which nation the feeling of jealousy is the stronger. It varies in intensity It varies in intensity from time to time, as circumstances happen to excite it. Possibly it may be more on the surface in France and deeper in England. French jealousy is ready to express itself on trifling as well as important occasions. English jealousy is more taciturn, but unceasingly watchful. The jealousy aroused in France by the occupation of Egypt was at one time of considerable force, and has diminished only since a pleasing consolation came in the shape of the English disappointment in the Soudan. The English, on their part, betrayed deep feeling about Tonquin and Madagascar, but their sense of pious horror at French rapacity was soothed by exercising a little British rapacity in Burmah. the changing needs of the nation without convulsive disturbance; and the second is the skill of English statesmen in the management of their foreign affairs,a skill which on the whole has had these results, that either England has meddled in Continental matters in such a way as to obtain the results she desired, or else, when she could not compass them, she has been prudent enough to abstain from meddling. Therefore, on the whole, England's foreign policy has been either successful or safe, whereas that of France has on various critical occasions been first a perilous adventure, and then a disastrous failure. Intelligent Frenchmen respect England for this superiority, and endeavor to imitate it by having a constitution that can be modified and by following a prudent policy abroad. I do not perceive that French people respect the English for those eminent virtues to which the English lay claim, or that they greatly believe in the validity of the claim. An The English, on the other hand, often admire the cleverness of the French, but they do not respect them, except in special cases. The exceptions generally belong to the arts and sciences. Englishman who is a good judge of work in some specialty will respect a Frenchman who shows great skill in that direction. English painters, for example, sometimes express hearty respect for the discipline to which French painters subject themselves; or an English writer may respect the brightness and vigor of a Frenchman's prose, or the perfection of his dramatic skill. The same regard is felt by Englishmen eminent in science for Frenchmen who have done good scientific service. But in these cases it is more the quality of the work that is respected than the character of the nation. The difficulty with which the English can be brought to respect the French may be partly explicable by their difficulty in respecting foreigners in general, unless they have been dead for a long time, like Homer and Virgil, or are invested with a sacred character, like Moses and Isaiah. It may be farther elucidated by the peculiar condition of the English mind with regard to respect and contempt generally. This is a subject of considerable intricacy, which cannot be properly treated in a few words; but I may observe here that although the English are said to be a deferential people, and have, no doubt, the habit of deference for certain distinctions, they are at the same time an eminently contemptuous people, a people remarkably in the habit of despising, even within the limits of their own island. Their habit of contempt is tranquil, but it is almost constant, and they dwell with difficulty in that middle or neutral state which neither reverences nor despises. Consequently, when there is not some very special reason for feeling deference towards a foreigner, the Englishman is likely to despise him. The The French, on the other hand, are generally less disposed both to the feelings of respect and of contempt. They look upon the world with an easier indifference, not much respecting anybody or anything, but ready enough to acknowledge the merits and qualities of people and things that are not the best. French are severe critics only where there is great pretension; they regard ordinary, unpretending people and things with a good-humored indulgence. When there is much pretension, their leveling instinct makes them ready to debellare superbos. It is a remarkable proof of the substantial strength of Victor Hugo's reputation that a man of such immense vanity, such boundless pretension, should have been able to get him self taken at his own estimate in France. Napoleon III., although he had at his 1 The Irish talk and write as if they considered themselves foreigners with regard to England. Like most other Englishmen, I should be glad to see them as fraternal as our brethren the Scotch, disposal the theatrical machinery of imperial state, was never able to win any real deference. V. ON SOME EFFECTS OF GEOGRAPHICAL SITUATION. England and France have the two most favorable situations in Europe, except that they cannot easily increase their European territory. Is The confinement of England to one narrow island, with a smaller island close to it which is inhabited by a hostile and alien race,1 has driven the English people to that peculiar form of expansion which has formed the subject of Professor Seeley's very interesting and instructive lectures. But, after reading them with the care that they deserve, a troublesome doubt came over me. it really expansion, after all? Is it not rather propagation? In physics a body is said to expand when it increases in volume, and Littré tells us that the primitive sense of "propagation" is planting afresh, whence planting by slips. Therefore I should say, with all due deference to a much superior authority on the subject, that England has become. great by propagation, just because her narrow and fixed geographical boundary made expansion impossible for her. In connection with this subject I remember vaguely an interesting speech by Mr. Gladstone, delivered some time ago, in which he recognized, as the distinction between England and Russia, that annexation by the extension of frontier, which was possible for Russia, was quite different from annexation by crossing the sea, which was all that an insular nation could do. And travelers tell us that the territories absorbed by Russia become with remarkable rapidity a part of Russia, whereas nobody says that but it is useless to deny the plain fact that the Irish are hostile and alien, whatever they may become in the future. India is a part of England; and we are only hoping that Australia and New Zealand may be parts, not of the mother country, but of a great confederation. Another excellent example is the case of the United States, where the extension of the frontier has increased the mother country in such a manner that nobody talks of America's colonies, they have so rapidly become part of herself. We all see that if the Western colonies had been separated by an ocean from the Eastern colonizing States, they would have remained colonial, and simply attached to a mother country. Therefore, notwithstanding the wonderful propagation of the English race, we see that the real Britain is confined by the sea, and confined within narrow limits. France is not confined by the same physical boundary, but there are ethnological limits almost equally restricting. France has not, like the Eastern American States, a great unoccupied territory to expand in. If she would expand her frontiers, it can only be by subjugating populations which would offer strenuous resistance, and on her eastern frontier, at least, the resistance could not be overcome. The France and England are therefore in much the same condition with regard to the possibility of expansion. only case of real expansion in recent French history has been the annexation of Savoy. That increase of territory was a genuine national growth, for Savoy very quickly became an integral part of France. In all European countries the military situation is of enormous importance to the happiness of both rich and poor inhabitants. At first sight that of England appears incomparably superior to that of France, as England is a natural fortress surrounded by its ditch; but on 1 For the sake of brevity, I leave out of consideration at present the empire of Napoleon I., which was a temporary creation, owing its existence to a military genius of the most exceptional order. further examination this superiority is seen to be connected with a cause of inferiority to France. A fortress is tenable only so long as its provisions hold out, and the soil of England cannot maintain the population. The people in the fortress maintain themselves partly by what they cultivate, but also in great part by what they purchase outside with the results of their industry. The condition of France is more favorable in this respect. If France were cut off from all communication with the rest of the world, she would still be able to exist on the produce of her soil, missing only luxuries, and not many even of these. The useful things which she most lacks, such as coal and iron, she still possesses in quantity sufficient for all the emergencies of war. Nevertheless, in spite of these and other compensations, the great difference remains that the English live in a degree of security which is not enjoyed by any nation of Continental Europe. The strongest military state on the Continent is not sure of untroubled existence for a year. But England feels secure; England feels herself safely outside of that armed and watchful and anxious Continental life, which she looks upon as Cedric the Saxon looked upon the Tournament at Ashby. This security places the English in a safe and pleasant position for the exercise of the critical function, and so they have taken upon themselves the office, the thankless office, of critics to the continent of Europe. Now the feeling of Frenchmen, or of any other Continental people, on reading English criticisms, is something of this kind. They believe that in many cases, probably in most cases, the English would act precisely as they themselves act, if they were placed in the same situation. For example, with regard to expansion. A continental nation desires The preservation of one empire, with so many unwilling and heterogeneous provinces, would have been impossible with republican institutions. to expand; all continental nations have this instinctive desire, which is the universal national instinct. England, being an island, cannot expand; she can only propagate beyond the sea. But if the English had been placed on the soil of France, their naturally enterprising disposition would have led them to enlarge their borders at the expense of their Continental neighbors, as the other nations (when they are not so weak that such an enterprise would be utterly hopeless) are always endeavoring to do. No Frenchman doubts the desire of England to absorb and assimilate Ireland if she could; no Frenchman believes that the English would desire to do otherwise than the Russians if they had equal opportunities. VI. THE TWO NATIONAL ESTATES. A thorough and minute comparison of France and Great Britain, as vast properties possessed by the French and English races, would be valuable and interesting, but it lies outside of my manner of writing. It would require extensive statistics, a great array of figures, and that purely scientific style which properly belongs to the writings of economists. My way is only to point to a few facts or considerations that the ordinary reader is likely to care about and remember. Thus, to begin with, I should say that there is a misleading habit, both in England and France, of considering the two nations as nearly equal to each other geographically, because 1 The reader may like to have the figures on which the above comparison is founded. I take them, in square kilometres, from the most recent authority, the Annuaire du Bureau des Longitudes for 1886. The area of France is given as 528,400 by the Bureau des Longitudes. The Statisque de la France gives it as 528,572, on account of a divergence in the measurement of one department (Alpes-Maritimes). The Russian measurement of France, published in 1882 by General Strelbitsky, they are nearly equal in wealth and population. Very few people in either of the two countries realize how much greater is the area of France. The effect of contrast may make France small for an American or a Russian, but an Englishman who really knows its area looks upon it as a large country in comparison with his own. France is not exactly twice as large as Great Britain and Ireland together, but a very near approximation may be made by taking the British archipelago first, including the Hebrides and the Channel Islands, and then adding a second Scotland, a second Ireland, a second Wales, and Belgium. Then you have nearly, yet still not quite completely, the area of France. Nobody would believe this on simply glancing at the map of Europe, because the British Islands are long and straggling, and have outlines much cut into by the sea, whilst France is a remarkably square and compact country.1 Few English people travel in France to see the country and the provincial towns; they generally confine themselves to Paris in the north, glancing at Rouen and Amiens, or at Nice and Cannes, in the south, glancing at Avignon, Arles, and Marseilles. There are, however, a very few English people who really try to explore France, and these come gradually to be impressed with a sense of extent and general inexhaustibleness, which, instead of diminishing, curiously increases with their experience. An English lady, who knows the country better than anybody of my acquaintance, said to me last year, "I despair of ever knowing France as I gives a total of 534,479. I have therefore stated the smallest authoritative measurement. Great Britain and Ireland. Areas. 314,493 78,777 84,252 desire; it seems to get bigger and bigger, and the objects of interest in it that I have not seen appear to become more and more numerous." Another, who knew nothing of the country, was surprised to find that towns which she imagined as near together were in fact separated by long railway journeys. Her first impression had been based on the idea that France was nearly the size of England, all distances being reduced accordingly. From the agriculturist's point of view, France is an incomparably better estate than Great Britain, as well as a far larger one, but the insular power has two great compensations in her rich mines and her many excellent harbors. As France produces some luxuries, especially wines and silks, and has a great reputation in the fine arts, and is supposed (erroneously enough) to be a land of pleasure, her advantages in matters of common utility are very frequently forgotten. The real superiority of France is, however, in being a great food-producing country, not only in luxurious food, but in that which is used by the poor as well as the rich. To this natural advantage may be added the tendency in the genius of the French people to make the best use of food material and to appreciate variety, so that none of the bounties of Nature are neglected or despised. The situation of France, with one shore on the Mediterranean and another on the Atlantic, is ideally convenient, and her little India in North Africa is so accessible that it is felt to be a sort of extension or annexe of the mother country. France herself has the advantage of the best European latitudes. I have found it practically convenient to remember, in thinking about the geographical situation of France, that the small triangle to the north of Amiens is in English latitudes, and all the great region south of Lyons is in north Italian latitudes, the space between being in those of Switzerland and Bavaria. It is the best position in Europe, equally free from the cold, wet rigor of Scotland and the dry, hot region of Spain, at least in their excess, though there is something both of Scotch and Spanish weather in the great variety of the French climates. This variety needs to be remembered both for France and Great Britain, as there is really no single British or French climate to be praised or blamed. All that can be said in a general way is that the summers are hotter in France, and that the eastern and central departments have a more continental climate than that of any counties in England; but even in Saône-et-Loire the west wind is still the rain wind, as it is in Scotland, and the east wind has just the same characteristics that make it both disagreeable and dangerous at Edinburgh. The French are fortunate enough to be profoundly contented with their climates, in this sense: that every Frenchman, at least so far as I have been able to observe, is well satisfied with the climate of his own department, though he criticises that of another region. There are even people in the south who prefer the infliction of the mistral, with its blinding dust, to the refreshment of a little rain. But all who live outside the region of the mistral have feelings of commiseration for those who are subjected to it. The rainy district on the west coast seems to the inhabitants of the dryer departments as trying as Argyllshire might seem to an inhabitant of Norfolk. Nevertheless, each Frenchman is profoundly satisfied with his own climate, and when it becomes unpleasant he always says that it has borrowed its unpleasantness from some other country, -its fogs from England, its cold from Siberia, and its heat from Senegal. There are two things in which the Frenchman's faith is imperturbable, the climate and the decimal system; if he had only as much faith in the government and the clergy, it is certain that France would be |