In the lull which has succeeded the Battle of Liaoyang, the "Times" has created a little sensation in connection with the Far Eastern conflict by the publication of some "revelations" on the subject of an understanding or secret agreement between Russia and Germany, in accordance with which Germany is straining her neutrality to the utmost for the benefit of Russia. To this a categorical denial has been given by the "Daily Graphic," which states that "there is no truth whatever in the statements with regard to an alleged secret treaty or agreement between Ge many and Russia." Apparently the "Daily Graphic" is beneath the notice of the "Jeading journal," but when this denial was quoted at length with approval and expressions of confirmation by the leadin, German papers, the Times" defend its position with vehement scorn for those who had dared to contradict it. I happen, however, to know something of the source from which the ' revelations" came, for they were offered to at least one other London journal before they reached the "Times and though the authority for the statements one which the "Times" cannot be seriously blamed for accepting, a little farther investigation would have shown that a mare's nest has been discovered, Of course German on good terms with Russia, whom naturally does not wish to throw ly into the arms of France; but si dean most careful not to transgress the laws of neutrality in any way, and this fact is recognised at our own' Foreign Office.
The "Times" and Mr. Marks, The Ruseo-German revelations of the "Times" little bit flat; but yestoraay that journal succeeded in attracting the attention of the whole commanity and at the same time golding the local loaders of the Unionist party in Thanet to tary. Ihave before referred to the correspondence which Lord Hugh Cecil started in the "Times" on the question whether Mr. Marks was a suitable can-Gidate for the Unionist, Party to put forward for the seat lately held by "Jimmy" Lowther, For many days the "Times" went on publishing letters on both sides without comment; but yesterday it pronounced its judgment. It ointed out that in the libel case of Marks v. Butterfield in 1890 conduct of particularly base and despicable kind" had been imputed to Mr. Marks,—that of having robbed, ill-used, and deserted woman with whom he had lived—and that the jury, although with the dissent of the ge, found thnt the libel was true, They pointed out again that in the more recent case of Head v. Glenesk the judge had commented with extreme severity on Mr. Marks's transaction with Hooley as disclosed in the evidence. And ig concluded: "If he (Mr. Marks) can explain away these incidents he should tender his explanations in such 9 form that they can be publicly tested and publicly judged. So long as he reframe from taking this course it is not only the right but the duty of Unionists to refuse him their support,"
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.