lthy,
beaming, determined visage of John Bull, but notes with approval
his quiet expression of patience and caution, his willingness to
wait. The "Times" kept M. de Blowitz waiting for some time before
it found him as relatively indispensable as he really was, and
always has been since; but finally the moment came when M. de Blowitz,
seated before his desk, could feel himself more than the equal of
his diplomatist _confreres_. Statesman he was not, nor ambassador; for
these words imply limitations, a condition of responsibility to
this or that state. But diplomatist he was, and in this entire
class of men he was the most powerful of all; for he found himself
in the position of critic, unattached, of the European movement, owing
allegiance to no country, although sought out by the representatives
of all. What position save that of the Pope afforded a more enviable
outlook? The chances were undoubtedly all on the side of his playing
the great _role_ which the happy coincidence of an unusually
exciting time in Europe, and his own activity, tact and perception,
combined to create for him. He has himself lately been telling us
in an American magazine some of the episodes in which he played his
part. I will not dilute the flavor of the original by any individual
essence of my own. The reminiscences are accessible and are not to
be imitated. But to the reader of them one fact above all others
will be evident: M. de Blowitz was and is a diplomatist of the
first order. Seek to explain the eternal hatred felt towards him by a
Prince Bismarck on any other ground. The attempt is impossible.

IDEALS OF A GREAT JOURNALIST.

Whatever M. de Blowitz's loyalty to the "Times," he has been loyal
above all to his own ideal. This ideal has always been to get at the
most political truth possible as a condition of exerting an individual
influence on European states in the interest of European peace. To me,
individually, this ideal seems rather too generous. Everybody
now-a-days wants to take a part in affairs, when only to look on is
surely the one wise part to take. But generous M. de Blowitz is, and
he is demonstrating now, in a series of "recollections," that his
ideal can be carried out in a striking way. I do not deny for a moment
that the point is proven. I doubt very much, however, if any other
similar series of facts will ever be marshalled to the same end. But
all the more reason for being belongs, just for this cause, to the
"Bl