as in peace to all vessels of commerce or war without distinction as to flag. Article IV of this Pact sets forth that even belligerent men of war may use the Canal provided that they leave its waters as soon as possible. The next section reads that during war belligerent powers shall neither embark nor disembark in the Canal or its ports, troops, munitions or war material. England is one of the signatory nations to this accord. Nevertheless, during the Great War, Kantara-on-the-Canal became a military base; and troops, munitions and war material were steadily embarked and disembarked in the Canal and in its ports.

It has been urged that the Turks were menacing Egypt and that the defense of that country made imperative the violation of the Treaty of 1888. Let the dead past bury its dead. It is useless to delve into ancient history except in so far as its lessons may deal with the future. But why is England today so concerned about controlling this Isthmian waterway if it cannot be fortified or used as a naval or military post? Does not the Pact before quoted guarantee the neutrality of the pass? Does Britain, now that the League of Nations is in existence, still doubt the efficacy of written assurances? Is it her purpose to make herself the supreme mistress of the silver link? These are pertinent questions. America is a maritime power. Washington cannot as a practical proposition stand aloof when access to the high seas is under discussion. Any Anglo-Egyptian understanding that bears upon Suez may become of vital concern to the United States. It should at all events form the subject matter of a dignified protest if it impinges upon the vested rights of this country.

All of these considerations show that, while Egypt may be thousands of miles away from the American Atlantic Seaboard, the Department of State cannot dissociate itself from what takes place in the Nile Valley. British and Egyptian statesmen have a difficult problem before them. Luckily the alternative for a failure to effect a settlement is

nothing more ominous than a continuance, in some form or another, of that control which since 1882 has given prosperity to Egypt. An agreement to disagree would assure to Cairo the great bulk of the water of the Nile. Complete independence would, in such a contingency, of course be deferred. But Henry IV of France said that "Paris was well worth a Mass." Adly Pasha would, perhaps, be justified in remarking that "water without independence is better than independence without water."

THACKERAY AND VIRGINIA

T

BY JAY B. HUBBELL

HE VIRGINIANS" is probably the best of all the English novels which attempt to portray some aspect of American life; and yet Thackeray's story has generally been discussed as though the Virginia scenes and characters were merely incidental. It has been assumed that Thackeray knew next to nothing about Virginia. By giving some account of the genesis of the novel so far as we can now trace it, I hope to show that in reality Thackeray took great pains to give his picture of Virginia life both historical accuracy and vivid local coloring.

When Thackeray sailed for America for the first time, in October, 1852, "Henry Esmond" had just been published. In that book the novelist had sent his favorite hero before him to the land he was about to visit. As the site of the new Castlewood, Thackeray had selected Westmoreland County, in Virginia, because Washington had lived there. From the preface to "Henry Esmond," which is ascribed to Henry's only child, Rachel Esmond-Warrington, we infer that Thackeray had already conceived the idea of an American sequel, although the story had certainly not taken its final form in his own mind. On his way to Richmond, Thackeray visited Mount Vernon. "Tomorrow," he writes to Miss Lucy Baxter on February 26, "I shall pass down the Potomac on which Mrs. Esmond-Warrington used to sail with her 2 sons when they went to visit their friend Mr. Washington. I wonder will anything ever come out of that preface, and will that story ever be born?"

On his second visit to America two years later "The

Virginians" still unwritten-Thackeray delivered in Richmond his lectures on "The Four Georges," out of which in a sense "The Virginians" was to grow. Among the Richmond people whom he met was the poet John Reuben Thompson, at that time editor of the "Southern Literary Messenger" and librarian of the Virginia State Library. "Thackeray was at this time," we are told by Mrs. Burton Harrison, "occupied in overhauling the library for material for "The Virginians'; and to Thompson he owed many suggestions of value for that delightful book."

It was Thompson who introduced to Thackeray the prolific novelist John Esten Cooke, who had published "The Virginia Comedians" only the year before. Cooke at that time made some written notes of what Thackeray said to him, and at various times in later life he wrote several accounts of the interview. I quote from "An Hour with Thackeray," printed in "Appleton's Journal" for September, 1879: "Richmond was an attractive place to him, he declared-he had been received with the utmost kindness and attention-and he had always looked upon the Virginians as resembling more closely his own people in England than the Americans of other states. They seemed 'more homely', I think was his phrase which I recall, from the curious employment of the word 'homely' in the sense of 'home-like.'" Thackeray told Cooke that he was going to write an American novel to be called "The Two Virginians.” “I shall lay the scene in Virginia, during the Revolution,' he said. "There will be two brothers, who will be prominent characters; one will take the English side in the war, and the other the American, and they will both be in love with the same girl." Thackeray, it will be noted, changed his mind about the love story. Thackeray said to Cooke: "It will take me at least two years to collect my materials, and become acquainted with the subject. I can't write upon a subject I know nothing of. I am obliged to read up upon it, and get my ideas." "The Virginians," in fact, did not begin to appear until 1857, two years later.

Thackeray's relations with John Pendleton Kennedy, once credited with writing a chapter of "The Virginians," deserve some attention. In a letter from Baltimore, written during his second visit to America, Thackeray refers to "Mr. J. P. Kennedy, exceedingly pleasant, natural and good-natured; and he has introduced me to a club-O gods such a dreary club!" It was about this time that Kennedy wrote in his journal: "Thackeray tells me that he is going to write a novel with the incidents of our revolution introduced into it. To give him some information he is seeking with this view, I lend him some books: Graydon's 'Memoirs of the Revolution,' Heath's 'Memoirs' and Garden's 'Anecdotes,' which he takes away with him; I tell him he may keep them as long as he wishes."

Kennedy's nephew, Dandridge Kennedy, of Warrenton, Virginia, tells us that Kennedy took Thackeray on a visit to Virginia to see plantation life for himself. "While in this country," writes the nephew, "Thackeray was for a time the guest of my uncle, John P. Kennedy, and during that period my uncle took him on a visit to his brother, Mr. Andrew Kennedy, in Virginia. I saw Mr. Thackeray while he was staying with my uncle, and knew that the latter gave him much information as to the Virginia people and country, and that he took him on the visit to Virginia that he might see it for himself." While seeing Virginia life for himself, Thackeray, according to General Wilson, had also a second guide, Judge Eustace Conway (an uncle of Moncure D. Conway), who took him "to Washington's farm and other localities associated with the illustrious patriot who was to appear in his projected story of "The Virginians."

Thackeray and Kennedy met again in Paris in 1858. At this time "The Virginians" was appearing in monthly numbers. On September 26, 1858, Kennedy wrote in his journal: "Thackeray calls to see me, and sits an hour or two. He is not looking well. He tells me that he has need of my