What magnificent material for the mouthings of certain English ultra-humanitarians would be the lynching of Negroes in our own Southern States! The jail-breakings, the hangings, shootings, and burnings—could more effective subjects for stereopticon slides and the perfervid oratory of paid lecturers be devised? And all true and ready to hand, needing neither lies nor distortions! Alas! nothing can be made out of that campaign. It will not pay to call our country to account for its neglect or failure to suppress these things. The United States own a fleet which, if not as strong as it should be, is sufficiently powerful to inspire respect; and our President can at any time call up an army of a million citizen soldiers, volunteers of proved valour. With the Congo Free State this is not the case. Caution was ever a prominent characteristic of John Bull, and he has carefully noted that fact. Neutral little Belgium may safely be bullied, her King libelled, and his enterprise misrepresented and held up to the scorn of an undiscriminating world, too busy to undertake a careful analysis of motives or even to distinguish between the true and the false. Judicial consideration of the English campaign against the Congo, naturally a difficult task, is rendered doubly so by the general suppression of material evidence favourable to that State. From motives best known to their proprietors, one or two important London newspapers, ever ready to afford space for an attack upon the Congo Government, however violent or by whomsoever made, frequently decline to publish replies thereto. Indeed, the more complete the refutation, and the greater the authority of the writer, the less chance of its acceptance for publication in these newspapers. Upon several occasions has Major Harrison been refused space for his temperate letters to the _Morning Post_, and the _Daily News_, the principal support of the Aborigines Protection Society, is avowedly against the continued existence of the Congo Free State. A complete answer to Mr. Roger Casement’s Report, prepared by the Congo Government, was unanimously rejected by London editors. This most unjust partisanship extends even to English press reports of proceedings in the House of Commons, of which one might reasonably expect to find in English journals a complete record; or where the exigencies of space necessitate condensation, that at least that editorial operation should be performed without bias. That expectation meets with disappointment.