violence done to the sentiment of nationality in Alsace-Lorraine which made France the ally of Russia. But the fact is that France became the ally of Russia on the basis of hard cash, and since the Russian Revolution, she has been a bit out of luck by way of getting her money back. Mr. Asquith in the House of Commons, 3 August, 1914 said: If I am asked what we are fighting for, I reply in two sentences. In the first place, to fulfil a solemn international obligation.... Secondly we are fighting ... to vindicate the principle that small nationalities are not to be crushed in defiance of international good faith. Just so: and in the House of Commons, 20 December, 1917, he said: The League of Nations ... was the avowed purpose, the very purpose ... for which we entered the war and for which we are continuing the war. You pays your money, you see, and takes your choice. The point to be made, however, is that one who has a strong case, a real case, never trifles with it in this way. Would the reader do it? VIII Mr. Asquith's citation of a "solemn international obligation" refers to the so-called Belgian treaties. It will be remembered that the case of Belgium was the great winning card played by the Allied Governments for the stakes of American sympathies; and therefore we may here properly make a survey, somewhat in detail, of the status of Belgium at the outset of the war. Belgium had learned forty years ago how she stood under the treaties of 1831 and 1839. When in the late 'eighties there was likelihood of a Franco-German war, the question of England's participation under these treaties was thoroughly discussed, and it was shown conclusively that England was not obligated. Perhaps the best summary of the case was that given by Mr. W. T. Stead in the _Pall Mall Gazette_ in the issues of 4 and 5 February, 1887. After an examination of the treaties of 1831, 1839 and 1870--an examination unfortunately too long to be quoted here--Mr. Stead briefly sums up the result of his investigation in the following statement: There is therefore no English guarantee to Belgium. It is possible perhaps, to 'construct' such a guarantee; but the case may be summed up as follows: (1) England is under no guarantee whatever except such as is common to Austria, France, Russia and Germany; (2) that guarantee is not specifically of the neutrality of Belgium at all; and (3) is given, not to Belgium but to the Netherlands.