-^--0^ 
 
 4 o 
 
 Qi 
 
 ^oV^ 
 
 
 ; ^^' -^^ °: 
 
 
 ^^ r^ o " a '^ 
 
 ,^^ ^^. 
 
 .^ 
 
 A 
 
 ^* '^^ % 
 
 
 ^^ > \«K-° 4^'-^, 
 
 
 ^\ 
 
 \ 
 
 ^ 
 

 
 
 • ^^^ 
 
 
 
 ^oV^ 
 
 
 ^°v 
 
 .V 
 
 
 . . s ^ /V <^ - , . , . 
 
 _^.. y\ '^^W/ /\ _ , 
 " **\v;^.V .c°'..i^;'.°o ,/\c;^/\ 
 
 ^--0^ 
 
 
 
WestLongliude Oreentvich UecstXon^iUuie 
 
FIFTY YEARS OF 
 EUROPE 
 
 1870-1919 
 
 BY 
 
 CHARLES DOWNER HAZEN 
 
 Professor of History in Columbia University 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 
 
 1919 
 
T\ 
 
 J^ 
 
 Copyright, 1919 
 HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 
 
 JUN ^b !yiB 
 
 oumn A OOOF.N ro. pp;s8 
 Sahwav, n. j. 
 
 ©CI,A529037 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The fifty years that have elapsed since the Franco- 
 Prussian War possess a unity that is quite exceptional 
 among the so-called " periods "of history. They con- 
 stitute a period of German ascendancy in Europe, an 
 ascendancy acquired by force, maintained by force, and 
 dedicated to the perpetuation and the extension of the 
 rule of force — that is, to the great principle that might 
 makes right. Within that era are included the rise 
 and the fall of the German Empire, whose history was 
 summarized in a lapidary phrase pronounced by Presi- 
 dent Poincare at the opening of the Conference of Paris : 
 " It was born in injustice ; it has ended in opprobrium." 
 
 For the convenience of those who may wish to review 
 this period I have brought together those chapters of 
 my Modern European History which bear upon it, mak- 
 ing, however, numerous changes in the narrative, con- 
 densing here, amplifying there, transforming and re- 
 arranging wherever it has seemed advantageous. 
 
 To complete the story I have added a chapter on the 
 Great War, the closing pages of which were written on 
 the day the armistice was accepted and which therefore 
 represent only the incomplete knowledge and the hur- 
 ried impressions of a mighty moment in history. How- 
 ever, for that very reason, they may have a certain value, 
 at least as a contemporary document. 
 
 Charles Downer Hazen. 
 
 Columbia University, 
 April 10, 1919. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 I. The Triumph of Nationalism in Italy 
 
 AND Germany i 
 
 II. The Franco-Prussian War ... 23 
 
 III. The German Empire • • • • 33 
 
 IV. France Under the Third Republic . 65 
 V. The Kingdom of Italy Since 1870 . 96 
 
 VI. Austria-Hungary 106 
 
 VII. Great Britain and Ireland . . . 121 
 
 VIII. The British Empire 166 
 
 IX. The Partition of Africa . . . 191 
 
 X. The Small States of Europe . . 202 
 XI. The Disruption of the Ottoman Em- 
 pire AND THE Rise of the Balkan 
 
 States 226 
 
 XII. Russia to the War with Japan . . 246 
 
 XIII. The Far East 264 
 
 XIV. Russia Since the War with Japan . 283 
 XV. The Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913 . 290 
 
 XVI. The World War ..... 316 
 
MAPS 
 
 Europe in 19 12 Frontispiece 
 
 The Unification of Italy 10 v 
 
 The German Empire, 19 14 58 
 
 Distribution of Races in Austria-Hungary . . 108 
 
 Africa, 1910 196 
 
 Asia in 1914 280 
 
 The Balkan States According to the Treaty of 
 
 Bucharest 312 
 
 Colonial Possessions of the European Powers in 
 
 1910 318 
 
 Western Front, Farthest German Advance, 19 14 . 337 
 
 Eastern Front 377 
 
 Italian Front 386 
 
 The " Middle Europe " Scheme .... 388 
 Russia in 19 18, after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk 393 
 Western Front, Battle Line, March 21 and Novem- 
 ber II, 1918 405 
 
FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 THE TRIUMPH OF NATIONALISM IN ITALY 
 AND GERMANY 
 
 The year 1870 will long remain memorable in the 
 annals of Europe. For in that year occurred a great 
 and decisive war whose outcome was destined to exercise 
 a large and profound influence upon the history of the 
 subsequent period; whose consequences were to prove 
 pervasive, far-reaching and unhappy, just as the four 
 terrible years through which the world has recently 
 passed will inevitably determine the future of the world 
 for many decades to come. There was a certain tragic 
 unity to that intervening period between the Franco- 
 Prussian War and the World War, the shadow of the 
 former, the dread of the latter hovering over the minds 
 of men, full of menace, inspiring a recurrent sense of 
 uneasiness and alarm. All the various streams of ac- 
 tivity, all the different movements, national and inter- 
 national, social and economic, intellectual and spiritual, 
 ail the complex and diverse phenomena of the life of 
 Europe during that crowded half -century took their 
 form and color largely from the memory of war, the 
 Jeat; of :war, the preparation for war. A period like 
 
2 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 tfiat IS surely worth studying. Indeed only if men acquire 
 or possess a just understanding of it, only if they retain 
 a vivid sense of its lessons and its warnings, will they 
 be able to avert a repetition of its horrors, only thus 
 will they have the aid of either chart or compass on 
 their voyage into the future. 
 
 But apart from this general feeling of insecurity and 
 apprehension, inspired by the Franco-Prussian War, that 
 war had several immediate and specific consequences 
 which must inevitably render the year 1870 notable in 
 the history of modern times and which furnish a proper 
 starting-point for this narrative. The war of 1870 
 completed the unification of Germany and created the 
 German Empire. It completed, also, the unification of 
 Italy, by giving to the kingdom, as its capital, the in- 
 comparable city of Rome. It overthrew the Second 
 Empire in France and produced the Third Republic. It 
 robbed France of Alsace-Lorraine for the benefit of 
 Germany and thus embedded militarism in the life of 
 Europe. 
 
 Of course, adequately to understand events of such 
 moment we would be obliged to review the period before 
 1870, for the founding of the German Empire, of the 
 Italian Kingdom, and of the French Republic was not 
 something hastily improvised in that year as a result 
 of the war. Each of these achievements had a long 
 history behind it; each was the product of a long pro- 
 cess of evolution. The year 1870 was only a year of 
 culmination and fruition, the end of one period, the 
 beginning of another. 
 
 From such a review as would satisfactorily explain 
 the rise of modern Italy and Germany, their achievement 
 
NATIONALISM IN ITALY AND GERMANS 3 
 
 of nationality after centuries of disunion, we are pre- 
 cluded here. Yet a slight sketch of the history of this 
 remarkable transformation may be of value and, indeed, 
 is necessary if we would have the background essential 
 for the proper appreciation of the later period. 
 
 Italy 
 
 A century ago Italy was not a body politic; it was 
 only a geographical expression. There was no Italian 
 nation, but there existed within the peninsula ten small 
 and entirely separate states, among which the most im- 
 portant were the Kingdom of Piedmont or Sardinia, the 
 Grand-Duchy of Tuscany, the Papal States, the King- 
 dom of Naples and the two rich provinces in the north, 
 Lombardy and Venetia, which belonged to Austria. 
 There was no form of political union among these states, 
 not even that of a loose confederation, as in the case of 
 Germany. Consequently, there was no Italian flag, no 
 Italian reigning house, no Italian citizenship, no Italian 
 army. Out of this jumble of petty, independent states 
 arose, in the great decade between 1859 and 1870, the 
 present unified Kingdom of Italy. 
 
 All through the nineteenth century there were those 
 who felt that these millions of Italians ought to be 
 united into a single nation, that only thus could they 
 occupy a position in the world worthy of their past, and 
 one that would ensure a happier future. The most 
 thrilling and persuasive spokesman of this national 
 aspiration was Joseph Mazzini, who lived from 1805 to 
 1872. Even as a boy Mazzini was impressed with the 
 unhappiness and misery of his country, subdivided, as 
 
4 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 it was, into numerous jealous and warring states. " In 
 the midst of the noisy, tumultuous life of the students 
 around me I was," he says in his autobiography, 
 " somber and absorbed and appeared like one suddenly 
 grown old. I childishly determined to dress always in 
 black, fancying myself in mourning for my country." At 
 the age of twenty-five Mazzini was thrown into prison 
 because of his liberalism. After his release from prison, 
 he founded a society called ** Young Italy " which was 
 destined to be an important factor in making the new 
 Italy. Its object was to create, by persuasion and by 
 action, a single country, common to all. Only those 
 under forty were to be admitted to membership, because 
 Mazzini's appeal was particularly to the young. '* Place 
 youth at the head of the insurgent multitude," he said; 
 " you know not the secret of the power hidden in these 
 youthful hearts, nor the magic influence exercised on 
 the masses by the voice of youth. You will find among 
 the young a host of apostles of the new religion." With 
 Mazzini the liberation and unification of Italy was indeed 
 a new religion, appealing to the loftiest emotions, en- 
 tailing complete self-sacrifice, complete absorption in the 
 ideal, and the young were to be its apostles. Theirs 
 was to be a missionary life. He told them to travel, 
 to bear from land to land, from village to village, the 
 torch of liberty, to expound its advantages to the people, 
 to establish and consecrate the cult. Let them not quail 
 before the horrors of torture and imprisonment that 
 might await them in the holy cause. " Ideas grow 
 quickly when watered with the blood of martyrs." Never 
 did a cause have a more dauntless leader, a man of purity 
 of Hfe, a man of imagination, of poetry, of audacity, 
 
NATIONALISM IN ITALY AND GERMANY 5 
 
 gifted, moreover, with a marvelous command of per- 
 suasive language and with burning enthusiasm in 
 his heart. The response was overwhelming. By 1833 
 the society reckoned 60,000 members. Branches were 
 founded everywhere. Garibaldi, whose name men were 
 later to conjure with, joined it on the shores of the 
 Black Sea. This is the romantic proselyting movement 
 of the nineteenth century, all the more remarkable from 
 the fact that its members were unknown men, bringing 
 to their work no advantage of wealth or social position. 
 But, as their leader wrote later, " All great national 
 movements begin with the unknown men of the people, 
 without influence except for the faith and will that 
 counts not time or difficulties." 
 
 Mazzini believed that the first thing to do in bringing 
 about the unification of Italy was to drive Austria out 
 of the country. Austrians were foreigners; yet they 
 held the two richest provinces in the peninsula, Lom- 
 bardy and Venetia, and so great were their resources and 
 their power that they dominated, more or less directly, 
 the other states. Only if they were expelled could the 
 Italians unite and control their own destinies. They 
 could be driven out only by war, and Mazzini believed 
 that the Italians were numerous enough and brave 
 enough to carry through, alone and unaided, this neces- 
 sary work of liberation. After the war should succeed, 
 Mazzini hoped and urged that Italy should be proclaimed 
 a republic, one and indivisible. Mazzini worked at a 
 great disadvantage, as he was early expelled from his 
 own country and was compelled to spend nearly all his 
 lifetime as an exile in London, hampered by paltry re- 
 sources, and cut off from that intimate association with 
 
6 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 his own people which is so essential to effective leader- 
 ship. 
 
 Italy was not made as Mazzini wished it to be; never- 
 theless is he one of the chief of the makers of Italy. He 
 and the society he founded constituted a leavening, 
 quickening force in the realm of ideas. Around them 
 grew up a patriotism for a country that existed as yet 
 only in the imagination. 
 
 Italy was made by a man who was of an utterly 
 different type from Mazzini, Count Camillo di Cavour, 
 one of the greatest statesmen and diplomatists in the 
 nineteenth century. Cavour's mind was the opposite 
 of Mazzini's, practical, positive, not poetical and specu- 
 lative. He desired the unity and the independence of 
 Italy. He hated Austria as the oppressor of his country, 
 as an oppressor everywhere. But, unlike Mazzini, he 
 did not underestimate her power, nor did he overestimate 
 the power of his own countrymen. Cavour believed, as 
 did all the patriots, that Austria must be driven out of 
 Italy before any Italian regeneration could be achieved. 
 But he did not believe with Mazzini and others that the 
 Italians could accomplish this feat alone. In his opinion 
 the history of the last forty years had shown that plots 
 and insurrections would not avail. It was essential to 
 win the aid of a great military power comparable in 
 strength and discipline to Austria. 
 
 Cavour was a thoroughgoing liberal in all his con- 
 victions and principles. He was a great admirer of the 
 political institutions of England, which he desired to see 
 introduced into his own country. Night after night he 
 had sat in the gallery of the House of Commons, seeking 
 to make himself thoroughly familiar with its modes of 
 
NATIONALISM IN ITALY AND GERMANY 7 
 
 procedure. If he was to study parliamentary institutions 
 anywhere, it must be abroad, for in none of the states 
 in Italy was there even a semblance of a parliament. 
 Cavour demanded a parliament for his own state, the 
 Kingdom of Piedmont. " Italy,'* he said, " must make 
 herself by means of liberty, or we must give up trying 
 to make her." 
 
 Now in 1848 the Kingdom of Piedmont did become 
 a parliamentary and constitutional state. Previously the 
 king had ruled as autocrat; henceforth he was to share 
 his power with his people. This gave Cavour his oppor- 
 tunity. He was elected to the first Piedmontese parlia- 
 ment, was taken into the cabinet in 1850, and became 
 prime minister in 1852. He held this position for the 
 remainder of his life, with the exception of a few weeks, 
 proving himself a great statesman and an incomparable 
 diplomat. 
 
 Cavour considered that the only possible leader in the 
 work of freeing and unifying Italy was the House of 
 Savoy and the Piedmontese monarchy, and he felt that 
 the proper government of the new state, if it should 
 ever arise, would be a constitutional monarchy. He 
 wished to make Piedmont a model state so that, when 
 the time came, the Italians of other states would recog- 
 nize her leadership and join in her exaltation as best 
 for them all. Piedmont had a constitution and the other 
 states had not. Cavour saw to it that she had a free politi- 
 cal life and received a genuine training in self-govern- 
 ment. Also he bent every energy to the development of 
 the economic resources of the kingdom, by encouraging 
 manufactures, by stimulating commerce, by modernizing 
 agriculture, by building railroads. In a word he sought 
 
8 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 to make and did make Piedmont a model small state, 
 liberal and progressive, hoping thus to win for her the 
 Italians of the other states and the interest and approval 
 of the countries and rulers of western Europe. 
 
 The fundamental purpose, the constant preoccupation 
 of this man's life, determining every action, prompting 
 every wish, was to gain a Great Power as an ally. In 
 the pursuit of this elusive and supremely difficult object, 
 year in, year out, Cavour displayed his measure as a 
 diplomat, and stood forth finally without a peer. It is a 
 marvelously absorbing story, from which we are pre- 
 cluded here because it cannot be properly presented ex- 
 cept at length. The reader must go elsewhere for the 
 details of this fascinating record, in v/hich were com- 
 bined, in rare harmony, sound judgment, practical sense, 
 powers of clear, subtle, penetrating thought, unfailing 
 attention to prosaic details, with imagination, audacity, 
 courage, and iron nerve. 
 
 Cavour's purpose was to unite Italy. Italy could not 
 be united unless Austria were driven out. Austria could 
 not be driven out except by war, and in a war Austria's 
 military power would be far greater than that of Pied- 
 mont. Piedmont must, therefore, have an ally whose 
 military power would be equal to that of Austria. As 
 France was the only other great military power on the 
 Continent, Cavour sought to win the support of the 
 ruler of that country, Napoleon III. He succeeded in 
 1858 and Napoleon promised to help Piedmont expel 
 Austria from Italy, and to free Italy " from the Alps 
 to the Adriatic." This was the greatest triumph of 
 Cavour's life, as it rendered everything else possible. 
 
 Thus in 1859 there came about a war between Austria 
 
NATIONALISM IN ITALY AND GERMANY 9 
 
 on the one hand and Piedmont and France on the other. 
 The latter were victorious in two great battles, that of 
 Magenta (June 4) and of Solferino (June 24). Sol- 
 ferino was one of the greatest battles of the nineteenth 
 century. It lasted eleven hours, more than 260,000 men 
 were engaged, nearly 800 cannon. The Allies lost over 
 17,000 men, the Austrians about 22,000. All Lombardy 
 was conquered, and Milan was occupied. It seemed that 
 Venetia could be easily overrun and the termination of 
 Austrian rule in Italy effected, and Napoleon's statement 
 that he would free Italy " from the Alps to the Adri- 
 atic " accomplished. Suddenly Napoleon halted in the 
 full tide of success, sought an interview with the Emperor 
 of Austria at Villafranca, and there on July 11, with- 
 out consulting the wishes of his ally, concluded a famous 
 armistice. The terms agreed upon by the two Emperors 
 were : that Lombardy should pass to Piedmont, that 
 Austria should retain Venetia, that the Italian states 
 should form a confederation, that the rulers of Tus- 
 cany and Modena should be restored to their states, 
 whence they had just been driven by popular up- 
 risings. 
 
 This was not what Cavour and the Italian liberals 
 wanted. They wished to be entirely free of Austrian 
 influence, they wished the unity of Italy and not a con- 
 federation of small Italian states, they did not desire or 
 intend to restore the petty princes they had overthrown, 
 they wished the extension of the rule of the House of 
 Savoy over the entire peninsula. All that Napoleon had 
 done had been to secure Lombardy for Piedmont, an 
 important service, yet far below what he had promised. 
 
 But the future of Italy was not to be determined 
 
lo FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 solely by the Emperor of France and the Emperor of 
 Austria. The people of Italy had their own ideas and 
 were resolved to make them heard. During the war, so 
 suddenly and unexpectedly closed, the rulers of Modena, 
 Parma, Tuscany had been overthrown by popular up- 
 risings and the Pope's authority in Romagna, the north- 
 ern part of his dominions, had been destroyed. The 
 people who had accomplished this had no intention of 
 restoring the princes they had expelled. They defied 
 the two emperors who had decided at Villafranca that 
 those rulers should be restored. In this they were sup- 
 ported diplomatically by the English Government. This 
 was England's great service to the Italians. " The 
 people of the duchies have as much right to change their 
 sovereigns," said Lord Palmerston, " as the English 
 people, or the French, or the Belgian, or the Swedish. 
 The annexation of the duchies to Piedmont will be an 
 unfathomable good to Italy." The people of these states 
 voted almost unanimously in favor of annexation (March 
 II-I2, i860). Victor Emmanuel, King of Piedmont, 
 accepted the sovereignty thus offered him, and on April 
 2, i860, the first parliament of the enlarged kingdom 
 met in Turin. A small state of less than 5,000,000 had 
 grown to one of 11,000,000 within a year. This was 
 the most important change in the political system of 
 Europe since 181 5. 
 
 Napoleon III acquiesced in all this, taking for himself 
 Savoy and Nice in return for services rendered. The 
 Peace of Villafranca was never enforced. 
 
NATIONALISM IN ITALY AND GERMANY, ii 
 
 The Conquest of the Kingdom of Naples 
 
 Much had been achieved in the eventful year just 
 described, but much remained to be achieved before the 
 unification of Italy should be complete. Venetia, the 
 larger part of the Papal States, and the Kingdom of 
 Naples still stood outside. In the last, however, events 
 now occurred which carried the process a long step 
 forward. Early in i860 the Sicilians rose in revolt 
 against the despotism of their new king, Francis IL 
 This insurrection created an opportunity for a man 
 already famous but destined to fame far greater and 
 to a memorable service to his country, Giuseppe Gari- 
 baldi, already the most popular military leader in Italy, 
 and invested with a half-mythical character of invinci- 
 bility and daring, the result of a very spectacular, ro- 
 mantic career. 
 
 Garibaldi was born at Nice in 1807. He was therefore 
 two years younger than Mazzini and three years older 
 than Cavour. Destined by his parents for the priesthood 
 he preferred the sea, and for many years he lived a 
 roving and adventurous sailor ^s life. He early joined 
 " Young Italy." His military experience was chiefly in 
 irregular, guerrilla fighting. He took part in the un- 
 successful insurrection organized by Mazzini in Savoy 
 in 1834, and as a result was condemned to death. He 
 managed to escape to South America, where, for the 
 next fourteen years, he was an exile. He participated 
 in the abundant wars of the South American states 
 with the famous " Italian Legion," which he organized 
 and commanded. Learning of the uprising of 1848 he 
 returned to Italy, though still under the penalty of death, 
 
12 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 and immediately thousands flocked to the standard of the 
 " hero of Montevideo " to fight under him against the 
 Austrians. After the failure of that campaign he went, 
 in 1849, to Rome to assume the military defense of the 
 republic. When the city was about to fall he escaped 
 with four thousand troops, intending to attack the 
 Austrian power in Venetia. French and Austrian armies 
 pursued him. He succeeded in evading them, but his 
 army dwindled away rapidly and the chase became so 
 hot that he was forced to escape to the Adriatic. When 
 he landed later, his enemies were immediately in full cry 
 again, hunting him through forests and over mountains 
 as if he were some dangerous game. It was a wonderful 
 exploit, rendered tragic by the death, in a farmhouse 
 near Ravenna, of his wife Anita, who was his com- 
 panion in the camp as in the home, and who was as 
 high-spirited, as daring, as courageous as he. Garibaldi 
 finally escaped to America and began once more the life 
 of an exile. But his story, shot through and through 
 with heroism and chivalry and romance, moved the 
 Italian people to unwonted depths of enthusiasm and 
 admiration. 
 
 For several years Garibaldi was a wanderer, sailing 
 the seas, commander of a Peruvian bark. For some 
 months, indeed, he was a candle maker on Staten Island, 
 but in 1854 he returned to Italy and settled down as a 
 farmer on the little island of Caprera. But the events 
 of 1859 once more brought him out of his retirement. 
 Again, as a leader of volunteers, he plunged into the war 
 against Austria and immensely increased his reputation. 
 He had become the idol of soldiers and adventurous 
 spirits from one end of Italy to the other. Multitudes 
 
NATIONALISM IN ITALY AND GERMANY 13 
 
 were ready to follow in blind confidence wherever he 
 might lead. His name was one to conjure with. There 
 now occurred, in i860, the most brilliant episode of his 
 career, the Sicilian expedition and the campaign against 
 the Kingdom of Naples. For Garibaldi, the most re- 
 doubtable warrior of Italy, whose very name was worth 
 an army, now decided on his own account to go to the 
 aid of the Sicilians who had risen in revolt against their 
 king, Francis II of Naples. 
 
 On May 5, i860, the expedition of " The Thousand," 
 the " Red Shirts," embarked from Genoa in two 
 steamers. These were the volunteers, nearly 1,150 men, 
 whom Garibaldi's fame had caused to rush into the new 
 adventure, an adventure that seemed at the moment one 
 of utter folly. The King of Naples had 24,000 troops 
 in Sicily and 100,000 more on the mainland. The odds 
 against success seemed overwhelming. But fortune 
 favored the brave. After a campaign of a few weeks, 
 in which he was several times in great danger, and was 
 only saved by the most reckless fighting. Garibaldi stood 
 master of the island, helped by the Sicilian insurgents, 
 by volunteers who had flocked from the mainland, and 
 by the incompetency of the commanders of the Nea- 
 politan troops. Audacity had won the victory. He 
 assumed the position of Dictator in Sicily in the name 
 of Victor Emmanuel II (August 5, i860). 
 
 Garibaldi now crossed the straits to the mainland de- 
 termined to conquer the entire Kingdom of Naples 
 (August 19, i860). The King still had an army of 
 100,000 men, but it had not even the strength of a frail 
 reed. There was practically no bloodshed. The Nea- 
 politan Kingdom was not overthrown; it collapsed. 
 
14 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Treachery, desertion, corruption di'd the work\ On 
 September 6, Francis II left Naples for Gaeta and the 
 next day Garibaldi entered it by rail with only a few 
 attendants, and drove through the streets amid a pande- 
 monium of enthusiasm. In less than five months he had 
 conquered a kingdom of 11,000,000 people, an achieve- 
 ment unique in modern history. 
 
 Garibaldi now began to talk of pushing on to Rome. 
 To Cavour, the situation seemed full of danger. Gari- 
 baldi, a tempestuous soldier himself and a leader of 
 tempestuous soldiers, was totally lacking in the qualities 
 of a statesman. To him everything was a matter for ac- 
 tion, immediate action, and he had no conception of the 
 extraordinary complexity and delicacy of international 
 relations. Should he now attack Rome, all that had 
 been achieved in this wonderful year would be im- 
 periled. For Rome was the center of Roman Catholi- 
 cism, the seat of the Pope's temporal dominions, and 
 the Pope's power was supported by a French garrison. 
 Napoleon III felt bound, in view of the strong Catholic 
 sentiment of his countrymen, to continue to support that 
 power. A clash with him must, by all means, be avoided, 
 and Garibaldi was heading straight toward such 
 a clash. Here was an adjustment that might be 
 made by diplomacy; it could not be made by the 
 sword. 
 
 Cavour, therefore, resolved to block any further activ- 
 ity of Garibaldi. He secured the assent of Napoleon 
 III to the annexation by Victor Emmanuel of the out- 
 lying sections of the Papal States, the Marches, and Um- 
 bria, promising in turn not to touch the city of Rome 
 and the territory immediately surrounding it. This be- 
 
NATIONALISM IN ITALY AND GERMANY 15 
 
 ing arranged, Victor Emmanuel marched southward, took 
 the leadership from Garibaldi and completed the con- 
 quest of the Kingdom of Naples, not quite finished by 
 the latter. Thereupon referendums were held in the 
 Marches, Umbria, and the Kingdom of Naples, result- 
 ing overwhelmingly in favor of annexation to the 
 new Kingdom of Italy. 
 
 On the 1 8th of February, 1861, a new Parliament, rep- 
 resenting all Italy except Venetia and Rome, met in 
 Turin. The Kingdom of Sardinia now gave way to the 
 Kingdom of Italy, proclaimed on March 17. Victor Em- 
 manuel II was declared '* by the grace of God and the 
 will of the nation, King of Italy." 
 
 A new kingdom, comprising a population of about 
 twenty-two millions, had arisen during a period of eigh- 
 teen months, and now took its place among the powers 
 of Europe. But the Kingdom of Italy was still incom- 
 plete. Venetia was still Austrian and Rome was still 
 subject to the Pope. The acquisition of these had to be 
 postponed. 
 
 Nevertheless, Cavour felt that " without Rome there 
 was no Italy," and he was working on a scheme which 
 he hoped might reconcile the Pope and the Catholic world 
 everywhere to the recognition of Rome as the capital 
 of the new kingdom, when he suddenly fell ill and 
 died on June 6, 1861. 
 
 Throughout his life Cavour remained faithful to his 
 fundamental political principle, government by parliament 
 and by constitutional forms. Urged at various times to 
 assume a dictatorship he replied that he had no confi- 
 dence in dictatorships. "I always feel strongest," he 
 said, " when Parliament is sitting." " I cannot betray 
 
i6 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 my origin, deny the principles of all my life," he wrote 
 in a private letter not intended for the public. " I am 
 the son of liberty and to her I owe all that I am. If 
 a veil is to be placed on her statue, it is not for me to 
 do it." 
 
 Germany 
 
 From 1815 to 1866 there were between thirty and 
 forty independent German states, united in a very loose 
 and ineffective confederation. There was no German 
 nation, as we understand the term. There was no king 
 or emperor of Germany. There was no German flag. 
 No one was, properly speaking, a German citizen. He 
 was a Prussian, or Austrian, or Bavarian or Saxon citi- 
 zen, as the case might be. The federal government had 
 no diplomatic representatives in the other countries of 
 Europe, but each state had, or could have, its own diplo- 
 matic corps. The German as German had no legal stand- 
 ing abroad — only as a citizen of one of the separate 
 states. Each state could make alliances with the others 
 or with non-German states. 
 
 All this was changed during the years from 1866 to 
 1 87 1. German liberals and patriots had long been dis- 
 contented with this loose and weak confederation, which 
 was a mockery of a nation, and had long desired to 
 achieve that unity and strength which France and Eng- 
 land had achieved much earlier. This feeling of dissatis- 
 faction, and this passionate aspiration, had, for decades, 
 been expressed by many men and on many occa- 
 sions. In 1848, a year of revolution for Germany, an 
 earnest attempt had been made to achieve German unity, 
 to create a strong German state. But the attempt had 
 
NATIONALISM IN ITALY AND GERMANY 17 
 
 failed. Nearly twenty years later the attempt was re- 
 newed, but under very different auspices. In 1848 it 
 had been the liberals who had tried to achieve Ger- 
 man unity, by persuasion, by argument, by democratic 
 methods, and in the interest of democracy. In 1866 
 leadership rested with Bismarck, who hated democracy, 
 who hated constitutions, w^ho admired absolute monarchy, 
 the House of Hohenzollern and the Kingdom of Prussia. 
 Indeed, Bismarck's political ideas centered in his ardent 
 belief in the Prussian monarchy. It had been the Prussian 
 kings, he said, not the Prussian people, who had made 
 Prussia great. This, the great historic fact, must be pre- 
 served, whatever else might be changed in the course of 
 time. What Prussian kings had done, they still would do. 
 Any reduction of royal power would only be damaging to 
 the state. Bismarck was the uncompromising foe of the 
 attempts made in 1848 to achieve German unity, because 
 he thought that it should be the princes and not the peo- 
 ple who should determine the institutions and destinies 
 of Germany. " I look for Prussian honor in Prussia's 
 abstinence before all things from every shameful union 
 with democracy," was one of his famous phrases. And 
 another was this : " Not b^ ipeeches and majority votes 
 are the great questions of the day decided — that was the 
 great blunder of 1848 and 1849 — ^but by blood and iron " ; 
 in other words, the army, not parliament, would deter- 
 mine the future of Prussia. 
 
 This '* blood and iron " policy was bitterly denounced 
 by liberals, but Bismarck ignored their criticisms and soon 
 found a chance to begin its application. He became the 
 chief minister of King William I in 1862 and was des- 
 tined to remain the chief minister for nearly thirty years, 
 
i8 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 until he was dismissed in 1890 by William II. During 
 that time he increased the territory of Prussia and re- 
 modeled Germany, making her a powerful empire and the 
 center of the European state system. 
 
 Bismarck's political views were entirely sympathetic to 
 King William I, who likewise believed that the monarch 
 and the army should control and shape the destinies of 
 Prussia and of Germany. William I himself wrote, in 
 1849, that "whoever wishes to rule Germany must con- 
 quer it, and that cannot be done by phrases.'' 
 
 The German Empire was the result of the policy of 
 blood and iron as carried out by Prussia in three wars 
 which were crowded into the brief period of six years, 
 the war with Denmark in 1864, with Austria in 1866, and 
 with France in 1870, each one of which was desired and 
 provoked by Bismarck. 
 
 In the first war Prussia and Austria combined and at- 
 tacked Denmark after having given her an ultimatum 
 allowing her only forty-eight hours to comply with their 
 demands, which, indeed, they did not expect or intend 
 that she should accept. The two great powers easily de- 
 feated the one small one and then they took from her the 
 two provinces of Schleswig and Holstein, which they 
 forthwith proceeded to hold in common. 
 
 This situation was one that exactly suited Bismarck, 
 for he wanted a quarrel with Austria and a quarrel can 
 easily be brought about between two robbers over the 
 question as to how they are to dispose of their spoils. 
 Bismarck had for ten years desired a war with Austria 
 because in the German Confederation Austria was the 
 leading power and Bismarck wished that position for 
 Prussia. He also wished German unity, but he wished 
 
NATIONALISM IN ITALY AND GERMANY 19 
 
 it to be achieved by Prussia and for Prussia's advantage. 
 This could not be done as long as Austria remained con- 
 nected with the other German states. In Bismarck's 
 opinion there was not room enough in Germany for both 
 powers. That being the case, he wished the room for 
 Prussia. The only way to get it was to take it. As Aus- 
 tria had no intention of yielding gracefully there would 
 have to be a fight. 
 
 Finally war broke out in June, 1866. Bismarck had 
 thus brought about his dream of a conflict between peo- 
 ples of the same race to determine the question of con- 
 trol. It proved to be one of the shortest wars in history, 
 one of the most decisive, and one whose consequences 
 were most momentous. It is called the Seven Weeks' 
 War. It began June 16, 1866, was virtually decided on 
 July 3d, was brought to a close before the end of that 
 month by the preliminary Peace of Nikolsburg, July 26, 
 which was followed a month later by the definitive Peace 
 of Prague, August 23. Prussia had no German allies 
 of any importance. Several of the North German states 
 sided with her, but these were small and their armies 
 were unimportant. On the other hand, Austria was 
 supported by the four kingdoms, Bavaria, Wiirtemberg, 
 Saxony, and Hanover; also by Hesse-Cassel, Hesse- 
 Darmstadt, Nassau, and Baden. But Prussia had one im- 
 portant ally, Italy, without whose aid she might not have 
 won the victory. Italy was to receive Venetia, which she 
 coveted, if Austria were defeated. The Prussian army, 
 however, was better prepared. For years the rulers of 
 Prussia had been preparing for war, perfecting the army 
 down to the minutest detail, and with scientific thorough- 
 ness, and when the war began it was absolutely ready. 
 
20 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Moreover, it was directed by a very able leader, General 
 von Moltke. 
 
 Prussia had many enemies. Being absolutely prepared, 
 as her enemies were not, she could assume the offensive, 
 and this was the cause of her first victories. War began 
 June 1 6. Within three days Prussian troops had occu- 
 pied Hanover, Dresden, and Cassel, the capitals of her 
 three North German enemies. A few days later the 
 Hanoverian army was forced to capitulate. The King 
 of Hanover and the Elector of Hesse were taken pris- 
 oners of war. All North Germany was now controlled 
 by Prussia, and within two weeks of the opening of the 
 war she was ready to attempt the great plan of Moltke, 
 an invasion of Bohemia. The rapidity of the campaign 
 struck Europe with amazement. Moltke sent three arm- 
 ies by different routes into Bohemia, and on July 3, 1866, 
 one of the great battles of history, that of Koniggratz, 
 or Sadowa, was fought. Each army numbered over 
 200,000, the Prussians outnumbering the Austrians, 
 though not at the beginning. Since the battle of Leipsic 
 in 18 1 3, so many troops had not been engaged in a single 
 conflict. King William, Bismarck, and Moltke took up 
 their position on a hill, whence they could view the scene. 
 The battle was long and doubtful. Beginning early in the 
 morning, it continued for hours, fought with terrific fury, 
 the Prussians making no advance against the Austrian 
 artillery. Up to two o'clock it seemed an Austrian vic- 
 tory, but with the arrival of the Prussian Crown Prince 
 with his army the issue was turned, and at half-past three 
 the Austrians were beaten and their retreat began. They 
 had lost over forty thousand men, while the Prussian 
 loss was alicut ten thousand. The Prussian army during 
 
NATIONALISM IN ITALY AND GERMANY 2i 
 
 the next three weeks advanced to within sight of the 
 spires of Vienna. 
 
 On June 24 the Austrians had been victorious over the 
 Italians at Custozza. Yet the Italians had helped Prussia 
 by detaining eighty thousand Austrian troops, which, had 
 they been at Koniggratz, would probably have turned the 
 day. The Italian fleet was also defeated by the Austrian 
 at Lissa, July 20. 
 
 The results of the Seven Weeks' War were momen- 
 tous. Fearing the intervention of Europe, and particu- 
 larly that of France, which was threatened, and which 
 might rob the victory of its fruits, Bismarck wished to 
 make peace at once, and consequently offered lenient terms 
 to Austria. She was to cede Venetia to Italy, but was 
 to lose no other territory. She was to withdraw from 
 the German Confederation, which, indeed, was to cease 
 to exist. She was to allow Prussia to organize and lead 
 a new confederation, composed of those states which were 
 north of the river Main. The South German states were 
 left free to act as they chose. Thus Germany, north of 
 the Main, was to be united. 
 
 Having accomplished this, Prussia proceeded to make 
 important annexations to her own territory. The King- 
 dom of Hanover, the Duchies of Nassau and Hesse- 
 Cassel, and the free city of Frankfort, as well as the 
 Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, were incorporated 
 in the Prussian kingdom. Her population was thereby 
 increased by over four and a half million new subjects, 
 and thus was about twenty-four million. There was no 
 thought of having the people of these states vote on the 
 question of annexation, as had been done in Italy, and 
 in Savoy and Nice. They were annexed forthwith by^ 
 
22 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 right of military conquest. Reigning houses ceased to rule 
 on order from Berlin. Unwisely for themselves Euro- 
 pean nations allowed the swift consummation of these 
 changes, which altered the balance of power and the map 
 of Europe — a mistake which France in particular was 
 to repent most bitterly. " I do not like this dethrone- 
 ment of dynasties," said the Czar, but he failed to ex- 
 press his dislike in action. 
 
 The North German Confederation, which was now 
 created, included all of Germany north of the river Main, 
 twenty-two states in all. The constitution was the work 
 of Bismarck. There was to be a president of the Con- 
 federation, namely, the King of Prussia. There was to 
 be a Federal Council (Bundesrath), composed of dele- 
 gates sent by the sovereigns of the different states, to be 
 recalled at their pleasure, to vote as they dictated. Prus- 
 sia was always to have seventeen votes out of the total 
 forty-^three. In order to have a majority she would have 
 to gain only a few adherents from the other states, which 
 she could easily do. 
 
 There was also to be a Reichstag, elected by the peo- 
 ple. This was Bismarck's concession to the Liberals. Of 
 the two bodies the Reichstag was much the less impor- 
 tant. The people were given a place in the new system, 
 but a subordinate one. 
 
 The new constitution went into force July i, 1867. 
 This North German Confederation remained in existence 
 only four years when it gave way to the present German 
 Empire, one of the results of the Franco-Prussian War 
 of 1870. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR 
 
 By the year 1867 all of Italy was united into a king- 
 dom under the House of Savoy, except the city of Rome 
 and the region immediately surrounding it, and all of 
 Germany was united into a strong confederation, under 
 the leadership of the House of Hohenzollern, except the 
 South German states, Bavaria, Baden, Wiirtemberg, and 
 a part of Hesse-Darmstadt. The unification, however, 
 of neither country could be considered complete until 
 these detached parts were joined with the main mass. 
 This was brought about as one of the incidents of the 
 Franco-Prussian War of 1870. Some knowledge of that 
 war, therefore, is necessary to a comprehension of the 
 subsequent period. Another by-product of that war was 
 the Third French Republic, a fact in contemporary 
 Europe of large significance. How did the clash come 
 about between France and Prussia, a clash that had such 
 consequences ? 
 
 France, since 1852, had been an empire, ruled over 
 by the Emperor Napoleon III, nephew of the great Napo- 
 leon. The Emperor played a large role in European poli- 
 tics from 1852 to 1870. His government was as much 
 of an imitation of the system of Napoleon I as the nature 
 of the times and the character of the ruler would allow. 
 During most of the period the government was auto- 
 
 23 
 
24 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 cratic; only toward the end was it somewhat HberaHzed. 
 In the main it was the personaHty of the monarch that 
 counted, and that shaped the course of events. While 
 there were occasional elections and a national legisla- 
 ture, and while universal suffrage nominally existed, in 
 practice the legislature was controlled by the Emperor, 
 universal suffrage was cleverly manipulated, the Em- 
 peror was, in large measure, an absolute sovereign. 
 France experienced a great economic expansion during 
 this reign and grew in wealth. The chief feature of 
 the reign was the Emperor's foreign policy, which led 
 to several wars. One of these contributed, as we have 
 seen, to the making of the Kingdom of Italy. Another, 
 the Franco-German war of 1870, brought the Empire 
 to an abrupt and catastrophic close. 
 
 The war of 1866 between Prussia and Austria, a war 
 in which France did not participate, exerted a most un- 
 fortunate influence upon the public opinion of France 
 and upon the prestige of the French Emperor. That 
 war had resulted in greatly increasing the territory of 
 Prussia, in expelling Austria from Germany, in found- 
 ing a strong state, east of France, the North German 
 Confederation. This swift rise of Prussia to a position 
 she had never held before, this sweeping reorganization 
 of Central Europe, created a widespread feeling of appre- 
 hension and alarm throughout France. Frenchmen felt 
 that the balance of power was upset, that France was 
 no longer safe as she had been, now that she had, on 
 her eastern border, a strong, successful, aggressive mili- 
 tary state. Frenchmen thought that Napoleon III could 
 have and should have prevented this change, so full of 
 possible menace. As he had not done so, as the new sit- 
 
THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR 25 
 
 uation had come to pass with the Emperor merely stand- 
 ing by, a spectator and not an active and effective partici- 
 pant, Napoleon's popularity was greatly decreased and 
 confidence in his wisdom and foresight was greatly dimin- 
 ished. He might, at least, have seized the occasion of 
 the crisis of 1866 to gain some unmistakable compensa- 
 tion for France, which would have kept the balance even. 
 
 This feeling of anxiety and of indignation which 
 spread through France after 1866 was crystalized in the 
 phrase " Revenge for Sadowa," Sadowa being the name 
 by which the decisive battle of Koniggratz was known to 
 Frenchmen. The meaning of the phrase was that, if one 
 state, like Prussia, should be increased in area and power, 
 France also, for consenting to it, had a right to a pro- 
 portionate increase, that thus the reciprocal relations 
 might remain the same. But the golden moment for de- 
 manding this had been allowed carelessly, imprudently 
 to slip by. And golden moments ought not to be 
 neglected, for they have a way of not returning. 
 
 From 1866 to 1870 the idea that ultimately a war 
 would come between Prussia and France became familiar 
 to the people and governments of both countries. Many 
 Frenchmen desired " revenge for Sadowa." Prussians 
 were proud and elated at their two successful wars, and 
 intensely conscious of their new position in Europe. The 
 newspapers of both countries during the next four years 
 were full of crimination and recrimination, of abuse and 
 taunt, the Government in neither case greatly discourag- 
 ing their unwise conduct, at times even inspiring and 
 directing it. Such an atmosphere was an excellent one 
 for ministers who wanted war to work in, and both 
 France and Prussia had just such ministers. Bismarck 
 
26 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 believed such a war inevitable, and, in his opinion, it 
 was desirable as the only way of completing the unifica- 
 tion of Germany, since Napoleon would never willingly 
 consent to the extension of the Confederation to include 
 the South German states. All that he desired was that 
 it should come at precisely the right moment, when Prus- 
 sia was entirely ready, and that it should come by act of 
 France, so that Prussia could pose before Europe as 
 merely defending herself against a wanton aggressor. 
 
 With responsible statesmen in such a temper it was not 
 difficult to bring about a war. And yet the Franco-Prus- 
 sian War broke most unexpectedly, like a thunderstorm, 
 over Europe. Undreamed of July i, 1870, it began July 
 15. It came in a roundabout way. The Spanish throne 
 was vacant, as a revolution had driven the monarch, 
 Queen Isabella, out of that country. On July 2, news 
 reached Paris that Leopold of Hohenzollern, a relative 
 of the King of Prussia, had accepted the Spanish crown. 
 Bismarck was behind this Hohenzollern candidacy, zeal- 
 ously furthering it, despite the fact that he knew Na- 
 poleon's feeling of hostility to it. Great was the indig- 
 nation of the French papers and parliament and a most 
 dangerous crisis developed rapidly. Other powers inter- 
 vened, laboring in the interests of peace. On July 12, 
 it was announced that the Hohenzollern candidacy was 
 withdrawn. 
 
 The tension was immediately relieved; the war scare 
 was over. Two men, however, were not pleased by this 
 outcome, Bismarck, whose intrigue was now foiled and 
 whose humiliation was so great that he thought he must 
 resign and retire into private life, and Gramont, the 
 PYench minister of foreign affairs, a reckless, bluster- 
 
THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR 27 
 
 ing politician who was not satisfied with the diplomatic 
 victory he had won, but wished to win another which 
 would increase the discomfiture of Prussia. The French 
 ministry now made an additional demand that the King 
 of Prussia should promise that this Hohenzollern candi- 
 dacy should never be renewed. The King declined to do 
 so and, in a despatch from Ems, authorized Bismarck 
 to publish an account of the incident. Here was Bis- 
 marck's opportunity which he used ruthlessly and 
 joyously to provoke the French to declare war. His 
 account, as he himself says, was intended to be " a 
 red flag for the Gallic bull." The effect of its publica- 
 tion was instantaneous. It aroused the indignation 
 of both countries to fever heat. The Prussians thought 
 that their King, the French that their ambassador had 
 been insulted. As if this were not sufficient the news- 
 papers of both countries teemed with false, abusive, and 
 inflammatory accounts. The voice of the advocates of 
 peace was drowned in the general clamor. The head of 
 the French ministry declared that he accepted this war 
 " with a light heart.*' This war, declared by France on 
 July 15, grew directly out of mere diplomatic fencing. 
 The French people did not desire it, only the people of 
 Paris, inflamed by an official press. Indeed, until it was 
 declared, the French people hardly knew of the matter 
 of dispute. It came upon them unexpectedly. The war 
 was made by the responsible heads of two Governments. 
 It was in its origin in no sense national in either coun- 
 try. Its immediate occasion was trivial. But it was the 
 cause of a remarkable display of patriotism in both coun- 
 tries. 
 
 The war upon which the French ministry entered with 
 
 %. 
 
28 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 so light a heart was destined to prove the most disastrous 
 in the history of their country. In every respect it 
 was begun under singularly inauspicious circumstances. 
 France declared war upon Prussia alone, but in a manner 
 that threw the South German states, upon whose sup- 
 port she had counted, directly into the camp of Bismarck. 
 They regarded the French demand, that the King of 
 Prussia should pledge himself for all time to forbid the 
 Prince of Hohenzollern's candidature, as unnecessary and 
 insulting. At once Bavaria and Baden and Wiirtemberg 
 joined the campaign on the side of Prussia. 
 
 The French military authorities made the serious mis- 
 take of grossly underestimating the difficulty of the task 
 before them. Incredible lack of preparation was revealed 
 at once. The French army was poorly equipped, and was 
 far inferior in numbers and in the ability of its command- 
 ers to the Prussian army. With the exception of a few 
 ineffectual successes the war was a long series of reverses 
 for the French. The Germans crossed the Rhine into 
 Alsace and Lorraine, and succeeded, after several days 
 of very heavy fighting, in shutting up Bazaine, with the 
 principal French army, in Metz, a strong fortress which 
 the Germans than besieged. 
 
 On September i, another French army, with which was 
 the Emperor, was defeated at Sedan and was obliged 
 on the following day to surrender to the Germans. Na- 
 poleon himself became a prisoner of war. The French 
 lost, on these two days, in killed, wounded, or taken 
 prisoners, nearly one hundred and twenty thousand men. 
 
 Disasters so appalling resounded throughout the world. 
 France no longer had an army; one had capitulated at 
 Sedan; the other was locked up in Metz. The early de- 
 
THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR 2.^. 
 
 feats of August had been announced in Paris by the Gov- 
 ernment as victories. The deception could no longer be 
 maintained. On September 3 this despatch was received 
 from the Emperor : " The army has been defeated and 
 is captive; I myself am a prisoner." As a prisoner he 
 was no longer head of the government of France; there 
 was, as Thiers said, a '* vacancy of power." On Sunday, 
 September 4, the Legislative Body was convened. But 
 it had no time to deliberate. The mob invaded the hall 
 shouting, " Down with the Empire ! Long live the Re- 
 public ! " Gambetta, Jules Favre, and Jules Ferry, fol- 
 lowed by the crowd, proceeded to the Hotel de Ville 
 and there proclaimed the Republic. The Empress fled. 
 A Government of National Defense was organized, with 
 General Trochu at its head, which was the actual gov- 
 ernment of France during the rest of the war. 
 
 The Franco-German War lasted about six months, from 
 the first of August, 1870, when fighting began, to about 
 the first of February, 1871. It falls naturally into two 
 periods, the imperial and the republican. During the first, 
 which was limited to the month of August, the regular 
 armies were, as we have seen, destroyed or bottled up. 
 Then the Empire collapsed and the Emperor was a pris- 
 oner in Germany. The second period lasted five months. 
 France, under the Government of National Defense, made 
 a remarkably courageous and spirited defense under the 
 most discouraging conditions. 
 
 The Germans, leaving a sufficient army to carry on 
 the siege of Metz, advanced toward Paris. They began 
 the siege of that city on September 19. This siege, one 
 of the most famous in history, lasted four months, and 
 astonished Europe. Immense stores had been collecte4 
 
^ 
 
 a^o FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 in the city, the citizens were armed, and the defense was 
 energetic. The Parisians hoped to hold out long enough 
 to enable new armies to be organized and diplomacy pos- 
 sibly to intervene. To accomplish the former a delega- 
 tion from the Government of National Defense, headed 
 by Gambetta, escaped from Paris by balloon, and estab- 
 lished a branch seat of government first at Tours, then 
 at Bordeaux. Gambetta, by his immense energy, his 
 eloquence, his patriotism, was able to raise new armies, 
 whose resistance astonished the Germans, but as they 
 had not time to be thoroughly trained, they were un- 
 successful. They could not break the immense circle 
 of iron that surrounded Paris. After the overthrow of 
 the Empire the war was reduced to the siege of Paris 
 and the attempts of these improvised armies to break 
 that siege. These attempts were rendered all the more 
 hopeless by the fall of Metz (October 2^, 1870). Six 
 thousand officers and 173,000 men were forced by im- 
 pending starvation to surrender, with hundreds of can- 
 non and immense war supplies, the greatest capitulation 
 " recorded in the history of civilized nations." A month 
 earlier, on September 2^, Strasburg had surrendered and 
 19,000 soldiers had become prisoners of war. 
 
 The capitulation of Metz was particularly disastrous, 
 because it made possible the sending of more German 
 armies to reenforce the siege of Paris, and to attack the 
 forces which Gambetta was, by prodigies of effort, creat- 
 ing in the rest of France. These armies could not get 
 to the relief of Paris, nor could the troops within Paris 
 break through to them. The siege became simply a ques- 
 tion of endurance. 
 
 The Germans began the bombardment of the city early: 
 
THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR 31 
 
 in January. Certain sections suffered terribly, and were 
 ravaged by fires. Famine stared the Parisians in the 
 face. After November 20 there ^ no more beef or 
 lamb to be had; after December .^ only thirty grams 
 of horse meat a day per person, which, moreover, cost 
 about two dollars and a half a pound; after January 15 
 the amount of bread, a wretched stuff, was reduced to 
 three hundred grams. People ate anything they could 
 get, dogs, cats, rats. The market price for rats was 
 two francs apiece. By the 31st of January, there would 
 be nothing left to eat. Additional suffering arose from 
 the fact that the winter was one of the coldest on record. 
 Coal and firewood were exhausted. Trees in the Champs 
 Elysees and the Bois de Boulogne were cut down, and 
 fires built in the public squares for the poor. Wine froze 
 in casks. On January 28, with famine almost upon her, 
 Paris capitulated after an heroic resistance. 
 
 The terms of peace granted by Bismarck were extraor- 
 dinarily severe. They were laid down in the Treaty of 
 Frankfort, signed May 10, 1871. France was forced to 
 cede Alsace and a large part of Lorraine, including the 
 important fortress of Metz. She must pay an absolutely 
 unprecedented war indemnity of five thousand million 
 francs (a billion dollars) within three years. She was to 
 support a German army of occupation, which should be 
 gradually withdrawn as the installments of the indemnity 
 were paid. 
 
 The Treaty of Frankfort has remained the open sore of 
 Europe since 1871. France could never forget or forgive 
 the deep humiliation of it. The enormous fine might, with 
 the lapse of time, have been overlooked, but never the 
 seizure of the two provinces by mere force and against 
 
t 
 
 32 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 the unanimous and passionate protest of the people of 
 ; Alsace and Lorraine. Moreover the eastern frontier of 
 France was seriously weakened. 
 
 Meanwhile other events had occurred as a result of this 
 war. Italy had completed her unification by seizing the 
 city of Rome, thus terminating the temporal rule of the 
 Pope. The Pope had been supported there by a French 
 garrison. This was withdrawn as a result of the battle 
 of Sedan, and the troops of Victor Emmanuel attacked 
 the Pope's own troops, defeated them after a slight re- 
 sistance, and entered Rome on the 20th of September, 
 1870. The unity of Italy was now consummated and 
 Rome became the capital of the kingdom. 
 
 A more important consequence of the war was the 
 completion of the unification of Germany, and the crea- 
 tion of the German Empire. Bismarck had desired a 
 war with France as necessary to complete the unity of 
 Germany. Whether necessary or not, at least that end 
 was now secured. During the war negotiations were car- 
 ried on between Prussia and the South German states. 
 Treaties were drawn up and the confederation was 
 widened to include all the German states. On January 
 18, 1871, in the royal palace of Versailles, King William I 
 was proclaimed German Emperor. 
 
 The war of 1866 had resulted in the expulsion of 
 Austria from Germany and from Italy. The war of 
 1870 completed the unification of both countries. Berlin 
 became the capital of a federal Empire, Rome of a unified 
 Kingdom. The war of 1870 also created the Third 
 Republic. 
 
^ I 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 THE GERMAN EMPIRE 
 
 The Franco-German War completed the unification of 
 Germany. The Empire was proclaimed January i8, 1871, 
 in the old capital of the French monarchy. The consti- 
 tution of the new state was adopted immediately after the 
 close of the war and went into force April 16, 187 1. In 
 most respects it was simply the constitution of the North 
 German Confederation of 1867, The name of Confedera- 
 tion gave way to that of Empire and the name of Emperor 
 was substituted for that of President. But the Empire 
 was a confederation, consisting of twenty-five states and 
 one Imperial Territory, Alsace-Lorraine. The King of 
 Prussia was ipso facto German Emperor. The legislative 
 power was vested in the Bundesrath, or Federal Council, 
 and the Reichstag. The Emperor had the right to declare 
 war with the consent of the Bundesrath, he was to be 
 commander-in-chief of the army and navy, to have charge 
 of foreign affairs and to make treaties, subject to the 
 limitation that certain kinds of treaties must be ratified by 
 Parliament. He was to be assisted by a Chancellor, whom 
 he was to appoint, and whom he might remove, who 
 was not to be responsible to Parliament but to him alone. 
 Under the Chancellor were various secretaries of state, 
 >vho simply administered departments, but who did not 
 form a cabinet responsible to Parliament. 
 
 33 
 
34 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Laws were to be made by the Bundesrath and the 
 Reichstag. The Bundesrath was the most powerful body 
 in the Empire. It possessed legislative, executive, and 
 judicial functions and was a sort of diplomatic assembly. 
 It represented the states, that is, the rulers of the twenty- 
 five states of which the Empire consisted. It was to be 
 composed of delegates appointed by the rulers. Unlike 
 the Senate of the United States, the states of Germany 
 were not to be represented equally in the Bundesrath but 
 most unequally. There were to be fifty-eight members. 
 Of these Prussia was to have seventeen, Bavaria six. 
 Saxony and Wiirtemberg four each ; others three or two ; 
 and seventeen of the states were to have only one apiece. 
 The Bundesrath was practically the old Diet of Frank- 
 fort carried over into the new system, with certain 
 changes rendered necessary by the intervening history. 
 The members were to be really diplomats, representing 
 the numerous sovereigns of Germany. They were not to 
 vote individually, but each state was to vote as a unit and 
 as the ruler might instruct. Thus the seventeen votes of 
 Prussia were to be cast always as a unit, on one side or 
 the other, and as the King of Prussia should direct. The 
 Bundesrath was not to be a deliberative body, because its 
 members were to vote according to instructions from the 
 home governments. Its members were not to be free to 
 vote as they might see fit. It was in reality an assembly 
 of the sovereigns of Germany. Its powers were very 
 extensive. It was the most important element of the 
 legislature, as most legislation began in it, its consent was 
 necessary to all legislation, and every law passed by the 
 Reichstag must after that be submitted to it for ratifica- 
 tion or rejection. It was therefore the chief source of 
 
THE GERMAN EMPIRE 35 
 
 legislation. Representing the princes of Ger.nany, it was 
 a thoroughly monarchical institution, a bulwark of the 
 monarchical spirit. As a matter of fact it has generally 
 been controlled by Prussia, although there have been a 
 few cases since 1871 in which the will of Prussia has been 
 overridden. Its proceedings were secret. 
 
 The Reichstag was the only popular element in the 
 Empire. It consisted of 397 members, elected for a term 
 of five years by the voters, that is, by men twenty-five 
 years of age or older. The powers of the Reichstag were 
 inferior to those of most of the other popular chambers 
 of Europe. It neither made nor unmade ministries. 
 While it, in conjunction with the Bundesrath, voted the 
 appropriations, certain ones, notably those for the army, 
 were voted for a period of years. Its consent was re- 
 quired for new taxes, whereas taxes previously levied 
 continue to be collected without the consent of Parliament 
 being secured again. The matters on which Parliament 
 might legislate were those concerning army, navy, com- 
 merce, tariffs, railways, postal system, telegraphs, civil and 
 criminal law. On matters not within the jurisdiction of 
 the Empire each state might legislate as it chose. In 
 reality the Reichstag was little more than an advisory 
 body, with the power of veto of new legislation. The 
 mainspring of power was elsewhere — in the Bundesrath 
 and in the Kingdom of Prussia. 
 
 The German Empire was unique among federal govern- 
 ments in that it was a confederation of monarchical 
 states, which, moreover, were very unequal in size and 
 population, ranging, in 1914, from Prussia with a popu- 
 lation of 40,000,000, and covering two-thirds of the 
 territory of Germany, down to Schaumburg-Lippe, with 
 
36 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 a population of 45,000. Three members of the Empire 
 were republics : Liibeck, Bremen, and Hamburg. The 
 rest were monarchies. All had constitutions and legis- 
 latures, more or less liberal. This confederation differed 
 from other governments of its class in that the states 
 were of unequal voting power in both houses, one state 
 largely preponderating, Prussia, a fact explained by its 
 great size, its population, and the importance of its his- 
 toric role. 
 
 The chief representative of the Emperor was the Chan- 
 cellor. The Chancellor was not like the Prime Minister 
 of England, simply one of the ministers. He stood dis- 
 tinct from and above all federal officials. There was no 
 imperial cabinet in the German Empire, and cabinet, or 
 what is correctly called responsible, government did not 
 exist. The Chancellor was appointed by the Emperor, 
 was removable by the Emperor, was responsible to the 
 Emperor, and was not responsible to either Bundesrath 
 or Reichstag. Either or both assemblies might vote down 
 his proposals, might even vote lack of confidence. It 
 would make no difference to him. He would not resign. 
 The only support he needed was that of the Emperor. 
 
 There were other so-called ministers, such as those of 
 foreign affairs, of the interior, of education. But these 
 were not like the members of the cabinet of the United 
 States or of England. They were subordinates of the 
 Chancellor, carrying out his will, and not for a moment 
 thinking of resigning because of any adverse vote in the 
 popular house, the Reichstag. The powers of the Chan- 
 cellor were great, but as his tenure was absolutely de- 
 pendent upon the favor of the Emperor this really meant 
 that the power of the Emperor was great and was irre- 
 
THE GERMAN EMPIRE 37 
 
 sponsible. The Chancellor might be an imposing figure in 
 the state, as Bismarck was ; he might be a mere agent of 
 the Emperor, as all of Bismarck's successors were — for 
 the reason that William II, unlike William I, intended to 
 rule and really to be the Chancellor himself. 
 
 This was the most important characteristic of the 
 German Empire. Unlike England, France, Italy, Bel- 
 gium, Holland, the Scandinavian states, the cabinet system 
 of government did not exist in Germany. The executive 
 was not subject to the legislative power; ministers might 
 not be turned out of office by adverse majorities. Ger- 
 many was a constitutional state, in the sense that it had a 
 written constitution. It was not a parliamentary state. 
 Parliament did not have the controlling voice in the state. 
 The monarchs, and particularly the monarch of Prussia, 
 had that. This was Bismarck's great achievement. His 
 victory over the Prussian Parliament had this effect, that 
 it checked the growth of responsible government in 
 Germany. So far as ensuring self-government, or a large 
 measure of it, to the people of Germany was concerned, 
 the constitution, largely the work of Bismarck, was much 
 inferior to the constitution framed by the Parliament of 
 Frankfort in 1848. 
 
 The Emperor gained his great power from the fact that 
 he was King of Prussia. He was Emperor because he 
 was King. As King he had very extensive functions. 
 His functions as Emperor and King were so connected 
 that it was not easy to distinguish them. As a matter of 
 fact the King of Prussia was very nearly an absolute 
 monarch. The Prussian Parliament was far less likely 
 to oppose his will than was the Imperial Parliament which, 
 itself, has shown only slight independence since 1871. 
 
38 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 There was no parliamentary government in Prussia any 
 more than there was in the Empire. 
 
 Since 1871, Germany has had three Emperors, William 
 I (1871-88), Frederick III (March 9-June 15, 1888), 
 and William II, from 1888 to 1918. 
 
 The history since 1871 naturally falls into two periods, 
 which are in many respects well defined, the reign of 
 William I and the reign of William II. During the former 
 the real ruler was Prince Bismarck, the Chancellor, whose 
 position was one of immense prestige and authority. 
 Having in nine years made the King, whom he found 
 upon the point of abdicating, the most powerful ruler in 
 Europe, and having given Germans unity, he remained 
 the chief figure in the state twenty years longer until his 
 resignation in 1890. During the latter period, the reign 
 of William II, the Emperor was the real head of the 
 government. 
 
 The Kulturkampf 
 
 No sooner was the new Empire established than it was 
 torn by a fierce religious conflict that lasted many 3^ears, 
 the so-called Kulturkampf, or '' war in defense of civiliza- 
 tion,*' a contest between the State and the Roman Catholic 
 Church. The wars with Austria and France engendered 
 animosity in the field of religion as they were victories of 
 a Protestant state over two strongly Catholic powers. 
 The loss of the Pope's temporal power in 1870 embittered 
 many Catholics still further and a party was formed in 
 Germany, the Center, to work for the restoration of the 
 temporal power and for the general interests of the 
 Church. In the first elections to the Reichstag this party 
 won sixty-three votes. Bismarck did not like this ap- 
 
THE GERMAN EMPIRE 39 
 
 pearance of a clerical party in the political arena. He 
 was of the opinion that the Church should keep out of 
 politics. Moreover, he decidedly objected to what he 
 understood to be the claims of the Church that in certain 
 matters, which he regarded as belonging exclusively to the 
 State, the Church was superior to the secular authority 
 and had the primary right to the allegiance of Catholics. 
 
 The immediate cause of the Kulturkampf was a quarrel 
 among Catholics themselves. The proclamation by the 
 Vatican Council in 1870 of the new dogma of papal 
 infallibility had been opposed in the Council by the 
 German bishops. But they and the priests of Germany 
 were now required to subscribe to it. The large majority 
 did, but some refused. The latter called themselves Old 
 Catholics, proclaiming their adherence to the Church as 
 hitherto defined, but rejecting this addition to their creed 
 as false. The bishops who accepted it demanded that the 
 Old Catholics should be removed from their positions in 
 the universities and schools. The government of Prussia 
 refused to remove them. A religious war was shortly in 
 progress which grew more bitter each year. First the 
 Imperial Parliament forbade the religious orders to en- 
 gage in teaching; then, in 1872, it expelled the Jesuits 
 from Germany. Of all legislation enacted during this 
 struggle the Falk or May Laws of the Prussian legislature 
 were the most important (passed in May of three suc- 
 cessive years, 1873, 1874, 1875). Bismarck supported 
 them on the ground that the contest was political, not 
 religious, that there must be no state within the State, 
 no power considering itself superior to the established 
 authorities. He also believed that the whole movement 
 was conducted by those opposed to German unity. Any- 
 
40 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 thing that imperiled that unity must be crushed. These 
 May Laws gave the State large powers over the education 
 and appointment of the clergy. They forbade the Roman 
 Catholic Church to intervene in any way in civil affairs, 
 or to coerce citizens or officials; they required that all 
 , clergymen should pass the regular state examination of 
 the preparatory school, and should study theology for 
 three years at a state university; that all Catholic semi- 
 naries should be subject to state inspection. They also 
 established control over the appointment and dismissal 
 of priests. A law was passed making civil marriage com- 
 pulsory. This was to reduce the power that priests could 
 exercise by refusing to marry a Catholic and a Protestant, 
 and now even Old Catholics. Religious orders were sup- 
 pressed. 
 
 Against these laws the Catholics indignantly protested. 
 The Pope declared them null and void; the clergy refused 
 to obey them, and the faithful rallied to the support of 
 the clergy. To enforce them the government resorted to 
 fines, imprisonment, deprivation of salary, expulsion from 
 the country. The conflict spread everywhere, into little 
 villages, as well as into the cities, into the universities 
 and schools. It dominated politics for several years. The 
 national life was much disturbed, yet the end was not 
 accomplished. In the elections of 1877 the Center suc- 
 ceeded in returning ninety-two members, and was the 
 largest party in the Reichstag. It was evident that the 
 policy was a failure. Other questions were becoming 
 prominent, of an economic and social character, and Bis- 
 marck wished to be free to handle them. Particularly 
 requiring attention, in his opinion, and that of William I, 
 jvas a new and most menacing party, the Socialist. Bis- 
 
THE GERMAN EMPIRE 41 
 
 marck therefore prepared to retreat. The death of Pius 
 IX in 1878, and the election of Leo XIII, a more con- 
 ciliatory and diplomatic Pope, facilitated the change of 
 policy. The anti-clerical legislation was gradually re- 
 pealed, except that concerning civil marriage. In return 
 for the measures surrendered Bismarck gained the support 
 of the Center for laws which he now had more at heart. 
 The only permanent result of this religious conflict was 
 the strengthening of the Center or Catholic party, which 
 has been, during most of the time since, the strongest 
 party in this Protestant country. 
 
 Bismarck and Socialism 
 
 It was in 1878 that Bismarck turned his attention to the 
 Socialist party, which had for some time been growing, 
 and now seemed menacing. That party was founded by 
 Ferdinand Lassalle, a Socialist of 1848, much influenced 
 by the French school of that day. The party, originally 
 appearing in 1848, was shortly broken up by persecution 
 and did not reappear until 1863. In 1863 Lassalle 
 founded a journal called the Social Democrat. In op- 
 position to this party a somewhat different Socialist group 
 was led by Karl Marx. These two groups were rivals 
 until 1875, when a fusion was effected and the party 
 platform was adopted at Gotha. This platform de- 
 nounced the existing organization of the economic sys- 
 tem, the ownership of the means of production solely 
 by the capitalist class and in its interest; it demanded 
 that the state should own them and, should conduct 
 industries in the interest of society, the largest part 
 of which consists of laborers, and that the products 
 
42 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 of labor should be justly distributed; it aimed at a 
 free state and a socialistic society. Needless to say, 
 Germany was neither at that time. That Germany 
 might be a free state the Socialists demanded universal 
 suffrage for all over twenty years of age, women as well 
 as men, secret ballot, freedom of the press, freedom of 
 association, and indeed the greatest extension of political 
 rights in a democratic direction, free and compulsory 
 education, and certain immediate economic and social re- 
 forms, such as a progressive income tax, a normal work- 
 ing day, and a free Sunday, prohibition of child labor 
 and of all forms of labor by women which were dangerous 
 to health or morality, laws for the protection of the life 
 and health of workingmen and for the inspection of mines 
 and factories. In 1871 the Socialists elected two mem- 
 bers to the Reichstag, three years later their representation 
 increased to nine, and in 1877 to twelve. Their popular 
 votes were: in 1871, 124,655; in 1874, 351,952; and in 
 "^^77. 493.288. 
 
 The steady growth of this party aroused the alarm of 
 the ruling classes of Germany, which stood for mon- 
 archy, aristocracy, the existing economic system, while 
 its aims were destructive of all these. Bismarck had long 
 hated the Socialists, as was natural considering his train- 
 ing and environment, and considering also the declarations 
 of the Socialists themselves. Their leaders, Liebknecht 
 and Bebel, had opposed the North German Confederation, 
 the war with France, the annexation of Alsace and Lor- 
 raine. The Socialists expressed openly and freely their 
 entire opposition to the existing order in Germany. It 
 was only a question of time when they must clash vio- 
 lently with the man who had helped so powerfully to 
 
THE GERMAN EMPIRE 43 
 
 create that order, and whose life work henceforth was to 
 consoHdate it. Again, the Socialist party was radically 
 democratic, and Bismarck hated democracy. A conflict 
 between men representing the very opposite poles of 
 opinion was inevitable. Bismarck determined to crush 
 the Socialists once for all. He would use two methods; 
 one stern repression of Socialist agitation, 'the other 
 amelioration of the conditions of the working class, 
 conditions which alone, he believed, caused them to listen 
 to the false and deceptive doctrines of the Socialist 
 leaders. 
 
 First came repression. In October, 1878, a law of 
 great severity, intended to stamp out completely all 
 Socialist propaganda, was passed by the Imperial Parlia- 
 ment. It forbade all associations, meetings, and publica- 
 tions having for their object " the subversion of the social 
 order," or in which " socialistic tendencies " should ap- 
 pear. It gave the police large powers of interference, 
 arrest, and expulsion from the country. Martial law 
 might be proclaimed where desirable, which meant that, as 
 far as Socialists were concerned, the ordinary courts 
 would cease to protect individual liberties. Practically a 
 mere decree of a police official would suffice to expel from 
 Germany anyone suspected or accused of being a Socialist. 
 This law was enacted for a period of four years. It was 
 later twice renewed and remained in force until 1890. It 
 was vigorously applied. According to statistics furnished 
 by the Socialists themselves, 1,400 publications were sup- 
 pressed, 1,500 persons were imprisoned, 900 banished, 
 during these twelve years. One might not read the works 
 of Lassalle, for instance, even in a public library. 
 
 This law, says a biographer of Bismarck, is very dis- 
 
44 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 appointing. *' We find the Government again Having 
 recourse to the same means for checking and guarding 
 opinion v^hich Metternich had used fifty years before." ^ 
 It was, moreover, an egregious failure. For twelve years 
 the Socialists carried on their propaganda in secret. It 
 became evident that their power lay in their ideas and in 
 the economic conditions of the working classes, rather 
 than in formal organizations, which might be broken up. 
 A paper was published for them in Switzerland and every 
 week thousands of copies found their way into the hands 
 of workingmen in Germany, despite the utmost vigilance 
 of the police. Persecution in their case, as in that of the 
 Roman Catholics, only rendered the party more resolute 
 and active. At first it seemed that the law would realize 
 the aims of its sponsors, for in the elections of 1881, the 
 first after its passage, the Socialist vote fell from about 
 493,000 to about 312,000. But in 1884 it rose to 549,000; 
 in 1887 to 763,000; in 1890 to 1,427,000, resulting in 
 the election of thirty-five members to the Reichstag. In 
 that year the laws were not renewed. The Socialists came 
 out of their contest with Bismarck with a popular and 
 parliamentary vote increased threefold. Bismarck, true to 
 his fundamental belief that difficult opponents are best 
 put down by force, not won by persuasion, had attempted 
 here, as in the Kulturkampf, to settle an annoying ques- 
 tion by arbitrary and despotic measures enforced ruth- 
 lessly by the police and sacrificing what are regarded in 
 many other countries as the most precious rights of the 
 individual. 
 
 But he had at no time intended to rest content witH 
 merely repressive measures. He had also intended to 
 
 ' Headlam, Bismarck, 409. 
 
THE GERMAN EMPIRE 45 
 
 win the working classes away from the Socialist party 
 by enacting certain laws favoring them, by trying to con- 
 vince them that the State was their real benefactor and 
 was deeply interested in their welfare. 
 
 The method by which Bismarck proposed to improve 
 the condition of the working class was by an elaborate 
 and comprehensive system of insurance against the mis- 
 fortunes and vicissitudes of life, against sickness, acci- 
 dent, old age, and incapacity. It was his desire that any 
 workingman incapacitated in any of these ways should 
 not be exposed to the possibility of becoming a pauper, 
 but should receive a pension from the state. His policy 
 was called State Socialism. His proposals met with 
 vehement opposition, both in the Reichstag and among 
 influential classes outside. It was only slowly that he 
 carried them through, the Sickness Insurance Law in 
 1883, the Accident Insurance Laws in 1884 and 1885, and 
 the Old Age Insurance Law in 1889. These laws are 
 very complicated and cannot be described here at length. 
 
 Such was Bismarck's contribution to the solution of the 
 social question, which grew to such commanding im- 
 portance as the nineteenth century wore on. In this 
 legislation Bismarck was a pioneer. His ideas have been 
 studied widely in other countries, and his example fol- 
 lowed in some. 
 
 The Socialists did not cooperate with him in the pas- 
 sage of these laws, which they denounced as entirely 
 inadequate to solve the social evils, as only a slight step 
 in the right direction. Nor did Bismarck wish their sup- 
 port. They were Social Democrats. Democracy he 
 hated. Socialism of the state, controlled by a powerful 
 monarch, was one thing. Socialism carried through by 
 
46 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 the people believing in a democratic government, opposed 
 to the existing order in government and society, a very 
 different thing. At the very moment that Bismarck se- 
 cured the passage of the Accident Insurance Bill he also 
 demanded the renewal of the law against the Socialists. 
 His prophecy, that if these laws were passed the Socialists 
 would sound their bird call in vain, has not been fulfilled. 
 That party has grown greatly and almost uninterruptedly 
 ever since he began his war upon it. 
 
 Bismarck and the Policy of Protection 
 
 In 1879, Bismarck brought about a profound change 
 in the financial and industrial policy of Germany by in- 
 ducing Parliament to abandon the policy of a low tariff, 
 and comparative free trade, and to adopt a system of 
 high tariff and pronounced protection. His purposes were 
 twofold. He wished to increase the revenue of the Em- 
 pire and to encourage native industries. In adopting the 
 principle of protection he was not influenced, he asserted, 
 by the theories of economists, but by his own observation 
 of facts. He observed that, while England was the only 
 nation following a policy of free trade, France and 
 Austria and Russia and the United States were pro- 
 nounced believers in protection and that it was too much 
 to ask that Germany should permanently remain the dupe 
 of an amiable error. He said that owing to her low 
 tariff Germany had been the dumping ground for the 
 overproduction of other countries. Now industries must 
 be protected that they might flourish and that they might 
 have at least the home market. As this policy had proved 
 successful in other countries, notably in the United States, 
 he urged that Germany follow their example. 
 
THE GERMAN EMPIRE 47 
 
 Bismarck won the day, though not without difficulty. 
 Germany entered upon a period of protection, which, 
 growing higher and appHed to more and more industries, 
 has continued ever since. Bismarck beheved that Ger- 
 many must become rich in order to be strong; that she 
 could only become rich by manufactures; and that she 
 could have manufactures only by giving them protection. 
 The system was worked out gradually and piecemeal, as 
 he could not carry his whole plan at once. By means of 
 the tariff Bismarck wished to assure Germans the home 
 market. Not only was this largely accomplished, but by 
 its means the foreign market also was widened. By of- 
 fering concessions to foreign nations for concessions from 
 them, Germany gained for her manufactured products 
 an entrance into many other countries, which had been 
 denied them before. The prodigious expansion of Ger- 
 man industry after 1880 is generally regarded in Germany 
 as a vindication of this policy. 
 
 Acquisition of Colonies 
 One of the important features of the closing years of 
 Bismarck's political career was the beginning of a German 
 colonial empire. In his earlier years Bismarck did not 
 believe in Germany's attempting the acquisition of col- 
 onies. In 1 87 1 he refused to demand as prize of war any 
 of the French colonial possessions. He believed that 
 Germany should consolidate, and should not risk in- 
 curring the hostility of other nations by entering upon 
 the path of colonial rivalry. But colonies, nevertheless, 
 were being founded under the spirit of private initiative. 
 Energetic merchants from Hamburg and Bremen estab- 
 lished trading stations in Africa, and the islands of the 
 
48 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Pacific, for the purpose of selling their goods and ac- 
 quiring tropical products, such as cocoa, coffee, rubber, 
 spices. The aid of the Government was invoked at 
 various times, but Bismarck held aloof. The interest 
 aroused in the exploits of these private companies gave 
 rise towards 1880 to a definite colonial party and the 
 formation of a Colonial Society, which has since become 
 important. 
 
 The change in the policy of the Government, however, 
 from one of aloofness to one of energetic interest in 
 the acquisition of colonies was largely a result of the 
 adoption of the policy of protection and active govern- 
 mental encouragement of manufactures and commerce. 
 In the debate on the tariff bill of 1879 Bismarck said that 
 it was desirable to protect manufactures, that thus a 
 greater demand for labor would arise, that more people 
 could live in Germany, and that therefore the emigration 
 which had for years drawn tens of thousands from the 
 country, particularly to the United States, would be de- 
 creased. But to develop manufactures to the utmost, 
 Germany must have new markets for her products; and 
 here colonies would be useful. In 1884 he adopted a 
 vigorous colonial policy, supporting and expanding the 
 work of the private merchants and travelers. In that 
 year Germany seized a number of regions in Africa, in 
 the southwest, the west, and the east. A period of 
 diplomatic activity began, leading in the next few years to 
 treaties with England and other powers, resulting in the 
 fixing of the boundaries of the various claimants to 
 African territory. This is the partition of Africa de- 
 scribed elsewhere.^ Germany thus acquired a scattered 
 
 ' See Chapter IX. 
 
THE GERMAN EMPIRE 49 
 
 African empire of great size, consisting of Kamerun, 
 Togoland, German Southwest Africa, German East 
 Africa; also a part of New Guinea. Later some of tlje 
 Samoan Islands came into her possession, and in 1899 
 she purchased the Caroline and the Ladrone Islands, 
 excepting Guam, from Spain for about four million 
 dollars. 
 
 The Triple Alliance 
 
 While domestic affairs formed the chief concern of 
 Bismarck after the war with France, yet he followed the 
 course of foreign affairs with the same closeness of 
 attention that he had shown before, and manipulated them 
 with the same display of subtlety and audacity that had 
 characterized his previous diplomatic career. His great 
 achievement in diplomacy in these years was the for- 
 mation of the Triple Alliance, an achievement directed, 
 like all the actions of his career, toward the consolidation 
 and exaltation of his country. The origin of this alliance 
 is really to be found in the Treaty of Frankfort, which 
 sealed the humiliation of France. The wresting from 
 France of Alsace and Lorraine inevitably rendered that 
 country desirous of a war of revenge, of a war for their 
 recovery. This remained the open sore of Europe after 
 1 87 1, occasioning numerous, incontestable, and wide- 
 spread evils. Firmly resolved to keep what he had won, 
 Bismarck's chief consideration was to render such a war 
 hopeless, therefore, perhaps, impossible. France must be 
 isolated so completely that she would not dare to move. 
 This was accomplished, first by the friendly understand- 
 ing brought about by Bismarck between the three rulers of 
 eastern Europe, the Emperors of Germany, Russia, and 
 
50 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Austria. But this understanding was shattered by events 
 in the Balkan peninsula during the years from 1876 to 
 1878. In the Balkans, Russia and Austria were rivals, 
 and their rivalry was thrown into high relief at the 
 Congress of Berlin over which Bismarck presided. 
 Russia, unaided, had carried on a war with Turkey, and 
 had imposed the Treaty of San Stefano upon her con- 
 quered enemy, only to find that Europe would not rec- 
 ognize that treaty, but insisted upon its revision at an 
 international congress, and at that congress she found 
 Bismarck, to whom she had rendered inestimable services 
 in the years so critical for Prussia, from 1863 to 1870, 
 now acting as the friend of Austria, a power which had 
 taken no part in the conflict, but was now intent upon 
 drawing chestnuts from the fire with the aid of the Iron 
 Chancellor. The Treaty of Berlin was a humiliation for 
 Russia and a striking success for Austria, her rival, 
 which was now empowered to " occupy " Bosnia and 
 Herzegovina. No wonder that the Russian Chancellor, 
 Gortchakoff, pronounced the Congress of Berlin *' the 
 darkest episode in his career," and that Alexander II 
 declared that " Bismarck had forgotten his promises of 
 1870." By favoring one of his alHes Bismarck had 
 alienated the other. In this fact lay the germ of the tv/o 
 great international combinations of the future, the Triple 
 and Dual Alliances, factors of profound significance in 
 the recent history of Europe. 
 
 Of these the first in order of creation and in impor- 
 tance was the Triple Alliance. Realizing that Russia was 
 mortally offended at his conduct, and that the friendly 
 understanding with her was over, Bismarck turned for 
 compensation to a closer union with Austria, and con- 
 
THE GERMAN EMPIRE 51 
 
 eluded a treaty with her October 7, 1879. This treaty 
 provided that if either Germany or Austria were attacked 
 by Russia the two should be bound " to lend each other 
 reciprocal aid with the whole of their military power, 
 and, subsequently, to conclude no peace except conjointly 
 and in agreement"; that if either Germany or Austria 
 should be attacked by another power — as, for instance, 
 France — the ally should remain neutral, but that if this 
 enemy should be aided by Russia, then Germany and Aus- 
 tria should act together with their full military force, 
 and should make peace in common. Thus this Austro- 
 German Treaty of 1879 established a defensive alliance 
 aimed particularly against Russia, to a lesser degree 
 against France. The treaty was secret and was not pub- 
 lished until 1887. Meanwhile, in 1882, Italy joined the 
 alliance, irritated at France because of her seizure the year 
 before of Tunis, a country which Italy herself had coveted 
 as a seat for colonial expansion but which Bismarck had 
 encouraged France to take, wishing to make one more 
 enemy for France, and thus to force that enemy, Italy, 
 into the alliance, highly unnatural in many ways, with 
 Austria, her old-time enemy, and with Germany. Thus 
 was formed the Triple Alliance. The text of that alli- 
 ance has never been published, but its purpose and char- 
 acter may probably be derived from that of the Austro- 
 German Alliance, which was now expanded to include 
 another power. The alliance was made for a period of 
 years, but was constantly renewed and remained in force 
 until 191 5. It was a defensive alliance, designed to as- 
 sure its territory to each of the contracting parties. 
 
 Thus was created a combination of powers which dom- 
 inated Central Europe from the Baltic to the Mediter- 
 
52 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 ranean, and which rested on a military force of over 
 two million men. At its head stood Germany. Europe 
 entered upon a period of German leadership in interna- 
 tional affairs which was later to be challenged by the 
 rise of a new alliance, that of Russia and France, which 
 for various reasons, however, was slow in forming. 
 
 The Reign of William II 
 
 On the 9th of March, 1888, Emperor William I died 
 at the age of ninety-one. He was succeeded by his son, 
 Frederick III, in his fifty-seventh year. The new Em- 
 peror was a man of moderation, of liberalism in politics, 
 an admirer of the English Constitution. It is supposed 
 that, had he lived, the autocracy of the ruler would have 
 given way to a genuine parliamentary system like that 
 of England, and that an era of greater liberty would 
 have been inaugurated. But he was already a dying 
 man, ill of cancer of the throat. His reign was one of 
 physical agony patiently borne. Unable to use his voice, 
 he could only indicate his wishes by writing or by signs. 
 The reign was soon over, before the era of liberalism 
 had time to dawn. Frederick was King and Emperor 
 only from March 9 to June 15, 1888. 
 
 He was succeeded by his son, William II. The new 
 ruler was twenty-nine years of age, a young man of very 
 active mind, of fertile imagination, versatile, ambitious, 
 self-confident, a man of unusual vigor. In his earliest 
 utterances, the new sovereign showed his enthusiasm for 
 the army and for religious orthodoxy. He held the doc- 
 trine of the divine origin of his power with medieval 
 fervor, expressing it with frequency and in dramatic 
 
THE GERMAN EMPIRE 53 
 
 fashion. It was evident that a man of such a character 
 would wish to govern, and not simply reign. He would 
 not be willing long to efface himself behind the imposing 
 figure of the great Chancellor. Bismarck had prophe- 
 sied that the Emperor would be his own Chancellor, 
 yet he did not have the wisdom to resign when the old 
 Emperor died, and to depart with dignity. He clung 
 to power. From the beginning friction developed be- 
 tween the two. They thought differently, felt differ- 
 ently. The fundamental question was, who should rule 
 in Germany? The struggle was for supremacy, since 
 there was no way in which two persons so self-willed 
 and autocratic could divide power. As Bismarck stayed 
 on when he saw that his presence was no longer desired, 
 the Emperor, not willing to be overshadowed by so com- 
 manding and illustrious a minister, finally demanded his 
 resignation in 1890. Thus in bitterness and humiliation 
 ended the political career of a man who, according to 
 Bismarck himself, had ** cut a figure in the history of 
 Germany and Prussia." He lived several years longer, 
 dying in 1898 at the age of eighty-three, leaving as his 
 epitaph, " A faithful servant of Emperor William I." 
 Thus vanished from view a man who will rank in 
 history as a great diplomatist and sagacious states- 
 man. 
 
 After 1890 the personality of William II was the 
 decisive factor in the State. His chancellors were, in 
 fact as well as in theory, his servants, carrying out the 
 master's wish. Down to the outbreak of the Great War 
 there were four: Caprivi, 1890-94; Hohenlohe, 1894- 
 1900; von Billow, 1900-09, and Bethmann-Hollweg, from 
 July, 1909. That war was to add three others to the 
 
54 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 list, whose terms were to prove exceedingly brief, 
 Michaelis, Hertling, and Prince Maximilian of Baden. 
 
 The extreme political tension was at first somewhat 
 relieved by the removal of Bismarck from the scene, by 
 this " dropping of the pilot," after thirty-eight years of 
 continuous service. The early measures under the new 
 regime showed a liberal tendency. The anti-Socialist 
 laws, expiring in 1890, were not renewed. This had 
 been one of the causes of friction between the Emperor 
 and the Chancellor. Bismarck wished them renewed, and 
 their stringency increased. The Emperor wished to try 
 milder methods, hoping to undermine the Socialists com- 
 pletely by further measures of social and economic ame- 
 lioration, to kill them with kindness. The repressive laws 
 lapsing, the Socialists reorganized openly, and have con- 
 ducted an aggressive campaign ever since. The Emperor, 
 soon recognizing the futility of anodynes, became their 
 bitter enemy, and began to denounce them vehemently, 
 but no new legislation was passed against them, although 
 this was several times attempted. 
 
 The reign of William II was notable for the remarka- 
 ble expansion of industry and commerce, which rendered 
 Germany the redoubtable rival of England and the United 
 States. In colonial and foreign affairs an aggressive pol- 
 icy was followed. German colonies proved of little im- 
 portance, entailed great expense, and yielded only small 
 returns. But the desire for a great colonial empire be- 
 came a settled policy of the Government, and seized the 
 popular imagination. 
 
 Connected with the growing interest of Germany in 
 commercial and colonial affairs went an increasing inter- 
 est in the navy. Strong on land for fifty years, Will- 
 
THE GERMAN EMPIRE 55 
 
 iam II desired that Germany should be strong on the sea, 
 that she might act with decision in any part of the world, 
 that her diplomacy, which was permeated with the idea 
 that nothing great should be done in world politics any- 
 where, in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, without her con- 
 sent, might be supported by a formidable navy. To make 
 that fleet powerful was a constant and a growing pre- 
 occupation of the Emperor. 
 
 In the political world the rise of the Social Democratic 
 party was the most important phenomenon. It repre- 
 sented iiot merely a desire for a revolution in the economic 
 sphere, it also represented a protest against the auto- 
 cratic government of the ruler, a demand for democratic 
 institutions. While Germany had a constitution and a 
 parliament, the monarch was invested with vast power. 
 Parliament did not control the Government, as the min- 
 isters were not responsible to it. There was freedom of 
 speech in Parliament, but practically during most of this 
 reign it did not exist outside. Hundreds of men have, 
 during the past twenty years, been imprisoned for such 
 criticisms of the Government as in other countries are 
 the current coin of discussion. This is the crime of lese- 
 majeste, which, as long as it exists, prevents a free politi- 
 cal life. The growth of the Social Democratic party to 
 some extent represented mere liberalism, not adherence 
 to the economic theory of the Socialists. It was the great 
 reform and opposition party of Germany. It had, in 
 1907, the largest popular vote of any party, 3,260,000.^ 
 Yet the Conservatives, with less than 1,500,000 votes, 
 elected in 1907 eighty-three members to the Reichstag to 
 
 * In 1912 the Socialists cast 4,250,000 votes and elected no mem- 
 bers to the Reichstag, thus displacing the Center as the largest party 
 in that body. 
 
56 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 the forty-three of the Socialists. The reason was this : 
 The electoral districts had not been altered since they 
 were originally laid out in 1869-71, though population 
 has vastly shifted from country to city. The cities have 
 grown rapidly since then, and it is in industrial centers 
 that the Socialists are strongest. Berlin, with a popula- 
 tion in 1 87 1 of 600,000, had six members in the Reichs- 
 tag. It still had only that number in 1907, although 
 its population was over 2,000,000, and although it would 
 have been entitled to twenty members had equal electoral 
 districts existed. These the Socialists demanded, but for 
 this very reason the Government refused the demand. 
 The extreme opponents of the Social Democrats even 
 urged that universal suffrage, guaranteed by the Consti- 
 tution, be abolished, as the only way to crush the party. 
 To this extreme the Government did not dare to go. 
 
 In recent years several questions have been much dis- 
 cussed: the question of the electoral reform in Prussia; 
 of the redistribution of seats, both in the Prussian Land- 
 tag and the Imperial Reichstag; and of ministerial re- 
 sponsibility. 
 
 Prussia was the state that in practice ruled the German 
 Empire. This was what was intended by Bismarck when 
 he drew up the Constitution of the Empire, it was pre- 
 cisely the object of his entire policy. The Constitution 
 was based on the two chief articles of Bismarck's creed, 
 the power of the monarch and the ascendancy of Prussia. 
 This was the accepted idea of the governing classes down 
 to the outbreak of the war. Prussia, as was said in 19 14 
 by Prince von Biilow, the most important Chancellor of 
 the Empire since Bismarck, '' Prussia attained her great- 
 ness as a country of soldiers and officials, and as such she 
 
THE GERMAN EMPIRE 57 
 
 was able to accomplish the work of German union; to this 
 day she is still, in all essentials, a state of soldiers and 
 officials." The governing classes were, in Prussia, which, 
 in turn, governed Germany, the monarchy, the aristocracy, 
 and a bureaucracy of military and civil officials, respon- 
 sible to the King alone. The determining factor in the 
 state was the personality of the King. 
 
 Neither the Empire, nor the Kingdom of Prussia, was 
 governed by democratic institutions. The Kingdom 
 lagged far behind the Empire, and, so great was its 
 power, impeded the development of liberty in the Em- 
 pire. Prussia in 19 14 was a country of 40,000,000 peo- 
 ple. It had had a legislature of two chambers since 
 1850, and the lower house of the legislature was chosen 
 by universal suffrage. Every Prussian man who had 
 attained his twenty-fifth year had the vote. Was Prus- 
 sia, therefore, a democracy? Not exactly, for this uni- 
 versal suffrage was most marvelously manipulated. The 
 exercise of the right to vote was so arranged that the 
 ballot of the poor man was practically annihilated. Uni- 
 versal suffrage was rendered illusory. And this was the 
 way it was done. The voters were divided in each elec- 
 toral district into three classes according to wealth. The 
 amount of taxes, paid by the district, was divided into 
 three equal parts. Those taxpayers who paid the first 
 third were grouped into one class ; those, more numerous, 
 who paid the second third, into another class; those who 
 paid the remainder, into still another class. The result 
 was that a very few rich men were set apart by them- 
 selves, the less rich by themselves, and the poor by them- 
 selves. Each of these groups, voting separately, elected 
 an equal number of delegates to a convention, which con- 
 
58 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 vention chose the delegates of that constituency to the 
 lower house of the Prussian Parliament. 
 
 Thus in every electoral convention two-thirds of the 
 members belonged to the wealthy or well-to-do class. 
 There was no chance in such a system for the poor, for 
 the masses. This system gave an enormous preponder- 
 ance of political power to the rich. The first class con- 
 sisted of very few men, in some districts of only one; 
 the second was sometimes twenty times as numerous, the 
 third sometimes a hundred, or even a thousand times. 
 Thus, though every man had the suffrage the vote of a 
 single rich man might have as great weight as the votes 
 of a thousand workingmen. Universal suffrage was thus 
 manipulated in such a way as to defeat democracy deci- 
 sively and to consolidate a privileged class in power in 
 the only branch of the government that had even the 
 appearance of being of popular origin. Bismarck, no 
 friend of liberalism, once characterized this electoral sys- 
 tem as the worst ever created. Its shrieking injustice 
 was shown by the fact that in 1900 the Social Demo- 
 crats, who actually cast a majority of the votes, got only 
 seven seats out of nearly 400. It was one of the most 
 undemocratic systems in existence. 
 
 In 1908 there were 293,000 voters in the first class, 
 1,065,240 in the second, 6,324,079 in the third. The 
 first class represented 4 per cent, the second 14 per cent, 
 the third 82 per cent of the population. In Cologne the 
 first class comprised 370 electors, the second 2,584, while 
 the third had 22,324. The first class chose the same 
 number of electors as the third. Thus, 370 rich men had 
 the same voting capacity as 22,324 proletarians. In 
 Saarbriicken the Baron von Stumm formed the first class 
 

 XT A I >^'<^ 
 
 K A 
 
 
 
 Sea 
 
 ^sJerdam/ Tp>''3«<' 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 fed 'V.-x -^fwishir\ W^^ ■ 
 
 U I n 
 
 oKarisriihe f [^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 aumpnPT-i . y T ~ — r^ i^ A P-^ . jt\ (1 
 
 ©J 
 
 
 
 )>M 
 
Abbreviations: 
 'Q.-Bninswick 'Lrlippe. 
 
 '^ArReusseMerline. ^.^.-ReussyoiaigerUnc. 
 ^A-rSuxeAUenburg. ^li.{3:SaxeCoburg-6ctha. 
 
 S,M:SaMMeiniiufen. S W.-Satie-Weimar. 
 ^\.:SrhaumbuTg-Lippe. SRrSaiwaraj^Ruiolstadt. 
 S.S: SdiwarrJiwy-Soiulaflisn. \f.-Waldeeh. 
 
 «;* 3* 
 
 £naUsh, Miles. 
 
THE GERMAN EMPIRE [59 
 
 all by himself and announced complacently that he did 
 not suffer from his isolation. In one of the Berlin dis- 
 tricts Herr Heffte, a manufacturer of sausages, formed 
 the first class. 
 
 This system would seem to be outrageous enough by 
 reason of its monstrous plutocratic caste. But this was 
 not all. This reactionary edifice was appropriately 
 crowned by another device — oral voting. Neither in the 
 primary nor the secondary voting was a secret ballot 
 used. Voting was not even by a written or printed bal- 
 lot, but by the spoken word. Thus everyone exercised 
 his right publicly in the presence of his superior or his 
 patron or employer or his equals or the official represen- 
 tative of the King. In such a country as Prussia, where 
 the police were notoriously ubiquitous, what a weapon 
 for absolutism ! The great landowners, the great manu- 
 facturers, the State, could easily bring all the pressure 
 they desired to bear upon the voter, exercising his 
 [wretched rudiment of political power. Needless to say, 
 under such a system as this the working classes were 
 almost entirely unrepresented in the Prussian legislature. 
 
 Again, with the exception of a thoroughly insignifi- 
 cant measure passed in 1906, no changes were made in 
 the electoral districts of Prussia after 1858. No ac- 
 count was taken of the changes in the population and 
 there were consequently great disparities between the va- 
 rious districts. Thus, in a recent election in the Province 
 of East Prussia, the actual ratio of inhabitants to each 
 'deputy was 63,000, while in Berlin it was 170,000. In 
 one election, 3,000,000 inhabitants of four large Prus- 
 sian districts returned 9 representatives, while three other 
 millions, divided among forty smaller districts, returned 
 
6o FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 66. Naturally, the demand grew constantly louder 
 that many districts should be partially or wholly 
 disfranchised or merged with others, and that other dis- 
 tricts should receive a larger representation. No at- 
 tempt, however, was made to meet this demand. 
 
 In the Empire, also, a similar problem became yearly 
 more acute. In 1871, Germany was divided into 397 
 constituencies for the Reichstag. That number remained 
 the same henceforth down to the war and, indeed, until 
 the Reichstag disappeared in the convulsions of the clos- 
 ing months of 19 18. Not a single district gained or lost 
 in representation. Yet from 1871 to 19 14 the popula- 
 tion of the Empire increased from about forty-one mil- 
 lions to over sixty-seven millions, and there was a great 
 shifting in population from the country to the cities. 
 One of the divisions of Berlin, with a population of 
 697,000, elected one representative, whereas the petty 
 principality of Waldeck, with a population of 59,000, 
 elected one. The 851,000 voters of Greater Berlin re- 
 turned eight members; the same number of voters in 
 fifty of the smaller constituencies returned forty-eight. 
 A reform of these gross inequalities was widely de- 
 manded, but the demand passed unheeded. 
 
 Another subject much discussed during the later years 
 of the Empire was that concerning ministerial respon- 
 sibility. The indiscretions of Emperor William II made 
 this from time to time a burning question. An inter- 
 view with him, in which he spoke with great freedom of 
 the strained relations between Germany and Great Brit- 
 ain, was published in the London Telegraph on October 
 28, 1908. At once was seen a phenomenon not wit- 
 nessed in Germany since the founding of the Empire. 
 
THE GERMAN EMPIRE 6i 
 
 There was a violent protest against the irresponsible ac- 
 tions of the Emperor, actions subject to no control, and 
 yet easily capable of bringing about a war. Newspa- 
 pers of all shades of party affiliation displayed a free- 
 dom of utterance and of censure unparalleled in Germany. 
 All parties in the Reichstag expressed their emphatic dis- 
 approval. The incident, however, was not sufficient to 
 bring about the introduction of the system of the respon- 
 sibility of ministers for all the acts of the monarch, and 
 the control of the ministry by the majority of the Reichs- 
 tag; in short, the parliamentary system in its essential 
 feature. 
 
 Neither in the Empire, nor in the Kingdom of Prussia, 
 nor in any of the other states that composed the Empire, 
 did the elected chamber control the Government. In 
 every case the Prince had an absolute veto. Where there 
 were second chambers, as in many of the states, they 
 were not elected by the voters, but were either based 
 on heredity or on appointment by the ruler or by certain 
 narrow organizations. In any case the second chambers 
 were a bulwark of a privileged class. And in Prussia, as 
 we have seen, even the so-called popular house was merely 
 another name for a privileged class. Neither in the Em- 
 pire nor in the individual states were the ministers con- 
 trolled by the popular assemblies. The assemblies might 
 vote a lack of confidence as often as they felt like it. 
 The ministers would go right on as long as the Emperor, 
 King, Grand Duke, or Prince desired. In none of the 
 German states could the constitution be amended with- 
 out the consent of the sovereign of that state. The con- 
 stitution of the Empire could not be amended without 
 the consent of one man, William II, for a constitutional 
 
62 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 amendment must be passed not only by the Reichstag 
 but by the Bundesrath, and the constitution provided that 
 no amendment could pass the Bundesrath if fourteen 
 votes were cast against it. In that body Prussia had 
 seventeen votes and those votes were cast as the King 
 of Prussia directed. If every individual in Germany 
 except this one, and including the other Kings and Dukes, 
 had desired a change in the constitution they could not 
 have secured it if William II said " No " ! 
 
 The power of the Prussian crown was virtually abso- 
 lute — " absolutism under constitutional forms," as Ru- 
 dolph Gneist, once considered in Germany a great author- 
 ity on public law, said years ago. In the economic sphere 
 Germany was enterprising, progressive, successful, highly 
 modern : in the intellectual sphere she was active and 
 productive; but in the political sphere she was in a state 
 of arrested development. And it had been the amazing 
 triumphs of Bismarck, which rested on force, that had 
 caused the arrest. German legislatures were impotent 
 and ineffective. For all practical purposes the Reichstag- 
 was merely a debating club, and a debating club that had 
 no power of seeing that its will was carried out. As 
 late as January, 19 14, Dr. Friedrich Naumann, of " Mid- 
 dle Europe " fame, described the humiliating position of 
 the body of which he was a member in the following 
 words : 
 
 " We on the Left are altogether in favor of the parlia- 
 mentary regime, by which we mean that the Reichstag 
 cannot forever remain in a position of subordination. 
 Why does the Reichstag sit at all, why does it pass resolu- 
 tions, if behind it is a waste paper basket into which these 
 resolutions are thrown ? The problem is to change the im- 
 
THE GERMAN EMPIRE 63 
 
 potence of the Reichstag into some sort of power. . . . 
 The man who compared this House to a hall of echoes 
 was not far wrong. . . . When one asks the question, 
 * What part has the Reichstag in German history as a 
 whole ? ' it will be seen that the part is a very limited 
 one." 
 
 The effective seat of political power in Germany was, 
 as it had always been, in the monarchs. Germans might 
 have the right to vote, but of what value was it if the 
 vote led nowhere, if the body elected by the voters was 
 carefully and completely nullified by other bodies, aris- 
 tocratic hereditary upper chambers and the princes, over 
 which the voters had no control whatever? 
 
 Prussia was the strongest obstacle the democratic move- 
 ment of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries encoun- 
 tered. Germany in 1914 was less liberal than in 1848. 
 The most serious blow that the principle of representative 
 government received during that century was the one 
 she received at the hands of Bismarck. We have expert 
 testimony of the highest and most official sort that the 
 effects of that blow were not outlived. Prince von Biilow, 
 writing in 1914, said : " Liberalism, in spite of its change 
 of attitude in national questions, has to this day not re- 
 covered from the catastrophic defeat which Prince Bis- 
 marck inflicted nearly half a century ago on the party 
 of progress which still clings to the ideals and princi- 
 ples of 1848." 
 
 The situation was still further defined by the utter- 
 ance of Professor Delbriick, successor to Treitschke in 
 the chair of modern history in the University of Berlin, 
 who wrote in a book published in 19 14, " Anyone who 
 has any familiarity with all our officers and generals 
 
64 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 knows that it would take another Sedan, inflicted on us 
 instead of by us, before they would acquiesce in the con- 
 trol of the Army by the German Parliament." Here was 
 a very clear indication as to where real power lay in Ger- 
 many. One has only to recall the great chapters in Eng- 
 lish history which tell of the struggle for liberty to know 
 that it has been obtained solely by the recognition of the 
 supremacy of Parliament over royal prerogative, over 
 military power. 
 
 The German state was the most autocratic in Western 
 Europe; it was also the most militaristic. Fundamental 
 individual liberties, regarded as absolutely vital in Eng- 
 land, France, America and many other states, had never 
 been possessed by Germans, nor were they possessed in 
 19 14. Germany was rich, vigorous, powerful, instructed. 
 It was not free. A military monarchy is the very oppo- 
 site of a democratic state. Prince von Biilow says, in 
 his recent book, " Imperial Germany," *' Despite the abun- 
 dance of merits and the great qualities with which the 
 German nation is endowed, political talent has been 
 denied it." Any citizen of a free country knows that 
 that talent grows only where an opportunity has been 
 given it to grow. It need occasion no surprise that 
 Mommsen, the historian of Rome, writing in 1903, should 
 say of his own country, " There are no longer free citi- 
 zens." Instead there were industrious, energetic, edu- 
 cated, ambitious, and submissive subjects. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 
 
 The Third Republic was proclaimed, as we have seen, 
 by the Parisians on September 4, 1870, after the news 
 of the disaster of Sedan had reached the capital. A 
 Provisional Government of National Defense was im- 
 mediately installed. This government gave way in Feb- 
 ruary, 187 1, to a National Assembly of 750 members 
 elected by universal suffrage for a single purpose, to make 
 peace with Germany. A majority of the members of 
 this National Assembly, which met first at Bordeaux, 
 were Monarchists. The reason was that the monar- 
 chical candidates favored the making of a peace, where- 
 as many republican leaders, with Gambetta at their head, 
 wished to continue the war. The mass of the peasants 
 desiring peace therefore voted for the peace candidates. 
 There is nothing to show that thereby they expressed a 
 wish for monarchy. The Assembly of Bordeaux made 
 the peace, ceding Alsace and Lorraine, and assuming the 
 enormous war indemnity. But peace did not return to 
 France as a result of the Treaty of Frankfort. The 
 "Terrible Year," as the French call it, of 1870-71, had 
 more horrors in store. Civil war followed the war with 
 the Germans, shorter but exceeding it in ferocity, a war 
 between those in control of the city of Paris and the 
 Government of France as represented by the Assembly 
 
 65 
 
66 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 of Bordeaux. That Assembly had chosen Thiers as 
 " Chief of the Executive Power," pending " the nation's 
 decision as to the definitive form of government." Thus 
 the fundamental question was postponed. Thiers was 
 chosen for no definite term; he was the servant of the 
 Assembly to carry out its wishes, and might be dismissed 
 by it at any moment. 
 
 The Commune 
 
 Between the Government and the people of Paris se- 
 rious disagreements immediately arose, which led quickly 
 to the war of the Commune. Paris had proclaimed the 
 Republic. But the Republic was not yet sanctioned by 
 France, and existed only de facto. On the other hand, the 
 National Assembly was controlled by Monarchists, and 
 it had postponed the determination of the permanent in- 
 stitutions of the country. Did not this simply mean that 
 it would abolish the Republic and proclaim the Mon- 
 archy, when it should judge the moment propitious? This 
 fear, only too well justified, that the Assembly was hos- 
 tile to the Republic, was the fundamental cause of the 
 Comfnune. Paris lived in daily dread of this event. 
 Paris was ardently Republican. For ten years under the 
 Empire it had been returning Republicans to the Cham- 
 ber of Deputies. These men did not propose to let a 
 coup d'etat like that of Louis Napoleon in 185 1 occur 
 again. Various acts of the Assembly were well adapted 
 to deepen and intensify the feeling of dread uncertainty. 
 The Assembly showed its distrust of Paris by voting in 
 March, 1871, that it would henceforth sit in Versailles. 
 In other words, a small and sleepy town, and one asso- 
 ciated with the history of monarchy, was to be the capi- 
 
FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 67 
 
 tal of France instead of the great city which had sus- 
 tained the tremendous siege and by her self-sacrifice and 
 suffering had done her best to hold high the honor of 
 the land. Not only was Paris wounded in her pride 
 by this act, which showed such unmistakable suspicion 
 of her, but she suffered also in her material interests at 
 a time of great financial distress. The Government did 
 nothing to relieve this distress, but greatly accentuated it 
 by several unwise measures. 
 
 There was in Paris a considerable population having 
 diverse revolutionary tendencies, anarchists, Jacobins, So- 
 cialists — whose leaders worked with marked success 
 among the restless, poverty-stricken masses of the great 
 city. Out of this unrest it was easy for an insurrection 
 to grow. The insurrectionary spirit spread with great 
 rapidity until it developed into a war between Paris and 
 the Versailles Government. Attempts at solving the dif- 
 ficulties by conciliation having failed, the Government 
 undertook to subdue the city. This necessitated a regu- 
 lar siege of Paris, the second of that unhappy city within 
 a year. This time, however, the siege was conducted by 
 Frenchmen, the Germans, who controlled the forts to the 
 north of Paris, looking on. It lasted nearly two months, 
 from April 2 to May 21, when the Versailles troops 
 forced their entrance into the city. Then followed seven 
 days' ferocious fighting in the streets, the Communists 
 more and more desperate and frenzied, the Versailles 
 army more and more revengeful and sanguinary. This 
 was the " Bloody Week,'' during which Paris suffered 
 much more than she had from the bombardment of the 
 Germans — a week of fearful destruction of life and prop- 
 erty. The horrors of incendiarism were added to those 
 
68 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 of slaughter. Finally the awful agony was brought to 
 a close. The revenge taken by the Government was 
 heavy. It punished right and left summarily. Many 
 were shot on the spot without any form of trial. Arrests 
 and trials went on for years. Thousands were sent 
 to tropical penal colonies. Other thousands were sen- 
 tenced to hard labor. The rage of this monarchical as- 
 sembly was slow in subsiding. 
 
 The Government of Thiers 
 
 Having put down the insurrection of Paris and signed 
 the hard treaty with Germany, France was at peace. 
 The Republicans thought that the Assembly ought now 
 to dissolve, arguing that it had been elected to make 
 peace, and nothing else. The Assembly decided, how- 
 ever, that it had full powers of legislation on all sub- 
 jects, including the right to make the Constitution. The 
 Assembly remained in power for nearly five years, refus- 
 ing to dissolve. 
 
 But before taking up the difficult work of making a 
 constitution it cooperated for two years with Thiers in 
 the necessary work of reorganization. The most impera- 
 tive task was that of getting the Germans out of the 
 country. Under the skilful leadership of Thiers, the pay- 
 ment of the enormous war indemnity, five billion francs, 
 was undertaken with energy and carried out with celer- 
 ity. In September, 1873, the last installment was paid 
 and the last German soldiers went home. The soil of 
 France was freed nearly six months earlier than was pro- 
 vided by the treaty. For his great services in this initial 
 work of reconstruction the National Assembly voted that 
 
FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 69 
 
 Thiers had '' deserved well of the country " and the peo- 
 ple spontaneously acclaimed him as '' The Liberator of 
 the Territory." 
 
 The reconstruction of the army was also urgent and 
 was undertaken in the same spirit of patriotism, entail- 
 ing heavy personal sacrifices. A law was passed in 1872 
 instituting compulsory military service. Five years of 
 service in the active army were henceforth to be required 
 in most cases. The law really established in France the 
 Prussian military system, so successful in crushing all op- 
 ponents. We now see the beginning of that oppressive 
 militarism which has become the most characteristic fea- 
 ture of contemporary Europe. Other nations considered 
 that they were forced to imitate Prussia in order to assure 
 their own safety in the future. In the case of France 
 the necessity was entirely obvious. 
 
 In this work of reconstruction the Assembly and Thiers 
 were able to work together on the whole harmoniously. 
 Now that this was accomplished the Monarchists of the 
 Assembly resolved to abolish the Republic and restore 
 the Monarchy. They soon found that they had in Thiers 
 a man who would not abet them in their project. Thiers 
 was originally a believer in constitutional monarchy, but 
 he was not afraid of a republican government, and dur- 
 ing the years after 1870 he came to believe that a Re- 
 public was, for France, at the close of a turbulent cen- 
 tury, the only possible form of government. " There is," 
 he said, '* only one throne, and there are three claimants 
 for a seat on it." He discovered a happy formula in 
 favor of the Republic : " It is the form of government 
 which divides us least." And again, " Those parties who 
 want a monarchy, do not want the same monarchy." 
 
70 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 By which phrases he accurately described a curious sit- 
 uation. The Monarchists, while they constituted a ma- 
 jority of the Assembly, were divided into three parties, 
 no one of which was in the majority. There were Legiti- 
 mists, Orleanists, and Bonapartists. The Legitimists up- 
 held the right of the grandson of Charles X, the Count 
 of Chambord; the Orleanists, the right of the grandson 
 of Louis Philippe, the Count of Paris; the Bonapartists, 
 of Napoleon III, or his son. The Monarchist parties 
 could unite to prevent a definite legal establishment of 
 the Republic; they could not unite to establish the mon- 
 archy, as each wing wished a different monarch. Out of 
 this division arose the only chance the Third Republic 
 had to live. As the months went by, the Monarchists 
 felt that Thiers was becoming constantly more of a re- 
 publican, which was true. If a monarchical restoration 
 was to be attempted, therefore, Thiers must be gotten 
 out of the way. Consequently, in May, 1873, the Assem- 
 bly forced him to resign and immediately elected Mar- 
 shal MacMahon president to prepare the way for the 
 coming monarch. 
 
 The Framing of the Constitution 
 
 Earnest attempts were made forthwith to bring about 
 a restoration of the monarchy. This could be done by 
 a fusion of the Legitimists and the Orleanists. Circum- 
 stances were particularly favorable for the accomplish- 
 ment of such a union. The Count of Chambord had no 
 direct descendants. The inheritance would, therefore, 
 upon his death, pass to the House of Orleans, repre- 
 sented by the Count of Paris. The elder branch would 
 
FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 71 
 
 in the course of nature be succeeded by the younger. 
 This fusion seemed accomplished when the Count of 
 Paris visited the Count of Chambord, recognizing him 
 as head of the family. A committee of nine members 
 of the Assembly, representing the Monarchist parties, 
 the Imperialists holding aloof, negotiated during the sum- 
 mer of 1873 with the " King *' concerning the terms of 
 restoration. The negotiations were successful on most 
 points, and it seemed as if by the close of the year the 
 existence of the Republic would be terminated and Henry 
 V would be reigning in France. The Republic was saved 
 by the devotion of the Count of Chambord to a symbol. 
 He stated that he would never renounce the ancient Bour- 
 bon banner. " Henry V could never abandon the white 
 flag of Henry IV,'' he had already declared, and from 
 that resolution he never swerved. The tricolor repre- 
 sented the Revolution. If he was to be King of France 
 it must be with his principles and his flag; King of the 
 Revolution he would never consent to be. The Orlean- 
 ists, on the other hand, adhered to the tricolor, knowing 
 its popularity with the people, knowing that no regime 
 that repudiated the glorious symbol could long endure. 
 Against this barrier the attempted fusion of the two 
 branches of the Bourbon family was shattered. The im- 
 mediate danger to the Republic was over. 
 
 But the Monarchists did not renounce their hope of re- 
 storing the monarchy. The Count of Chambord might, 
 perhaps, change his mind; if not, as he had no son, the 
 Count of Paris would succeed him after his death as the 
 lawful claimant to the throne; and the Count of Paris, 
 defender of the tricolor, could then be proclaimed. The 
 Monarchists, therefore, planned merely to gain time. 
 
72 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Marshal MacMahon had been chosen executive, as had 
 Thiers, for no definite term. He was to serve during 
 the pleasure of the Assembly itself. Believing that Mac- 
 Mahon would resign as soon as the King really appeared, 
 they voted that his term should be for seven years, ex- 
 pecting that a period of that length would see a clearing 
 up of the situation, either the change of mind or the 
 death of the Count of Chambord. Thus was established 
 the Septennate, or seven-year term, of the President, 
 which still exists. The presidency was thus given a fixed 
 term by the Monarchists, as they supposed, in their own 
 interests. If they could not restore the monarchy in 1873 
 they could at least control the presidency for a consid- 
 erable period, and thus prepare an easy transition to the 
 new system at the opportune moment. 
 
 But France showed unmistakably that she desired the 
 establishment of a definitive system, that she wished to 
 be through with these provisional arrangements, which 
 only kept party feeling feverish and handicapped France 
 in her foreign relations. France had as yet no consti- 
 tution, and yet this Assembly, chosen to make peace, had 
 asserted that it was also chosen to frame a constitution, 
 and it was by this assertion that it justified its continu- 
 ance in power long after peace was made. Yet month 
 after month, and year after year, went by and the con- 
 stitution was not made, nor even seriously discussed. If 
 the Assembly could not, or would not, make a constitu- 
 tion, it should relinquish its power and let the people 
 elect a body that would. But this it steadily refused to do. 
 
 This inability of the Monarchists to act owing to their 
 own internal divisions was of advantage to only one 
 party, the Republican. More and more people who had 
 
FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 73 
 
 hitherto been Monarchists, now finally convinced that a 
 restoration of the monarchy was impracticable, joined 
 the Republican party, and thus it came about finally in 
 1875 that the Assembly decided to make the constitution. 
 It did not, as previous assemblies had done, draw up a 
 single document, defining the organization and narrating 
 the rights of the citizens. It passed three separate laws 
 which taken together were to serve as a constitution. By 
 these laws a legislature was established consisting of two 
 houses, a Senate, consisting of 300 members, at least 
 forty years of age and chosen for nine years, and a Cham- 
 ber of Deputies, to be elected by universal suffrage for a 
 term of four years. These two houses meeting together 
 as a National Assembly elect the President of the Re- 
 public. There is no vice-president, no succession provided 
 by law. In case of a vacancy in the presidency the Na- 
 tional Assembly meets immediately, generally within 
 forty-eight hours, and elects a new President. The Presi- 
 dent has the right to initiate legislation, as have the mem- 
 bers of the two houses, the duty to promulgate all laws 
 and to superintend their execution, the pardoning power, 
 the direction of the army and navy, and the appointment 
 to all civil and military positions. He may, with the con- 
 sent of the Senate, dissolve the Chamber of Deputies be- 
 fore the expiration of its legal term and order a new 
 election. But these powers are merely nominal, for the 
 reason that every act of the President must be counter- 
 signed by a minister, w^ho thereby becomes responsible for 
 the act, the President being irresponsible, except in the 
 case of high treason. 
 
 For the fundamental feature of the Third Republic, 
 differentiating it greatly from the two preceding republics 
 
74 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 of France and from the republic of the United States, 
 is its adoption of the parliamentary system as worked out 
 in England. The President's position resembles that of 
 a constitutional monarch. All his acts must be counter- 
 signed by his ministers, who become thereby responsible 
 for them. The ministers in turn are responsible to the 
 chambers, particularly to the Chamber of Deputies. The 
 Chamber thus controls the executive, makes and unmakes 
 ministries as it chooses. The legislature controls the ex- 
 ecutive. The legislative and executive branches are thus 
 fused as in England, not sharply separated as in the 
 United States. The essential feature therefore of this 
 republic is that it has adopted the governmental machin- 
 ery first elaborated in a monarchy. The Constitution of 
 1875 was a compromise between opposing forces, neither 
 of which could win an unalloyed victory. The monarch- 
 ical assembly that established the parliamentary republic in 
 1875 thought that it had introduced sufficient monarchical 
 elements into it to curb the aggressiveness of democracy 
 and to facilitate a restoration of the monarchy at some 
 convenient season. The Senate, it thought, would be a 
 monarchical stronghold and the President and Senate 
 could probably keep the Chamber of Deputies in check 
 by their power of dissolving it. 
 
 It was some years before the Republicans secured un- 
 mistakable control of the Republic in all its branches. 
 In the first elections under the new constitution, which 
 were held at the beginning of 1876, the Monarchists se- 
 cured a slight majority in the Senate, the Republicans 
 a large majority in the Chamber of Deputies. It was 
 generally supposed that the President, MacMahon, was 
 a Monarchist in his sympathies. This was shown to be 
 
FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 75 
 
 the case when MacMahon in May, 1877, dismissed the 
 Simon ministry, which was RepubHcan and which had 
 the support of the Chamber, and appointed a new minis- 
 try, composed largely of Monarchists under the Duke of 
 Broglie. Thereupon, the Senate, representing the same 
 views, consented to the dissolution of the Chamber of 
 Deputies, and new elections were ordered. 
 
 The Monarchists carried on a vigorous campaign 
 against the Republicans. They were powerfully sup- 
 ported by the clerical party, which, ever since 187 1, had 
 been extremely active. The Republicans resented this 
 intrusion of the Catholic party, and their opinion of it 
 had been vividly expressed some time before by Gam- 
 betta in the phase — " Clericalism, that is our enemy," 
 meaning that the Roman Catholic Church was the most 
 dangerous opponent of the Republic. The struggle was 
 embittered. The Broglie ministry used every effort to 
 influence the votes against Gambetta and the Republi- 
 cans. The clergy took an active part in the campaign, 
 supporting the Broglie candidates and preaching against 
 the Republicans, conduct which in the end was to cost 
 them dear. 
 
 The Republicans were, however, overwhelmingly vic- 
 torious. In the following year, 1878, they also gained 
 control of the Senate, and in 1879 they brought about 
 the resignation of MacMahon. The National Assembly 
 immediately met and elected Jules Grevy president, a man 
 whose devotion to Republican principles had been known 
 to France for thirty years. For the first time since 1871 
 the Republicans controlled the Chamber of Deputies, the 
 Senate, and the Presidency. Since that time the Repub- 
 lic has been entirely in the hands of the Republicans. 
 
76 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 The Republicans, now completely victorious, sought by 
 constructive legislation to consolidate the Republic. Two 
 personalities stand out with particular prominence : Gam- 
 betta, as president of the Chamber of Deputies, and Jules 
 Ferry, as member of several ministries and as twice prime 
 minister. The legislation enacted during this period 
 aimed to clinch the victory over the Monarchists and 
 Clericals by making the institutions of France thoroughly 
 republican and secular. The seat of government was 
 transferred from Versailles, where it had been since 
 1 87 1, to Paris (1880), and July 14, the day of the storm- 
 ing of the Bastille, symbol of the triumph of the people 
 over the monarchy, was declared the national holiday, 
 and was celebrated for the first time in 1880 amid great 
 enthusiasm. The right of citizens freely to hold public 
 meetings as they might wish, and without any preliminary 
 permission of the Government, was secured, as was also 
 a practically unlimited freedom of the press (1881). 
 Workingmen were permitted, for the first time, freely 
 to form trades unions (1884). 
 
 The Republicans were particularly solicitous about edu- 
 cation. As universal suffrage was the basis of the State, 
 it was considered fundamental that the voters should be 
 intelligent. Education was regarded as the strongest 
 bulwark of the Republic. Several laws were passed, con- 
 cerning all grades of education, but the most important 
 were those concerning primary schools. A law of 188 1 
 made primary education gratuitous; one of 1882 made it 
 compulsory between the ages of six and thirteen, and 
 later laws made it entirely secular. No religious instruc- 
 tion is given in these schools. All teachers are appointed 
 from the laity. This system of popular education is one 
 
FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 77 
 
 of the great creative achievements of the Republic, and 
 one of the most fruitful. 
 
 Under the masterful influence of Jules Ferry, prime 
 minister in 1881, and again from 1883 to 1885, the Re- 
 public embarked upon an aggressive colonial policy. She 
 established a protectorate over Tunis ; sent expeditions to 
 Tonkin, to Madagascar; founded the French Congo. 
 This policy aroused bitter criticism from the beginning, 
 and entailed large expenditures, but Ferry, regardless of 
 growing opposition, forced it through, in the end to his 
 own undoing. His motives in throwing France into these 
 ventures were various. One reason was economic. 
 France was feeling the rivalry of Germany and Italy, 
 and Ferry believed that she must win new markets as 
 compensation for those she was gradually losing. Again, 
 France would gain in prestige abroad, and in her own 
 feeling of contentment, if she turned her attention to 
 empire-building and ceased to think morbidly of her 
 losses in the German war. Her outlook would be broader. 
 Moreover, she could not afford to be passive when other 
 nations about her were reaching out for Africa and Asia. 
 The era of imperialism had begun. France must partici- 
 pate in the movement or be left hopelessly behind in the 
 rivalry of nations. Under Ferry's resolute leadership 
 the policy of expansion was carried out, and the colonial 
 possessions of France were greatly increased, but owing 
 to one or two slight reverses, grossly magnified by his 
 enemies. Ferry himself became unpopular and his notable 
 ministry was overthrown (1885). 
 
 During the next few years the political situation was 
 troubled and uncertain. There was no commanding per- 
 sonality in politics to give elevation and sweep to men's 
 
78 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 ideas. Gambetta had died in 1882 at the age of forty- 
 four and Ferry, the empire-builder, was most unjustly 
 the victim of unpopularity from which he never recov- 
 ered. Ministries succeeded each other rapidly. Politics 
 seemed a game of office seeking, pettily personal, not an 
 arena in which men of large ideas could live and act. 
 The educational and anti-clerical and colonial policies all 
 aroused enmities. President Grevy even was forced to 
 resign because of a scandal that did not compromise him 
 personally, but did smirch his son-in-law. Carnot, a mod- 
 erate Republican, was chosen to succeed him (Decem- 
 ber 3, 1887). 
 
 This state of discontent and disillusionment created a 
 real crisis for the Republic, as it encouraged its enemies 
 to renewed activity. These elements now found a leader 
 or a tool in General Boulanger, a dashing figure on horse- 
 back and an attractive speaker, who sought to use the 
 popular discontent for his own advancement. Made min- 
 ister of war in 1886, he showed much activity, seeking 
 the favor of the soldiers by improving the conditions of 
 life in the barracks, and by advocating the reduction of 
 the required term of service. He controlled several news- 
 papers, which began to insinuate that under his leader- 
 ship France could take her revenge upon Germany by a 
 successful war upon that country. He posed as the res- 
 cuer of the Republic, demanding a total revision of the 
 constitution. His programme, as announced, was vague, 
 but probably aimed at the diminution of the importance 
 of Parliament, the conferring of great powers upon the 
 President, and his election directly by the people, which 
 he hoped would be favorable to himself. For three years 
 his personality was a storm center. Discontented people 
 
FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 79 
 
 of the most varied shades flocked to his support — Mon- 
 archists, ImperiaHsts, Clericals, hoping to use him to 
 overturn the Republic. These parties contributed money 
 to the support of his campaign, which was ably managed 
 with the view to focusing popular attention upon him. 
 To show the popular enthusiasm Boulanger now became 
 a candidate for Parliament in many districts where vacan- 
 cies occurred. In five months (1888) he was elected 
 deputy six times. A seventh election in Paris itself, in 
 January, 1889, resulted in a brilliant triumph. He was 
 elected by over 80,000 majority. Would he dare take 
 the final step and attempt to seize power, as two Bona- 
 partes had done before him ? He did not have the requi- 
 site audacity to try. In the face of this imminent dan- 
 ger the Republicans ceased their dissensions and stood 
 together. They assumed the offensive. The ministry 
 summoned Boulanger to appear before the Senate, sitting 
 as a High Court of Justice, to meet the charge of con- 
 spiring against the safety of the State. His boldness van- 
 ished. He fled from the country to Belgium. He was 
 condemned by the court in his absence. His party fell 
 to pieces, its leader proving so little valorous. Two years 
 later he committed suicide. The Republic had weathered 
 a serious crisis. It came out of it stronger rather than 
 weaker. Its opponents were discredited. 
 
 In 1892 a very important diplomatic achievement still 
 further strengthened the Republic. An alliance was made 
 with Russia which ended the long period of isolation in 
 which France had been made to feel her powerlessness 
 during the twenty years since the Franco-Prussian war. 
 This Dual Alliance henceforth served as a counterweight 
 to the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria, and Italy, 
 
8o FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 and satisfied the French people, as well as increased their 
 sense of safety and their confidence in the future. 
 
 In 1894 President Carnot was assassinated. Casimir- 
 Perier was chosen to succeed him, but resigned after 
 six months. Felix Faure was elected in his place, who, 
 however, died in office in 1899, having seen the strength- 
 ening of the alliance with Russia and the beginning of 
 the Dreyfus case, a scandal which eclipsed that of Bou- 
 langer and created a new crisis for the Republic. Faure 
 was succeeded in the presidency by Emile Loubet. 
 
 The Dreyfus Case 
 
 In October, 1894, Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the 
 army, was arrested amid circumstances of unusual se- 
 crecy, was brought before a court-martial, and was con- 
 demned as guilty of treason, of transmitting important 
 documents to a foreign power, presumably Germany. 
 The trial was secret and the condemnation rested on 
 merely circumstantial evidence, involving the identity of 
 handwriting, declared to be his. He was condemned to 
 expulsion from the army and to imprisonment for life. 
 In January, 1895, he was publicly degraded in a most 
 dramatic manner in the courtyard of the Military School, 
 before a large detachment of the army. His stripes were 
 torn from his uniform, his sword was broken. Through- 
 out this agonizing scene he was defiant, asserted his in- 
 nocence, and shouted " Vive la France!'' He was then 
 deported to a small, barren, and unhealthy island off 
 French Guiana, in South America, appropriately called 
 Devil's Island, and was there kept in solitary confine- 
 ment. A life imprisonment under such conditions would 
 
FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 8i 
 
 probably not be long, though it would certainly be hor- 
 rible. 
 
 The friends of Dreyfus protested that a monstrous 
 wrong had been done, but their protests passed unheeded. 
 But in 1896 Colonel Picquart, head of the detective bu- 
 reau of the General Staff, discovered that the incrimi- 
 nating document was not in the handwriting of Drey- 
 fus but of a certain Major Esterhazy, who was shortly 
 shown to be one of the most abandoned characters in the 
 army. Picquart's superior officers were not grateful for 
 his efforts, fearing apparently that the honor of the army 
 would be smirched if the verdict of the court-martial was 
 shown to be wrong. They, therefore, removed him from 
 his position and appointed Colonel Henry in his place. 
 
 In January, 1898, Emile Zola, the well-known novelist, 
 published a letter of great boldness and brilliancy, in 
 which he made most scathing charges against the judges 
 of the court-martial, not only for injustice but for dis- 
 honesty. Many men of reputation in literature and schol- 
 arship joined in the discussion, on the side of Dreyfus. 
 Zola hoped to force a reopening of the whole question. 
 Instead he was himself condemned by a court to im- 
 prisonment and fine. Shortly Henry committed suicide, 
 having been charged with forging one of the important 
 documents in the case. His suicide was considered a con- 
 fession of guilt. So greatly disturbed were the people 
 by these scandalous events that public opinion forced the 
 reopening of the whole case. Dreyfus, prematurely old 
 as a result of fearful physical and mental suffering, was 
 brought from Devil's Island and given a new trial before 
 a court-martial at Rennes in August, 1899. 
 
 This new trial was conducted in the midst of the most 
 
82 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 excited state of the public mind in France, and of intense 
 interest abroad. Party passions were inflamed as they 
 had not been in France since the Commune. The sup- 
 porters of Dreyfus were denounced frantically as slan- 
 derers of the honor of the army, the very bulwark of 
 the safety of the country, as traitors to France. 
 
 At the Rennes tribunal, Dreyfus encountered the vio- 
 lent hostility of the high army officers, who had been his 
 accusers five years before. These men were desperately 
 resolved that he should again be found guilty. The trial 
 was of an extraordinary character. It was the evident 
 purpose of the judges not to allow the matter to be thor- 
 oughly probed. Testimony, which in England or Amer- 
 ica would have been considered absolutely vital, was 
 barred out. The universal opinion outside France was, 
 as was stated in the London Times, " that the whole case 
 against Captain Dreyfus, as set forth by the heads of 
 the French army, in plain combination against him, was 
 foul with forgeries, lies, contradictions, and puerilities, 
 and that nothing to justify his condemnation had been 
 shown." 
 
 Nevertheless, the court, by a vote of five to two, de- 
 clared him guilty, " with extenuating circumstances," an 
 amazing verdict. It is not generally held that treason 
 to one's country can plead extenuating circumstances. 
 The court condemned him to ten years' imprisonment, 
 from which the years spent at Devil's Island might be 
 deducted. Thus the " honor " of the army had been 
 maintained. 
 
 President Loubet immediately pardoned Dreyfus, and 
 he was released, broken in health. This solution was 
 satisfactory to neither side. The anti-Drey fusites vented 
 
FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 83 
 
 their rage on Loubet. On the other hand, Dreyfus de- 
 manded exoneration, a recognition of his innocence, not 
 pardon. 
 
 But the Government was resolved that this discussion, 
 which had so frightfully torn French society, should 
 cease. Against the opposition of the Dreyfusites, it 
 passed, in 1900, an amnesty for all those implicated in 
 the notorious case, which meant that no legal actions 
 could be brought against any of the participants on either 
 side. The friends of Dreyfus, Zola, and Picquart pro- 
 tested vigorously against the erection of a barrier against 
 their vindication. The bill, nevertheless, passed. 
 
 Six years later, however, the Dreyfus party attained 
 its vindication. The revision of the whole case was sub- 
 mitted to the Court of Cassation. On July 12, 1906, 
 that body quashed the verdict of the Rennes court-martial. 
 It declared that the charges which had been brought 
 against Dreyfus had no foundation, and that the Rennes 
 court-martial had been guilty of gross injustice in refus- 
 ing to hear testimony that would have established the in- 
 nocence of the accused. The case was not to be sub- 
 mitted to another military tribunal, but was closed. 
 
 The Government now restored Captain Dreyfus to 
 his rank in the army, or rather, gave him the rank of 
 major, allowing him to count to that end the whole time 
 in which he had been unjustly deprived of his standing. 
 On July 21, 1906, he was invested with a decoration of 
 the Legion of Honor in the very courtyard of the Mili- 
 tary School, where, eleven years before, he had been 
 so dramatically degraded. Colonel Picquart was pro- 
 moted brigadier-general, and shortly became Minister 
 of War. Zola had died in 1903, but in 1908 his body 
 
84 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 was transferred to the Pantheon, as symbolizing a kind 
 of civic canonization. Thus ended the " Affair." 
 
 The Dreyfus case, originally simply involving the fate 
 of an alleged traitor, had soon acquired a far greater sig- 
 nificance. Party and personal ambitions and interests 
 sought to use it for purposes of their own and thus the 
 question of legal right and wrong was woefully distorted 
 and obscured. Those who hated the Jews used it to in- 
 flame people against that race, as Dreyfus was a Jew. 
 The Clericals joined them. Monarchists seized the occa- 
 sion to declare that the Republic Vv^as an egregious fail- 
 ure, breeding treason, and ought to be abolished. On 
 the other hand, there rallied to the defense of Dreyfus 
 those who believed in his innocence, those who denounced 
 the hatred of a race as a relic of barbarism, those who 
 believed that the military should be subordinate to the 
 civil authority and should not regard itself as above the 
 law as these army officers were doing, those who believed 
 that the whole episode was merely a hidden and danger- 
 ous attack upon the Republic, and all who believed that 
 the clergy should keep out of politics. 
 
 The chief result of this memorable struggle in the 
 domain of politics was to unite more closely Republi- 
 cans of every shade in a common programme, to make 
 them resolve to reduce the political importance of the 
 army and of the Church. The former was easily done, 
 by removals of monarchist officers. The attempt to solve 
 the latter much more subtle and elusive problem led to 
 the next great struggle in the recent history of France, 
 the struggle with the Church. 
 
FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 85 
 
 The Separation of Church and State 
 
 This new controversy assumed prominence under the 
 premiership of Waldeck-Rousseau, a leader of the Pari- 
 sian bar, a former follower of Gambetta. In October, 
 1900, he made a speech at Toulouse which resounded 
 throughout France. The real peril confronting the coun- 
 try he said, arose from the growing power of religious 
 orders — orders of monks and nuns — and from the char- 
 acter of the teaching given by them in the religious schools 
 they were conducting. He pointed out that here was a 
 power within the State which was a rival of the State 
 and fundamentally hostile to the State. These orders, 
 moreover, although not authorized under the laws of 
 France, were growing rapidly in wealth and numbers. 
 Between 1877 and 1900 the number of nuns had in- 
 creased from 14,000 to 75,000, in orders not authorized. 
 The monks numbered about 190,000. The property of 
 these orders, held in mortmain, estimated at about 50,- 
 000,000 francs in the middle of the century, had risen 
 to 700,000,000 in 1880, and was more than a billion 
 francs in 1900. Here was a vast amount of wealth, with- 
 drawn from ordinary processes of business, an economic 
 danger of the first importance. But the most serious fea- 
 ture was the activity of these orders in teaching and 
 preaching, for that teaching was declared to be hostile 
 to the Republic and to the principles of liberty and equal- 
 ity on which the Republicans of France have insisted 
 ever since the French Revolution. In other words, these 
 church schools were doing their best to make their pupils 
 hostile to the Republic and to republican ideals. There 
 was a danger to the State which Parliament must face. 
 
86 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 To preserve the Republic, defensive measures must be 
 taken. Holding this opinion, the Waldeck-Rousseau min- 
 istry secured the passage, July i, 1901, of the Law of 
 Associations, which provided, among other things, that 
 no religious orders should exist in France without defi- 
 nite authorization in each case from Parliament. It was 
 the belief of the authors of this bill that the Roman Cath- 
 olic Church was the enemy of the Republic, that it was 
 using its every agency against the Republic, that it had 
 latterly supported the anti-Dreyfus party in its attempt 
 to discredit the institutions of France, as it had done 
 formerly under MacMahon. Gambetta had, at that time, 
 declared that the enemy was the clerical party. " Cleri- 
 calism," said Combes, who succeeded Waldeck-Rousseau 
 in 1902, " is, in fact, to be found at the bottom of every 
 agitation and every intrigue from which republican 
 France has suffered during the last thirty-five years.'' 
 
 Animated with this feeling, Combes enforced the Asso- 
 ciations Law with rigor in 1902 and 1903. Many orders 
 refused to ask for authorization from Parliament ; many 
 which asked were refused. Tens of thousands of monks 
 and nuns were forced to leave their institutions, which 
 were closed. By a law of 1904 it was provided that all 
 teaching by religious orders, even by those authorized, 
 should cease within ten years. The State was to have 
 a monopoly of the education of the young, in the inter- 
 est of the ideals of liberalism it represented. Combes, 
 upon whom fell the execution of this law, suppressed 
 about five hundred teaching, preaching, and commercial 
 orders. This policy was vehemently denounced by Cath- 
 olics as persecution, as an infringement upon liberty, the 
 liberty to teach, the liberty of parents to have their chil- 
 
FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 87 
 
 dren educated in denominational schools if they pre- 
 ferred. 
 
 This, as events were to prove, was only preliminary 
 to a far greater religious struggle, which ended in the 
 complete separation of Church and State. 
 
 The relations of the Roman Catholic Church and the 
 State down to 1905 were determined by the Concordat, 
 concluded between Napoleon I and Pius VII in 1801 
 and promulgated in the following year. The system then 
 established remained undisturbed throughout the nine- 
 teenth century, under the various regimes, but after the 
 advent of the Third Republic there was ceaseless and in- 
 creasing friction between the Church and the State. The 
 opposition of the Republicans was augmented by the 
 activity of the clergy in the Dreyfus affair. Conse- 
 quently a law was finally passed, December 9, 1905, 
 which abrogated the Concordat. The State was hence- 
 forth not to pay the salaries of the clergy; on the other 
 hand, it relinquished all rights over their appointment. 
 It undertook to pay pensions to clergymen who had 
 served many years, and were already well advanced in 
 age; also to pay certain amounts to those who had been 
 in the priesthood for a few years only. In regard to 
 the property, which since 1789 had been declared to be 
 owned by the nation, the cathedrals, churches, chapels, it 
 was provided that these should still be at the free dis- 
 posal of the Roman Catholic Church, but that they should 
 be held and managed by so-called " Associations of Wor- 
 ship," which were to vary in size according to the popu- 
 lation of the community. 
 
 This law was condemned unreservedly by the Pope, 
 Piux X, who declared that the fundamental principle of 
 
88 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 separation of Church and State is " an absolutely false 
 thesis, a very pernicious error/' and who denounced the 
 Associations of Worship as giving the administrative 
 control, not "to the divinely instituted hierarchy, but 
 to an association of laymen." The Pope's decision 
 was final and conclusive for all Catholics, as it was 
 based on fundamentals and flatly rejected the law of 
 1905. 
 
 Parliament, therefore, passed a new law, early in 1907, 
 supplementary to the law of 1905. By it most of the 
 privileges guaranteed the Roman Catholic Church by the 
 law of 1905 were abrogated. The critical point in the 
 new law was the method of keeping the churches open 
 for religious exercises and so avoiding all the appear- 
 ance of persecution and all the scandal and uproar that 
 would certainly result if the churches of France were 
 closed. It was provided that their use should be gra- 
 tuitous and should be regulated by contracts between the 
 priests and the prefects or mayors. These contracts 
 would safeguard the civil ownership of the buildings, 
 but worship would go on in them as before. This sys- 
 tem is at present in force. 
 
 The result of this series of events and measures is 
 that Church and State are now definitely separated. The 
 people have apparently approved in recent elections the 
 policy followed by their Government. Bishops and priests 
 no longer receive salaries from the State. On the other 
 hand, they have liberties which they did not enjoy under 
 the Concordat, such as rights of assembly and freedom 
 from government participation in appointments. The 
 faithful must henceforth support their priests and bear 
 the expenses of the Church by private contributions. The 
 
FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 89 
 
 church buildings, however, have been left to their use 
 by the irrational but practical device just described. 
 
 Acquisition of Colonies in the Nineteenth 
 Century 
 
 France, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, 
 had possessed an extensive colonial empire. This she 
 had lost to England as a result of the wars of the reign 
 of Louis XV, the Revolution, and the Napoleonic period, 
 and in 181 5 her possessions had shrunk to a few small 
 points, Guadaloupe and Martinique in the West Indies, 
 St. Pierre and Miquelon, off Newfoundland, five towns 
 on the coast of India, of which Pondicherry was the best 
 known; Bourbon, now called Reunion, an island in the 
 Indian Ocean ; Guiana in South America, which had few 
 inhabitants, and Senegal in Africa. These were simply 
 melancholy souvenirs of her once proud past, rags and 
 tatters of a once imposing empire. 
 
 In the nineteenth century she was destined to begin 
 again, and to create an empire of vast geographical ex- 
 tent, only second in importance to that of Great Britain, 
 though vastly inferior to that. The interest in conquests 
 revived but slowly after 181 5. France had conquered 
 so much in Europe from 1792 to 18 12 only to lose it 
 as she had lost her colonies, that conquest in any form 
 seem.ed but a futile and costly display of misdirected 
 enterprise. Nevertheless, in time the process began anew, 
 and each of the various regimes which have succeeded 
 one another since 181 5 has contributed to the building 
 of the new empire. 
 
 The beginning was made in Algeria, on the northern 
 
go FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 coast of Africa, directly opposite France, and reached 
 now in less than twenty-four hours from Marseilles. 
 Down to the opening of the nineteenth century, Algeria, 
 Tunis, and Tripoli, nominally parts of the Turkish Em- 
 pire, were in reality independent and constituted the 
 Barbary States, whose main business was piracy. But 
 Europe was no longer disposed to see her wealth seized 
 and her citizens enslaved until she paid their ransom. In 
 1816 an English fleet bombarded Algiers, released no less 
 than 3,000 Christian captives, and destroyed piracy. 
 
 The French conquest of Algeria grew out of a gross 
 insult administered by the Dey to a French consul in 
 1830. France replied by sending a fleet to seize the capi- 
 tal, Algiers. She did not at that time intend the con- 
 quest of the whole country, but merely the punishment 
 of an insolent Dey, but attacks being made upon her from 
 time to time which she felt she must crush, she was led 
 on, step by step, until she had everywhere established her 
 power. All through the reign of Louis Philippe this pro- 
 cess was going on. Its chief feature was an intermittent 
 struggle of fourteen years with a native leader, Abd-el- 
 Kader, who proclaimed and fought a Holy War against 
 the intruder. In the end (1847) ^^ was forced to sur- 
 render, and France had secured an important territory. 
 
 Under Napoleon III, the beginning of conquest in 
 another part of Africa was made. France had possessed, 
 since the time of Louis XIII and Richelieu, one or two 
 miserable ports on the western coast, St. Louis the most 
 important. Under Napoleon III, the annexation of the 
 Senegal valley was largely carried through by the efforts 
 of the governor, Faidherbe, who later distinguished him- 
 self in the Franco-German war. Under Napoleon III 
 
FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 91 
 
 also, a beginning was made in another part of the world, 
 in Asia. The persecution of Christian natives, and the 
 murder of certain French missionaries gave Napoleon the 
 pretext to attack the King of Annam, whose kingdom 
 was in the peninsula that juts out from southeastern Asia. 
 After eight years of intermittent fighting France acquired 
 from the king the whole of Cochin-China (1858-67), 
 and also established a protectorate over the Kingdom of 
 Cambodia, directly north. 
 
 Thus, by 1870, France had staked out an empire 
 of about 700,000 square kilometers, containing a popu- 
 lation of about six million. 
 
 Under the present Republic the work of expansion and 
 consolidation has been carried much farther than under 
 all of the preceding regimes. There have been extensive 
 annexations in northern Africa, western Africa, the In- 
 dian Ocean, and in Indo-China. 
 
 In northern Africa, Tunis has passed under the control 
 of France. This was one of the Barbary States, and 
 yras nominally a part of the Turkish Empire, with a 
 Bey as sovereign. After establishing herself in Algeria, 
 France desired to extend her influence eastward, over 
 this neighboring state. But Italy, now united, began 
 about 1870 to entertain a similar ambition. France, 
 therefore, under the ministry of Jules Ferry, an 
 ardent believer in colonial expansion, sent troops into 
 Tunis in 1881, which forced the Bey to accept a French 
 protectorate over his state. The French have not 
 annexed Tunis formally, but they control it abso- 
 lutely through a Resident at the court of the Bey, 
 whose advice the latter is practically obliged to 
 follow. 
 
92 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 In western Africa, France has made extensive an- 
 nexations in Senegal, in Guinea, Dahomey, the Ivory- 
 Coast, and the region of the Niger, and north of the 
 Congo. By occupying the oases in the Sahara she 
 has established her claims to that vast but hitherto 
 unproductive area. This process has covered many 
 years of the present Republic. The result is the 
 existence of French authority over most of north- 
 w^est Africa, from Algeria on the Mediterranean, to 
 the Congo River. This region south of Algeria is 
 called the French Soudan, and comprises an area 
 seven or eight times as large as France, with a popu- 
 lation of some fourteen millions, mainly blacks. 
 There is some discussion of a Trans-Saharan railroad 
 to bind these African possessions more closely to- 
 gether. 
 
 In Asia, the Republic has imposed her protectorate 
 over the Kingdom of Annam (1883) and has annexed 
 Tonkin, taken from China after considerable fight- 
 ing (1885). In the Indian Ocean, she has conquered 
 Madagascar, an island larger than France herself, 
 with a population of two and a half million. A pro- 
 tectorate was imposed upon that country in 1895, 
 after ten years of disturbance, but after quelling a 
 rebellion that broke out the following year, the pro- 
 tectorate was abolished, and the island was made a 
 French colony. 
 
 Thus at the opening of the twentieth century the 
 colonial empire of France is eleven times larger than 
 France itself, has an area of six million square kilo- 
 meters, a population of about fifty millions, and a 
 rapidly growing commerce. Most of this empire is 
 
FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 93 
 
 located in the tropics and is ill-adapted to the settle- 
 ment of Europeans. Algeria and Tunis, however, 
 offer conditions favorable for such settlements. They 
 constitute the most valuable French possessions. Al- 
 geria is not considered a colony, but an integral part 
 of France. It is divided into three departments, each 
 one of which sends one senator and two deputies to 
 the chambers of the French Parliament. 
 
 On March 30, 1912, France established a protec- 
 torate over Morocco. For several years the status 
 of that country had been one of the contentious prob- 
 lems of international politics. France had desired 
 to gain control of it in order to round out her em- 
 pire in northwestern Africa. In 1904 she had made 
 an agreement with England whereby a far-reaching 
 diplomatic revolution in Europe was inaugurated. 
 This was largely the work of Theophile Delcasse, min- 
 ister of foreign affairs for seven years, from 1898 
 to 1905, one of the ablest statesmen the Third Re- 
 public has produced. Delcasse believed that France 
 would be able to show a more independent and self- 
 respecting foreign policy, one freer from German 
 domination and intimidation, if her relations with 
 Italy and England, severely strained for many years, 
 largely owing to colonial rivalries and jealousies, could 
 be made cordial and friendly. This he was able to 
 accomplish by arranging a treaty of commerce favor- 
 able to Italy and by promising Italy a free hand in 
 Tripoli and receiving from her the assurance that 
 she would do nothing to hamper French policy in 
 Morocco, a country of special significance to France 
 because of her possession of Algeria, 
 
94 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 More important was the reconciliation with Eng- 
 land. The relations of these two neighbors had long 
 been difficult and, at times, full of danger. Indeed, 
 in 1898 they had stood upon the very brink of war 
 when a French expedition under Marchand had 
 crossed Africa and had seized Fashoda on the Upper 
 Nile in the sphere of influence which Great Britain 
 considered emphatically hers. . The Fashoda incident 
 ended in the withdrawal of the French before the 
 resolute attitude of England. The lesson of this inci- 
 dent was not lost upon either power, and six years 
 later, on April 8, 1904, they signed an agreement 
 which not only removed the sources of friction be- 
 tween them once for all, but which established what 
 came to be known as the Entente Cordiale, destined 
 to great significance in the future. By this agree- 
 ment France recognized England's special interests in 
 Egypt and abandoned her long-standing demand that 
 England should set a date for the cessation of her 
 " occupation " of that country. On the other hand, 
 England recognized the special interests of France 
 in Morocco and promised not to impede their devel- 
 opment. 
 
 One power emphatically objected to the deter- 
 mination of the fate of an independent country by 
 these two powers alone. Germany challenged this 
 agreement and asserted that she must herself be con- 
 sulted in such matters; that her rivals had no right 
 by themselves to preempt those regions of the world 
 which might still be considered fields for European 
 colonization or control. German interests must be 
 considered quite as much as French or English, 
 
FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 95 
 
 Germany's peremptory attitude precipitated an in- 
 ternational crisis and led to the international Con- 
 ference of Algeciras in 1906, which was, however, on 
 the whole a victory for France, acknowledging the 
 primacy of her interests in Morocco. As France pro- 
 ceeded to strengthen her position there in the suc- 
 ceeding years, Germany issued another challenge in 
 191 1 by sending a gunboat to Agadir, thus creating 
 another crisis, which for a time threatened a Euro- 
 pean war. In the end, however, Germany recog- 
 nized the position of France, but only after the latter 
 had ceded to her extensive territories in Kamerun 
 and the French Congo. For several years, therefore, 
 Morocco was a danger spot in international politics, 
 exerting a disturbing influence upon the relations of 
 European powers to each other, particularly those of 
 France and Germany. Finally, however, the inde- 
 pendence of Morocco disappeared and the country 
 was practically incorporated in the colonial empire 
 of France. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 THE KINGDOM OF ITALY SINCE 1870 
 
 The Kingdom of Italy, as we have seen, was estab- 
 lished in 1859 and i860. Venetia was acquired in 
 1866, and Rome in 1870. In these cases, as in the 
 preceding, the people were allowed to express their 
 wishes by a vote, which, in both instances, was prac- 
 tically unanimous in favor of the annexation. 
 
 The Constitution of the new kingdom was the 
 old Constitution of Piedmont, slightly altered. It 
 provided for a parliament of two chambers, a Senate 
 and a Chamber of Deputies. The full parliamentary 
 system was introduced, ministers representing the 
 will of the Lower Chamber. The first capital was 
 Turin, then Florence in 1865, and finally Rome since 
 1871. 
 
 The most perplexing question confronting the new 
 kingdom concerned its relations to the Papacy. The 
 Italian Kingdom had seized, by violence, the city of 
 Rome, over which the Popes had ruled in uncon- 
 tested right for a thousand years. Rome had this 
 peculiarity over all other cities, that it was the capital 
 of Catholics the world over. Any attempt to expel 
 the Pope from the city or to subject him to the House 
 of Savoy would everywhere arouse the faithful, 
 already clamorous, and might cause an intervention 
 
 96 
 
THE KINGDOM OF ITALY SINCE 1870 97 
 
 in behalf of the restoration of the temporal power. 
 There were henceforth to be two sovereigns, one tem- 
 poral, one spiritual, within the same city. The situa- 
 tion was absolutely unique and extremely delicate. 
 It was considered necessary to determine their rela- 
 tions before the government was transferred to Rome. 
 It was impossible to reach any agreement with the 
 Pope, as he refused to recognize the Kingdom of 
 Italy, but spoke of Victor Emmanuel simply as the 
 King of Sardinia, and would make no concessions in 
 regard to his own rights in Rome. Parliament, there- 
 fore, assumed to settle the matter alone and passed, 
 May 13, 1871, the Law of Papal Guarantees, a re- 
 markable act defining the relations of Church and 
 State in Italy. 
 
 The object of this law was to carry out Cavour's 
 principle of a " free Church in a free State," to reas- 
 sure Catholics that the new kingdom had no inten- 
 tion of controlling in any way the spiritual activities 
 of the Pope, though taking from him his temporal 
 powers. Any attacks upon him are, by this law, to 
 be punished exactly as are similar attacks upon the 
 King. He has his own diplomatic corps, and receives 
 diplomatic representatives from other countries. Cer- 
 tain places are set apart as entirely under his sover- 
 eignty : the Vatican, the Lateran, Castel Gandolfo, 
 and their gardens. Here no Italian official may 
 enter in his official capacity, for Italian law and admin- 
 istration stop outside these limits. In return for the 
 income lost with the temporal power, the Pope is 
 granted 3,225,000 france a year by the Italian King- 
 dom. This law has been faithfully observed by the 
 
98 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE ; .. 
 
 Italian Government, but it has never been accepted by 
 the Pope, nor has the Kingdom of Italy been recog- 
 nized by him. He considers himself the " prisoner of 
 the Vatican," and since 1870 has not left it to go into 
 the streets of Rome, as he would thereby be tacitly 
 recognizing the existence of another ruler there, the 
 " usurper." 
 
 Another difficult problem for the Kingdom was its 
 financial status. The debts of the former Italian 
 states were assumed by it and were large. The na- 
 tion was also obliged to make large expenditures on 
 the army and the navy, on fortifications, and on pub- 
 lic works, particularly on the building of railways, 
 which were essential to the economic prosperity of 
 the country as well as conducive to the strengthening 
 of the sense of common nationality. There were, 
 for several years, large annual deficits, necessitating 
 new loans, which, of course, augmented the public 
 debt. Heroically did successive ministers seek to 
 make both ends meet, not shrinking from new and 
 unpopular taxes, or from the seizure and sale of 
 monastic lands. Success was finally achieved, and in 
 1879 the receipts exceeded the expenditures. 
 
 In 1878 Victor Emmanuel II died and was buried 
 in the Pantheon, one of the few ancient buildings of 
 Rome. Over his tomb is the inscription, " To the 
 Father of his Country." He was succeeded by his 
 son, Humbert I, then thirty-four years of age. A 
 month later Pius IX died, and was succeeded by Leo 
 XIII, at the time of his election sixty-eight years of 
 age. But nothing was changed by this change of 
 personalities. Each maintained the system of his 
 
THE KINGDOM OF ITALY SINCE 1870 99 
 
 predecessor. Leo XIII, Pope from 1878 to 1903, fol- 
 lowing the precedent set by Pius IX, never recog- 
 nized the Kingdom of Italy, nor did he ever leave 
 the Vatican. He, too, considered himself a prisoner 
 of the " robber king." 
 
 Another urgent problem confronting the new king- 
 dom was that of the education of its citizens. This 
 was most imperative if the masses of the people were 
 to be fitted for the freer and more responsible life 
 opened by the political revolution. The preceding 
 governments had grossly neglected this duty. In 
 1861 over seventy-five per cent of the population of 
 the kingdom were illiterate. In Naples and Sicily, 
 the most backward in development of all the sections 
 of Italy, the number of illiterates exceeded ninety 
 per cent of the population ; and in Piedmont and 
 Lombardy, the most advanced sections, one-third of 
 the men and more than half of the women could 
 neither read nor write. In 1877 a compulsory educa- 
 tion law was finally passed, but it has not, owing to 
 the expense, been practically enforced. Though Italy 
 has done much during the last thirty years, much 
 remains to be done. Illiteracy, though diminishing, 
 is still widely prevalent. Recent statistics show that 
 forty per cent of the recruits in the army are illiterate. 
 
 In 1882 the suffrage was greatly extended. Hith- 
 erto limited to those who were twenty-five years of 
 age or over and paid about eight dollars a year in 
 direct taxes, it was now thrown open to all over 
 twenty-one years of age, and the tax qualification 
 was reduced by half; also all men of twenty-one who 
 had had a primary education were given the vote, 
 
loo FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 whether they could meet the tax quaHfication or not. 
 The result was that the number of voters was tripled 
 at once, rising from about 600,000 to more than 
 2,000,000. 
 
 In 1912 Italy took a long step toward democracy 
 by making the suffrage almost universal for men, 
 only denying the franchise to those younger than 
 thirty who have neither performed their military serv- 
 ice nor learned to read and write. Thus all men 
 over twenty-one, even if illiterate, have the vote if 
 they have served in the army. The number of voters 
 was thus increased from somewhat over three million 
 to more than eight and a half million. 
 
 In foreign affairs Italy made an important deci- 
 sion which influenced her course down to 1914. In 
 1882 she entered into alliance with Germany, and with 
 Austria, her former enemy, and in many respects still' 
 her rival. This made the famous Triple Alliance, 
 which has dominated Europe most of the time since 
 it was created. The reasons why Italy entered this 
 combination, highly unnatural for her, considering her 
 ancient hatred of Austria, were various : pique at 
 France for the seizure of Tunis, which Italy herself 
 coveted, dread of French intervention in behalf of 
 the Pope, and a desire to appear as one of the great 
 powers of Europe. The result was that she was 
 forced to spend larger sums upon her army, remod- 
 eled along Prussian lines, and her navy, thus disturb- 
 ing her finances once more. 
 
 Italy now embarked upon another expensive and 
 hazardous enterprise, the acquisition of colonies, in^ 
 fluenced in this direction by the prevalent fashion, 
 
THE KINGDOM OF ITALY SINCE 1870 loi 
 
 and by a desire to rank among the world powers. 
 Shut out of Tunis, her natural field, by France, she, 
 in 1885, seized positions on the Red Sea, particularly 
 the port of Massawa. Two years later she conse- 
 quently found herself at war with Abyssinia. The 
 minister who had inaugurated this movement, Depre- 
 tis, died in 1887. He was succeeded by Crispi, who 
 threw himself heartily into the colonial scheme, ex- 
 tended the claims of Italy in East Africa, and tried 
 to play off one native leader against another. To the 
 new colony he gave the name of Eritrea. At the same 
 time an Italian protectorate was established over a 
 region in eastern Africa called Somaliland. But all 
 this involved long and expensive campaigns against 
 the natives. Italy was trying to play the role of a 
 great power when her resources did not warrant it. 
 The consequence of this aggressive and ambitious 
 military, naval, and colonial policy was the creation 
 anew of a deficit in the state's finances, which in- 
 creased alarmingly. The deficits of four years 
 amounted to the enormous sum of over seventy-five 
 million dollars, which occasioned heavy new taxes and 
 widespread discontent, which was put down ruth- 
 lessly by despotic methods. This policy of aggran- 
 dizement led to a war with Abyssinia and to a dis- 
 aster in 1896 in the battle of Adowa, so crushing as 
 to end the political life of Crispi and to force Italy 
 into more moderate courses. Popular discontent con- 
 tinued. Its cause was the wretchedness of the peo- 
 ple, which in turn was largely occasioned by the 
 heavy taxation resulting from these unwise attempts 
 to play an international role hopelessly out of pro- 
 
102 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 portion to the country's resources. In the south and 
 center the movement took the form of " bread riots," 
 but in the north it was distinctly revolutionary. 
 *' Dow^n v^ith the dynasty '* v^as a cry heard there. 
 All these movements v^ere suppressed by the Gov- 
 ernment, but only after much bloodshed. They in- 
 dicated widespread distress and dissatisfaction with 
 existing conditions. 
 
 In July, 1900, King Humbert was assassinated by 
 an Italian anarchist, who went to Italy for that pur- 
 pose from Paterson, New Jersey. Humbert was suc- 
 ceeded by his son Victor Emmanuel III, then in his 
 thirty-first year. 
 
 The new King had been carefully educated and 
 soon showed that he was a man of intelligence, of 
 energy, and of firmness of will. He won the favor 
 of his subjects by the simplicity of his mode of life, 
 by his evident sense of duty, and by his sincere inter- 
 est in the welfare of the people, shown in many spon- 
 taneous and unconventional ways. He became forth- 
 with a more decisive factor in the government than 
 his father had been. He was a democratic monarch, 
 indifferent to display, laborious, vigorous. The open- 
 ing decade of the twentieth century was character- 
 ized by a new spirit which, in a way, reflected the 
 buoyancy, and hopefulness, and courage of the young 
 King. But the causes for the new optimism were 
 deeper than the mere change of rulers and lay in 
 the growing prosperity of the nation, a prosperity 
 which, despite appearances, had been for some years 
 preparing and which was now witnessed on all sides. 
 [The worst was evidently over. 
 
THE KINGDOM OF ITALY SINCE 1870 103 
 
 Italy was becoming an industrial nation. Silk and 
 cotton and chemical and iron manufactures were ad- 
 vancing rapidly. The merchant marine was being 
 greatly increased. This transformation into a great 
 industrial state was not only possible but was nec- 
 essary, owing to her rapidly increasing population, 
 which grew from 1870 to 1914 from about 25,000,000 
 to over 35,000,000. The birth rate was higher than 
 that of any other country of Europe. But during 
 the same period the emigration from Italy was large 
 and was steadily increasing. OfBcial statistics show 
 that, between 1876 and 1905, over eight million per- 
 sons emigrated, of whom over four million went to 
 various South American countries, especially Argen- 
 tina, and to the United States. Perhaps half of the 
 total number have returned to their native land, for 
 much of the emigration was of a temporary charac- 
 ter. Emigration has increased greatly under the 
 present reign, while the economic conditions of the 
 country have begun to show improvement. This is 
 explained by the fact that the industrial revival de- 
 scribed above has not yet affected southern Italy and 
 Sicily, whence the large proportion of the emigrants 
 come. From those parts which have experienced that 
 revival the emigration has not been large. Only by 
 an extensive growth of industries can this emigration 
 be stopped or at least rendered normal. Italy finds 
 herself in the position in which Germany was for 
 many years, losing hundreds of thousands of her citi- 
 zens each year. With the expansion of German in- 
 dustries the outgoing stream grew less until, in 1908, 
 it practically ceased, owing to the fact that her mines 
 
104 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 and factories had so far developed as to give employ- 
 ment to all. 
 
 This increasing population and this constant loss 
 by emigration have served in recent years to concen- 
 trate Italian thought more and more upon the neces- 
 sity of new and more advantageous colonies, that her 
 surplus population may not be drained away to other 
 countries. The desire for expansion has increased 
 and with it the determination to use whatever oppor- 
 tunities are offered by the politics of Europe for that 
 purpose. The result was the acquisition in 1912 of 
 the extensive territory of Tripoli and of a dozen 
 ^gean islands, spoils of a war with Turkey which 
 will be more fully treated later. With this desire 
 for expansion went also a tendency to scrutinize more 
 carefully the nature of her relations with her allies, 
 Germany and Austria. The advantages of the Triple 
 Alliance became, in the minds of many, more and 
 more doubtful. One obvious and positive disadvan- 
 tage in an alliance with Austria was the necessary 
 abandonment of a policy of annexation of those terri- 
 tories north and northeast of Italy, which are inhab- 
 ited by Italians but which were not included within 
 the boundaries of the kingdom at the time of its 
 creation. These were the so-called Trentino, the 
 region around the town of Trent; Trieste, and Istria. 
 These territories were subject to Austria, and as long 
 as Italy was allied with Austria she was kept from 
 any attempt to gain this Italia irredenta or Unre- 
 deemed Italy, and thus so round out her boundaries 
 as to include within them people who are Italian in 
 race, in language, and, probably, in sympathy. 
 
THE KINGDOM OF ITALY SINCE 1870 105 
 
 On May 4, 191 5, Italy denounced her treaty of 
 alliance with Austria. The famous Triple Alliance, 
 which had been the dominant factor in European 
 diplomacy since 1882, thus came to an end. On May 
 23, Italy declared war against Austria-Hungary and 
 entered the European conflict on the side of the En- 
 tente Allies in the hope of realizing her " national 
 aspirations.'* 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 
 
 We have traced the history of the unification of 
 Germany and Italy and the rise of the Triple Alli- 
 ance, great facts in the life of modern Europe. In 
 so doing we have seen something of the fortunes of 
 the third member of that Alliance, the Empire of 
 Austria, a strange collection of peoples and states, 
 or remnants of former states, over v^hose destinies 
 presided, and had presided for centuries, the famous 
 House of Hapsburg. That Empire, as w^e have seen, 
 had had a troubled history in the nineteenth century, 
 and had experienced serious reverses of fortune. Aus- 
 tria had lost her Italian possessions, Lombardy in 1859 
 and Venetia in 1866, and v^as no longer a factor in the 
 history of that peninsula. She had been expelled 
 from Germany in 1866 as a result of the policies of 
 Bismarck and was now thrown in upon herself. 
 The situation was one that necessitated a thorough 
 reorganization of the state and that reorganiza- 
 tion was immediately undertaken. The form that 
 it took was peculiar. The various possessions of the 
 House of Hapsburg were grouped and were recog- 
 nized as falling into two large divisions, one known 
 henceforth as Austria, the other known as Hungary. 
 Austria consisted of the duchies, between Germany 
 
 106 
 
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 107 
 
 and Italy, Upper Austria, Lower Austria and others, 
 which for a century had been under Hapsburg rule, 
 the old patrimony of that family; consisting also of 
 Bohemia, an independent kingdom during the Mid- 
 dle Ages, but acquired by the Hapsburgs in 1526; 
 of Galicia, a large province which had belonged to the 
 former kingdom of Poland, but which the House of 
 Hapsburg had acquired in the famous partitions of 
 Poland in 1772 and 179S; consisting also of several 
 other regions north of the Adriatic, and of Dalmatia 
 along its eastern shore. Such, in a territorial sense, 
 was Austria. Hungary, on the other hand, the other 
 of the two large divisions, had once been an inde- 
 pendent kingdom, like Bohemia, had come under the 
 House of Hapsburg at the same time as the latter; 
 that is, in 1526. It had long been oppressed and lat- 
 terly had been divided by the reigning dynasty into 
 five separate parts, ruled directly from Vienna. But 
 Hungary had a lively historical sense, was constantly 
 asserting her " historic rights," that is, her right to 
 be treated as an independent state, with all her for- 
 mer institutions of control and local government 
 Hungary was always intensely conscious of the role 
 she had played in the past, and was determined to 
 resume that role, if possible. The adversities expe- 
 rienced by the dynasty in Italy and Germany, already 
 described, gave her the opportunity to recover her 
 position, so sadly compromised and even flouted in 
 the past. She was able to exact such large conces- 
 sions from Francis Joseph, the Emperor, who had 
 come to the throne in 1848, that they amounted to 
 a recognition of her separate individuality and gained 
 
io8 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 her the privilege of nearly complete self-govern- 
 ment. The bargain that she concluded vv^ith Austria 
 w^as the Ausgleich, as the Germans call it, or the 
 Compromise of 1867, an agreement w^hich formed the 
 basis of the Hapsburg Empire dov^n to the close of 
 the Great War. 
 
 The Compromise of 1867 created a curious kind of 
 state, defying classification, and absolutely unique. 
 The Empire was henceforth to be called Austria- 
 Hungary, and w^as to be a dual monarchy. Austria- 
 Hungary was to consist of two distinct, independent 
 states, which were to stand in law upon a plane of 
 complete equality. Each was to have its own capital, 
 the one Vienna, the other Budapest. Both were to 
 have the same ruler, who in Austria should bear the 
 title of Emperor, in Hungary that of King. Each was 
 to have its own Parliament, its own ministry, its 
 own administration. Each was to govern itself in 
 all internal affairs absolutely without interference 
 from the other. 
 
 But the two were united not simply in the person 
 of the monarch. They were united for certain affairs 
 regarded as common to both. There was to be a 
 joint ministry composed of three departments: For- 
 eign Affairs^ War, and Finance. Each state was to 
 have its own Parliament, but there was to be no 
 ParHament in common. In order then to have a 
 body that should supervise the work of the three 
 joint ministries there v/as established the system of 
 " delegations." Each Parliament should choose a 
 delegation of sixty of its members. These delega- 
 tions should meet alternately in Vienna and Budapest. 
 
BresVift 
 
 DISTRIBUTIOIT OF RACES 
 IN 
 
 AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 
 
 6if^ 
 
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 109 
 
 They were really committees of the two Parliaments. 
 They were to sit and debate separately, each using 
 its own language, and they were to communicate 
 with each other in writing. If after three communi- 
 cations no decision should have been reached a joint 
 session must be held in which the question was to 
 be settled without debate by a mere majority vote. 
 
 Other affairs, which in most countries are consid- 
 ered common to all parts, such as tariflf and currency 
 systems, were not to fall within the competence of 
 the joint ministry or the delegations. They were 
 to be regulated by agreements concluded between the 
 two Parliaments for periods of ten years, exactly as 
 between any two independent states, an awkward 
 arrangement destined to create an intense strain 
 every decade, for the securing of these agreements 
 was to prove most difficult. 
 
 Each state was to have its own constitution, each 
 its own Parliament, consisting of two chambers. In 
 neither was there in 1867 universal suffrage. A de- 
 mand for this has been repeatedly made in both coun- 
 tries with results that will appear later. 
 
 Neither of the two states, thus recognized as form- 
 ing the Dual Monarchy, had a homogeneous popula- 
 tion. In each there was a dominant race, the Ger- 
 mans in Austria, the Magyars in Hungary. The Com- 
 promise of 1867 was satisfactory to these alone. In 
 each country there were subordinate and rival races, 
 jealous of the supremacy of these two, anxious for 
 recognition and for power, and rendered more in- 
 sistent by the sight of the remarkable success of the 
 Magyars in asserting their individuality. In Hungary 
 
no FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 there were Croatia, Slavonia, and Transylvania; in 
 Austria there were seventeen provinces, each with 
 its own Diet, representing almost always a variety 
 of races. Some of these, notably Bohemia, had in 
 former centuries had a separate statehood, which 
 they wished to recover; others were gaining an in- 
 creasing self-consciousness, and desired a future con- 
 trolled by themselves and in their own interests. 
 
 The struggles of these races were destined to form 
 the most important feature of Austrian history dur- 
 ing the next fifty years. It should be noted that the 
 principle of nationality, so effective in bringing about 
 the unification of Italy and Germany, has tended in 
 Austria in precisely the opposite direction, the split- 
 ting up of a single state into many. Dualism was 
 estabUshed in 1867, but these subordinate races re- 
 fused to acquiesce in that as a final form, as dualism 
 favored only two races, the Germans and the Mag- 
 yars. They wished to change the dual into a fed- 
 eral state, which should give free play to the several 
 nationalities. The fundamental conflict all these 
 years has been between these two principles — dual- 
 ism and federalism. These racial and nationalistic 
 struggles have been most confusing. In the interest 
 of clearness, only a few of the more important can 
 be treated here. 
 
 The Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hun- 
 gary, having had different histories since 1867, may 
 best be treated separately. 
 
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY a 1 1 
 
 The Empire of Austria Since 1867 
 
 No sooner had Austria made the Compromise with 
 Hungary than she was confronted with the demand 
 that she proceed farther in the path thus entered 
 upon. Various nationahties, or would-be nationali- 
 ties, demanded that they should now receive as liberal 
 treatment as Hungary had received in the Com- 
 promise of 1867. The leaders in this movement were 
 the Czechs of Bohemia, who, in 1868, definitely stated 
 their position, which was precisely that of the Hun- 
 garians before 1867. They claimed that Bohemia was 
 an historic and independent nation, united with the 
 other states under the House of Hapsburg only in 
 the person of the monarch. They demanded that the 
 Kingdom of Bohemia should be restored, that Francis 
 Joseph should be crowned in Prague with the crown 
 of Wenceslaus. The agitation grew to such an ex- 
 tent that the Emperor decided to yield to the Bohe- 
 mians. On September 14, 1871, he formally recog- 
 nized the historic rights of the Kingdom of Bohemia, 
 and agreed to be crowned king in Prague, as he had 
 been crowned king in Budapest. Arrangements were 
 to be made whereby Bohemia should gain the same 
 rights as Hungary, independence in domestic affairs 
 and union with Austria and Hungary for certain gen- 
 eral purposes. The dual monarchy was about to be- 
 come a triple monarchy. 
 
 But these promises were not destined to be carried 
 out. The Emperor's plans were bitterly opposed by 
 the Germans of Austria, who, as the dominant class 
 and as also a minority of the whole population, the 
 
112 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Slavs being in the majority, feared the loss of their 
 supremacy, feared the rise of the Slavs, whom they 
 hated. They were bitterly opposed, also, by the 
 Magyars of Hungary, who declared that this was un- 
 doing the Compromise of 1867, and who feared par- 
 ticularly that the rise of the Slavic state of Bohemia 
 would rouse the Slavic peoples of Hungary to de- 
 mand the same rights, and the Magyars were deter- 
 mined not to share with them their privileged posi- 
 tion. The opposition to the Emperor's plans was 
 consequently most emphatic and formidable. It was 
 also pointed out that the management of foreign 
 affairs would be much more difficult with three na- 
 tions directing rather than two. The Emperor yielded 
 to the opposition. The decree that was to place 
 Bohemia on an equality with Austria and Hungary 
 never came. Dualism had triumphed over federal- 
 ism, to the immense indignation of those who saw 
 the prize snatched from them. The Compromise of 
 1867 remained unchanged. The House of Hapsburg 
 continued to rule over a dual, not over a federal state. 
 The racial problem, however, could not be con- 
 jured away so easily. It still persisted. For several 
 years after this triumph the German element con- 
 trolled the Austrian Parliament. But, breaking up 
 finally into three groups and incurring the animosity 
 of the Emperor by constantly blocking some of the 
 measures he desired, the Emperor threw his influence 
 against them. There ensued a ministry which lasted 
 longer than any other ministry has lasted and whose 
 policies were in some respects of much significance. 
 This was the Taaffe ministry which was in office 
 
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 113 
 
 fourteen years, from 1879 to 1893. Its policies fa- 
 vored the development of the Czechs and the Poles, 
 two branches of the Slavic race. The two races of 
 Bohemia are the Germans and the Czechs. The lat- 
 ter were favored in various ways by the Taaffe min- 
 istry, which was angry with the Germans. They se- 
 cured an electoral law which assured them a majority 
 in the Bohemian Diet and in the Bohemian delega- 
 tion to the Reichsrath or Austrian Parliament; they 
 obtained a university, by the division into two insti- 
 tutions of that of Prague, the oldest German Univer- 
 sity, founded in 1356. Thus there is a German Uni- 
 versity of Prague and a Czech University (1882). By 
 various ordinances German was dethroned from its 
 position as sole official language. After 1886 office- 
 holders were required to answer the demands of the 
 public in the language in which they were presented, 
 either German or Czech. This rule operated un- 
 favorably for German officials, who were usually un- 
 able to speak Czech, whereas the Czechs, as a rule, 
 spoke both languages. 
 
 In Galicia the Poles, though a minority, obtained 
 control of the Diet, supported by the Taaffe minis- 
 try, and proceeded to oppress the Ruthenians, who, 
 while Slavs, like the Poles themselves, belonged to 
 the Little Russian or Ukrainian branch of that race; 
 in Carniola the Slovenes proceeded to Slavicize the 
 province. Thus the Slavs were favored during 
 the long ministry of Taaffe and the evolution of the 
 Slavic nationalities and peoples progressed at the ex- 
 pense of the Germans. This is the most striking dif- 
 ference between the recent development of Austria 
 
114 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 and the recent development of Hungary. In Austria 
 the German domination of the Slavs largely broke 
 down and was not persisted in, but racial hatreds con- 
 tinued, particularly between the Czechs and Germans 
 of Bohemia. The Slavic peoples, in Austria, had some 
 chances to develop. Racial tyranny, on the other 
 hand, became, as we shall see, the settled policy of the 
 dominant race of Hungary. The result was that 
 racial tension, though by no means absent from Aus- 
 tria, was for a while considerably relieved, whereas 
 in Hungary it steadily increased until it quite reached 
 the snapping point. 
 
 A movement toward democracy also went on under 
 the TaafiFe ministry and continued after its fall. The 
 agitation for universal suffrage was finally successful. 
 By the law of January 26, 1907, all men in Austria 
 over twenty-four years of age were given the right 
 to vote. The most noteworthy result of the first 
 elections on this popular basis (May, 1907) was the 
 return of 87 Socialists, who polled over a million 
 votes, nearly a third of those cast. This party had 
 previously had only about a dozen representatives. 
 It was noticed at the same elections that the racial 
 parties lost heavily. Whether this meant that the 
 period of extreme racial rivalry was over and the 
 struggle of social classes was to succeed it, remained 
 to be seen. 
 
 The Kingdom of Hungary Since 1867 
 
 Hungary, a country larger than Austria, larger than 
 Great Britain, found her historic individuality defi- 
 nitely recognized and guaranteed by the Compromise 
 
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 1 15 
 
 of 1867. She had successfully resisted all attempts 
 to merge her with the other countries subject to the 
 House of Hapsburg. She was an independent king- 
 dom under the crown of St. Stephen. The sole offi- 
 cial language was Magyar, which was neither Slavic 
 nor Teutonic, but Turanian in origin. 
 
 The political history of Hungary since the Com- 
 promise has been much more simple than that of 
 Austria. Race and language questions have been 
 fundamental, but they have been decided in a sum- 
 mary manner. The ruling race in 1867 was the Mag- 
 yar, and it has remained the ruling race. Though 
 numerically in the minority in 1867, comprising only 
 about six millions out of fifteen millions, it was a 
 strong race, accustomed to rule and determined to 
 rule. This minority has since 1867 been attempting 
 the impossible — the assimilation of the majority. 
 There are four leading races in Hungary — the Mag- 
 yar, the Slav, the Roumanian, the German. The 
 Roumanians are the oldest, calling themselves Latins 
 and claiming descent from Roman colonists of an- 
 cient times. They live particularly in the eastern 
 part of the kingdom, which is called Transylvania. 
 They do not constitute a soHd block of peoples, for 
 there are among them many German or Saxon set- 
 tlements, and between them and the independent 
 Kingdom of Roumania, inhabited by people of the 
 same race, are many Magyars. The Slavs of Hun- 
 gary fall into separate groups. In the northern part 
 of Hungary are the Slovaks, of the same race and 
 language as the Czechs of Bohemia. In the southern, 
 and particularly the southwestern part, are Serbs and 
 
ii6 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Croatians, related to the Serbs of the Kingdom of 
 Serbia. Of these the Croatians were the only ones 
 who had a separate and distinct personality. They 
 had never been entirely absorbed in Hungary, they 
 had had their own history and their own institutions. 
 In 1868 the Magyars made a compromise with Croa- 
 tia, similar to the compromise they had themselves 
 concluded with Austria in the year preceding. In 
 regard to all the other races, however, the Magyars 
 resolved to Magyarize them early and thoroughly. 
 This policy they have steadily persisted in. They 
 have insisted upon the use of the Magyar language 
 in public offices, courts, schools, and in the railway 
 service — wherever, in fact, it has been possible. It 
 is stated that there is not a single inscription in any 
 post-office or railway station in all Hungary except 
 in the Magyar language. The Magyars have, in fact, 
 refused to make any concessions to the various peo- 
 ples who live with them within the boundaries of 
 Hungary. They have, indeed, tried in every way 
 to stamp out all peculiarities. For nearly fifty years 
 this policy has been carried out and it has not suc- 
 ceeded. Hungary has not been Magyarized because 
 the power of resistance of Slovaks, Croatians, Sla- 
 vonians, Roumanians has proved too strong. But in 
 the attempt, which has grown sharper and shriller 
 than ever in the last decade, the Magyar minority 
 has stopped at nothing. It has committed innumera- 
 ble tricks, acts of arbitrary power, breaches of the 
 law, in order to crush out all opposition. Political 
 institutions have been distorted into engines of ruth- 
 less oppression, political life has steadily deteriorated 
 
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 117 
 
 in character and purpose, under the influence of this 
 overmastering purpose which has recognized no 
 bounds. Hungary, which boasts itself a land of free- 
 dom, has ensured freedom only to the dominant race, 
 the Magyars. But for the other races Hungary has 
 been a land of unbridled despotism. Every imagina- 
 ble instrument has been used to crush the Slavs or 
 convert them into Magyars — corruption and gross 
 illegalities in the administrative service, in the con- 
 trol of elections, persecution of all independent news- 
 papers, suppression of schools, the firm determination 
 to prevent these subject peoples, for that they vir- 
 tually are though theoretically fellow-citizens, from 
 developing their own languages, literatures, arts, eco- 
 nomic life, ideals. The situation has been galling to 
 the Slavs and other peoples. Magyar misrule has 
 steadily increased in intensity, has in our time viti- 
 ated and corrupted the national life and has made 
 Hungary a tinder box, where disaffection was bound 
 to blaze up at the first opportune moment. It is an 
 odious history of oppression. Had the Magyars rec- 
 ognized that the other races living within Hungary 
 had the same rights as they, had they adopted a pol- 
 icy of fair play and justice, instead of amalgamation 
 by force, Hungary would have been in a healthy con- 
 dition. Hungary has not been Magyarized. But 
 racial animosities have been raised to the highest 
 pitch and the time of reckoning has come with the 
 Great War. Any detailed study of the relations of 
 the dominant Magyars with the Croatians, the Serbs, 
 the Slovaks, the Roumanians would amply prove the 
 statements made. 
 
ii8 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 The reply to these assertions, constantly given by 
 the apologists of the Magyars, is that Hungarian law 
 expressly and carefully recognizes the absolute equal- 
 ity of all the various elements and they point to the 
 Law of 1868, which guarantees the " Equal Rights I 
 of Nationalities." This law is admirable and enlight- 
 ened and was composed in the finely liberal spirit of 
 Francis Deak, who indeed was its chief author. But 
 this law is a dead letter, and it has been a dead letter 
 almost from the time of its passage. It has not been 
 repealed, as the advantage of having so liberal an 
 enactment to point to for the purpose of silencing 
 critics and throwing dust in foreign eyes has been 
 apparent to the Magyar tyrants. But the spirit of 
 Francis Deak long ago passed out of the governing 
 circles of Hungary. 
 
 That many Roumanians in Transylvania desire sep- 
 aration from Hungary and incorporation in the King- 
 dom of Roumania, that many of the Serbs or Slavs 
 of southern Hungary desire annexation to the King- 
 dom of Serbia, need occasion no surprise. Had the 
 Slavs of Hungary received justice, which they never 
 have received, they would not have become an ele- 
 ment of danger to the state. There is no evidence 
 even yet to show that the Magyars have learned this 
 lesson. 
 
 Toward the close of the nineteenth century there 
 grew up among the Magyars themselves a new party, 
 which still further complicated an already complex 
 situation. It was called the Independence Party and 
 was under the leadership of Francis Kossuth, son of 
 Louis Kossuth of 1848. This party was opposed to 
 
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 119 
 
 the Compromise of 1867, and wished to have Hun- 
 gary more independent than she was. It demanded 
 that Hungary should have her own diplomatic corps, 
 control her relations with foreign countries independ- 
 ently of Austria, and possess the right to have her own 
 tariff. Particularly did it demand the use of Magyar 
 in the Hungarian part of the army of the Dual Mon- 
 archy — a demand pressed passionately, but always re- 
 sisted with unshaken firmness by the Emperor, Fran- 
 cis Joseph, who considered that the safety of the State 
 was dependent upon having one language in use in 
 the army, that there might not be confusion and dis- 
 aster on the battlefield. Scenes of great violence 
 arose over this question, both in Parliament and out- 
 side of it, but the Emperor would not yield. Gov- 
 ernment was brought to a deadlock, and, indeed, for 
 several years the Ausgleich could not be renewed, 
 save by the arbitrary act of the Emperor, for a year 
 at a time. Francis Joseph finally threatened, if forced 
 to concede the recognition of the Hungarian lan- 
 guage, to couple with it the introduction of universal 
 suffrage into Hungary, for which there was a grow- 
 ing popular demand. This the Magyars did not wish, 
 fearing that it would rob them of their dominant posi- 
 tion by giving a powerful weapon to the politically 
 inferior but more numerous races, and that they 
 w^ould, therefore, ultimately be submerged by the 
 Slavs about them. In 1914 less than twenty-five per 
 cent of the adult male population of Hungary pos- 
 sessed the vote. The normal operation of political 
 institutions had for some time been seriously inter- 
 rupted by the violent character of the discussions 
 
120 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 arising out of these extreme demands for racial mo- 
 nopoly and national independence. Parliamentary 
 freedom had practically disappeared and at the out- 
 break of the war Hungary was being ruled quite 
 despotically. 
 
 The House of Hapsburg lost during the nineteenth 
 century the rich Lombardo-Venetian kingdom (1859- 
 66). It gained, however, Bosnia and Herzegovina. 
 As a result of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877 these 
 Turkish provinces were handed over by the Con- 
 gress of Berlin of 1878 to Austria-Hungary to " oc- 
 cupy '* and " administer." The Magyars at the time 
 opposed the assumption of these provinces, wishing 
 no more Slavs within the monarchy, but despite their 
 opposition they were taken over, so strongly was 
 the Emperor in favor of it. The acquisition of these 
 Balkan countries rendered Austria-Hungary a more 
 important and aggressive factor in all Balkan poli- 
 tics, and in the discussions of the so-called Eastern 
 Question, the future of European Turkey. In Octo- 
 ber, 1908 Austria-Hungary declared these provinces 
 formally annexed. The great significance of this act 
 will be discussed later in connection with the very 
 recent history of southeastern Europe and the causes 
 of the European War. 
 
 On November 21, 1916, Francis Joseph died after 
 a reign of nearly sixty-eight years. He was suc- 
 ceeded by his grand-nephew, who assumed the title 
 of Charles I. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 
 
 Great Britain in 1870 was in the full tide of a great 
 liberal movement, which expressed itself in many- 
 ways. Three years earlier there had been passed, 
 after much discussion and curious complications, a 
 reform act which had enormously extended the suf- 
 frage, had closed the rule of the middle class, and had 
 installed democracy in the state. By that act the 
 number of voters was doubled. The suffrage was 
 still dependent upon the ownership of property, but 
 the qualifications were so greatly lowered that a class 
 of the population, previously without the franchise, 
 now gained it, namely, the mass of the working 
 classes living in towns or cities. Henceforth, in such 
 constituencies all householders, irrespective of the 
 value of their houses, and all lodgers who paid not 
 less than ten pounds a year for their lodgings, un- 
 furnished, or about a dollar a week, had the right to 
 vote. In the counties or rural constituencies the 
 previous requirements were practically cut in half. 
 The number of voters was now about two and a 
 quarter millions. 
 
 So sweeping was the measure that the prime min- 
 ister himself, Lord Derby, called it a " leap in the 
 dark." Carlyle, forecasting a dismal future, called it 
 
 121 
 
122 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 " shooting Niagara." Robert Lowe, whose memora- 
 ble attacks had been largely instrumental in defeating 
 a meager measure of reform a year before, now said, 
 " We must educate our masters." It should be noted 
 that during the debates on this bill, John Stuart Mill 
 made a strongly reasoned speech in favor of granting 
 the suffrage to women. The House considered the 
 proposition highly humorous. Nevertheless, this 
 movement, then in its very beginning, was destined 
 to persist and grow. 
 
 There is little doubt that the Conservatives ex- 
 pected to be rewarded for passing the Reform Bill 
 of 1867, as the Liberals had been for passing that of 
 1832, thought, that is, that the newly enfranchised 
 would, out of gratitude, continue them in office. If 
 so, they were destined to a great disappointment, for 
 the elections of 1868 resulted in giving the Liberals 
 a majority of a hundred and twenty in the House of 
 Commons. Gladstone became the head of what was 
 to prove a very notable ministry. 
 
 Gladstone possessed a more commanding majority 
 than any prime minister had had since 1832. As the 
 enlargement of the franchise in 1832 had been suc- 
 ceeded by a period of bold and sweeping reforms, so 
 was that of 1867 to be. Gladstone was a perfect rep- 
 resentative of the prevailing national mood. The 
 recent campaign had shown that the people were 
 ready for a period of reform, of important construc- 
 tive legislation. Supported by such a majority, and 
 by a public opinion so vigorous and enthusiastic, 
 Gladstone stood forth master of the situation. No 
 statesman could hope to have more favorable condi- 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 123 
 
 tions attend his entrance into power. He was the 
 head of a strong, united, and resolute party and sev- 
 eral men of great ability were members of his cabinet. 
 The man who thus became prime minister at the 
 age of fifty-nine was one of the notable figures of 
 modern English history. His parents were Scotch. 
 His father had hewed out his own career, and from 
 small beginnings had, by energy and talent, made 
 himself one of the wealthiest and most influential 
 men in Liverpool, and had been elected a member 
 of Parliament. Young William Ewart Gladstone re- 
 ceived " the best education then going " at Eton Col- 
 lege and Oxford University, in both of which insti- 
 tutions he stood out among his fellows. At Eton 
 his most intimate friend was Arthur Hallam, the 
 man whose splendid eulogy is Tennyson's '' In Memo- 
 riam/', His career at Oxford was crowned by brilliant 
 scholarly successes, and there he also distinguished 
 himself as a speaker in the Union, the university 
 debating club. Before leaving the university his 
 thought and inclination were to take orders in the 
 Church, but his father was opposed to this and the 
 son yielded. In 1833 he took his seat in the House 
 of Commons as representative for one of the rotten 
 boroughs which the Reform Bill of the previous year 
 had not abolished. He was to be a member of that 
 body for over sixty years, and for more than half 
 that time its leading member. Before attaining the 
 premiership, therefore, in 1868, he had had a long 
 political career and a varied training, had held many 
 offices, culminating in the Chancellorship of the Ex- 
 chequer and the leadership of the House of Com- 
 
124 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 mons. Beginning as a Conservative (Macaulay called 
 him in 1838 the " rising hope of the stern and unbend- 
 ing Tories *'), he came under the influence of Sir 
 Robert Peel, a man who, conservative by instinct, 
 was gifted with unusual prescience and adaptability, 
 and who possessed the courage required to be incon- 
 sistent, the wisdom to change as the world changed. 
 Gladstone had, after a long period of transition, 
 landed in the opposite camp, and was now the leader 
 of the Liberal Party. By reason of his business abil- 
 ity, shown in the management of the nation's finances 
 his knowledge of parliamentary history and procedure, 
 his moral fervor, his elevation of tone, his intrepidity 
 and courage, his reforming spirit, and his remarkable 
 eloquence, he was eminently qualified for leadership. 
 When almost sixty he became prime minister, a posi- 
 tion he was destined to fill four times, displaying mar- 
 velous intellectual and physical energy. His adminis- 
 tration, lasting from 1868 to 1874, is called the Great 
 Ministry. The key to his policy is found in his re- 
 mark to a friend when the summons came from the 
 Queen for him to form a ministry : " My mission is 
 to pacify Ireland." The Irish question, in fact, was 
 to be the most absorbing interest of Mr, Gladstone's 
 later political career, dominating all four of his minis- 
 tries. It has been a very lively and at times a deci- 
 sive factor in English politics for the last fifty years. 
 
 To understand this question, a brief survey of Irish 
 history in the nineteenth century is necessary. Ire- 
 land was all through the century the most discon- 
 tented and wretched part of the British Empire. 
 While England constantly grew in numbers and 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 125 
 
 wealth, Ireland decreased in population, and her mis- 
 ery increased. Ireland was inhabited by two peoples, 
 the native Irish, who were Catholics, and settlers 
 from England and Scotland, who were for the most 
 part Anglicans or Presbyterians. The latter were a 
 small but powerful minority. 
 
 The fundamental cause of the Irish question lay 
 in the fact that Ireland was a conquered country, that 
 the Irish were a subject race. As early as the twelfth 
 century the English began to invade the island. At- 
 tempts made by the Irish at various times during 
 six hundred years to repel and drive out the invaders 
 only resulted in rendering their subjection more com- 
 plete and more galling. Irish insurrections have been 
 pitilessly punished, and race hatred has been the con- 
 suming emotion in Ireland for centuries. The con- 
 test has been unequal, owing to the far greater re- 
 sources of England during all this time. The result 
 of this turbulent history was that the Irish were a 
 subject people in their own land, as they had been 
 for centuries, and that there were several evidences 
 of this so conspicuous and so burdensome that most 
 Irishmen could not pass a day without feeling the 
 bitterness of their situation. It was a hate-laden 
 atmosphere which they breathed. 
 
 The marks of subjection were various. The Irish 
 did not own the land of Ireland, which had once be- 
 longed to their ancestors. The various conquests 
 by English rulers had been followed by extensive con- 
 fiscations of the land. Particularly extensive was that 
 of Cromwell. These lands were given in large es- 
 tates to Englishmen. The Irish were mere tenants. 
 
126 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 and most of them tenants-at-will, on lands that now 
 belonged to others. The Irish have always regarded 
 themselves as the rightful owners of the soil of Ire- 
 land, have regarded the English landlords as usurpers, 
 and have desired to recover possession for them- 
 selves. Hence there has arisen the agrarian ques- 
 tion, a part of the general Irish problem. 
 
 Again, the Irish had long been the victims of re- 
 ligious intolerance. At the time of the Reformation 
 they remained Catholic, while the English separated 
 from Rome. Attempts to force the Anglican Church 
 upon them only stiffened their opposition. Neverthe- 
 less, at the opening of the nineteenth century they 
 were paying tithes to the Anglican Church in Ireland, 
 though they were themselves ardent Catholics, never 
 entered a Protestant church, and were supporting 
 their own churches by voluntary gifts. Thus they 
 contributed to two churches, one alien, which they 
 hated, and one to which they were devoted. Thus 
 a part of the Irish problem was the religious question. 
 
 Again, the Irish did not make the laws which gov- 
 erned them. In 1800 their separate Parliament in 
 Dublin was abolished, and from 1801 there was only 
 one Parliament in Great Britain, that in London. 
 While Ireland henceforth had its quota of represen- 
 tatives in the House of Commons, it was always a 
 hopeless minority. Moreover, the Irish members did 
 not really represent the large majority of the Irish, 
 as no Catholic could sit in the House of Commons. 
 There was this strange anomaly that, while the ma- 
 jority of the Irish could vote for members of Parlia- 
 ment, they must vote for Protestants — a bitter mock- 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 127 
 
 ery. The Irish demanded the right to govern them- 
 selves. Thus another aspect of the problem was 
 purely political. 
 
 The abuse just mentioned was removed in 1829, 
 when Catholic Emancipation was carried, which 
 henceforth permitted Catholics to sit in the House 
 of Commons. The English statesmen granted this 
 concession only when forced to do so by the im- 
 minent danger of civil war. The Irish consequently 
 felt no gratitude. 
 
 Shortly after Catholic Emancipation had been 
 achieved, the Irish, under the matchless leadership 
 of O'Connell, endeavored by much the same methods 
 to obtain the repeal of the Union between England 
 and Ireland, effected in 1801, and to win back a sep- 
 arate legislature and a large measure of independ- 
 ence. This movement, for some time very formida- 
 ble, failed completely, owing to the iron determina- 
 tion of the English that the union should not be 
 broken, and to the fact that the leader, O'Connell, 
 was not willing in last resort to risk civil war to 
 accomplish the result, recognizing the hopelessness 
 of such a contest. This movement came to an end 
 in 1843. However, a number of the younger fol- 
 lowers of O'Connell, chagrined at his peaceful meth- 
 ods, formed a society called " Young Ireland," the 
 aim of which was Irish independence and a republic. 
 They rose in revolt in the troubled year 1848. The 
 revolt, however, was easily put down. 
 
 As if Ireland did not sufiFer enough from political 
 and social evils, an appalling catastrophe of nature 
 was added. The Irish famine of 1845-47 was a tragic 
 
128 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 calamity, far-reaching in its effects. It was occa- 
 sioned by the failure of the potato crop, the potato 
 being the chief food of the Irish. More than half 
 of the eight million inhabitants of Ireland depended 
 upon it alone for sustenance and with a large part 
 of the rest it was the chief article of diet. In 1845 
 the potato crop failed completely. Famine resulted 
 and tens of thousands perished from starvation. The 
 Corn Laws were repealed so as to make wheat much 
 cheaper. But the repeal of the Corn Laws did not 
 check the famine. The distress continued for several 
 years, though gradually growing less. The potato 
 crop of 1846 was inferior to that of 1845, ^^^ ^^^ ^^^~ 
 vests of 1848 and 1849 were far from normal. Char- 
 ity sought to aid, but was insufficient. The govern- 
 ment gave money, and later gave rations. In March, 
 1847, over 700,000 people were receiving government 
 support. In March and April of that year the deaths 
 in the workhouses alone were more than ten thou- 
 sand a month. Peasants ate roots and lichens, or 
 flocked to the cities in the agony of despair, hoping 
 for relief. Multitudes fled to England or crowded 
 the emigrant ships to America, dying by the thou- 
 sand of fever or exhaustion. It was a long-drawn- 
 out horror, and when it was over it was found that 
 the population had decreased from about 8,300,000 
 in 1845 to less than 6,600,000 in 185 1. Since then 
 the decrease occasioned by emigration has continued. 
 By 1881 the population had fallen to 5,100,000, by 
 1891 to 4,700,000, by 191 1 to about 4,390,000. Since 
 1 85 1 perhaps 4,000,000 Irish have emigrated. Ire- 
 land, indeed, is probably the only country whose popu- 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 129 
 
 lation decreased in the nineteenth century. Year 
 after year the emigration to the United States con- 
 tinued. 
 
 When Gladstone came into power in 1868 he was 
 resolved to pacify the Irish by removing some of 
 their more pronounced grievances. 
 
 The question of the Irish Church, that is, of the 
 Anglican Church in Ireland, the church of not more 
 than one-eighth of the population, yet to which all 
 Irishmen, Catholic or Protestant, paid tithes, was the 
 first grievance attacked. In 1869 Gladstone procured 
 the passage of a law disestablishing and partly dis- 
 endowing this church. The Church henceforth ceased 
 to be connected with the State. Its bishops lost their 
 seats in the House of Lords. It became a voluntary 
 organization and was permitted to retain a large part 
 of its property as an endowment. It was to have all 
 the church buildings which it had formerly possessed. 
 It was still very rich, but the connection with the 
 Church of England was to cease January i, 1871. 
 
 Gladstone now approached a far more serious and 
 perplexing problem, the system of land tenure. Ire- 
 land was almost exclusively an agricultural country, 
 yet the land was chiefly owned not by those who 
 lived on it and tilled it, but by a comparatively small 
 number of landlords who held large estates. Many 
 of these were Englishmen, absentees, who rarely or 
 never came to Ireland, and who regarded their es- 
 tates simply as so many sources of revenue. The 
 business relations with their tenants were carried on 
 by agents or bailiffs, whose treatment of the ten- 
 ants was frequently harsh and exasperating. If the 
 
I30 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 peasant failed to pay his rent he could be evicted 
 forthwith. As he was obliged to have land on which 
 to raise his potatoes, almost his sole sustenance, he 
 frequently agreed to pay a larger rent than the value 
 of the land justified. Then in time he would be 
 evicted and faced starvation. Moreover, when a land- 
 lord evicted his tenant he was not obHged to pay for 
 any buildings or improvements erected or carried out 
 by the tenant. He simply appropriated so much prop- 
 erty created by the tenant. Naturally there was no 
 inducement to the peasant to develop his farm, for 
 to do so meant a higher rent, or eviction and confis- 
 cation of his improvements. It would be hard to con- 
 ceive a more unwise or unjust system. It encour- 
 aged indolence and slothfulness. 
 
 Chronic and shocking misery was the lot of the 
 Irish peasantry. " The Irish peasant," says an official 
 English document of the time, " is the most poorly 
 nourished, most poorly housed, most poorly clothed 
 of any in Europe; he has no reserve, no capital. He 
 lives from day to day." His house was generally a 
 rude stone hut, with a dirt floor. The census of 
 1841 established the fact that in the case of forty- 
 six per cent of the population the entire family lived 
 in a house, or, more properly, hut of a single room. 
 Frequently the room served also as a barn for the 
 live stock. 
 
 Stung by the misery of their position, and by the 
 injustice of the laws which protected the landlord 
 and gave them only two hard alternatives, surrender 
 to the landlord or starvation, believing that when 
 evicted they were also robbed, and goaded by the 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND isr 
 
 hopeless outlook for the future, the Irish, in wild 
 rage, committed many atrocious agrarian crimes, mur- 
 ders, arson, the killing or maiming of cattle. This 
 in turn brought a new coercion law from the English 
 Parliament which only aggravated the evil. 
 
 In the Land Act now passed (1870) to remedy the 
 evils of this system it was provided that, if evicted 
 for any other reason than the non-payment of rent, 
 the tenant could claim compensation. He was also 
 to receive compensation for any permanent improve- 
 ments he had made on the land whenever he should 
 give up his holding for any reason whatever. There 
 were certain other clauses in the bill designed to 
 enable the peasants to buy the land outright, thus 
 ceasing to be tenants of other people and becoming 
 landowners themselves. This could be done only by 
 purchasing the estates of the landlords, and this ob- 
 viously the peasants were unable to do. It was pro- 
 vided, therefore, that the state should help the peas- 
 ant up to a certain amount, he in turn repaying the 
 state by easy installments for the money loaned. 
 This Land Act of 1870 did not achieve what was 
 hoped from it, did not bring peace to Ireland. Land- 
 lords found ways of evading it and evictions became 
 more numerous than ever. Nor did the land pur- 
 chase clauses prove effective. Only seven sales were 
 made up to 1877. ^^^ the bill was important be- 
 cause of the principles it involved, and was to exer- 
 cise a profound influence upon later legislation. For 
 the time being nothing further was done for Ireland. 
 
 Another measure of this active ministry was the 
 Forster Education Act of 1870, designed to provide 
 
132 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 England with a national system of elementary edu- 
 cation. England possessed no such system, it being 
 the accepted opinion that education was not one of 
 the duties of the state. The result was that the edu- 
 cational facilities were deplorably inadequate and in- 
 ferior to those of many other countries. The work 
 that the state neglected was discharged in a meas- 
 ure by schools which were maintained by the various 
 religious denominations, particularly the Anglican, 
 also the Catholic and the Methodist. But in 1869 
 it was estimated that of 4,300,000 children in need 
 of education 2,000,000 were not in school at all, 1,000,- 
 000 were in very inferior schools, and only 1,300,000 
 in schools that were fairly efficient. 
 
 The Gladstone ministry carried, in 1870, a bill de- 
 signed to provide England for the first time in her 
 history with a really national system of elementary 
 education. The system then established remained 
 without essential change until 1902, It marked a 
 great progress in the educational facilities of Eng- 
 land. The bill did not establish an entirely new edu- 
 cational machinery, to be paid for by the State and 
 managed by the State. It adopted the church schools 
 on condition that they submit to state inspection to 
 see if they were maintaining a certain standard. In 
 that case they would receive financial aid from the 
 State. But where there were not enough such schools, 
 local school boards were to be elected in each such 
 district with power to establish new schools, and to 
 levy local taxes for the purpose. Under this sys- 
 tem, which provided an adequate number of schools 
 of respectable quality, popular education made great 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 133 
 
 advances. In twenty years the number of schools 
 more than doubled, and were capable of accommo- 
 dating all those of school age. The law of 1870 did 
 not establish either free or compulsory or secular 
 education, but, in 1880, attendance was made com- 
 pulsory, and in 1891 education was made free. 
 
 A number of other far-reaching reforms, demo- 
 cratic in their tendency, were carried through by this 
 ministry. The army was reformed somewhat along 
 Prussian lines, though the principle of compulsory 
 military service was not adopted. Officers' positions, 
 which had previously been acquired by purchase and 
 which were therefore monopolized by the rich, by the 
 aristocracy, were now thrown open to merit. The 
 Civil Service was put on the basis of standing in open 
 competitive examinations. The universities of Ox- 
 ford and Cambridge were rendered thoroughly na- 
 tional by the abolition of the religious tests which 
 had previously made them a monopoly of the Church 
 of England, Henceforth men of any religious faith 
 or no religious faith could enter them, could graduate 
 from them. The universities henceforth belonged to 
 all Englishmen. 
 
 The Australian ballot was introduced, thus giving 
 to each voter his independence. Previously intimi- 
 dation or bribery had been very easy, as voting had 
 been oral and public ; now the voting was secret. An- 
 other feature of Gladstone's ministry, which cost him 
 much of his popularity at home, but was an act of 
 high statesmanship and an indisputable contribution 
 to the cause of peace among nations, was its adop- 
 tion of the principle of arbitration in the controversy 
 
134 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 with the United States over the Alabama affair. The 
 grievances of the United States against England be- 
 cause of her conduct during our Civil War v^ere a 
 dangerous source of friction between the two coun- 
 tries for many years. Gladstone agreed to submit 
 them to arbitration, but as the decision of the Geneva 
 Commission was against England (1872), his minis- 
 try suffered in popularity. Nevertheless, Gladstone 
 had established a valuable precedent. This was the 
 greatest victory yet attained for the principle of set- 
 tling international difficulties by arbitration rather 
 than by war. In this sphere also this ministry ad- 
 vanced the interests of humanity, though it drew 
 only disadvantage for itself from its service. 
 
 Gladstone fell from power in 1874 and the Con- 
 servatives came in, with Benjamin Disraeli as prime 
 minister. Disraeli's administration lasted from 1874 
 to 1880. It differed as strikingly from Gladstone's 
 as his character differed from that of his predecessor. 
 As Gladstone had busied himself with Irish and do- 
 mestic problems, Disraeli displayed his greatest inter- 
 est in colonial and foreign affairs. He found the sit- 
 uation favorable and the moment opportune for 
 impressing upon England the political ideal, long 
 germinating in his mind, succinctly called imperial- 
 ism, that is, the transcendent importance of breadth 
 of view and vigor of assertion of England's position 
 as a world power, as an empire, not as an insular 
 state. In 1872 he had said: "In my judgment no 
 minister in this country will do his duty who neglects 
 any opportunity of reconstructing as much as possible 
 our colonial empire, and of responding to those dis- 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 135 
 
 tant sympathies which may become the source of in- 
 calculable strength and happiness to this land." This 
 principle Disraeli emphasized in act and speech dur- 
 ing his six years of power. It was imperfectly real- 
 ized under him ; it was partially reconsidered and re- 
 vised by Gladstone upon his return to power in 1880. 
 But it had definitely received lodgment in the mind 
 of England before he left power. It gave a new note 
 to English politics. This is Disraeli's historic signifi- 
 cance in the annals of British politics. He greatly 
 stimulated interest in the British colonies. He in- 
 voked " the sublime instinct of an ancient people." 
 
 His first conspicuous achievement in foreign affairs 
 was the purchase of the Suez Canal shares. The 
 Suez Canal had been built by the French against ill- 
 concealed English opposition. Disraeli had himself 
 declared that the undertaking would inevitably be a 
 failure. Now that the canal was built its success was 
 speedily apparent. It radically changed the condi- 
 tions of commerce with the East. It shortened 
 greatly the distance to the Orient by water. Hither- 
 to a considerable part of the commerce with India, 
 China, and Australia had been carried on by the long 
 voyage around the Cape of Good Hope. Some went 
 by the Red Sea route, but that involved tranship- 
 ment at Alexandria. Now it could all pass through 
 the canal. About three-fourths of the tonnage pass- 
 ing through the canal was English. It was the direct 
 road to India. There were some 400,000 shares in 
 the Canal Company. The Khedive of Egypt held a 
 large block of these, and the Khedive was nearly 
 bankrupt. Disraeli bought, in 1875, ^is 177,000 shares 
 
136 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 by telegraph for four million pounds, and the fact 
 was announced to a people who had never dreamed 
 of it, but who applauded what seemed a brilliant 
 stroke, somehow checkmating the French. It was 
 said that the highroad to India was now secure. The 
 political significance of this act was that it determined 
 at least in principle the future of the relations of 
 England to Egypt, and that it seemed to strike the 
 note of imperial self-assertion which was Disraeli's 
 chief ambition and which was the most notable char- 
 acteristic of his administration. 
 
 At the same time Disraeli resolved to emphasize 
 the importance of India, England's leading colony, in 
 another way. He proposed a new and sounding title 
 for the British sovereign. She was to be Empress of 
 India. The Opposition denounced this as " cheap " 
 and " tawdry," a vulgar piece of pretension. Was 
 not the title of King or Queen borne by the sov- 
 ereigns of England for a thousand years glorious 
 enough? But Disraeli urged it as showing "the 
 unanimous determination of the people of the coun- 
 try to retain our connection with the Indian Em- 
 pire. And it will be an answer to those mere econo- 
 mists and those diplomatists who announce that In- 
 dia is to us only a burden or a danger. By passing 
 this bill then, the House will show, in a manner that 
 is unmistakable, that they look upon India as one of 
 the most precious possessions of the Crown, and their 
 pride that it is a part of her empire and governed by 
 her imperial throne." 
 
 The reasoning was weak, but the proposal gave 
 great satisfaction to the Queen, and it was enacted 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 137 
 
 into law. On January i, 1877, the Queen's assump- 
 tion of the new title was officially announced in India 
 before an assembly of the ruling princes. 
 
 In Europe Disraeli insisted upon carrying out a 
 spirited foreign policy. His opportunity came with 
 the reopening of the Eastern Question, or the ques- 
 tion of the integrity of Turkey, in 1876. For two 
 years this problem absorbed the interest and atten- 
 tion of rulers and diplomatists, and England had 
 much to do with the outcome. This subject may, 
 however, be better studied in connection with the 
 general history of the Eastern problem in the nine- 
 teenth century.^ 
 
 Disraeli, who in 1876 became Lord Beaconsfield, 
 continued in power until 1880. The emphasis he put 
 upon imperial and colonial problems was to exert a 
 considerable influence upon the rising generation, and 
 upon the later history of England. Imperial and colo- 
 nial have vied with Irish questions in dominating 
 the political discussions of England during the last 
 forty years. 
 
 In 1880 the Liberals were restored to power and 
 Gladstone became prime minister for the second time. 
 
 Gladstone's greatest ability lay in internal reform, 
 as his previous ministry had shown. This was the 
 field of his inclination, and, as he thought, of the 
 national welfare. Peace, retrenchment, and reform, 
 the watchwords of his party, now represented the 
 programme he wished to follow. But this was not 
 to be. While certain great measures of internal im- 
 provement were passed during the next five years, 
 
 ' See Chapter XI. 
 
T38 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 those years on the whole were characterized by the 
 dominance of imperial and colonial questions, with 
 attendant wars. Gladstone was forced to busy him- 
 self with foreign policy far more than in his previous 
 administration. Serious questions confronted him in 
 Asia and Africa. These may best be studied, how- 
 ever, in the chapter on the British Empire.^ 
 
 Two pieces of domestic legislation of great im- 
 portance enacted during this ministry merit descrip- 
 tion, the Irish Land Act of 1881 and the Reform Bills 
 of 1884-85. 
 
 The legislation of Gladstone's preceding ministry 
 had not pacified Ireland. Indeed, the Land Act of 
 1870 had proved no final settlement, but a great dis- 
 appointment. It had established the principle that 
 the tenant was to be compensated if deprived of his 
 farm except for non-payment of rent, and was to be 
 compensated, in any case, for all the permanent im- 
 provements which he had made upon the land. But 
 this was not sufficient to give the tenant any security 
 in his holding. It did not prevent the landlord from 
 raising the rent. Then if the peasant would not pay 
 this increased rent he must give up his holding. 
 He, therefore, had no stable tenure. In the new 
 Land Act of 1881 Gladstone sought to give the 
 peasant, in addition to the compensation for im- 
 provement previously secured, a fair rent, a fixed 
 rent, one that was not constantly subject to change at 
 the will of the landlord, and freedom of sale, that is, 
 the liberty of the peasant to sell his holding to some 
 other peasant. These were the " three F's," which 
 * See Chapter VIII. 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 139 
 
 had once represented the demands of advanced Irish- 
 men, though they no longer did. Henceforth, the 
 rent was to be determined by a court, established for 
 the purpose. Rents, once judicially determined, were 
 to be unchangeable for fifteen years, during which 
 time the tenant might not be evicted except for 
 breaches of covenant, such as non-payment of rent. 
 There was also attached to the bill a provision simi- 
 lar to the one in the preceding measure of 1870, look- 
 ing toward the creation of a peasant proprietorship. 
 The Government was to loan money to the peasants 
 under certain conditions, and on easy terms, to enable 
 them to buy out the landlords, thus becoming com- 
 plete owners themselves. 
 
 The bill passed, though it was opposed with un- 
 usual bitterness. Landowners, believing that it meant 
 a reduction of rents, determined not by themselves 
 but by a court, called it confiscation of property. It 
 was attacked because it established the principle that 
 rents were not to be determined, like the price of 
 other things, by the law of supply and demand; were 
 not to be what the landlord might demand and the 
 peasant agree to pay, but were to be reasonable and 
 their reasonableness was to be decided by outsiders, 
 judges, having no direct interest at all, that is, in 
 last resort, by the state. The bill was criticised as 
 altering ruthlessly the nature of property in land, as 
 establishing dual ownership. 
 
 Gladstone carried through at this time the third of 
 those great reform acts of the nineteenth century by 
 which England has been transformed from an oli- 
 garchy into a democracy. The Reform Bill of 1832 
 
I40 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 had given the suffrage to the wealthier members of 
 the middle class. The Reform Bill of 1867 had taken 
 a long step in the direction of democracy by practi- 
 cally giving the vote to the lower middle class and the 
 bulk of the laboring class in the boroughs, but it did 
 not greatly benefit those living in the country dis- 
 tricts. The franchise in the boroughs was wider than 
 in the counties. The result was that laborers in bor- 
 oughs had the vote, but agricultural laborers did not. 
 There was apparently no reason for maintaining this 
 difference. Gladstone's bill of 1884 aimed at the aboli- 
 tion of this inequality between the two classes of con- 
 stituencies by extending the borough franchise to the 
 counties so that the mass of workingmen would have 
 the right to vote whether they lived in town or coun- 
 try. The county franchise, previously higher, was to 
 be exactly assimilated to the borough franchise. The 
 bill as passed doubled the number of county voters, 
 and increased the total number of the electorate from 
 over three to more than five millions. Gladstone's 
 chief argument was that this measure would lay the 
 foundations of the government broad and deep in the 
 people's will, and " array the people in one solid com- 
 pacted mass around the ancient throne which it has 
 loved so well and around a constitution now to be 
 more than ever powerful, and more than ever free." 
 
 From 1884 to 1918 there was no further extension 
 of the suffrage. There were many men who had no 
 vote because they were unable to meet any one of 
 the various property qualifications that gave the vote ; 
 for it must be remembered that there was no such 
 thing as universal manhood suffrage in England. 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 141 
 
 Only those voted who had some one of the kinds 
 of property indicated in the various law^s of 1832, 
 1867, and 1884. The condition of the franchise was 
 historical, not rational. Many men possessed several 
 votes; others none at all. There was, during this 
 period, a demand for the enfranchisement of all adult 
 males ; there was also a vigorous agitation for woman's 
 suffrage; and the Liberal party was pledged to the 
 aboHtion of the practice of plural voting. There has 
 been no redistribution of parliamentary seats since 
 1885. There is no periodical adjustment according 
 to population, as in the United States after each 
 census. To-day some electoral districts are ten, or 
 even fifteen times as large as others. Constituencies 
 range from about 13,000 to over 217,000. 
 
 Gladstone's second ministry fell in 1885. There 
 followed a few months of Conservative control under 
 Lord Salisbury. But in 1886 new elections were 
 held and Gladstone came back into power again, 
 prime minister for the third time. 
 
 He was confronted by the Irish problem in a more 
 acute form than ever before. For the Irish were 
 now demanding a far-reaching change in govern- 
 ment. They were demanding Home Rule, that is, 
 an Irish Parliament for the management of the in- 
 ternal afifairs of Ireland. They had constantly 
 smarted under the injury which they felt had been 
 done them by the abolition of their former Parlia- 
 ment, which sat in Dublin, and which was abolished 
 by the Act of Union of 1800. The feeling for nation- 
 ality, one of the dominant forces of the nineteenth 
 century everywhere, acted upon them with unusual 
 
142 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 force. They disliked, for historical and sentimental 
 reasons, the rule of an English Parliament, and the 
 sense as well as reality of subjection to an alien peo- 
 ple. They did not wish the separation of Ireland 
 from England, but they did wish a separate parlia- 
 ment for Irish affairs on the ground that the Parlia- 
 ment at Westminster had neither the time nor the 
 understanding necessary for the proper consideration 
 of measures affecting the Irish. The Home Rule 
 party had been slowly growing for several years 
 when, in 1879, it came under the leadership of Charles 
 Stuart Parnell, who, unlike the other great leaders 
 of Irish history, such as Grattan and O'Connell, was 
 no orator and was of a cold, haughty, distant nature, 
 but of an inflexible will. Under his able leadership 
 the party increased in numbers, in cohesion, in grim 
 determination. Parnell's object was to make it so 
 large that it could hold the balance of power in the 
 House of Commons. In the Parliament which met 
 in 1886 the Home Rulers were in this position. If 
 they united with the Conservatives the two com- 
 bined would have exactly the same number of votes 
 as the Liberals. As the Conservatives would not 
 help them they sided with the Liberals. 
 
 Gladstone entered upon his third administration 
 February i, 1886. It was his shortest ministry, last- 
 ing less than six months. It was wholly devoted to 
 the question of Ireland. The Irish had plainly indi- 
 cated their wishes in the recent elections in return- 
 ing a solid body of 85 Home Rulers out of the 103 
 members to which Ireland was entitled. Gladstone 
 was enormously impressed by this fact, the outcome 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 143 
 
 of the first election held on practically a democratic 
 franchise. He had tried in previous legislation to 
 rule the Irish according to Irish rather than English 
 ideas, where he considered those ideas just. He be- 
 lieved the great blot upon the annals of England 
 to be the Irish chapter, v^ritten, as it had been, by- 
 English arrogance, hatred, and unintelligence. Rec- 
 onciliation had been his keynote hitherto. Moreover, 
 to him there seemed but two alternatives — either 
 further reform along the lines desired by the Irish, 
 or the old, sad story of hard yet unsuccessful coer- 
 cion. Gladstone would have nothing more to do with 
 the latter method. He, therefore, resolved to en- 
 deavor to give to Ireland the Home Rule she plainly 
 desired. On the 8th of April, 1886, he introduced 
 the Irish Government Bill, announcing that it would 
 be followed by a Land Bill, the two parts of a single 
 scheme which could not be separated. 
 
 The bill, thus introduced, provided for an Irish 
 Parliament to sit in Dublin, controlling a ministry 
 of its own, and legislating on Irish, as distinguished 
 from imperial affairs. A difficulty arose right here. 
 If the Irish were to have a legislature of their own 
 for their own affairs, ought they still to sit in the 
 Parliament in London, with power there to mix in 
 English and Scotch aff^-irs? On the other hand, if 
 they ceased to have members in London, they would 
 have no share in legislating for the Empire as a whole. 
 " This," says Morley, " was from the first, and has 
 ever since remained, the Gordian knot." The bill 
 provided that they should be excluded from the Par- 
 liament at Westminster. On certain topics it was 
 
144 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 further provided that the Irish ParHament should 
 never legislate : questions affecting the Crown, the 
 army and navy, foreign and colonial affairs; nor could 
 it establish or endow any religion. 
 
 Gladstone did not believe that the Irish difficulty 
 would be solved simply by new political machinery. 
 There was a serious social question not reached by 
 this, the land question, not yet solved to the satis- 
 faction of the Irish. He introduced immediately a 
 Land Bill, which was to effect a vast transfer of land 
 to the peasants by purchase from the landlords, and 
 which might perhaps involve an expenditure to the 
 state of about 120,000,000 pounds. 
 
 The introduction of these bills, whose passage 
 would mean a radical transformation of Ireland, pre- 
 cipitated one of the fiercest struggles in English par- 
 liamentary annals. They were urged as necessary 
 to settle the question once for all on a solid basis, 
 as adapted to bring peace and contentment to Ire- 
 land, and thus strengthen the Union. Otherwise, said 
 those who supported them, England had no alterna- 
 tive but coercion, a dreary and dismal failure. On 
 the other hand, the strongest opposition arose out 
 of the belief that these bills imperiled the very exist- 
 ence of the Union. The exclusion of the Irish mem- 
 bers from Parliament seemed to many to be the snap- 
 ping of the cords that held the countries together. 
 Did not this bill really dismember the British Em- 
 pire? Needless to say, no British statesman could 
 urge any measure of that character. Gladstone 
 thought that his bills meant the reconciliation of 
 two peoples estranged for centuries, and that recon- 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 145 
 
 ciliation meant the strengthening rather than the 
 weakening of the Empire, that the historic policy of 
 England towards Ireland had only resulted in alien- 
 ation, hatred, the destruction of the spiritual 
 harmony which is essential to real unity. But, said 
 his opponents, to give the Irish a parliament of their 
 own, and to exclude them from the Parliament in 
 London, to give them control of their own legisla- 
 ture, their own executive, their own judiciary, their 
 own police, must lead inevitably to separation. You 
 exclude them from all participation in imperial af- 
 fairs, thus rendering their patriotism the more in- 
 tensely local. You provide, it is true, that they shall 
 bear a part of the burdens of the Empire, Is this 
 proviso worth the paper it is written on? Will they 
 not next regard this as a grievance, this taxation with- 
 out representation, and will not the old animosity 
 break out anew? You abandon the Protestants of 
 Ireland to the revenge of the Catholic majority of 
 the new Parliament. To be sure, you provide for 
 toleration in Ireland, but again is this toleration worth 
 the paper it is written on? 
 
 Probably the strongest force in opposition to the 
 bill was the opinion widely held in England of Irish- 
 men, that they were thoroughly disloyal to the Em- 
 pire, that they would delight to use their new auton- 
 omy to pay off old scores by aiding the enemies of 
 England, that they were traitors in disguise, or un- 
 disguised, that they had no regard for property or 
 contract, that an era of religious oppression and of 
 confiscation of property would be inaugurated by this 
 new agency of a parliament of their own. 
 
146 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 The introduction of the Home Rule Bill aroused 
 an amount of bitterness unknown in recent English 
 history. The Conservative party opposed it to a man, 
 and it badly disrupted the Liberal party. Nearly 
 a hundred Liberals withdrew and joined the Conserv- 
 atives. These men called themselves Liberal-Union- 
 ists, Liberals, but not men who were prepared to 
 jeopardize the Union as they held that this measure 
 would do. The result was that the bill was beaten 
 by 343 votes to 313. 
 
 Gladstone dissolved Parliament and appealed to the 
 people. The question was vehemently discussed be- 
 fore the voters. The result was disastrous to the 
 Gladstonian Home Rulers. A majority of over a 
 hundred was rolled up against Gladstone's policy. 
 
 The consequences of this introduction of the Home 
 Rule proposition into British politics were momentous. 
 One was the impotence, for most of the next twenty 
 years, of the Liberal party. A considerable fraction 
 of it, on the whole the least democratic, went over to 
 the Conservatives and the result was the creation of 
 the Unionist Coalition, which for the next twenty 
 years, with a single interruption, was to rule England. 
 The Unionists had a new policy, that of Imperialism. 
 They had preserved the Union, they thought, by de- 
 feating Home Rule. They now went farther and be- 
 came the champions of imperial expansion. On the 
 other hand, the Liberal party, now that its more aris- 
 tocratic elements had left it, became more pro- 
 nouncedly democratic. The line of division between 
 the two parties became sharper. But for the present 
 the Liberal party was in the hopeless minority. 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 147 
 
 On the fall of Gladstone, Lord Salisbury came 
 into power, head of a Conservative or Unionist Gov- 
 ernment. The Irish question confronted it as it had 
 confronted Gladstone's ministry. As it would not for 
 a moment consider any measure granting self-gov- 
 ernment to the Irish, it was compelled to govern them 
 in the old way, by coercion, by force, by relentless 
 suppression of Hberties freely enjoyed in England. 
 But the policy of this ministry was not simply nega- 
 tive. Holding that the only serious Irish grievance 
 was the land problem and that, if this were once 
 completely solved, then this new-fangled demand for 
 a political reform would drop away, the Conserva- 
 tives adopted boldly the policy of purchase that had 
 been timidly applied in Gladstone's Land Acts of 
 1870 and 1881. The idea was that if only the Irish 
 could get full ownership of their land, could get the 
 absentee and oppressive landlords out of the way, 
 then they would be happy and prosperous and would 
 no longer care for such political nostrums as Home 
 Rule. 
 
 The land purchase of Gladstone's acts had had no 
 great effect, as the state had offered to advance only 
 two-thirds of the purchase price. The Conservatives 
 now provided that the state should advance the whole 
 of it, the peasants repaying the state by installments 
 covering a long period of years. The Government 
 buys the land, sells it to the peasant, who that instant 
 becomes its legal owner, and who pays for it grad- 
 ually. He actually pays less in this way each year 
 than he formerly paid for rent, and in the end he 
 has his holding unencumbered. This bill was passed 
 
148 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 in 1891, and in five years some 35,000 tenants were 
 thus enabled to purchase their holdings under its 
 provisions. The system was extended much further 
 in later years, particularly by the Land Act of 1903, 
 which set aside a practically unlimited amount of 
 money for the purpose. From 1903 to 1908 there 
 were about 160,000 purchasers. Under this act, which 
 simply increased the inducements to the landlords to 
 sell, Ireland is becoming a country of small free- 
 holders. The earlier principle of dual ownership rec- 
 ognized in Gladstone's land legislation of 1881 has 
 given way completely to this new principle of in- 
 dividual ownership, but no longer individual owner- 
 ship by the great landowners, but now by the peas- 
 ants, the inhabitants of Ireland. The economic pros- 
 perity of Ireland has steadily increased in recent 
 years. 
 
 This ministry passed other bills of a distinctly lib- 
 eral character; among them an act absolutely pro- 
 hibiting the employment of children under ten, an 
 act designed to reduce the oppression of the sweat- 
 shop by limiting the labor of women to twelve hours 
 a day, with an hour and a half for meals, an act mak- 
 ing education free, and a small allotment act intended 
 to create a class of peasant proprietors in England. 
 These measures were supported by all parties. They 
 were important as indicating that social legislation 
 was likely to be in the coming years more important 
 than political legislation, which has proved to be the 
 case. They also showed that the Conservative party 
 was changing in character, and was willing to assume 
 a leading part in social reform. 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 149 
 
 In respect to another item of internal policy, the 
 Salisbury ministry took a stand which has been de- 
 cisive ever since. In 1889 it secured an immense in- 
 crease of the navy. Seventy ships were to be added 
 at an expense of 21,500,000 pounds during the next 
 seven years. Lord Salisbury laid it down as a prin- 
 ciple that the British navy ought to be equal to any 
 other two navies of the world combined. 
 
 In foreign affairs the most important work of this 
 ministry lay in its share in the partition of Africa, 
 which will be described elsewhere.^ 
 
 The general elections of 1892 resulted in the re- 
 turn to power of the Liberals, supported by the Irish 
 Home Rulers, and Gladstone, at the age of eighty- 
 two, became for the fourth time prime minister, a 
 record unparalleled in English history. As he him- 
 self said, the one single tie that still bound him to 
 public life was his interest in securing Home Rule 
 for Ireland before his end. It followed necessarily 
 from the nature of the case that public attention was 
 immediately concentrated anew on that question. 
 Early in 1893 Gladstone introduced his second Home 
 Rule Bill. The opposition to it was exceedingly bit- 
 ter and prolonged. Very few new arguments were 
 brought forward on either side. Party spirit ran 
 riot. Gladstone expressed with all his eloquence his 
 faith in the Irish people, his belief that the only alter- 
 native to his policy was coercion, and that coercion 
 would be forever unsuccessful, his conviction that 
 it was the duty of England to atone for six centuries 
 of misrule. 
 
 * See Chapter IX. 
 
150 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 After eighty-two days of discussion, marked by 
 scenes of great disorder, members on one occasion 
 coming to blows, to the great damage of decorous 
 parliamentary traditions, the bill was carried by a 
 majority of 34 (301 to 267). A week later it was 
 defeated in the House of Lords by 419 to 41, or a 
 majority of more than ten to one. The bill was 
 dead. 
 
 Gladstone's fourth ministry was balked successfully 
 at every turn by the House of Lords, which, under 
 the able leadership of Lord Salisbury, recovered an 
 actual power it had not possessed since 1832. In 
 1894 Gladstone resigned his ofBce, thus bringing to 
 a close one of the most remarkable political careers 
 known to English history. His last speech in Par- 
 liament was a vigorous attack upon the House of 
 Lords. In his opinion, that House had become the 
 great obstacle to progress. " The issue which is 
 raised between a deliberative assembly, elected by 
 the votes of more than 6,000,000 people,** and an 
 hereditary body, " is a controversy which, when once 
 raised, must go forward to an issue." This speech 
 was his last in an assembly where his first had been 
 delivered sixty-one years before. Gladstone died four 
 years later, and was buried in Westminster Abbey 
 
 (1898). 
 
 In the elections of 1895 the Unionists secured a 
 majority of a hundred and fifty. They were to re- 
 main uninterruptedly in power until December, 1905. 
 
 Lord Salisbury became prime minister for the third 
 time. He remained such until 1902, when he with- 
 drew from public life, being succeeded by his nephew. 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 151 
 
 Arthur James Balfour. There was, however, no 
 change of party. Lord Salisbury had an immense 
 majority in the House of Commons. His ministry 
 contained several very able men. He himself as- 
 sumed the Foreign Oflfice, Joseph Chamberlain the 
 Colonial Office, Balfour the leadership of the House 
 of Commons. The withdrawal of Gladstone and the 
 divisions in the Liberal party reduced that party to 
 a position of ineffective opposition. The Irish ques- 
 tion sank into the background as the Unionists, reso- 
 lutely opposed to the policy of an independent parlia- 
 ment in Ireland, declined absolutely to consider Home 
 Rule. They did on the other hand pass certain acts 
 beneficial to Ireland, land purchase acts on a vast 
 scale and measures extending somewhat the strictly 
 local self-government in Ireland. Much social and 
 labor legislation was also enacted. 
 
 The commanding question of this period was to 
 be that of imperialism, and the central figure was 
 Joseph Chamberlain, a man remarkable for vigor and 
 audacity, and the most popular member of the cabi- 
 net. Chamberlain, who had made his reputation as 
 an advanced Liberal, an advocate of radical social 
 and economic reforms, now stood forth as the spokes- 
 man of imperialism. His office, that of Colonial Sec- 
 retary, gave him excellent opportunities to empha- 
 size the importance of the colonies to the mother 
 country, the desirability of drawing them closer to- 
 gether, of promoting imperial federation. 
 
 The sixtieth anniversary of Queen Victoria's acces- 
 sion occurring in 1897 was the occasion of a remark- 
 able demonstration of the loyalty of the colonies to 
 
i5a FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 the Empire, as well as of the universal respect and 
 affection in which the sovereign was held. This dia- 
 mond jubilee was an imposing demonstration of the 
 strength of the sentiment of union that bound the 
 various sections of the Empire together, of the ad- 
 vantages accruing to each from the connection with 
 the others, of the pride of power. Advantage was 
 taken, too, of the presence of the prime ministers of 
 the various colonies in London to discuss methods 
 of drawing the various parts of the Empire more 
 closely together. All these circumstances gave ex- 
 pression to that '' imperialism " which was becoming 
 an increasing factor in British politics. 
 
 A period of great activity in foreign and colonial 
 affairs began almost immediately after the inaugura- 
 tion of the new Unionist ministry. It was shown 
 in the recovery of the Soudan by Lord Kitchener, 
 but the most important chapter in this activity con- 
 cerned the conditions in South Africa, which led, in 
 1899, to the Boer War, and which had important con- 
 sequences. This will better be described elsewhere.^ 
 This war, lasting from 1899 to 1902, much longer 
 than had been anticipated, absorbed the attention of 
 England until its successful termination. Internal leg- 
 islation was of slight importance. During the war 
 Queen Victoria died, January 22, 1901, after a reign 
 of over sixty-three years, the longest in British his- 
 tory, and then exceeded elsewhere only by the 
 seventy-one years* reign of Louis XIV of France. 
 She had proved during her entire reign, which began 
 in 1837, a model constitutional monarch, subordinat- 
 
 * See pp. 181-188. 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 153 
 
 ing her will to that of the people, as expressed by the 
 ministry and Parliament. " She passed away," said 
 Balfour in the House of Commons, " without an ene- 
 my in the world, for even those who loved not Eng- 
 land loved her." The reign of Edward VII (1901- 
 1910), then in his sixty-second year, began. 
 
 When the South African war was over Parliament 
 turned its attention to domestic affairs. In 1902 it 
 passed an Education Act which superseded that of 
 Gladstone's first ministry, the Forster Act of 1870, 
 already described. It abolished the schoolboards 
 established by that law. It admitted the principle 
 of the support of denominational schools out of taxes. 
 In such schools the head teacher must belong to the 
 denomination concerned and a majority of the mana- 
 gers of those schools would also be members of the 
 denomination. 
 
 The bill gave great offense to Dissenters and be- 
 lievers in secular education. It authorized taxation 
 for the advantage of a denomination of which multi- 
 tudes of taxpayers were not members. It was held 
 to be a measure for increasing the power of the 
 Church of England, considered one of the bulwarks 
 of Conservatism. 
 
 The opposition to this law was intense. Thousands 
 refused to pay their taxes, and their property was, 
 therefore, sold by public authority to meet the taxes. 
 Many were imprisoned. There were over 70,000 sum- 
 monses to court. The agitation thus aroused was one 
 of the great causes for the crushing defeat of the 
 Conservative party in 1905. Yet the law of 1902 was 
 put into force and remained the law of England until 
 
154 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 1918, the Liberals having failed in 1906 in an attempt 
 to pass an education bill of their own to supersede 
 it. The educational system continued one of the con- 
 tentious problems of English poHtics. 
 
 The popularity of the Unionist ministry began to 
 wane after the close of the South African war. Much 
 of its legislation was denounced as class legislation 
 designed to bolster up the Conservative party, not 
 to serve the interest of all England. Moreover a new 
 issue was now injected into British politics which 
 divided the Unionists, as Home Rule had divided the 
 Liberals. Chamberlain came forward with a proposi- 
 tion for tariff reform as a means of binding the Em- 
 pire more closely together. He urged that England 
 impose certain tariff duties against the outside world, 
 at the same time exempting her colonies from their 
 operation. He called this policy " colonial prefer- 
 ence." It would be that, but it would also 
 be the abandonment of the free trade policy of 
 Great Britain and the adoption of the protective 
 system. 
 
 As the discussion of this proposal developed it be- 
 came apparent that Englishmen had not yet lost 
 their faith in free trade as still greatly to their advan- 
 tage, if not absolutely essential to their welfare. The 
 new controversy disrupted the Unionist party and re- 
 united the Liberals. 
 
 The result of this increasing disaffection was shown 
 in the crushing defeat of the Unionists and the inau- 
 guration of a very different policy under the Liberals. 
 Since December, 1905, the Liberal party has been in 
 power, first under the premiership of Sir Henry Camp- 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 155 
 
 bell-Bannerman, and then, after his death early in 
 1908, under that of Herbert Asquith, who gave way, 
 in December, 1916, to Lloyd George, a Liberal, but 
 whose ministry was a coalition ministry, composed 
 of members of both parties. This party won in the 
 General Elections of 1906 the largest majority ever 
 obtained since 1832. 
 
 An important achievement of this administration 
 was the passage in 1908 of the Old Age Pensions 
 Act, which marks a long step forward in the exten- 
 sion of state activity. It grants, under certain slight 
 restrictions, pensions to all persons of a certain age 
 and of a small income. Denounced as paternalistic, 
 as socialistic, as sure to undermine the thrift and the 
 sense of responsibility of the laborers of Great Brit- 
 ain, it was urged as a reasonable and proper recogni- 
 tion of the value of the services to the country of the 
 working classes, services as truly to be rewarded as 
 those of army and navy and administration. The act 
 provides that persons seventy years of age whose in- 
 come does not exceed twenty-five guineas a year shall 
 receive a weekly pension of five shillings, that those 
 with larger incomes shall receive proportionately 
 smaller amounts, down to the minimum of one shil- 
 ling a week. Those whose income exceeds thirty 
 guineas and ten shillings a year receive no pensions. 
 It was estimated by the prime minister that the in- 
 itial burden to the State would be about seven and a 
 half million pounds, an amount that would necessarily 
 increase in later years. The post office is used as the 
 distributing agent. This law went into force on Jan- 
 uary I, 1909. On that day over half a million men 
 
156 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 and women went to the nearest post office and drew 
 their first pensions of from one to five shillings, and 
 on every Friday henceforth as long as they live they 
 may do the same. It was noticed that these men and 
 women accepted their pensions not as a form of char- 
 ity or poor relief, but as an honorable reward. The 
 statistics of those claiming under this law were in- 
 structive and sobering. In the county of London 
 one person in every one hundred and seventeen was 
 a claimant; in England and Wales one in eighty-six; 
 in Scotland one in sixty-seven ; in Ireland one in 
 twenty-one. 
 
 The Unionist party had been in control from 1895 
 to 1905. Its chief emphasis had been put upon prob- 
 lems of imperialism. Social legislation had slipped 
 into the background. But the conduct and course of 
 the Boer War, the great adventure in imperialism, 
 had not increased the reputation for statesmanship 
 or the popularity of the Conservatives, and their do- 
 mestic legislation aiming, as was held, at the strength- 
 ening of the EstabHshed Church and the liquor trade, 
 two stout and constant defenders of the party, 
 exposed them to severe attack as aristocratic, as be- 
 lievers in privileged and vested interests, as hostile 
 to the development of the democratic forces in the 
 national life. 
 
 Now that the Liberals were in power they turned 
 energetically to undo the class legislation of the pre- 
 vious ministry, to remove the obstacles to the devel- 
 opment of truly popular government. The new Lib- 
 eral party was more radical than the old Liberal 
 party of the time of the first Home Rule Bill, as the 
 
 I 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 157 
 
 more conservative Liberals had left it then and had 
 gone over to the opposition. Moreover there now 
 appeared in Parliament a party more radical still, 
 the Labor party, with some fifty members. Radical 
 social and labor legislation was now attempted. That 
 the existing social system weighed with unjust sever- 
 ity upon the masses was recognized by the ministry. 
 " Property," said Asquith, " must be associated, in the 
 mind of the masses of the people, with the ideas of 
 reason and justice." 
 
 But when the Liberals attempted to carry out their 
 fresh and progressive programme they immediately 
 confronted a most formidable obstacle. They passed 
 through the House of Commons an Education bill, 
 to remedy the evils of the Education Act of 1902, 
 enacted in the interests chiefly of the Established 
 Church; also a Licensing bill designed to penalize 
 the liquor trade which Conservative legislation had 
 greatly favored; a bill abolishing plural voting, which 
 gave such undue weight to the propertied classes, en- 
 abling rich men to cast several votes at a time when 
 many poor men did not have even a single vote. The 
 obstacle encountered at every step was the House of 
 Lords, which threw out these bills and stood right 
 athwart the path of the Liberal party, firmly resolved 
 not to let any ultra-democratic measures pass, firmly 
 resolved also to maintain all the ground the Con- 
 servatives had won in the previous administrations. 
 A serious political and constitutional problem thus 
 arose which had to be settled before the Liberals 
 could use their immense popular majority, as shown 
 in the House of Commons, for the enactment of Lib- 
 
158 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 eral policies. The House of Lords, which was always 
 ruled by the Conservatives, and which was not, being 
 an hereditary body, subject to direct popular control, 
 now asserted its power frequently and, in the opinion 
 of the Liberals, flagrantly, by rejecting peremptorily 
 the more distinctive Liberal measures. The Lords, 
 encouraged by their easy successes in blocking the 
 Commons, blithely took another step forward, a step 
 which, as events were to prove, was to precede a re- 
 sounding fall. The Lords in 1909 rejected the budget, 
 a far more serious act of defiance of the popular 
 chamber than any of these others had been, and a 
 most conspicuous revelation of the spirit of confidence 
 which the Lords had in their power, now being so 
 variously and systematically asserted. 
 
 In 1909 Lloyd George, chancellor of the exchequer, 
 introduced the budget. He announced correctly that 
 two new lines of heavy expenditure, the payment of 
 old age pensions and the rapid enlargement of the 
 navy, necessitated new and additional taxation. The 
 new taxes which he proposed would bear mainly on 
 the wealthy classes. The income tax was to be in- 
 creased. In addition there was to be a special or 
 super-tax on incomes of over £5,000. A distinction 
 was to be made between earned and unearned in- 
 comes — the former being the result of the labor of the 
 individual, the latter being the income from invest- 
 ments, representing no direct personal activity on the 
 part of the individual receiving them. Unearned in- 
 comes were to be taxed higher than earned. Inheri- 
 tance taxes were to be graded more sharply and to 
 vary decidedly according to the amount involved. 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 159 
 
 New taxes on the land of various kinds were also 
 to be levied. 
 
 This budget aroused the most vehement opposi- 
 tion of the class of landowners, capitalists, bankers, 
 persons of large property interests, persons who lived 
 on the money they had inherited, on their invest- 
 ments. They denounced the bill as socialistic, as rev- 
 olutionary, as in short, odious class legislation directed 
 against the rich, as confiscatory, as destructive of all 
 just property rights. 
 
 The budget passed the House of Commons by a 
 large majority. It then went to the House of Lords. 
 For a long time it had not been supposed that the 
 Lords had any right to reject money bills, as they 
 were an hereditary and not a representative body. 
 They, however, now asserted that they had that right, 
 although they had not exercised it within the mem- 
 ory of men. After a few days of debate they rejected 
 the budget by a vote of 350 to 75 (November 30, 1909). 
 
 At once was precipitated an exciting and momen- 
 tous political and constitutional struggle. The Lib- 
 erals, blocked again by the hereditary chamber, con- 
 sisting solely of the aristocracy of the land, and 
 blocked this time in a field which had long been con- 
 sidered very particularly to be reserved for the House 
 of Commons, indignantly picked up the gauntlet 
 which the Lords had thrown down. The House of 
 Commons voted overwhelmingly, 349 to 134, that the 
 action of the Lords was " a breach of the Constitu- 
 tion and a usurpation of the rights of the House of 
 Commons." Asquith declared in a crowded House 
 that " the House would be unworthy of its past and 
 
i6o FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 of those traditions of which it is the custodian and 
 the trustee," if it allowed any time to pass without 
 showing that it would not brook this usurpation. He 
 declared that the " power of the purse " belonged to 
 the Commons alone. The very principle of represen- 
 tative government was at stake. For if the Lords 
 possessed the right they had assumed the situation 
 was exactly this : that when the voters elected a ma- 
 jority of Conservatives to the Commons then the Con- 
 servatives would control the legislation; that, when 
 they elected a majority of Liberals, the Conserva- 
 tives would still control by being able to block all leg- 
 islation they disliked by the veto of the House of 
 Lords, always and permanently a body adhering to 
 the Conservative party. An hereditary body, not sub- 
 ject to the people, could veto the people's wishes as 
 expressed by the body that was representative, the 
 House of Commons. In other words, the aristocratic 
 element in the state was really more powerful than 
 the democratic, the house representing a class was 
 more powerful than the house representing the 
 people. 
 
 The question of the budget and the question of 
 the proper position and the future of the Upper 
 Chamber were thus linked together. As these ques- 
 tions were of exceptional gravity the ministry re- 
 solved to seek the opinion of the voters. Parliament 
 was dissolved and a new election was ordered. The 
 campaign was one of extreme bitterness, expressing 
 itself in numerous deeds of violence. The election, 
 held in January, 1910, resulted in giving the Union- 
 ists a hundred more votes than they had had in the 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND i6i 
 
 previous Parliament. Yet despite this gain the Lib- 
 erals would have a majority of over a hundred in the 
 new House of Commons if the Labor party and the 
 Irish Home Rulers supported them, which they did. 
 
 In the new Parliament the budget which had been 
 thrown out the previous year was introduced again, 
 without serious change. Again it passed the House 
 of Commons and went to the Lords. That House 
 yielded this time and passed the budget with all its 
 so-called revolutionary and socialistic provisions. 
 
 The Liberals now turned their attention to this 
 question of the " Lords' Veto," or of the position 
 proper for an hereditary, aristocratic chamber in a 
 nation that pretended to be democratic, as did Eng- 
 land. The issue stated nearly twenty years before by 
 Gladstone in his last speech in Parliament had now 
 arrived at the crucial stage. What should be the 
 relations between a deliberative assembly elected by 
 the votes of more than six million voters and an 
 hereditary body? The question was vehemently dis- 
 cussed inside Parliament and outside. Various sug- 
 gestions for reform of the House of Lords were made 
 by the members of that House itself, justly apprehen- 
 sive for their future. The death of the popular King 
 Edward VII (May 6, 1910), and the accession of 
 George V, occurring in the midst of this passionate 
 campaign, somewhat sobered the combatants, though 
 only temporarily. Attempts were made to see if some 
 compromise regarding the future of the House of 
 Lords might not be worked out by the two parties. 
 But the attempts were futile, the issue being too deep 
 and too far-reaching. 
 
1 62 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 The ministry, wishing the opinion of the people 
 on this new question, dissolved the House of Com- 
 mons again and ordered new elections, the second 
 within a single year (December, 1910). The result 
 was that the parties came back each with practically 
 the same number of members as before. The Gov- 
 ernment's majority was undiminished. 
 
 The Asquith ministry now passed through the 
 House of Commons a Parliament Bill restricting the 
 power of the House of Lords in several important 
 particulars and providing that the House of Com- 
 mons should in last resort have its way in any con- 
 troversy with the other chamber. This bill passed 
 the House of Commons by a large majority. How 
 could it be got through the House of Lords? Would 
 the Lords be likely to vote in favor of the recogni- 
 tion of their inferiority to the other house, would 
 they consent to this withdrawal from them of powers 
 they had hitherto exercised, would they acquiesce in 
 this altered and reduced situation at the hands of a 
 chamber whose measures they had been freely block- 
 ing for several years? Of course they would not if 
 they could help it. But there is one way in which 
 the opposition of the House of Lords can be over- 
 come, no matter however overwhelming. The King 
 can create new peers — as many as he likes — enough 
 to overcome the majority against the measure in 
 question. This supreme weapon the King, which of 
 course in fact meant the Asquith ministry, was now 
 prepared to use. Asquith announced that he had the 
 consent of George V to create enough peers to se- 
 cure the passage of the bill in case it were neces- 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 163 
 
 sary. The threat was sufficient. The Lords on Au- 
 gust 18, 191 1, passed the Padiament Act, which so 
 profoundly altered their own status, power, and pres- 
 tige. This measure establishes new processes of law- 
 making. If the Lords withhold their assent from 
 a money bill, that is, any bill raising taxes or mak- 
 ing appropriations, for more than one month after 
 it has passed the House of Commons, the bill may 
 be presented for the King's signature, and on receiv- 
 ing it becomes law without the consent of the Lords. 
 If a bill other than a money bill is passed by the Com- 
 mons in three successive sessions, whether of the 
 same Parliament or not, and is rejected by the Lords, 
 it may on a third rejection by them be presented for 
 the King's assent, and on receiving that assent will 
 become a law, notwithstanding the fact that the 
 House of Lords has not consented to the bill — pro- 
 vided that two years have elapsed between the sec- 
 ond reading of the bill in the first of those sessions 
 and the date on which it passes the Commons for 
 the third time. 
 
 This Parliament or Veto Act contained another 
 important provision, substituting five years for seven 
 as the maximum duration of a Parliament; that is, 
 members of the Commons are henceforth chosen for 
 five, not seven years. Their term was thus reduced. 
 
 Thus the veto power of the House of Lords is gone 
 entirely for all financial legislation, and for all other 
 legislation its veto is merely suspensive. The Com- 
 mons can have their way in the end. They may be 
 delayed two years. 
 
 The way was now cleared for the enactment of 
 
i64 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 certain legislation desired by the Liberal party, whicH 
 could not secure the approval of the House of Lords. 
 It was possible finally to pass a Home Rule bill, to 
 the principle of which the Liberal party had been 
 committed for a quarter of a century. On April ii, 
 1912, Asquith introduced the third Home Rule bill, 
 granting Ireland a Parliament of her own, consisting 
 of a Senate of forty members and a House of Com- 
 mons of 164. If the two houses should disagree, then 
 they were to sit and vote together. On certain sub- 
 jects the Irish Parliament should not have the right 
 to legislate; on peace or war, naval or military af- 
 fairs, treaties, currency, foreign commerce. It could 
 not establish or endow any religion or impose any 
 religious disabilities. The Irish were to be repre- 
 sented in the Parliament in London by forty-two 
 members instead of the previous number, 103. 
 
 This measure was passionately opposed by the Con- 
 servative party and particularly by the Ulster party, 
 Ulster being that province of Ireland in which the 
 Protestants are strong. They went so far in their 
 opposition as to threaten civil war, in case Ulster 
 were not exempted from the operation of this law. 
 During the next two years the battle raged about 
 this point, in conferences between political leaders, in 
 discussions in Parliament and the press. Attempts 
 at compromise failed, as the Home Rule party would 
 not consent to the exemption of a quarter of Ireland 
 from the jurisdiction of the proposed Irish Parlia- 
 ment. 
 
 The bill was, however, passed and was immediately 
 vetoed by the House of Lords. At the next session 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 165 
 
 it was passed again, and again vetoed by the Lords. 
 Finally, on May 25, 1914, it was passed a third time 
 by the House of Commons by a vote of 351 to 274, 
 a majority of 77. The bill was later rejected by the 
 Lords. It might now become a law without their 
 consent, in conformity with the Parliament Act of 
 191 1. Only the formal assent of the King was nec- 
 essary. 
 
 But the ministry was so impressed with the vehe- 
 mence and the determination of the " Ulster party," 
 which went so far as to organize an army and estab- 
 lish a sort of provisional government, that it decided 
 to continue discussions in order to see whether some 
 compromise might not be arranged. These discus- 
 sions were interrupted by the outbreak of the Euro- 
 pean War. 
 
 Meanwhile a bill disestablishing the Anglican 
 Church in Wales had gone through the same pro- 
 cess; had thrice been oassed by the Commons and 
 rejected by the Lords. Like the Home Rule bill, 
 it only awaited the signature of the sovereign. 
 
 Finally that signature was given to both bills on 
 September 18, 1914, but Parliament passed on that 
 same day a bill suspending these laws from operation 
 until the close of the war. 
 
 England now had far more serious things to con- 
 sider and she wisely swept the deck clean of conten- 
 tious domestic matters until a more convenient sea- 
 son. Whether the Home Rule Act when finally put 
 into force would be accompanied with amendments 
 which would pacify the Protestants of Ulster remains, 
 of course, to be seen. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE BRITISH EMPIRE 
 
 We have thus far concerned ourselves with the 
 history of the European continent. But one of the 
 most remarkable features of the nineteenth century 
 was the reaching out of Europe for the conquest of 
 the world. It was not only a century of nation build- 
 ing but also of empire building on a colossal scale, 
 a century of European emigration and colonization, 
 a century during which the white race seized what- 
 ever regions of the earth remained still unappro- 
 priated or were too weak to preserve themselves in- 
 violate. Thus magnificent imperial claims were 
 staked out by various powers either for immediate 
 or for ultimate use. 
 
 Many were the causes of this new Wandering of 
 the Peoples. One was the extraordinary increase 
 during the century of the population of Europe — 
 perhaps a hundred and seventy-five millions in 1815, 
 more than four hundred and fifty millions a century 
 later. This is unquestionably one of the most im- 
 portant facts in modern history, the fundamental 
 cause of the colossal emigration. Another cause was 
 the transformation of the economic system, the mar- 
 velous increase in the power of production, which 
 impelled the producers to ransack the world for new 
 
 166 
 
THE BRITISH EMPIRE 167 
 
 markets and new sources of raw material. And an- 
 other and potent cause was the spectacle of the Brit- 
 ish Empire, which touched the imagination or aroused 
 the envy of other peoples, who, therefore, fell to imi- 
 tating, within the range of the possible. An exami- 
 nation of the history and characteristics of that Em- 
 pire is essential to an understanding of modern 
 Europe. 
 
 At the close of the eighteenth century England 
 possessed in the New World the region of the St. 
 Lawrence, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfound- 
 land, Prince Edward Island, and a large, vague region 
 known as the Hudson Bay territory; Jamaica, and 
 other West Indian islands; in Australia, a strip of 
 the eastern coast; in India, the Bengal or lower 
 Ganges region, Bombay, and strips along the east- 
 ern and western coasts. CThe most important fea- 
 ture of her colonial policy had been her elimina- 
 tion of France as a rival, from whom she had talien 
 in the Seven Years' War (1756-1763) almost all of 
 her North American and East Indian possessions. 
 This Empire she increased during the Revolutionary 
 and Napoleonic wars, largely at the expense of 
 France, and Holland, the ally of France. Thus she 
 acquired the Cape of Good Hope, Guiana in South 
 America, Tobago, Trinidad, and St. Lucia, Mauritius 
 in the Indian Ocean, and the large island of Ceylon. 
 In the Mediterranean she acquired Malta. She also 
 obtained Helgoland, and the protectorate of the 
 Ionian Islands. 
 
 Since 1815 her Empire has been vastly augumented 
 by a long series of wars, and by the natural advance 
 
1 68 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 of her colonists over countries contiguous to the 
 early settlements, as in Canada and Australia. Her 
 Empire lies in every quarter of the globe. 
 
 India 
 
 The acquisition of India, a world in itself, for the 
 British Crown was the work of a private commer- 
 cial organization, the East India Company, which 
 was founded in the sixteenth century and given a 
 monopoly of the trade with India. This company 
 established trading stations in various parts of that 
 peninsula. Coming into conflict with the French, 
 and mixing in the quarrels of the native princes, it 
 succeeded in winning direct control of large sections, 
 and indirect control of others by assuming protec- 
 torates over certain of the princes, who allied them- 
 selves with the English and were left on their thrones. 
 This commercial company became invested with the 
 government of these acquisitions, under the provi- 
 sions of laws passed by the English Parliament at 
 various times. In the nineteenth century the area 
 of British control steadily widened, until it became 
 complete. Its progress was immensely furthered by 
 the overthrow, after a long and intermittent war, 
 of the Mahratta confederacy, a loose union of Indian 
 princes dominating central and western India. This 
 confederacy was finally conquered in a war which 
 lasted from 1816 to 1818, when a large part of its 
 territories were added directly to the English pos- 
 sessions, and other parts were left under their native 
 rulers, who, however, were brought effectively under 
 
THE BRITISH EMPIRE i6^ 
 
 English control by being obliged to conform to Eng- 
 lish policy, to accept English Residents at their courts, 
 whose advice they were practically compelled to fol- 
 low, and by putting their native armies under British 
 direction. Such is the condition of many of them at 
 the present day. 
 
 The English also advanced to the north and north- 
 west, from Bengal. One of their most important an- 
 nexations was that of the Punjab, an immense terri- 
 tory on the Indus, taken as a result of two difficult 
 wars (1845 to 1849), ^^^ the Oudh province, one of 
 the richest sections of India, lying between the Pun- 
 jab and Bengal, annexed in 1856. 
 
 The steady march of English conquest aroused a 
 bitter feeling of hostility to the English, which came 
 to a head in the famous Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, which 
 for a time threatened the complete overthrow of the 
 British in northern India. This mutiny was, however, 
 speedily suppressed. Since then no attempts have 
 been made to overthrow English control. 
 
 (One important consequence of the mutiny of 1857 
 was that, in 1858, the government of India was 
 transferred to the Crown from the private company 
 which had conducted it for a century. It passed 
 under the direct authority of England. In 1876, as 
 we have seen, India was declared an empire, and 
 Queen Victoria assumed the title Empress of India, 
 January i, 1877. This act was officially announced in 
 India by Lord Lytton, the Viceroy, to an imposing 
 assembly of the ruling princes. 
 
 An Empire it surely is, with its three hundred 
 and fifteen milHon inhabitants. A Viceroy stands 
 
I70 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 at the head of the government. There is a Secretary 
 for India in the British Ministry. The government 
 is largely carried on by the highly organized Civil 
 Service of India, and is in the hands of about eleven 
 hundred Englishmen. About two hundred and forty- 
 four millions of people are under the direct control of 
 Great Britan; about seventy millions live in native 
 states under native rulers, the " Protected Princes of 
 India," of whom there were, a few years ago, nearly 
 seven hundred. For all practical purposes, however, 
 these princes must follow the advice of English ofH- 
 cials, or Residents, stationed in their capitals. 
 4.Not only did England complete her control of 
 India in the nineteenth century, but she added coun- 
 tries round about India, Burma toward the east, 
 and, toward the west, Baluchistan, a part of which 
 was annexed outright, and the remainder brought 
 under a protectorate. She also imposed a kind of 
 protectorate upon Afghanistan as a result of two 
 Afghan wars (1839-42 and 1878-80).? 
 
 British North America 
 
 In 1815, as already stated, Great Britain possessed, 
 in North America, six colonies : Upper Canada, Lower 
 Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Ed- 
 ward Island, and Newfoundland. The total popu- 
 lation of these colonies was about 460,000. The 
 colonies were entirely separate from each other. Each 
 had its own government, and its relations were not 
 with the others, but with England. The oldest and 
 most populous was Lower Canada, which included 
 
THE BRITISH EMPIRE 171 
 
 Montreal and Quebec and the St. Lawrence valley. 
 This was the French colony conquered by England 
 in 1763. Its population was French-speaking and 
 Roman Catholic in religion. 
 
 The two most important of these colonies were 
 Lower Canada, largely French, and Upper Canada, 
 entirely English. Each had received a constitution 
 in 1 791, but in neither colony did the constitution 
 work well and the fundamental reason was that 
 neither the people nor their legislatures had any con- 
 trol over the executive. The Governor, who could 
 practically veto all legislation, considered himself re- 
 sponsible primarily to the English Government, not 
 to the people of the province. England had not yet 
 learned the secret of successful management of col- 
 onies, despite the fact that the lesson of the American 
 Revolution and the loss of the thirteen colonies a half 
 a century earlier was sufificiently plain. It took a sec- 
 ond revolt to point the moral and adorn the tale. In 
 1837 disaffection had reached such a stage that revolu- 
 tionary movements broke out in both Upper and 
 Lower Canada. These were easily suppressed by the 
 Canadian authorities without help from England, but 
 the grievances of the colonists still remained. 
 
 The English Government, thoroughly alarmed at 
 the danger of the loss of another empire, adopted the 
 part of discretion and sent out to Canada a commis- 
 sioner to study the grievances of the colonists. The 
 man chosen was Lord Durham, whose part in the re- 
 form of 1832 had been brilhant. Durham was in 
 Canada five months. The report in which he ana- 
 lyzed the causes of the rebellion and suggested 
 
172 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 changes in policy entitles him to the rank of the great- 
 est colonial statesman in British history. In a word, 
 he adopted the dictum of Fox, who had said " the only 
 method of retaining distant colonies with advantage 
 is to enable them to govern themselves." He pro- 
 posed the introduction of the cabinet system of gov- 
 ernment as worked out in England. This gives the 
 popular house of the legislature control over the ex- 
 ecutive. 
 
 Durham's recommendations were not immediately 
 followed, as to many Englishmen they seemed 
 to render the colonies independent. Ten years later, 
 however, this principle of ministerial responsibility 
 was adopted by Lord Elgin (1847), ^^^ Governor of 
 Canada and the son-in-law of Durham. His example 
 was followed by his successors and gradually became 
 established usage. The custom spread rapidly to 
 the other colonies of Great Britain, which were of 
 English stock and were therefore considered capable 
 of self-government. This is the cement that holds 
 the British Empire together. For self-government 
 has brought with it contentment. 
 
 Lord Durham had also suggested a federation of 
 all the North American colonies. This was brought 
 about in 1867, when the British North America Act, 
 which had been drawn up in Canada and which ex- 
 pressed Canadian sentiment, was passed without 
 change by the English Parliament. By this act Up- 
 per and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Bruns- 
 wick were joined into a confederation called the Do- 
 minion of Canada. There was to be a central or 
 federal parliament sitting in Ottawa. There were 
 
THE BRITISH EMPIRE 173 
 
 also to be local or provincial legislatures in each prov- 
 ince to legislate for local affairs. Questions affecting 
 the whole Dominion were reserved for the Dominion 
 Parliament. 
 
 The central or Dominion Parliament was to con- 
 sist of a Senate and a House of Commons. The Sen- 
 ate was to be composed of seventy members nomi- 
 nated for life by the Governor-General, himself ap- 
 pointed by the monarch, and representing the Crown. 
 The House of Commons was to be elected by the 
 people. In some respects the example of the Eng- 
 lish Government was followed in the constitution, in 
 others that of the United States. 
 
 Though the Dominion began with only four prov- 
 inces provision was made for the possible admission 
 of others. Manitoba was admitted in 1870, British 
 Columbia in 1871, Prince Edward Island in 1873. 
 
 In 1846, by the settlement of the Oregon dispute, 
 the line dividing the English possessions from the 
 United States was extended to the Pacific Ocean, 
 and in 1869 the Dominion acquired by purchase 
 (£300,000) the vast territories belonging to the Hud- 
 son Bay Company, out of which the great provinces 
 of Alberta and Saskatchewan have been carved and 
 admitted into the union (1905). The Dominion now 
 includes all of British North America except the is- 
 land of Newfoundland, which has steadily refused to 
 join. It thus extends from ocean to ocean. Except 
 for the fact that she receives a Governor-General from 
 England and that she possesses no treaty powers, 
 Canada is practically independent. She manages her 
 own affairs, and even imposes tariffs which are dis- 
 
174 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 advantageous to the mother country. That she has 
 imperial as well as local patriotism, however, was 
 shown strikingly in her support of England in the 
 South African war. She sent Canadian regiments 
 thither at her own expense to cooperate in an enter- 
 prise not closely connected with her own fortunes. 
 The same spirit, the same willingness to make costly 
 sacrifices, were to be shown, on a larger scale, in the 
 European War. 
 
 The founding of the Canadian union in 1867 ren- 
 dered possible the construction of a great transcon- 
 tinental railway, the Canadian Pacific, built between 
 1881 and 1885. This has in turn reacted upon the 
 Dominion, binding the different provinces together 
 and contributing to the remarkable development of 
 the West. Another transcontinental railway has re- 
 cently been built farther to the north. Canada is 
 connected by steamship lines with Europe and with 
 Japan and Australia. Her population has increased 
 from less than five hundred thousand in 1815 to more 
 than seven million. Her prosperity has grown im- 
 mensely, and her economic life is becoming more 
 varied. Largely an agricultural and timber-produc- 
 ing country, her manufactures are now developing 
 under the stimulus of protective tariffs, and her vast 
 mineral resources are in process of rapid develop- 
 ment. 
 
 Australia 
 
 In the Southern Hemisphere, too, a new empire 
 was created by Great Britain during the nineteenth 
 century, an empire nearly as extensive territorially 
 
THE BRITISH EMPIRE 175 
 
 as the United States or Canada, about three-fourths 
 as large as Europe, and inhabited almost entirely by 
 a population of English descent. 
 
 No systematic exploration of this southern conti- 
 nent. Terra Australis, was undertaken until toward the 
 close of the eighteenth century, but certain parts had 
 been sighted or traced much earlier by Spanish Portu- 
 guese, and particularly by Dutch navigators. Among 
 the last, Tasman is to be mentioned, who in 1642 
 explored the southeastern portion, though he did not 
 discover that the land which was later to bear his 
 name was an island, a fact not known, indeed, for a 
 century and a half. He discovered the islands to 
 the east of Australia, and gave to them a Dutch name. 
 New Zealand. The Dutch called the Terra Australis 
 New Holland, claiming it by right of discovery. But 
 they made no attempt to occupy it. The attention 
 of the English was first directed thither by the famous 
 Captain Cook, who made three voyages to this region 
 between 1768 and 1779. Cook sailed around New 
 Zealand, and then along the eastern coast of this 
 New Holland. He put into a certain harbor, which 
 was forthwith named Botany Bay, so varied was the 
 vegetation on the shores. Sailing up the eastern 
 coast, he claimed it all for George III, and called 
 it New South Wales, because it reminded him of the 
 Welsh coast. Seventeen years, however, went by 
 before any settlement was made. 
 
 At first Australia was considered by English states- 
 men a good place to which to send criminals, and it 
 was as a convict colony that the new empire began. 
 The first expedition for the colonization of the coun- 
 
176 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 try sailed from England in May, 1787, with 750 con- 
 victs on board, and reached Botany Bay in January, 
 1788. Here the first settlement was made, and to it 
 was given the name of the colonial secretary of the 
 day, Sydney. For many years fresh cargoes of con- 
 victs were sent out, who, on the expiration of their 
 sentences, received lands. Free settlers came, too, 
 led to emigrate by various periods of economic de- 
 pression at home, by promises of land and food, and 
 by an increasing knowledge of the adaptability of the 
 new continent to agriculture, and particularly to sheep 
 raising. By 1820 the population was not far from 
 40,000. During the first thirty years the government 
 was military in character. 
 
 The free settlers were strongly opposed to having 
 Australia regarded as a prison for English convicts, 
 and after 1840 the system was gradually abolished. 
 Australia was at first mainly a pastoral country, pro- 
 ducing wool and hides. But, in 185 1 and 1852, rich 
 deposits of gold were found, rivaled only by those 
 discovered a little earlier in California. A tremen- 
 dous immigration ensued. The population of the col- 
 ony of Victoria (cut ofiF from New South Wales) in- 
 creased from 70,000 to more than 300,000 in five 
 years. Australia has ever since remained one of the 
 great gold-producing countries of the world. 
 
 Thus there gradually grew up six colonies. New 
 South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, 
 Western Australia, and the neighboring island of 
 Tasmania. These were gradually invested with self- 
 government, parliaments, and responsible ministries 
 in the fashion worked out in Canada. The popula- 
 
THE BRITISH EMPIRE 177 
 
 tion increased steadily, and by the end of the cen- 
 tury numbered about four millions. 
 
 The great political event in the history of these 
 colonies was their union into a confederation at the 
 close of the century. Up to that time the colonies 
 had been legally unconnected with each other, and 
 their only form of union was the loose one under the 
 British Crown. For a long time there was discus- 
 sion as to the advisability of binding them more 
 closely together. Various reasons contributed to con- 
 vince the Australians of the advantages of federation; 
 the desirability of uniform legislation concerning 
 commercial and industrial matters, railway regula- 
 tion, navigation, irrigation, and tariffs. Moreover the 
 desire for nationality, which accomplished such 
 remarkable changes in Europe in the nineteenth cen- 
 tury, was also active here. An Australian patriotism 
 had grown up. Australians desired to make their 
 country the dominant authority in the Southern Hemi- 
 sphere. They longed for a larger outlook than that 
 given by the life of the separate colonies, and thus 
 both reason and sentiment combined toward the same 
 end, a close union, the creation of another " colonial 
 nation." 
 
 Union was finally achieved after ten years of ear- 
 nest discussion (1890-1900). The various experiments 
 in federation were carefully studied, particularly the 
 constitutions of the United States and Canada. The 
 draft of the constitution was worked over by several 
 conventions, by the ministers and the governments 
 of the various colonies, and was finally submitted to 
 the people for ratification. Ratification being secured^ 
 
178 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 the constitution was then passed through th^VBritish 
 Parliament under the title of " The Commonwealth 
 of Australia Constitution Act " (1900). The constitu- 
 tion was the work of the Australians. The part taken 
 by England was simply one of acceptance. Though 
 Parliament made certain suggestions of detail, it did 
 not insist upon them in the case of Australian oppo- 
 sition. 
 
 The constitution established a federation consisting 
 of the six colonies, which were henceforth to be called 
 states, not provinces, as in the case of Canada. It 
 created a federal Parliament of two houses, a Senate 
 consisting of six senators from each state, and a 
 House of Representatives apportioned among the sev- 
 eral states according to population. The powers given 
 to the Federal Government were carefully defined. 
 The new system was inaugurated January i, 1901. 
 
 New Zealand 
 
 Not included in the new commonwealth is an im- 
 portant group of islands of Australasia called New 
 Zealand, situated 1,200 miles east of Australia. Eng- 
 land began to have some connection with these 
 islands shortly after 181 5, but it was not until 1839 
 that they were formally annexed to the British Em- 
 pire. In 1854 New Zealand was given responsible 
 government, and in 1865 was entirely separated from 
 New South Wales and made a separate colony. Emi- 
 gration was methodically encouraged. New Zealand 
 was never a convict colony. Population increased and 
 it gradually became the most democratic colony of 
 
THE BRITISH EMPIRE 179 
 
 the Empire. In 1907 the designation of the colony- 
 was changed to the Dominion of New Zealand. 
 
 New Zealand consists of two main islands with 
 many smaller ones. It is about a fourth larger than 
 Great Britain and has a population of about 1,000,- 
 000, of whom about 50,000 are aborigines, the Maoris. 
 Its capital is Wellington, with a population of about 
 70,000. Auckland is another important city. New 
 Zealand is an agricultural and grazing country, and 
 also possesses rich mineral deposits, including gold. 
 
 New Zealand is of great interest to the world of 
 to-day because of its experiments in advanced social 
 reform, legislation concerning labor and capital, land- 
 owning and commerce. State control has been ex- 
 tended over more branches of industry than has been 
 the case in any other country. 
 
 The Government owns and operates the railways. 
 The roads are run, not for profit, but for service to 
 the people. As rapidly as profits exceed three per 
 cent passenger and freight rates are reduced. Com- 
 prehensive and successful attempts are made by very 
 low rates to induce the people in congested districts 
 to live in the country. Workmen going in and out 
 travel about three miles for a cent. Children in the 
 primary grades in schools are carried free, and those 
 in higher grades at very low fares. 
 
 The Government also owns and operates the tele- 
 graphs and telephones and conducts postal savings 
 banks. Life insurance is largely in its hands. It has 
 a fire and accident insurance department. In 1903 
 it began the operation of some state coal mines. Its 
 land legislation is remarkable. Its main purpose is 
 
i8o FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 to prevent the land from being monopolized by a few, 
 and to enable the people to become landholders. In 
 1892 progressive taxation on the large estates v^as 
 adopted, and in 1896 the sale of such estates to the 
 government was made compulsory, and thus exten- 
 sive areas have come under government ownership. 
 The state transfers them under various forms of ten- 
 ure to the landless and working classes. The system 
 of taxation, based on the principle of graduation, 
 higher rates for larger incomes, properties, and in- 
 heritances, is designed to break up or prevent monop- 
 oly and to favor the small proprietor or producer. 
 
 In industrial and labor legislation New Zealand has 
 also made radical experiments. Arbitration in labor 
 disputes is compulsory if either side invokes it, and 
 the decision is binding. Factory laws are stringent, 
 aiming particularly at the protection of women, the 
 elimination of " sweating." In stores the Saturday 
 half-holiday is universal. The Government has a 
 Labor Department, whose head is a member of the 
 cabinet. Its first duty is to find work for the unem- 
 ployed, and its great effort is to get the people out 
 of the cities into the country. There is an Old Age 
 Pension Law, enacted in 1898 and amended in 1905, 
 j>roviding pensions of about a hundred and twenty- 
 five dollars for all men and women after the age of 
 sixty-five whose income is less than five dollars a 
 week. 
 
 All this governmental activity rests on a demo- 
 cratic basis. There are no property qualifications for 
 voting, and women have the suffrage as well as men. 
 The referendum has been adopted. 
 
THE BRITISH EMPIRE i8l 
 
 The Australian colony of Victoria has enacted much 
 legislation resembling that described in the case of 
 New Zealand. 
 
 British South Africa 
 
 As an incident in the wars against France and her 
 ally and dependent, Holland, England seized the 
 Dutch possession in South Africa, Cape Colony. This 
 colony she retained in 1814, together with certain 
 Dutch possessions in South America, paying six mil- 
 lion pounds as compensation. This was the begin- 
 ning of English expansion into Africa, which was to 
 attain remarkable proportions before the close of the 
 century. The population at the time England took 
 possession consisted of about 27,000 people of Euro- 
 pean descent, mostly Dutch, and of about 30,000 Afri- 
 can and Malay slaves owned by the Dutch, and about 
 17,000 Hottentots. Immigration of Englishmen be- 
 gan forthwith. 
 
 Friction between the Dutch (called Boers, i.e., 
 peasants) and the English was not slow in devel- 
 oping. The forms of local government to which the 
 Boers were accustomed were abolished and new ones 
 established. English was made the sole language 
 used in the courts. The Boers, irritated by these 
 measures, were rendered indignant by the abolition 
 of slavery in 1834. They did not consider slavery 
 wrong. Moreover, they felt defrauded of their prop- 
 erty, as the compensation given was inadequate — 
 about three million pounds — little more than a third 
 of what they considered their slaves worth. 
 
 The Boers resolved to leave the colony and to set- 
 
i82 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 tie in the interior, where they could live unmolested 
 by the intruders. This migration or Great Trek be- 
 gan in 1836, and continued for several years. About 
 10,000 Boers thus withdrew from Cape Colony. Rude 
 carts drawn by several pairs of oxen transported 
 their families and their possessions into the wilder- 
 ness. The result was the founding of two independ- 
 ent Boer republics to the north of Cape Colony, 
 namely, the Orange Free State and the Transvaal 
 or South African Republic. A most checkered ca- 
 reer has been theirs. The Orange Free State was 
 declared annexed to the British Empire in 1848, but 
 it rebelled and its independence was recognized by 
 Great Britain in 1854. From that time until 1899 
 it pursued a peaceful career, its independence not 
 infringed upon. 
 
 The independence of the Transvaal was also rec- 
 ognized, in 1852. But twenty-five years later, in 1877, 
 under the strongly imperialistic ministry of Lord Bea- 
 consfield, it was abruptly declared annexed to the 
 British Empire, on the ground that its independence 
 was a menace to the peace of England's other South 
 African possessions. The Boers' hatred of the Eng- 
 lish naturally expressed itself and they took up arms 
 in the defense of their rights. 
 
 In 1880 Lord Beaconsfield was overthrown and 
 Gladstone came into power. Gladstone had de- 
 nounced the annexation, and was convinced that a 
 mistake had been made which must be rectified. He 
 was negotiating with the Boer leaders, hoping to 
 reach, by peaceful means, a solution that would be 
 satisfactory to both sides, when his problem was 
 
THE BRITISH EMPIRE 183 
 
 made immensely more difficult by the Boers them- 
 selves, who, in December, 1880, rose in revolt and 
 defeated a small detachment of British troops at Ma- 
 juba Hill, February 27, 1881. In a military sense, 
 this so-called battle of Majuba Hill was an insignifi- 
 cant afifair, but its effects upon Englishmen and Boers 
 were tremendous and far-reaching. Gladstone, who 
 had already been negotiating with a view to restor- 
 ing the independence of the Transvaal, which he con- 
 sidered had been unjustly overthrown, did not think 
 it right to reverse his policy because of a mere skir- 
 mish, however humiliating. His ministry, therefore, 
 went its way, not believing that it should be de- 
 flected from an act of justice and conciliation merely 
 because of a military misfortune of no importance 
 in itself. The independence of the Transvaal was 
 formally recognized with the restriction that it could 
 not make treaties with foreign countries without the 
 approval of Great Britain and with the proviso, which 
 was destined to gain tremendous importance later, 
 that " white men were to have full liberty to reside 
 in any part of the republic, to trade in it, and to be 
 liable to the same taxes only as those exacted from 
 citizens of the republic." 
 
 Gladstone's action was severely criticised by Eng- 
 lishmen, who did not believe in retiring, leaving a 
 defeat unavenged. They denounced the policy of the 
 ministry as hostile to the welfare of the South Afri- 
 can colonies and damaging to the prestige of the Em- 
 pire. The Boers, on the other hand, considered that 
 they had won their independence by arms, by the 
 humiliation of the traditional enemy, and were ac- 
 
1 84 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 cordingly elated. In holding this opinion they were 
 injuring themselves by self-deception and by the idea 
 that what they had once done they could do again, 
 and they were angering the British by keeping alive 
 the memory of Majuba Hill. The phrase just quoted, 
 concerning immigration, contained the germ of fu- 
 ture trouble, which in the end was to result in the 
 violent overthrow of the republic, for a momentous 
 change in the character of the population was im- 
 pending. 
 
 The South African Republic was entirely inhab- 
 ited by Boers, a people exclusively interested in agri- 
 culture and grazing, solid, sturdy, religious, freedom- 
 loving, but, in the modern sense, unprogressive, ill- 
 educated, suspicious of foreigners, and particularly of 
 Englishmen. The peace and contentment of this 
 rural people were disturbed by the discovery, in 1884, 
 that gold in immense quantities lay hidden in their 
 mountains, the Rand. Immediately a great influx of 
 miners and speculators began. These were chiefly 
 Englishmen. In the heart of the mining district the 
 city of Johannesburg grew rapidly, numbering in a 
 few years over 100,000 inhabitants, a city of foreign- 
 ers. Troubles quickly arose between the native Boers 
 and the aggressive, energetic Uitlanders or foreigners. 
 
 The Uitlanders gave wide publicity to their griev- 
 ances. Great obstacles were put in the way of their 
 naturalization ; the} were given no share in the gov- 
 ernment, not even the right to vote. Yet in parts of 
 the Transvaal they were more numerous than the 
 natives, and bore the larger share of taxation. In 
 addition they were forced to render military service, 
 
THE BRITISH EMPIRE 185 
 
 which, in their opinion, implied citizenship. They 
 looked to the British Government to push their de- 
 mand for reforms. The Boer Government w^as un- 
 doubtedly an oligarchy, but the Boers felt that it was 
 only by refusing the suffrage to the unwelcome in- 
 truders that they could keep control of their own 
 state, which at the cost of much hardship they had 
 created in the wilderness. In 1895 occurred an event 
 which deeply embittered them, the Jameson Raid — 
 an invasion of the Transvaal by a few hundred troop- 
 ers under Dr. Jameson, the administrator of Rhode- 
 sia, with the apparent purpose of overthrowing the 
 Boer Government. The raiders were easily captured 
 by the Boers, who, with great magnanimity, handed 
 them over to England. This indefensible attack and 
 the fact that the guilty were only lightly punished 
 in England, and that the man whom all Boers held 
 responsible as the arch-conspirator, Cecil Rhodes, was 
 shielded by the British Government, entered like 
 iron into the souls of the Boers and only hardened 
 their resistance to the demands of the Uitlanders. 
 These demands were refused and the grievances of 
 the Uitlanders, who now outnumbered the natives 
 perhaps two to one, continued. Friction steadily in- 
 creased. The British charged that the Boers were 
 aiming at nothing less than the ultimate expulsion 
 of the English from South Africa ; the Boers charged 
 that the British were aiming at the extinction of the 
 two Boer republics. There was no spirit of concilia- 
 tion in either government. 
 
 Joseph Chamberlain, British Colonial Secretary, was 
 arrogant and insolent. Paul Kruger, President of the 
 
i86 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Transvaal, was obstinate and ill-informed. Ultimately 
 in October, 1899, the Boers declared war upon Great 
 Britain. The Orange Free State, no party to the 
 quarrel, threw in its lot with its sister Boer republic. 
 
 This war was lightly entered upon by both sides. 
 Each grossly underestimated both the resources and 
 the spirit of the other. The English Government 
 had made no preparation at all adequate, apparently 
 not believing that in the end this petty state would 
 dare oppose the mighty British Empire. The Boers, 
 on the other hand, had been long preparing for a 
 conflict, and knew that the number of British troops 
 in South Africa was small, totally insufficient to put 
 down their resistance. Moreover, for years they had 
 deceived themselves with a gross exaggeration of the 
 significance of Majuba Hill as a victory over the Brit- 
 ish. Each side believed that the war would be short, 
 and would result in its favor. 
 
 The war, which they supposed would be over in a 
 few months, lasted for nearly three years. England 
 suffered at the outset many humiliating reverses. 
 The war was not characterized by great battles, but 
 by many sieges at first, and then by guerilla fight- 
 ing and elaborate, systematic, and difficult conquest 
 of the country. It was fought with great bravery on 
 both sides. For the English, Lord Roberts and Lord 
 Kitchener were the leaders, and of the Boers several 
 greatly distinguished themselves, obtaining world- 
 wide reputations, Christian de Wet, Louis Botha, 
 Delarey. 
 
 The English won in the end by sheer force of num- 
 bers and peace was finally concluded on June i, 1902. 
 
THE BRITISH EMPIRE 187 
 
 The Transvaal and the Orange Free State lost their 
 independence, and became colonies of the British Em- 
 pire. Otherwise the terms offered by the conquerors 
 were liberal. Generous money grants and loans were 
 to be made by England to enable the Boers to begin 
 again in their sadly devastated land. Their language 
 was to be respected wherever possible. 
 
 The work of reconciliation has proceeded with re- 
 markable rapidity since the close of the war. Re- 
 sponsible government, that is, self-government, was 
 granted to the Transvaal Colony in 1906 and to the 
 Orange River Colony in 1907. This liberal conduct 
 of the English Government had the most happy con- 
 sequences, as was shown very convincingly by the 
 spontaneity and the strength of the movement for 
 closer union, which culminated in 1909 in the crea- 
 tion of a new " colonial nation " within the British 
 Empire. In 1908 a convention was held in which 
 the four colonies were represented. The outcome of 
 its deliberations, which lasted several months, was 
 the draft of a constitution for the South African 
 Union. This was then submitted to the colonies for 
 approval and, by June, 1909, had been ratified by 
 them all. The constitution was in the form of a 
 statute to be enacted by the British Parliament. It 
 became law September 20, 1909. 
 
 The South African Union was the work of the 
 South Africans themselves, the former enemies, Boers 
 and British, harmoniously cooperating. The central 
 government consists of a Governor-General appointed 
 by the Crown; an Executive Council; a Senate and 
 a House of Assembly. Both Dutch and English are 
 
;i88 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 official languages and enjoy equal privileges. Diffi- 
 culty was experienced in selecting the capital, so in- 
 tense was the rivalry of different cities. The result 
 was a compromise. Pretoria was chosen as the seat 
 of the executive branch of the government, Cape 
 Town as the seat of the legislative branch. 
 
 The creation of the South African Union is the 
 most recent triumph of the spirit of nationality which 
 so greatly transformed the world during the nine- 
 teenth century. The new commonwealth has a popu- 
 lation of about 1,150,000 whites and more than 6,000,- 
 000 people of non-European descent. Provision has 
 been made for the ultimate admission of Rhodesia into 
 the Union. 
 
 Imperial Federation 
 
 At the opening of the twentieth century Great 
 Britain possessed an empire far more extensive and 
 far more populous than any the world had ever seen, 
 covering about thirteen millions of square miles, if 
 Egypt and the Soudan were included, with a total 
 population of over four hundred and twenty millions. 
 This Empire is scattered everywhere, in Asia, Africa, 
 Australasia, the two Americas, and the islands of the 
 seven seas. The population includes a motley host 
 of peoples. Only fifty-four million are English-speak- 
 ing, and of these about forty-two million live in Great 
 Britain. Most of the colonies are self-supporting. 
 They illustrate every form of government, military, 
 autocratic, representative, democratic. The sea alone 
 binds the Empire. England's throne is on the moun- 
 tain wave in a literal as well as in a metaphorica? 
 
THE BRITISH EMPIRE 189 
 
 sense. Dominance of the oceans is essential that she 
 may keep open her communications with her far- 
 flung colonies. It is no accident that England is 
 the greatest sea-power of the world, and intends to 
 remain such. She regards this as the very vital prin- 
 ciple of her imperial existence. 
 
 A noteworthy feature of the British Empire, as 
 already sufficiently indicated, is the practically un- 
 limited self-government enjoyed by several of the col- 
 onies, those in which the English stock predominates, 
 Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand. This 
 policy is in contrast to that pursued by the French 
 and German governments, which rule their colonies 
 directly from Paris and Berlin. But this system does 
 not apply to the greatest of them all, India, nor to a 
 multitude of smaller possessions. 
 
 A question much and earnestly discussed during the 
 last twenty-five years is that of Imperial Federation. 
 May not some machinery be developed, some method 
 be found, whereby the vast empire may be more 
 closely consolidated, and for certain purposes act as a 
 single state? If so, its power will be greatly aug- 
 mented, and the world will witness the most stupen- 
 dous achievement in the art of government recorded 
 in its history. The creation of such a Greater Britain 
 has seized, in recent years, the imagination of many 
 thoughtful statesmen. That the World War will have 
 contributed to the solution of this problem seems a 
 reasonable expectation. For that war showed the 
 existence of an intense imperial patriotism among 
 Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Afri- 
 cans, and apparently even Indians, all rushing instinc- 
 
190 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 tively to support the mother country in her hour 
 of need, all evidently willing to give the last full 
 measure of devotion to a cause v^hich they regarded 
 as common to them all. So powerful a spirit may 
 well find a way of embodying and crystallizing it- 
 self in permanent political institutions. The sense of 
 unity, indisputably revealed, may well be the har- 
 binger of a coming organization adapted to preserve 
 and foster that sense and to develop it more richly 
 still. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 THE PARTITION OF AFRICA 
 
 Lying almost within sight of Europe and forming the 
 southern boundary of her great inland sea is the im- 
 mense continent, three times the size of Europe, 
 whose real nature was revealed only in the last quar- 
 ter of the nineteenth century. In some respects the 
 seat of very ancient history, in most its history is 
 just beginning. In Egypt a rich and advanced civili- 
 zation appeared in very early times along the lower 
 valley of the Nile. Yet only after thousands of years 
 and only in our own day have the sources and the 
 upper course of that famous river been discovered. 
 Along the northern coasts arose the civilization and 
 state of Carthage, rich, mysterious, and redoubtable, 
 for a while the powerful rival of Rome, succumbing 
 to the latter only after severe and memorable strug- 
 gles. The ancient world knew, therefore, the north- 
 ern shores of Africa. The rest was practically un- 
 known. In the fifteenth century came the great series 
 of geographical discoveries, which immensely widened 
 the known boundaries of the world. Among other 
 things, they revealed the hitherto unknown outline 
 and magnitude of the continent. But its great inner 
 mass remained as before, unexplored, and so it re- 
 mained until w^ll into the nineteenth century. 
 
 191 
 
192 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 In 1815 the situation was as follows: the Turkish 
 Empire extended along the whole northern coast to 
 Morocco ; that is, the Sultan was nominally sovereign 
 of Egypt, Tripoli, Tunis, and Algeria. Morocco was 
 independent under its own sultan. Along the west- 
 ern coasts were scattered settlements, or rather sta- 
 tions, of England, France, Denmark, Holland, Spain, 
 and Portugal. Portugal: had certain claims on the 
 eastern coast, opposite Madagascar. England had 
 just acquired the Dutch Cape Colony, whence, as 
 we have seen, her expansion into a great South Afri- 
 can power has proceeded. The interior of the con- 
 tinent was unknown, and was of interest only to 
 geographers. 
 
 For sixty years after 181 5, progress in the appro- 
 priation of Africa by Europe was slow. The most im- 
 portant annexation was that of Algeria by France be- 
 tween 1830 and 1847. I^ the south, England was 
 spreading out, and the Boers were founding their 
 two republics. 
 
 European annexation waited upon exploration. 
 Africa was the '' Dark Continent," and until the dark- 
 ness was lifted it was not coveted. About the mid- 
 dle of the century the darkness began to disappear. 
 Explorers penetrated farther and farther into the in- 
 terior, traversing the continent in various directions, 
 opening a chapter of geographical discovery of ab- 
 sorbing interest. It is impossible within our limits 
 to do more than allude to the wonderful work par- 
 ticipated in by many intrepid explorers. Englishmen, 
 Frenchmen, Portuguese, Dutchmen, Germans, and 
 Belgians, A few incidents only can be mentioned. 
 
THE PARTITION OF AFRICA 193 
 
 It was natural that Europeans should be curious 
 about the sources of the Nile, a river famous since 
 the dawn of history, but whose source remained en- 
 veloped in obscurity. In 1858 one source was found 
 by Speke, an English explorer, to consist of a great 
 lake south of the equator, to which the name Vic- 
 toria Nyanza was given. Six years later another Eng- 
 lishman, Sir Samuel Baker, discovered another lake, 
 also a source, and named it Albert Nyanza. 
 
 Two names particularly stand out in this record of 
 African exploration, Livingstone and Stanley. David 
 Livingstone, a Scotch missionary and traveler, began 
 his African career in 1840, and continued it until his 
 death, in 1873. ^^ traced the course of the Zam- 
 besi River, of the upper Congo, and the region round 
 about Lakes Tanganyika and Nyassa. He crossed 
 Africa from sea to sea. He opened up a new coun- 
 try to the world. His explorations caught the atten- 
 tion of Europe, and when, on one of his journeys, 
 Europe thought that he was lost or dead, and an 
 expedition was sent out to find him, that expedition 
 riveted the attention of Europe as no other in Afri- 
 can history had done. It was under the direction of 
 Henry M. Stanley, sent out by the New York Herald. 
 Stanley's story of how he found Livingstone was read 
 with the greatest interest in Europe, and heightened 
 the desire, already widespread, for more knowledge 
 about the great continent. Livingstone, whose name 
 is the most important in the history of African ex- 
 ploration, died in 1873. ^i^ body was borne with 
 all honor to England and given the burial of a na- 
 tional hero in Westminster Abbey. 
 
194 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 By this time not only was the scientific curiosity 
 of Europe thoroughly aroused, but missionary zeal 
 saw a new field for activity. Thus Stanley's journey 
 across Africa, from 1874 to 1878, was followed in 
 Europe with an attention unparalleled in the history 
 of modern explorations. Stanley explored the equa- 
 torial lake region, making important additions to 
 knowledge. His great work was, however, his ex- 
 ploration of the Congo River system. Little had 
 been known of this river save its lower course as 
 it approached the sea. Stanley proved that it was 
 one of the largest rivers in the world, that its length 
 was more than three thousand miles, that it was fed 
 by an enormous number of tributaries, that it drained 
 an area of over 1,300,000 square miles, that in the 
 volume of its waters it was only exceeded by the 
 Amazon. 
 
 Thus, in 1880, the scientific enthusiasm and curi- 
 osity, the missionary and philanthropic zeal of Euro- 
 peans, the hatred of slave hunters who plied their 
 trade in the interior, had solved the great mystery 
 of Africa. The map showed rivers and lakes where 
 previously all had been blank. 
 
 Upon discovery quickly followed appropriation. 
 France entered upon her protectorate of Tunis in 
 
 1881, England upon her " occupation '* of Egypt in 
 
 1882. This was a signal for a general scramble. A 
 feverish period of partition succeeded the long, slow 
 one of discovery. European powers swept down upon 
 this continent lying at their very door, hitherto ne- 
 glected and despised, and carved it up among them- 
 selves. This they did without recourse to war by a 
 
THE PARTITION OF AFRICA 195 
 
 series of treaties among themselves, defining the 
 boundaries of their claims. Africa became an annex 
 of Europe. Out of this rush for territories the great 
 powers, England, France, and Germany, naturally 
 emerged with the largest acquisitions, but Portugal 
 and Italy each secured a share. The situation and 
 relative extent of these may best be appreciated by 
 an examination of the map. Most of the treaties 
 by which this division was affected were made be- 
 tween 1884 and 1890. 
 
 One feature of this appropriation of Africa by 
 Europe was the foundation of the Congo Free State. 
 This was the work of the second King of Belgium, 
 Leopold II, a man who was greatly interested in the 
 exploration of that continent. After the discoveries 
 of Livingstone, and the early ones of Stanley, Leopold 
 called a conference of the powers in 1876. As a re- 
 sult of its deliberations an International African Asso- 
 ciation was established, which was to have its seat 
 in Brussels, and whose aim was to be the explora- 
 tion and civilization of central Africa. Each nation 
 wishing to cooperate was to collect funds for the 
 common object. 
 
 In 1879 Stanley was sent out to carry on the work 
 he had already begun. Hitherto an explorer, he now 
 became, in addition, an organizer and state builder. 
 
 During the next four or five years, 1879-84, he 
 made hundreds of treaties with native chiefs and 
 founded many stations in the Congo basin. Nomi- 
 nally an emissary of an international association, his 
 expenses were largely borne by King Leopold 11. 
 
 Portugal now put forth extensive claims to much 
 
196 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 of this Congo region on the ground of previous dis- 
 covery. To adjust these claims and other matters, 
 a general conference was held in Berlin, in 1884-5, at- 
 tended by all the states of Europe, with the exception 
 of Switzerland, and also by the United States. The 
 conference recognized the existence as an independ- 
 ent power of the Congo Free State, with an exten- 
 sive area, most of the Congo basin. It was evidently 
 its understanding that this was to be a neutral and 
 international state. Trade in it was to be open to all 
 nations on equal terms, the rivers were to be free 
 to all, and only such dues were to be levied as should 
 be required to provide for the necessities of com- 
 merce. No trade monopolies were to be granted. 
 The conference, however, provided no machinery for 
 the enforcement of its decrees. Those decrees have 
 remained unfulfilled. The state quickly ceased to be 
 international, monopolies have been granted, trade 
 in the Congo has not been free to all. 
 
 The new state became practically Belgian because 
 the King of Belgium was the only one to show much 
 practical interest in the project. In 1885, Leopold II 
 assumed the position of sovereign, declaring that the 
 connection of the Congo Free State and Belgium 
 should be merely personal, he being the ruler of both. 
 This and later changes in the status of the Congo 
 have either been formally recognized or acquiesced 
 in by the powers. This international state finally, in 
 1908, was converted outright into a Belgian colony, 
 subject, not to the personal rule of the King, but to 
 Parliament. 
 
THE PARTITION OF AFRICA 197 
 
 Egypt 
 
 Egypt, a seat of ancient civilization, was conquered 
 by the Turks and became a part of the Turkish Em- 
 pire in 1 5 17. It remained nominally such down to 
 191 5, when Great Britain declared it annexed to the 
 British Empire as a protected state. During all that 
 time its supreme ruler was the Sultan, who resided 
 in Constantinople. But a series of remarkable events 
 in the nineteenth century resulted in giving it a most 
 singular and complicated position. To put down cer- 
 tain opponents of the Sultan an Albanian warrior, 
 Mehemet Ali, was sent out early in the nineteenth 
 century. Appointed by the Sultan Governor of Egypt 
 in 1806, he had, by 181 1, made himself absolute mas- 
 ter of the country. He had succeeded only too well. 
 Originally merely the representative of the Sultan, 
 he had become the real ruler of the land. His ambi- 
 tions grew with his successes, and he was able to 
 gain the important concession that the right to rule 
 as viceroy in Egypt should be hereditary in his fam- 
 ily. The title was later changed to that of Khedive. 
 Thus was founded an Egyptian dynasty, subject to 
 the dynasty of Constantinople. 
 
 The fifth ruler of this family was Ismail (1863-79). 
 It was under him that the Suez Canal was completed, 
 a great undertaking carried through by a French 
 engineer, Ferdinand de Lesseps, the money coming 
 largely from European investors. This Khedive 
 plunged into the most reckless extravagance. As a 
 result the Egyptian debt rose with extraordinary 
 
igS FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 rapidity from three million pounds in 1863 to eighty- 
 nine million in 1876. 
 
 The Khedive, needing money, sold, in 1875, his 
 shares in the Suez Canal Company to Great Britain 
 for about four million pounds, to the great irritation 
 of the French. This was a mere temporary relief 
 to the Khedive's finances, but was an important ad- 
 vantage to England, as the canal was destined in- 
 evitably to be the favorite route to India. 
 
 This extraordinary increase of the Egyptian debt 
 is the key to the whole later history of that country. 
 The money had been borrowed abroad, mainly in 
 England and France. Fearing the bankruptcy of 
 Egypt, the governments of the two countries inter- 
 vened in the interest of their investors, and succeeded 
 in imposing their control over a large part of the 
 financial administration. This was the famous Dual 
 Control, which lasted from 1879 to 1883. The Khe- 
 dive, Ismail, resented this tutelage, was consequently 
 forced to abdicate, and was succeeded by his son 
 Tewfik, who ruled from 1879 to 1892. The new Khe- 
 dive did not struggle against the Dual Control, but 
 certain elements of the population did. The bitter 
 hatred inspired by this intervention of the foreign- 
 ers flared up in a native movement, which had as 
 its war cry, " Egypt for the Egyptians," and as its 
 leader, Arabi Pasha, an officer in the army. Before 
 this movement of his subjects the Khedive was pow- 
 erless. It was evident that the foreign control, estab- 
 lished in the interest of foreign bond-holders, could 
 only be perpetuated by the suppression of Arabi and 
 his fellow-malcontents, and that the suppression could 
 
THE PARTITION OF AFRICA 199 
 
 be accomplished only by the foreigners themselves. 
 Thus financial intervention led directly to military 
 intervention. England sought the cooperation of 
 France, but France declined. She then proceeded 
 alone, defeated Arabi in September, 1882, and crushed 
 the rebellion. 
 
 The English had intervened nominally in the inter- 
 est of the Khedive's authority against his rebel, Arabi, 
 though they had not been asked so to intervene either 
 by the Khedive himself or by the Sultan of Turkey, 
 legal sovereign of Egypt, or by the powers of Europe. 
 Having suppressed the insurrection, vv^hat would they 
 do? Would they withdraw their army? The ques- 
 tion was a difficult one. To withdraw was to leave 
 Egypt a prey to anarchy; to remain was certainly 
 to offend the European powers, which would look 
 upon this as a piece of British aggression. Particu- 
 larly would such action be resented by France. Con- 
 sequently England did not annex Egypt. She recog- 
 nized the Khedive as still the ruler, Egypt as still 
 technically a part of Turkey. But she insisted on 
 holding the position of " adviser " to the Khedive 
 and also insisted that her " advice ** in the govern- 
 ment of Egypt be followed. From 1883 to 191 5 such 
 was the situation. A British force remained in Egypt, 
 the " occupation," as it was called, continued, advice 
 was compulsory. England was ruler in fact, not in 
 law. The Dual Control ended in 1883, and England 
 began in earnest a work of reconstruction and reform 
 which was carried forward under the guidance of 
 Lord Cromer, who was British Consul-General in 
 Egypt until 1907. 
 
200 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 In intervening in Egypt in 1882, England became 
 immediately involved in a further enterprise v^hich 
 brought disaster and humiliation. Egypt possessed a 
 dependency in the south, the Soudan, a vast region 
 comprising chiefly the basin of the Upper Nile, a 
 poorly organized territory with a varied, semi-civil- 
 ized, nomadic population, and a capital at Khartoum. 
 This province, long oppressed by Egypt, wslS in full 
 process of revolt. It found a chief in a man called the 
 Mahdi, or leader, v^ho succeeded in arousing the 
 fierce religious fanaticism of the Soudanese by claim- 
 ing to be a kind of Prophet or Messiah. Winning 
 successes over the Egyptian troops, he proclaimed a 
 religious war, the people of the whole Soudan rallied 
 about him, and the result was that the troops were 
 driven into their fortresses and there besieged. Would 
 England recognize any obligation to preserve the 
 Soudan for Egypt? Gladstone, then prime minister, 
 determined to abandon the Soudan. But even this 
 was a matter of difficulty. It involved at least the 
 rescue of the imprisoned garrisons. The ministry 
 was unwilling to send a military expedition. It finally 
 decided to send out General Gordon, a man who had 
 shown a remarkable power in influencing half-civil- 
 ized races. It was understood that there was to be 
 no expedition. It was apparently supposed that some- 
 how Gordon, without military aid, could accomplish 
 the safe withdrawal of the garrisons. He reached 
 Khartoum, but found the danger far more serious 
 than had been supposed, the rebellion far more men- 
 acing. He found himself shortly shut up in Khar- 
 toum, surrounded by frenzied and confident Mahdists. 
 
THE PARTITION OF AFRICA 201 
 
 At once there arose in England a cry for the reUef 
 of Gordon, a man whose personality, marked by 
 heroic, eccentric, magnetic qualities, bafflingly con- 
 tradictory, had seized in a remarkable degree the in- 
 terest, enthusiasm, and imagination of the English 
 people. But the Government was dilatory. Weeks, 
 and even months, went by. Finally, an expedition 
 was sent out in September, 1884. Pushing forward 
 rapidly, against great difficulties, it reached Khar- 
 toum January 28, 1885, only to find the flag of the 
 Mahdi floating over it. Only two days before the 
 place had been stormed and Gordon and eleven thou- 
 sand of his men massacred. 
 
 For a decade after this the Soudan was left in the 
 hands of the dervishes, completely abandoned. But 
 finally England resolved to recover this territory, 
 which she did by the battle of Omdurman, in which 
 General Kitchener completely annihilated the power 
 of the dervishes, September 2, 1898. 
 
 Egypt and the Soudan were formally declared an- 
 nexed to the British Empire in 1915 as an incident 
 of the European War. The Khedive was deposed 
 and a new Khedive was put in his place, and Great 
 Britain prepared to rule Egypt as she rules many of 
 the states of India, preserving the formality of a 
 native prince as sovereign. Egypt was declared a 
 ** Protected State." 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 THE SMALL STATES OF EUROPE 
 
 There were in Europe in 1914 about twenty differ- 
 ent states. It is difficult to give the precise number, 
 since the exact status of one or two of them was 
 somewhat doubtful. Some of these states were ex- 
 tremely small. There were two petty republics; one, 
 Andorra, located in the Pyrenees, which consisted 
 chiefly of a valley surrounded by high mountain peaks 
 and which had a population of about five thousand. 
 Its maximum length is seventeen miles, its width 
 eighteen. Andorra is under the suzerainty of France 
 and of the Spanish Bishop of Urgel, paying 960 
 francs a year to the former, 460 to the latter. The 
 other of these republics is San Marino, which claims 
 to be the oldest state in Europe, and is located 
 on a spur of the Apennines, entirely surrounded by 
 Italy, and which has a population of about twelve 
 thousand. San Marino is the sole survivor of those 
 numerous city-republics which abounded in Italy dur- 
 ing the Middle Ages. Then there is also the little 
 principality of Liechtenstein, lying between Switzer- 
 land and Austria, and having a population of about 
 eleven thousand. There was also in 1914 the princi- 
 pality of Albania, a state which was created by inter- 
 national action in 1912 and 1913, and which collapsed 
 
 202 
 
THE SMALL STATES OF EUROPE 203 
 
 in the following year at the outbreak of the war. 
 But whatever the exact status of these petty states 
 may be, they may be ignored in our survey, as, with 
 the exception of Albania, they have not counted in 
 the general politics of Europe. 
 
 There were in 1914 three other states which oc- 
 cupied a peculiar position. They were the so-called 
 neutralized states Belgium, Luxemburg, and Switzer- 
 land. A neutralized state is one whose independence 
 and integrity are guaranteed forever by interna- 
 tional agreement. Such states may generally main- 
 tain armies, but only for defense. They may never 
 make aggressive war; nor may they make treaties or 
 alliances with other states that may lead them into 
 war. The reason why a state may desire to become 
 neutralized is that it is weak, that its independence 
 is guaranteed, that it has no desire or ability to par- 
 ticipate in international affairs, in the usual strug- 
 gles or competitions of states. The reasons why the 
 great powers have consented to the neutralization 
 of such states have differed in different cases. But 
 the chief reason has been connected with the theory 
 of the balance of power, the desire to keep them as 
 buffers between two or more neighboring large states. 
 Switzerland was neutralized in 181 5 at the close of 
 the Napoleonic Wars, and its neutrality has never 
 been infringed. Belgium was neutralized in 1831 
 when it separated from Holland and became an in- 
 dependent state. Luxemburg was neutralized in 1867 
 when it was freed from its previously existing con- 
 nections with Germany, as a result of the reor- 
 ganization of Germany and the establishment of the 
 
204 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 North German Confederation, after the Austro-Prus- 
 sian War of 1866 and the famous battle of Koniggratz 
 or Sadowa. 
 
 A neutralized state may, as has been said, have an 
 army and a navy and may build fortresses, as long as 
 this is done for purposes of self-defense only, for a 
 neutralized state is obliged to defend its neutrality, if at- 
 tacked, to the full extent of its powers. Thus, in 1914, 
 Belgium and Switzerland had armies and universal 
 military service. Luxemburg, however, was an anom- 
 aly, as the treaty of 1867, neutralizing her, provided 
 explicitly that she should not be allowed to keep any 
 armed force, with the exception of a police for the 
 maintenance of public security and order. Under the 
 circumstances, Luxemburg could do nothing for the 
 defense of her neutrality when invaded in August, 
 1914. Belgium, however, could and did make a spir- 
 ited, though ineffectual, resistance to the invader. 
 Switzerland was not attacked, but nevertheless she 
 mobilized her army at the outbreak of the war and 
 stood ready to defend herself, if necessary. Whether 
 Belgium and Luxemburg, whose guaranteed rights 
 were so poor a protection in 1914, will be neutral- 
 ized again remains, of course, to be seen. 
 
 It cannot yet be said with confidence whether neu- 
 tralization as an international device can stand the 
 test of history, or not Belgium's neutrality was ob- 
 served by its guarantors for eighty-three years and 
 then ruthlessly broken by one of them ; Luxemburg's 
 for forty-seven, then broken by the same power — 
 Germany. Switzerland, as stated, is the only one of 
 these specially " protected " states which has passed 
 
THE SMALL STATES OF EUROPE 205 
 
 unscathed by foreign war, and respected by its pro- 
 tectors for a full century and more. 
 
 From the point of view of general European poli- 
 tics, the significance of Belgium and of her northern 
 neighbor, Holland, from which she separated in 1830, 
 has lain in the fact that they have been coveted by 
 those Germans who have desired to increase the 
 boundaries of the German Empire, and who have, 
 to that end, advocated the absorption of certain ter- 
 ritories lying beyond the boundaries of Germany. 
 Belgium and Holland have been coveted by the Pan- 
 Germans because of their riches, industrial and agri- 
 cultural, because of their coastline, abounding in ex- 
 cellent harbors on the Atlantic, fronting England, 
 and also because of their colonies, Belgium possessing 
 a vast African domain, now called the Congo Colony, 
 rich in tropical products, and Holland possessing in- 
 valuable tropical islands in the East Indies, Java, 
 Sumatra, Borneo, and Celebes. The Belgian colony 
 has an area of over 900,000 square miles, an area about 
 a fourth as large as that of the United States, in- 
 cluding Alaska, with a population of perhaps ten mil- 
 lion. The colonies of Holland or the Netherlands, 
 as that state is officially called, have an area of about 
 800,000 square miles and a population of approxi- 
 mately thirty-eight millions. The Pan-Germans 
 looked with greedy eyes upon these spacious and 
 inviting territories, belonging to countries which, in 
 a military sense, were conveniently weak. 
 
2o6 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Switzerland 
 
 The chief significance of Switzerland in the general 
 history of modern Europe and the world of to-day- 
 lies, not in great events, nor in foreign policy, for 
 she has constantly preserved a strict neutrality, but 
 in the steady and thoroughgoing evolution of cer- 
 tain political forms and devices which have been in- 
 creasingly studied abroad and which may ultimately 
 prove of value to all self-governing countries. She 
 has been a land of interesting and suggestive politi- 
 cal experimentation. 
 
 Switzerland is a federal state. Each canton, and 
 there are twenty-five of them, has its own govern- 
 ment, with its own definite jurisdiction and powers. 
 But all are united for certain national purposes. The 
 national government resembles, in some respects, 
 that of the United States. There is a federal legis- 
 lature, consisting of two houses; the National Coun- 
 cil, elected directly by the people, one member for 
 every 20,000 inhabitants, and the Council of States, 
 composed of two members of each canton. In the 
 former, population counts; in the latter, equality of 
 the cantons is preserved. The two bodies sitting to- 
 gether choose the Federal Tribunal, and also a com- 
 mittee of seven, the Federal Council, to serve as the 
 executive. From this committee of seven they elect 
 each year one who acts as its chairman and whose 
 title is " President of the Swiss Confederation," but 
 whose power is no greater than that of any of the 
 other members. 
 
 But more important than the organization of the 
 
THE SMALL STATES OF EUROPE 207 
 
 federal government are certain processes of law-mak- 
 ing which have been developed in Switzerland and 
 which are the most democratic in character known 
 to the world. The achievement in this direction has 
 been so remarkable, the process so uninterrupted, that 
 it merits description. 
 
 In all countries calling themselves democratic, the 
 political machinery is representative, not direct, that 
 is, the voters do not make the laws themselves, but 
 merely at certain periods choose people, their repre- 
 sentatives, who make them. These laws are not rati- 
 fied or rejected by the voters; they never come before 
 the voters directly. But the Swiss have sought, and 
 with great success, to render the voters law-makers 
 themselves, and not the mere choosers of law-makers, 
 to apply the power of the democracy to the national 
 life at every point, and constantly. They have done 
 this in various ways. Their methods have been first 
 worked out in the cantons, and later in the confed- 
 eration. 
 
 Some of the smaller cantons have from time im- 
 memorial been pure democracies. The voters have 
 met together at stated times, usually in the open air, 
 have elected their officials, and by a show of hands 
 have voted the laws. There are six such cantons 
 to-day. Such direct government is possible, because 
 these cantons are small both in area and population. 
 They are so small that no voter has more than fifteen 
 miles to go to the voting place, and most have a much 
 shorter distance. 
 
 But in the other cantons this method does not pre- 
 vail. In them the people elect representative assem- 
 
2o8 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 blies, as in England and the United States, but they 
 exercise a control over them not exercised in those 
 countries, a control which renders self-government 
 almost as complete as in the six cantons described 
 above. They do this by the so-called referendum 
 and initiative. In the cantons where these processes 
 are in vogue the people do not, as in the Landes- 
 gemeinde cantons, come together in mass meeting 
 and enact their own laws. They elect, as in other 
 countries, their own legislature, which enacts the laws. 
 The government is representative, not democratic. 
 But the action of the legislature is not final, only to 
 be altered, if altered at all, by a succeeding legisla- 
 ture. Laws passed by the cantonal legislature may 
 or must be referred to the people (referendum), who 
 then have the right to reject or accept them, who, in 
 other words, become the law-makers, their legislature 
 being simply a kind of committee to help them by 
 suggesting measures and by drafting them. 
 
 The initiative, on the other hand, enables a certain 
 number of voters to propose a law or a principle of 
 legislation and to require that the legislature submit 
 the proposal to the people, even though it is itself 
 opposed to it. If ratified the proposal becomes law. 
 The initiative thus reverses the order of the process. 
 The impulse to the making of a new law comes from 
 the people, not from the legislature. The referendum 
 is negative and preventive. It is the veto power given 
 to the people. The initiative is positive, originative, 
 constructive. By these two processes a democracy 
 makes whatever laws it pleases. The one is the com- 
 plement of the other. They do not abolish legisla- 
 
THE SMALL STATES OF EUROPE 209 
 
 tures, but they give the people control whenever a 
 sufficient number wish to exercise it. The constitu- 
 tion of the canton of Zurich expresses the relation 
 as follows : " The people exercise the law-making 
 power with the assistance of the state legislature." 
 The legislature is not the final law-making body. 
 The voters are the supreme legislators. These two 
 devices, the referendum and the initiative, are in- 
 tended to establish, and do establish, government of 
 the people, and by the people. They are of great 
 interest to all who wish to make the practice of 
 democracy correspond to the theory. By them Swit- 
 zerland has more nearly approached democracy than 
 has any other country. 
 
 Switzerland has made great progress in education 
 and in industry. The population has increased over 
 a million since 1850 and now numbers about three 
 and a half millions. The population is not homo- 
 geneous in race or language. About 71 per cent 
 speak German, 21 per cent French, 5 per cent Ital- 
 ian, and a small fraction speak a peculiar Romance 
 language called Roumansch. But language is not a 
 divisive force, as it is elsewhere, as it is, for example, 
 in Austria-Hungary and in the Ba'lkan peninsula, 
 probably because no political advantages or disad- 
 vantages are connected with it. 
 
 Denmark 
 
 Three other small nations of Europe are the Scan- 
 dinavian states, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Of 
 these the one that has been most intimately and also 
 
210 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 most disastrously affected by the general course of 
 events in Europe is Denmark. Denmark was dis- 
 membered twice during the nineteenth century. Her 
 importance, her resources were therefore seriously 
 reduced. The first dismemberment occurred at the 
 time of the fall of Napoleon I. During the later wars 
 of Napoleon, Denmark had been his ally, remaining 
 loyal to the end, while other allies had taken favora- 
 ble occasion to desert him. For this conduct the con- 
 querors of Napoleon punished her severely by forc- 
 ing her, by the Treaty of Kiel, January, 1814, to cede 
 Norway to Sweden, which had sided with the con- 
 querors. The condition of the Danish kingdom was, 
 therefore, deplorable, indeed. By the loss of Nor- 
 way her population was reduced one-third. Her trade 
 was ruined, and her finances were in the greatest 
 disorder. 
 
 The second dismemberment occurred fifty years 
 later when Prussia and Austria declared war upon 
 her in 1864, defeated her, and seized the duchies of 
 Schleswig and Holstein. Again she suffered griev- 
 ously at the hands of the great military powers. Her 
 territory was reduced by a third, her population by 
 a million. 
 
 For a year Prussia and Austria governed the two 
 provinces in common ; for another year Prussia gov- 
 erned one, and Austria governed the other. Then 
 Prussia and Austria went to war with each other 
 in 1866. The former conquered the latter, expelled 
 her from Germany, and incorporated both duchies 
 outright in the Kingdom of Prussia. 
 
 Out of this annexation of half a century ago has 
 
THE SMALL STATES OF EUROPE an 
 
 grown a question which will demand and ought to 
 receive the attention of the world at this time of 
 general reorganization. Holstein was inhabited by 
 a population of about 600,000, who were German 
 in race and language and sympathies. These people 
 were glad to be united with Germany, though they 
 would have preferred to enter the North German Con- 
 federation as a separate state, rather than be incor- 
 porated in the Kingdom of Prussia. The other prov- 
 ince, Schleswig, had a mixed population. About 
 250,000 were Germans, about 150,000 were Danes. 
 The latter desired to remain with Denmark and, had 
 the principle of nationality been observed, they would 
 have been permitted to. They spoke the Danish 
 language, were Danish in blood, and were located in 
 the northern part of Schleswig, contiguous to Den- 
 mark. 
 
 It seemed at one moment as if their wishes would 
 be satisfied, the justice of their claims being so ob- 
 vious and unimpeachable. A provision was inserted 
 in the Treaty of Prague which terminated the Austro- 
 Prussian war of 1866 to the effect " that the people 
 of the northern district of Schleswig shall be again 
 reunited with Denmark if they shall, by a popular 
 vote, express the desire to be." This provision was 
 inserted on the insistence of Austria, at the moment 
 that she was, under compulsion, leaving Germany. 
 Had it been observed, there would have been no 
 Schleswig question demanding solution in our day. 
 
 But the promise that the people concerned might 
 decide their future allegiance was never kept. This 
 provision was a dead letter for twelve years, from 
 
212 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 1866 to 1878. Then in 1878 it was abrogated by 
 the two powers, Germany and Austria, neither of 
 which consulted the wishes of the Schleswigers. In 
 that year Bismarck was able to render certain services 
 to Austria in the Balkans, and in return he asked 
 that Austria consent to " revise '* this clause by for- 
 mally declaring it '' null and void." Austria agreed, 
 and thus the Schleswigers were left to the mercy 
 of Prussia. 
 
 Since that day the Prussian Government has op- 
 pressed the Danes of Schleswig as it has oppressed 
 the people of Alsace-Lorraine, as it has long op- 
 pressed the Poles, acquired in the three infamous 
 partitions of the eighteenth century. Prussia has 
 ruled despotically. She has made every effort to 
 stamp out the Danish language, to prevent its being 
 taught in the schools, although it was the mother 
 tongue of those attending them. In 1889 it was 
 forbidden to teach Danish under any circumstances 
 whatever. Nor might any Schleswig family engage 
 a Danish tutor for purposes of private instruction. 
 Even parents were liable to prosecution if they gave 
 systematic instruction in Danish to their children. 
 Nor were they permitted to send their children to 
 Denmark to be educated. For fifty years the people 
 of North Schleswig have been subjected to this igno- 
 ble and pitiless persecution, but they have not been 
 Germanized or Prussianized. However, being few 
 in numbers, less than 200,000, their grievances could 
 gain no hearing, no redress. In the fall of 1918, 
 when Germany collapsed, these long maltreated peo- 
 ple demanded that Prussia renounce all claims to 
 
THE SMALL STATES OF EUROPE 213 
 
 them, and that they should be allowed to be united 
 with their kin in the kingdom of Denmark. Whether 
 their demand would be granted by the world in diplo- 
 matic congress assembled remained to be seen. 
 
 Sweden and Norway 
 
 Another outstanding feature of recent Scandina- 
 vian history has been the relation of Sweden and 
 Norway toward each other. We have seen that in 
 1814 Norway was torn from Denmark by the con- 
 querors of Napoleon and given to Sweden. The 
 Norwegians were not consulted in this transaction. 
 They were regarded as a negligible quantity, a pas- 
 sive pawn in the international game, a conception 
 that proved erroneous, for no sooner did they hear 
 that they were being Handed by outsiders from Den- 
 mark to Sweden than they protested, and proceeded 
 to organize resistance. Claiming that the Danish 
 King's renunciation of the crown of Norway restored 
 that crown to themselves, they proceeded to elect 
 a king of their own, May 17, 1814, and they adopted 
 a liberal constitution, the Constitution of Eidsvold, 
 establishing a Parliament, or Storthing. 
 
 But the King of Sweden, to whom this country 
 had been assigned by the consent of the powers, 
 did not propose to be deprived of it by act of the 
 Norwegians themselves. He sent the Crown Prince, 
 Bernadotte, into Norway to take possession. A war 
 resulted between the Swedes and the Norwegians, 
 the latter being victorious. Thereupon the great pow- 
 ers intervened so peremptorily that the newly elected 
 
214 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Norwegian king, Christian, resigned his crown into 
 the hands of the Storthing. The Storthing then ac- 
 quiesced in the union with Sweden, but only after 
 having formally elected the King of Sweden as the 
 King of Norway, thus asserting its sovereignty, and 
 also after the King had promised to recognize the 
 Constitution of 1814, which the Norwegians had 
 given themselves. 
 
 Thus there was no fusion of Norway and Sweden. 
 There were two kingdoms and one king. The same 
 person was King of Sweden and King of Norway, 
 but he governed each according to its own laws, 
 and by means of separate ministries. No Swede 
 could hold office in Norway, no Norwegian in 
 Sweden. Each country had its separate constitution, 
 its separate parliament. In Sweden the Parliament, 
 or Diet, consisted of four houses, representing respec- 
 tively the nobility, the clergy, the cities, and the peas- 
 antry. In Norway the Parliament, or Storthing, 
 consisted of two chambers. Sweden had a strong 
 aristocracy, Norway only a small and feeble one. 
 Swedish government and society were aristocratic 
 and feudal, Norwegian very democratic. Norway, in- 
 deed, was a land of peasants, who owned their farms, 
 and fisherfolk, sturdy, simple, independent. Each 
 country had its own language, each its own capital, 
 that of Sweden at Stockholm, that of Norway at 
 Chrlstiania. 
 
 The two kingdoms, therefore, were very dissimilar, 
 with their different languages, different institutions, 
 and different conditions. They had in common a 
 king, and ministers of war and foreign affairs. The 
 
THE SMALL STATES OF EUROPE 215 
 
 connection between the two countries, limited as it 
 was, led during the century to frequent and bitter 
 disagreements, ending a few years ago in their final 
 separation. 
 
 Under Oscar II, who ruled from 1872 to 1907, the 
 relations between Sweden and Norway became acute, 
 leading finally to complete rupture. Friction between 
 them had existed ever since 1814, and had provoked 
 frequent crises. The fundamental cause had lain in 
 the different conceptions prevalent among the two 
 peoples as to the real nature of the union effected in 
 that year. The Swedes maintained that Norway was 
 unqualifiedly ceded to them by the Treaty of Kiel 
 in 1814; that they later were willing to recognize that 
 the Norwegians should have a certain amount of inde- 
 pendence; that they, nevertheless, possessed certain 
 rights in Norway and preponderance in the Union. 
 The Norwegians, on the other hand, maintained that 
 the Union rested, not upon the Treaty of Kiel, a 
 treaty between Denmark and Sweden, but upon their 
 own act; that they had been independent, and had 
 drawn up a constitution for themselves, the Constitu- 
 tion of Eidsvold ; that they had voluntarily united 
 themselves with Sweden by freely electing the King 
 of Sweden as King of Norway; that there was no 
 fusion of the two states; that Sweden had no power 
 in Norway; that Sweden had no preponderance in 
 the Union, but that the two states were on a plane 
 of entire equality. With two such dissimilar views 
 friction could not fail to develop, and it began imme- 
 diately after 1814 on a question of trivial importance. 
 The Norwegians were resolved to manage their own 
 
2i6 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 internal affairs as they saw fit, without any intermix- 
 ture of Swedish influence. But their King was also 
 King of Sweden, and, as a matter of fact, lived in 
 Sweden most of the time, and was rarely seen in 
 Norway. Moreover, Sweden was in population much 
 the larger partner in this uncomfortable union. 
 
 By the Constitution of Eidsvold the King had only 
 a suspensive veto over the laws of the Storthing, 
 the Norwegian parliament. Any law could be en- 
 acted over that veto if passed by three successive 
 Storthings, with intervals of three years between the 
 votes. The process was slow, but sufficient to insure 
 victory in any cause in which the Norwegians were 
 in earnest. It was thus that, despite the King's veto, 
 they carried through the abolition of the Norwegian 
 nobility. Contests between the Storthing and the 
 King of Norway, occurring from time to time, over 
 the question of the national flag, of annual sessions, 
 and other matters, kept alive the antipathy of the 
 Norwegians to the Union. Meanwhile, their pros- 
 perity increased. Particularly did they develop an 
 important commerce. One-fourth of the merchant 
 marine of the continent of Europe passed gradually 
 into their hands. This gave rise to a question more 
 serious than any that had hitherto arisen — that of the 
 consular service. 
 
 About 1892 began a fateful discussion over the ques- 
 tion of the consular service. The Norwegian Parlia- 
 ment demanded a separate consular service for Nor- 
 way to be conducted by itself, to care for Norway's 
 commercial interests, so much more important than 
 those of Sweden. This the King would not grant, on 
 
THE SMALL STATES OF EUROPE 217 
 
 the ground that it would break up the Union, that 
 Sweden and Norway could not have two foreign 
 policies. The conflict thus begun dragged on for 
 years, embittering the relations of the Norwegians 
 and the Swedes and inflaming passions until in 1905 
 (June 7) the Norwegian Parliament declared unani- 
 mously " that the Union with Sweden under one 
 king has ceased." The war feeling in Sweden was 
 strong, but the Government finally decided, in order 
 to avoid the evils of a conflict, to recognize the dis- 
 solution of the Union, on condition that the question 
 of separation should be submitted to the people of 
 Norway. Sweden held that there was no proof that 
 the Norwegian people desired this, but was evidently 
 of the opinion that the whole crisis was simply the 
 work of the Storthing. That such an opinion was 
 erroneous was established by the vote on August 13, 
 1905, which showed over 368,000 in favor of separa- 
 tion and only 184 votes in opposition. A conference 
 was then held at Carlstad to draw up a treaty or 
 agreement of dissohition. This agreement provided 
 that any disputes arising in the future between the 
 two countries, which could not be settled by direct 
 diplomatic negotiations, should be referred to the 
 Hague International Arbitration Tribunal. It further 
 provided for the establishment of a neutral zone along 
 the frontiers of the two countries, on which no mili- 
 tary fortifications should ever be erected. 
 
 Later in the year the Norwegians chose Prince 
 Charles of Denmark, grandson of the then King of 
 Denmark, as King of Norway. There was a strong 
 feeling in favor of a republic, but it seemed clear that 
 
2i8 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 the election of a king would be more acceptable to the 
 monarchies of Europe, and would avoid all possibili- 
 ties of foreign intervention. The new king assumed 
 the name of Haakon VII, thus indicating the histori- 
 cal continuity of the independent kingdom of Norway 
 which had existed in the Middle Ages. He took up 
 his residence in Christiania. 
 
 On December 8, 1907, Oscar II, since 1905 King of 
 Sweden only, died and was succeeded by his son as 
 Gustavus V. 
 
 In 1909 Sweden took a long step toward democracy. 
 A franchise reform bill, which had long been before 
 Parliament, was finally passed. Manhood suffrage 
 was established for the Lower House, and the quali- 
 fications for election to the Upper House were greatly 
 reduced. 
 
 In Norway, men who have reached the age of 
 twenty-five, and who have been residents of the coun- 
 try for five years, have the right to vote. By a con- 
 stitutional amendment adopted in 1907 the right to 
 vote for members of the Storthing was granted to 
 women who meet the same qualifications, and w^ho, in 
 addition, pay, or whose husbands pay, a tax upon an 
 income ranging from about seventy-five dollars in the 
 country to about one hundred dollars in cities. About 
 300,000 of the 550,000 Norwegian women of the age 
 of twenty-five or older thus secured the suffrage. 
 They had previously enjoyed the suffrage in local 
 elections. 
 
 Sweden has a population of about five and a half 
 millions ; Norway of less than two and a half millions. 
 
THE SMALL STATES OF EUROPE 219 
 
 Spain 
 
 In the Iberian peninsula are two of the lesser states 
 of Europe, Spain and Portugal. Spain possesses a 
 large territory and a population of twenty million, 
 yet not since the sixteenth century has she played an 
 important role in history. Between the Napoleonic 
 period and the Franco-Prussian War her life flowed on 
 heavily in the traditional channels of the old regime, 
 of monarchical arbitrariness and pettiness, of intel- 
 lectual and religious intolerance, of governmental 
 incompetence, of economic lethargy. Against the 
 stupidity and essential meaninglessness of such a sys- 
 tem and against the monarch who personified it, 
 Isabella II, a revolt finally broke out in 1868 which 
 speedily drove the Queen into exile in France, whence 
 she was not destined to return. The reign of the 
 Spanish Bourbons was declared at an end, and uni- 
 versal suffrage, religious liberty, and freedom of the 
 press were proclaimed. 
 
 Then began a troubled and changeful period which 
 lasted several years. A national assembly was elected 
 by universal suffrage and the future government of 
 Spain was left to its determination. It pronounced in 
 favor of a monarchy and against a republic. It then 
 ransacked Europe for a king and finally chose Prince 
 Leopold of Hohenzollern. His candidacy is important 
 in history as having been the immediate occasion of 
 the Franco-Prussian War. In the end Leopold de- 
 clined the invitation. 
 
 In November, 1870, the crown was offered by a vote 
 of 191 out of 311 to Amadeo, second son of Victor 
 
220 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Emmanuel II, King of Italy.^ The smallness of tKe 
 majority was ominous. The new king's reign was des- 
 tined to be short and troubled. Landing in Spain at 
 the close of 1870, he was coldly received. Opposition 
 to him came from several sources — from the Repub- 
 licans, who were opposed to any monarch; from the 
 Carlists, who supported a pretender to the throne; 
 from the supporters of Alfonso, son of Isabella, who 
 held that he was the legitimate ruler. Amadeo was 
 disliked also for the simple reason that he was a for- 
 eigner. The clergy attacked him for his adherence 
 to constitutional principles of government. No strong 
 body of politicians supported him. Ministries rose 
 and fell with great rapidity, eight in two years, one 
 of them lasting only seventeen days. Each change 
 left the government more disorganized and more 
 unpopular. Believing that the problem of giving peace 
 to Spain was insoluble, and wearying of an uneasy 
 crown, Amadeo, in February, 1873, abdicated. 
 
 Immediately the Cortes or Parliament declared 
 Spain a republic by a vote of 258 to 32. But the ad- 
 vent of the Republic did not bring peace. Indeed, its 
 history was brief and agitated. European powers, 
 with the exception of Switzerland, withdrew their 
 diplomatic representatives. The United States alone 
 recognized the new government. The Republic lasted 
 from February, 1873, to the end of December, 1874. 
 It established a wide suffrage, proclaimed religious 
 liberty, proposed the complete separation of Church 
 and State, and voted unanimously for the immediate 
 
 * Sixty-three voted for a republic ; the other votes were scattering 
 or blank. 
 
THE SMALL STATES OF EUROPE 221 
 
 emancipation of slaves in Porto Rico. Then it fell. 
 
 The causes of its fall were numerous. The funda- 
 mental one was that the Spaniards had had no long 
 political training, essential for efficient self-govern- 
 ment, no true experience in party management. The 
 leaders did not work together harmoniously. More- 
 over, the Republicans, once in power, immediately 
 broke up into various groups, which fell to wrangling 
 with each other. The enemies of the Republic were 
 numerous : the Monarchists, the clergy, offended by 
 the proclamation of religious liberty, all those who 
 profited by the old regime and who resented the re- 
 forms which were threatened. Also, the problems 
 that faced the new government increased the con- 
 fusion. Three wars were in progress during the brief 
 life of the Republic — a war in Cuba, a Carlist war, and 
 a war with the Federalists in southern Spain. 
 
 Presidents succeeded each other rapidly. Figueras 
 was in office four months, Pi y Margall six weeks, 
 Salmeron and Castelar for short periods. Finally, 
 Serrano became practically dictator. The fate of the 
 Republic was determined by the generals of the army, 
 the most powerful body in the country, who declared, 
 in December, 1874, in favor of Alfonso, son of Isabella 
 IL The Republic fell without a struggle. Alfonso, 
 landing in Spain early in 1875, and being received in 
 Madrid with great enthusiasm, assumed the govern- 
 ment, promising a constitutional monarchy. Thus, 
 six years after the dethronement of Isabella her son 
 was welcomed back as king. The new king was now 
 seventeen years of age. His reign lasted ten years, 
 until his death in November, 1885. In 1876 a new 
 
222 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 constitution was voted, the last in the long line of 
 ephemeral documents issuing during the century from 
 either monarch or Cortes or revolutionary junta. 
 Still in force, the Constitution of 1876 creates a re- 
 sponsible ministry, and a Parliament of two chambers. 
 Spain possesses the machinery of parliamentary gov- 
 ernment, ministries rising and falling according to the 
 votes of Parliament. Practically, however, the politi- 
 cal welfare is largely mimic, determined by the desire 
 for office, not by devotion to principles or policies. 
 
 Alfonso XII died in 1885. His wife, an Austrian 
 princess, Maria Christina, was proclaimed regent for a 
 child born a few months later, the present King, Al- 
 fonso XIII. Maria Christina, during the sixteen years 
 of her regency, confronted many difficulties. Of these 
 the most serious was the condition of Cuba, Spain's 
 chief colony. An insurrection had broken out in that 
 island in 1868, occasioned by gross misgovernment by 
 the mother country. This Cuban war dragged on for 
 ten years, cost Spain nearly 100,000 men and $200,- 
 000,000 and was only ended in 1878 by means of lavish 
 bribes and liberal promises of reform in the direction 
 of self-government. As these promises were not ful- 
 filled, and as the condition of the Cubans became more 
 unendurable, another rebellion broke out in 1895. 
 This new war, prosecuted with great and savage se- 
 verity by Weyler, ultimately aroused the United 
 States to intervene in the interests of humanity and 
 civilization. A war resulted between the United 
 States and Spain in 1898, which proved most disas- 
 trous to the latter. Her naval power was annihilated 
 in the battles of Santiago and Cavite; her army in 
 
THE SMALL STATES OF EUROPE 223 
 
 Santiago was forced to surrender, and she was com- 
 pelled to sign the Treaty of Paris of 1898, by which 
 she renounced Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippine 
 Islands. The Spanish Empire, which at the opening 
 of the nineteenth century bulked large on the map of 
 the world, comprising immense possessions in Amer- 
 ica and the islands of both hemispheres, has disap- 
 peared. Revolts in Central and South America, be- 
 ginning when Joseph Napoleon became king in 1808, 
 and ending with Cuban independence ninety years 
 later, have left Spain with the mere shreds of her 
 former possessions, Rio de Oro, Rio Muni in west- 
 ern Africa, some land about her ancient presidios in 
 Morocco, and a few small islands off the African coast. 
 The disappearance of the Spanish colonial empire is 
 one of the most significant features of the nineteenth 
 century. Once one of the great world powers, Spain 
 is to-day a state of inferior rank. 
 
 In 1902 the present King, Alfonso XIII, formally 
 assumed the reins of government. He married in 
 May, 1906, a member of the royal family of England, 
 Princess Ena of Battenberg. Profound and numerous 
 reforms are necessary to range the country in the 
 line of progress. Though universal suffrage was es- 
 tablished in 1890, political conditions and methods 
 have not changed. Illiteracy is widespread. Out of a 
 population of 20,000,000 perhaps 12,000,000 are illit- 
 erate. In recent years attempts have been made to 
 improve this situation ; also to reduce the influence of 
 the Roman Catholic Church in the state. Nothing 
 important has yet been accomplished in this direction. 
 Liberty of public worship has only recently been se- 
 cured for the members of other churches. 
 
224 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Portugal 
 
 Portugal, too, the other Iberian state, droned along 
 during most of the nineteenth century, under incom- 
 petent rulers and selfish and unenlightened privileged 
 classes, the dreary monotony of her life only relieved 
 by an occasional national calamity, as v^hen, in 1822, 
 her leading colony, Brazil, revolted and launched out 
 upon an independent career as an Empire. Several 
 reigns followed each other, turbulent in a petty v^ay, 
 or mild and uneventful, as the case might be. 
 
 But, as the century w^ore on, and particularly under 
 the reign of Carlos I, from 1899 ^^ 1908, there v^as 
 a ruffling of the w^aters and certain radical parties, 
 Republican, Socialist, grew up. Discontent with so 
 stagnant a regime expressed itself increasingly by 
 deeds of violence. The Government replied by be- 
 coming more and more arbitrary. The King, Carlos 
 I, even assumed to alter the Charter of 1826, still 
 the basis of Portuguese political life, by mere decree. 
 The controversy between Liberals, Radicals, and Con- 
 servatives developed astounding bitterness. Parlia- 
 mentary institutions ceased to work normally; nec- 
 essary legislation could not be secured. On Febru- 
 ary I, 1908, the King and the Crown Prince were 
 assassinated in the streets of Lisbon. The King's 
 second son, Manuel, succeeded him, Manuel's reign 
 was brief, for in October, 1910, a revolution broke out 
 in Lisbon. After several days of severe street fight- 
 ing the monarchy was overthrown and a republic 
 was proclaimed. The King escaped to England. Dr. 
 Theophile Braga, a native of the Azores, and for over 
 
THE SMALL STATES OF EUROPE 22<, 
 
 forty years a distinguished man of letters, was chosen 
 President. The constitution was remodeled and liber- 
 alized. The Church was separated from the State in 
 191 1, and State payments for the maintenance and 
 expenses of worship ceased. 
 
 Since 1910 Portugal, therefore, has been a repub- 
 lic. The problems confronting her are numerous 
 and serious. She is burdened with an immense debt, 
 disproportionate to her resources, and entailing op- 
 pressive taxation. Although primary education has 
 been compulsory since 191 1, over seventy per cent 
 of the population over six years of age still remain 
 ilHterate. Portugal's population is about six millions. 
 She has small colonial possessions in Asia and exten- 
 sive ones in Africa, which have thus far proved of 
 little value. The Azores and Madeira are not colonies, 
 but are integral parts of the Republic. 
 
 Portugal was destined to play a minor but honora- 
 ble role in the European War, side by side with the 
 Allies. 
 
 The only other small states in Europe, besides those 
 mentioned in this chapter, are the ones which have 
 arisen during the nineteenth century in the Balkan 
 peninsula, and whose history we will now examine. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 THE DISRUPTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 
 AND THE RISE OF THE BALKAN STATES 
 
 While the nineteenth century saw thirty and more 
 separate states fused into the federated German Em- 
 pire, and the ten states of the Italian peninsula fused 
 into the unified Kingdom of Italy, the same century 
 witnessed the disruption of another Empire, Turkey, 
 and the early twentieth century saw its almost com- 
 plete disappearance from the soil of Europe. While 
 the map of central Europe was greatly simplified, the 
 map of southeastern Europe became more diversi- 
 fied. While in Germany and Italy small states were 
 being united, European Turkey was being broken up 
 into small states. 
 
 In 1815 Turkey in Europe extended from the Black 
 Sea and the ^gean west to the Adriatic, and from 
 the Mediterranean north to the River Danube and, 
 even north of the Danube, including what we know 
 as Roumania. In other words, what the map of 1914 
 showed as Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Bos- 
 nia, Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Roumania, and Turkey 
 in Europe (Constantinople and the region directly 
 west of it), the map of 1815 showed as one solid 
 color. All was Turkish. Turkey was the neighbor 
 of Italy across the Adriatic, of Austria, across the 
 
 226 
 
THE RISE OF THE BALKAN STATES 227 
 
 Danube, of Russia across the Pruth and the Black 
 Sea. In the eighteenth century Turkey had extended 
 still farther north, but Russia and Austria had de- 
 spoiled her of some of her valuable lands. In the nine- 
 teenth century it was, in the main, her own subjects 
 who rose against her, who tore her apart, and founded 
 a number of independent states on soil that was for- 
 merly Turkish. The map of Europe shows no greater 
 change as compared with the map of a hundred years 
 ago than in the Balkan peninsula. That change is the 
 product of a most eventful history, the solution thus 
 far given to one of the most intricate and conten- 
 tious problems European statesmen have ever had 
 to consider, the Eastern Question ; that is, the question 
 of what should be done with the Turkish Empire. 
 
 The Turks, an Asiastic, Mohammedan people, had 
 conquered southeastern Europe in the fourteenth and 
 fifteenth centuries and had subdued many different 
 races; the Greeks, claiming descent from the Greeks 
 of antiquity; the Roumanians, claiming descent from 
 Roman colonists of the Empire; the Albanians, and 
 various branches of the great Slavic race, the Ser- 
 bians, Bulgarians, Bosnians, and Montenegrins. Full 
 of contempt for those whom they had conquered, the 
 Turks made no attempt to assimilate them or to fuse 
 them into one body politic. They were satisfied with 
 reducing them to subjection, and with exploiting 
 them. These Christian peoples were effaced for sev- 
 eral centuries beneath Mohammedan oppression, 
 their property likely to be confiscated, their lives 
 taken, whenever it suited their rulers. Naturally they 
 hated their oppressors with a deathless hatred and 
 
228 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 only waited for their hour of liberation. The wars 
 through which they sought to gain their freedom 
 began as early as 1804 in Serbia and lasted over 
 into the twentieth century. The recent Balkan wars 
 of 1912 and 1913, which were a prelude to the war 
 of 1914, constituted only an additional chapter in a 
 history that was long, bloody, turbulent, confused, 
 and heroic. 
 
 Serbia 
 
 That history can only be summarized here. The 
 Serbians were the first to rise against the Turks, 
 as early as 1804. By their own unaided efforts, they 
 were able, in 1820, to gain the recognition by the 
 Sultan of one of their own number, Milosch Obreno- 
 vitch, as '' Prince of the Serbians of the Pashalik of 
 Belgrade." Milosch sought to make his title heredi- 
 tary and to gain complete self-government for Serbia 
 under the overlordship of the Sultan. This was 
 achieved in 1830, to a considerable degree owing to 
 the strong support given by Russia. 
 
 Thus, after many years of war and negotiations, 
 Serbia ceased to be merely a Turkish province, and 
 became a principality tributary to the Sultan, but self- 
 governing, and with a princely house ruling by right 
 of heredity — the house of Obrenovitch, which had 
 succeeded in crushing the earlier house of Kara 
 George. This was the first state to arise in the nine- 
 teenth century out of the dismemberment of Euro- 
 pean Turkey. Its capital was Belgrade. 
 
THE RISE OF THE BALKAN STATES 229 
 
 The Greek War of Independence 
 
 The Greeks were the second of these Balkan peo- 
 ples to rebel against the Turks. Rising in 1821, they 
 fought a bitter and, on the whole, a losing war against 
 their oppressors for several years. They were res- 
 cued from impending defeat by the intervention in 
 1827 of three great powers, England, Russia, and 
 France. The three powers destroyed the Turkish 
 fleet at the battle of Navarino. In the following 
 year, 1828-9, Russia alone carried on a successful 
 land war against the Turks. As the outcome of this 
 series of events, Greece became a kingdom, entirely 
 independent of Turkey, its independence guaranteed 
 by the three powers Russia, England, and France 
 (1830). Greece was thus the first of the Balkan 
 states to gain complete independence. The Danubian 
 principalities, Moldavia and Wallachia, were made 
 practically, though not nominally, independent. The 
 Sultan's power in Europe was, therefore, considera- 
 bly reduced. In 1833, Otto, a lad of seventeen, second 
 son of King Louis I of Bavaria, became the first King 
 of Greece. A new Christian state had thus been 
 created in southeastern Europe. 
 
 ROUMANIA 
 
 By the middle of the nineteenth century the only 
 part of the Turkish Empire that had become inde- 
 pendent was Greece ; Serbia and Moldavia- Wallachia 
 were semi-independent and aspired to become com- 
 pletely so. The two latter provinces shortly declared 
 themselves united under the single name of Rou- 
 
230 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 mania and, in 1866, they chose as their prince a mem- 
 ber of the Roman Catholic branch of the Hohenzol- 
 lern family, Charles I. This German prince, who was 
 the ruler of Roumania until his death in 1914, was 
 at that time twenty-seven years of age. He at once 
 set to work to study the conditions of his newly 
 adopted country, ably seconded in this by his wife, 
 a German princess, whose literary gift was to win 
 her a great reputation, and was to be used in the 
 interest of Roumania. As " Carmen Sylva " she wrote 
 poems and stories, published a collection of Rouma- 
 nian folklore, and encouraged the national idea by 
 showing her preference for the native Roumanian 
 dress and for old Roumanian customs. 
 
 Charles I was primarily a soldier, and the great work 
 of the early years of his reign was to build up the 
 army, as he considered it essential if Roumania was 
 to be really independent in her attitude toward Rus- 
 sia and Turkey. He increased the size of the army, 
 equipped it with Prussian guns, and had it drilled by 
 Prussia officers. The wisdom of this was apparent 
 when the Eastern Question was again reopened. 
 
 Revolts in the Balkans 
 
 In 1875 the Eastern Question entered once more 
 upon an acute phase. Movements began which were 
 to have a profound effect upon the various sections 
 of the peninsula. An insurrection broke out in the 
 summer of that year in Herzegovina, a province west 
 of Serbia. For years the peasantry had suffered from 
 gross misrule. The oppression of the Turks became 
 
THE RISE OF THE BALKAN STATES 231 
 
 so grinding and was accompanied by acts so barbar- 
 ous and inhuman that the peasants finally rebelled. 
 These peasants were Slavs, and as such were aided 
 by Slavs from neighboring regions, Bosnia, Serbia, 
 and Bulgaria. They were made all the more bitter 
 because they saw Slavs in Serbia comparatively con- 
 tented, as these were largely self-governed. Why 
 should not they themselves enjoy as good conditions 
 as others? Religious and racial hatred of Christian 
 and Slav against the infidel Turk flamed up through- 
 out the peninsula. Christians could not rest easy 
 witnessing the outrages committed upon their co- 
 religionists. And just at this time those outrages 
 attained a ferocity that shocked all Europe. 
 
 Early in 1876 the Christians in Bulgaria, a large 
 province of European Turkey, rose against the Turk- 
 ish officials, killing some of them. The revenge 
 taken by the Turks was of incredible atrocity. Pour- 
 ing regular troops and the ferocious irregulars called 
 Bashi-Bazouks into the province, they butchered thou- 
 sands with every refinement or coarseness of brutality. 
 In the valley of the Maritza all but fifteen of eighty 
 villages were destroyed. In Batak, a town of 7,000 
 inhabitants, five thousand men, women, and children 
 were savagely slaughtered with indescrible treachery 
 and cruelty. 
 
 These Bulgarian atrocities thrilled all Europe with 
 horror. Gladstone, emerging from retirement, de- 
 nounced "the unspeakable Turk" in a flaming 
 pamphlet. He demanded that England cease to sup- 
 port a government which was an affront to the laws 
 of God, and urged that the Turks be expelled from 
 
232 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Europe " bag and baggage." The public opinion of 
 Europe was aroused. 
 
 In July, 1876, Serbia and Montenegro declared war 
 against Turkey, and the insurrection of the Bulgarians 
 became general. The Russian people became in- 
 tensely excited in their sympathy with their co- 
 religionists and their fellow-Slavs. Finally the Rus- 
 sian Government declared war upon Turkey, April 
 24, 1877. The war lasted until the close of Jan- 
 uary, 1878. The chief feature of the campaign was 
 the famous siege of Plevna, which the Turks defended 
 for five months, but which finally surrendered. This 
 broke the back of Turkish resistance and the Rus- 
 sians marched rapidly toward Constantinople. The 
 Sultan sought peace, and on March 3, 1878, the 
 Treaty of San Stefano was concluded between Rus- 
 sia and Turkey. By this treaty the Porte recog- 
 nized the complete independence of Serbia, Mon- 
 tenegro, and Roumania, and made certain cessions 
 of territory to the two former states. The main 
 feature of the treaty concerned Bulgaria, which was 
 made a self-governing state, tributary to the Sultan. 
 Its frontiers were very liberally drawn. Its territory 
 was to include nearly all of European Turkey, be- 
 tween Roumania and Serbia to the north, and Greece 
 to the south. Only a broken strip across the penin- 
 sula, from Constantinople west to the Adriatic, was 
 to be left to Turkey. The new state, therefore, was 
 to include not only Bulgaria proper, but Roumelia 
 to the south and most of Macedonia. Gladstone's 
 desire for the expulsion of the Turks from Europe 
 " bag and baggage " was nearly realized. 
 
THE RISE OF THE BALKAN STATES 233 
 
 But this treaty was not destined to be carried out. 
 The other powers objected to having the Eastern 
 Question solved without their consent. England par- 
 ticularly, fearing Russian expansion southward to- 
 ward the Mediterranean, and believing that Bulgaria* 
 and the other states would be merely tools of Rus- 
 sia, declared that the arrangements concerning the 
 peninsula must be determined by the great Euro- 
 pean powers, that the Treaty of San Stefano must 
 be submitted to a general congress on the ground 
 that, according to the international law of Europe, 
 the Eastern Question could not be settled by one na- 
 tion, but only by the concert of powers, as it aflfected 
 them all. Austria joined the protest, wishing a part 
 of the spoils of Turkey for herself. Russia naturally 
 objected to allowing those who had not fought to 
 determine the outcome of her victory. But as the 
 powers were insistent, particularly England, then 
 under the Beaconsfield administration, and as she was 
 in no position for further hostilities, she yielded. The 
 Congress of Berlin was held under the presidency of 
 Bismarck, Beaconsfield himself representing England. 
 It drew up the Treaty of Berlin, which was signed 
 July 13, 1878. By this treaty Montenegro, Serbia, 
 and Roumania were rendered completely independent 
 of Turkey. But Bulgaria was divided into three parts, 
 one of which, called Macedonia, was handed back to 
 Turkey, and another, called Eastern Roumelia, was 
 to be still subject to the Sultan, but to have a Chris- 
 tian governor appointed by him. The third part, 
 Bulgaria, was still to be nominally a part of Turkey, 
 but was to elect its own prince and was to be self- 
 
234 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 governing. The powers in making these arrange- 
 ments were thinking neither of Turkey, nor of the 
 happiness of the people who had long been oppressed 
 by Turkey. The Congress of Berlin, like the Congress 
 of Vienna of 1815, was indifferent or hostile to the 
 legitimate national aspirations of oppressed peoples, 
 and therefore its work has had the same fate, it has 
 been undone in one particular and another and the 
 process is continuing at the present moment, not yet 
 quite completed. As far as humanitarian considera- 
 tions were concerned, the disposition of Macedonia 
 was a colossal blunder. Its people would have been 
 far happier had they formed a part of Bulgaria. Ow- 
 ing to the rival ambitions of the great powers, Mace- 
 donia's Christians were destined long to suffer an 
 odious oppression from which more fortunate Balkan 
 Christians were free. 
 
 The same powers found the occasion convenient 
 for taking various Turkish possessions for themselves. 
 Austria was invited to *' occupy " and administer 
 Bosnia and Herzegovina. England was to " occupy '* 
 Cyprus. All these territories were nominally still a 
 part of the Turkish Empire. Their position was 
 anomalous, unclear, and destined to create trouble 
 in the future. 
 
 On the other hand, the benefits assured by the 
 Treaty of Berlin were considerable and they were 
 due solely to Russia's intervention, though Russia 
 herself drew little direct profit from her war. Three 
 Balkan states, long in process of formation, Montene- 
 gro, Serbia, and Roumania, were declared entirely 
 independent, and a new state, Bulgaria, had been 
 
THE RISE OF THE BALKAN STATES 235 
 
 called into existence, though still slightly subject to 
 the Porte. As a result of the treaty, European Tur- 
 key was greatly reduced, its population having shrunk 
 from seventeen millions to six millions. In other 
 words, eleven million people or more had been eman- 
 cipated from Turkish control. 
 
 Bulgaria After 1878 
 
 The Treaty of Berlin, while it brought substan- 
 tial advantages, did not bring peace to the Balkan 
 peninsula. Though diminishing the possessions of 
 the Sultan, it did not satisfy the ambitions of the 
 various peoples, it did not expel the Turk from Eu- 
 rope and thus cut out the root of the evil. Abundant 
 sources of trouble remained, as the next forty years 
 were to show. The history of the various states since 
 1878, both in internal affairs and in their foreign rela- 
 tions, has been agitated; yet, despite disturbances, 
 considerable progress has been made. 
 
 Bulgaria, of which Europe knew hardly anything 
 in 1876, was, in 1878, made an autonomous state, but 
 it did not attain complete independence, as it was 
 nominally a part of the Turkish Empire, to which 
 it was to pay tribute. The new principality owed 
 its existence to Russia, and for several years Rus- 
 sian influence predominated in it. It was started on 
 its career by Russian officials. A constitution was 
 drawn up establishing an assembly called the So- 
 branje. This assembly chose, as Prince of Bulgaria, 
 Alexander of Battenberg, a young German of twenty- 
 two, a relative of the Russian Imperial House, sup- 
 posedly acceptable to the Czar (April, 1879). 
 
236 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 The Bulgarians were grateful to the Russians for 
 their aid. They recognized those who remained after 
 the war was over as having all the rights of Bulgarian 
 citizens, among others the right to hold ofifice. Rus- 
 sians held important positions in the Bulgarian min- 
 istry. They organized the military forces and be- 
 came officers. Before long, however, friction devel- 
 oped, and gratitude gave way to indignation at the 
 high-handed conduct of the Russians, who plainly 
 regarded Bulgaria as a sort of province or outpost 
 of Russia, to be administered according to Russian 
 ideas and interests. The Russian ministers were ar- 
 rogant, and made it evident that they regarded the 
 Czar, not Prince Alexander, as their superior, whose 
 wishes they were bound to execute. The Prince, the 
 native army officers, and the people found their posi- 
 tion increasingly humiliating. Finally, in 1883, the 
 Russian ministers were virtually forced to resign, and 
 the Prince now relied upon Bulgarian leaders. This 
 caused an open breach with Russia, which was further 
 widened by the action of the people of eastern Rou- 
 melia in 1885 in expressing their desire to be united 
 with Bulgaria. Prince Alexander agreed to this and 
 assumed the title of " Prince of the Two Bulgarias." 
 The powers protested against this unification, and 
 would not recognize the change, but they refrained 
 from doing anything further. 
 
 Russia, however, incensed at the growing inde- 
 pendence of the new state, which she looked upon 
 as a mere satellite, resolved to read her a lesson in 
 humility by organizing a conspiracy. The conspira- 
 tors seized Prince Alexander in his bedroom in the 
 
THE RISE OF THE BALKAN STATES 237 
 
 dead of night, forced him to sign his abdication, and 
 then carried him off to Russian soil. Alexander was 
 detained in Russia a short time, until it was sup- 
 posed that the Russian party was thoroughly estab- 
 lished in power in Bulgaria, when he was permitted 
 to go to Austria. He was immediately recalled to 
 Bulgaria, returned to receive an immense ovation, 
 and then, at the height of his popularity, in a mo- 
 ment of weakness, abdicated, apparently overwhelmed 
 by the continued opposition of Russia (September 7, 
 1886). The situation was most critical. Two parties 
 advocating opposite policies confronted each other; 
 one pro-Russian, believing that Bulgaria should ac- 
 cept in place of Alexander any prince whom the 
 Czar should choose for her; the other, national and 
 independent, rallying to the cry of *' Bulgaria for the 
 Bulgarians." The latter speedily secured control, for- 
 tunate in that it had a remarkable leader in the person 
 of Stambuloff, a native, a son of an innkeeper, a man 
 of extraordinary firmness, suppleness, and courage, 
 vigorous and intelligent. Through him Russian efforts 
 to regain control of the principality were foiled and 
 a new ruler was secured, Prince Ferdinand of Saxe- 
 Coburg, twenty-six years of age, who was elected 
 unanimously by the Sobranje, July 7, 1887. Russia 
 protested against this action, and none of the great 
 powers recognized Ferdinand. He was, however, des- 
 tined to rule until his abdication in October, 1918. 
 
 Stambuloff was the most forceful statesman devel- 
 oped in the history of the Balkan states. He suc- 
 ceeded in keeping Bulgaria self-dependent. During 
 the earlier years of his rule Ferdinand relied upon 
 
238 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 him, and, indeed, owed to him his continuance on the 
 throne. He won the pretentious title of '* the Bul- 
 garian Bismarck." His methods resembled those of 
 his Teutonic prototype in more than one respect. 
 For seven years he was practically dictator of Bul- 
 garia. Russian plots continued. He repressed them 
 pitilessly. His one fundamental principle was Bul- 
 garia for the Bulgarians. His rule was one of terror, 
 of suppression of liberties, of unscrupulousness, di- 
 rected to patriotic ends. His object was to rid Bul- 
 garia of Russian, as of Turkish, control. Bulgaria 
 under him increased in wealth and population. The 
 army received a modern equipment, universal mili- 
 tary service was instituted, commerce was encour- 
 aged, railroads were built, popular education begun, 
 and the capital, Sofia, a dirty, wretched Turkish vil- 
 lage, made over into one of the attractive capitals of 
 Europe. But Stambulof? made a multitude of ene- 
 mies, and as a result he fell from power in 1894. In 
 the following year he was foully murdered in the 
 streets of Sofia. But he had done his work thor- 
 oughly, and it remains the basis of the life of Bul- 
 garia to-day. The Turkish sovereignty was merely 
 nominal, and even that was not destined to endure 
 long. In March, 1896, the election of Ferdinand as 
 Prince was finally recognized by the great powers. 
 The preceding years had been immensely significant. 
 They had thoroughly consolidated the unity of Bul- 
 garia, had permitted her institutions to strike root, 
 had accustomed her to independence of action, to 
 self-reliance. Those years, too, had been used for 
 the enrichment of the national life with the agencies 
 
THE RISE OF THE BALKAN STATES 239 
 
 of the modern world, schools, railways, an army. 
 Bulgaria had a population of about four million, a 
 capital in Sofia, an area of about 38,000 square miles. 
 She aspired to annex Macedonia, where, however, 
 she was to encounter many rivals. She only awaited 
 a favorable opportunity to renounce her nominal con- 
 nection with Turkey. The opportunity came in 1908. 
 On October 5th of that year Bulgaria declared her 
 independence, and her Prince assumed the title of 
 Czar. The later history of Bulgaria may best be 
 considered in connection with the Balkan wars of 
 1912 and 1913. 
 
 ROUMANIA AND SERBIA AfTER 1 878 
 
 At the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish war in 1877, 
 Roumania declared herself entirely independent of 
 Turkey. This independence was recognized by the 
 Sultan and the powers at the Congress of Berlin 
 on condition that all citizens should enjoy legal equal- 
 ity, whatever their religion, a condition designed to 
 protect the Jews, who were numerous, but who had 
 previously been without political rights. 
 
 In 1881 Roumania proclaimed herself a kingdom, 
 and her prince henceforth styled himself King Charles 
 I. The royal crown was made of steel from a Turk- 
 ish gun captured at Plevna, a perpetual reminder of 
 what was her war of independence. Roumania has 
 created an army on Prussian models, of about 500,000 
 men, has built railroads and highways, and has, by 
 agrarian legislation, improved the condition of the 
 peasantry. The population has steadily increased, and 
 now numbers over seven millions. The area of Rou- 
 
240 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 mania is about 53,000 square miles. While mainly 
 an agricultural country, in recent years her industrial' 
 development has been notable, and her commerce is 
 more important than that of any other Balkan state. 
 Her government is a constitutional monarchy, v^ith 
 legislative chambers. The most important political 
 question in recent years has been a demand for the 
 reform of the electoral system, which resembles the 
 Prussian three-class system, and which gives the 
 direct vote to only a small fraction of the popula- 
 tion. In 1907 the peasantry rose in insurrection, de- 
 manding agrarian reforms. As more than four-fifths 
 of the population live upon the land, and as the popu- 
 lation has steadily increased, the holding of each 
 peasant has correspondingly decreased. A military 
 force of 140,000 men was needed to quell the revolt. 
 After having restored order, the ministry intro- 
 duced and carried various measures intended to bring 
 relief to the peasants from their severest burdens. 
 King Charles I died on October 11, 1914, and was 
 succeeded by his nephew, Ferdinand I. 
 
 Serbia, also, was recognized as independent by the 
 Berlin Treaty in 1878. She proclaimed herself a king- 
 dom in 1882. She has had a turbulent history in 
 recent years. In 1885 she declared war against Bul- 
 garia, only to be unexpectedly and badly defeated. 
 The financial policy was deplorable. In seven years 
 the debt increased from seven million to three hun- 
 dred and twelve million francs. The scandals of the 
 private life of King Milan utterly discredited the mon- 
 archy. He was forced to abdicate in 1889, and was 
 succeeded by his twelve-year-old son, Alexander I, 
 
THE RISE OF THE BALKAN STATES 241 
 
 who was brutally murdered in 1903 with his wife, 
 Queen Draga, in a midnight palace revolution. The 
 new king, Peter I, found his position for several years 
 most unstable. A new and important chapter in the 
 history of Serbia began with the Balkan War of 
 1912. 
 
 Greece After 1833 
 
 In January, 1833, Otto, second son of Louis I, 
 the King of Bavaria, became King of Greece, a coun- 
 try of great poverty, with a population of about 750,- 
 0(X), unaccustomed to the reign of law and order 
 usual in western Europe. The kingdom was small, 
 with unsatisfactory boundaries, lacking Thessaly, 
 which was peopled entirely by Greeks. The coun- 
 try had been devastated by a long and unusually 
 sanguinary war. Internal conditions were anarchic. 
 Brigandage was rife ; the debt was large. The prob- 
 lem was, how to make out of such unpromising ma- 
 terials a prosperous and progressive state. 
 
 King Otto reigned from 1833 to 1862. He was 
 aided in his government by many Bavarians, who 
 filled important positions in the army and the civil 
 service. This German influence was a primary cause 
 of the unpopularity of the new regime. The begin- 
 nings were made, however, in the construction of 
 a healthy national life. Athens was made the capital, 
 and a university was established there. A police sys- 
 tem was organized; a national bank created. In 1844 
 Otto was forced to consent to the conversion of his 
 absolute monarchy into a constitutional one. A par- 
 liament with two chambers, the Deputies being 
 
242 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 cKosen by universal suffrage, was instituted. The 
 political education of the Greeks then began. 
 
 From the reopening of the Eastern Question by 
 the Crimean War, in 1854, Greece hoped to profit by 
 the enlargement of her boundaries. The Great Pow- 
 ers, however, thought otherwise, and forced her to 
 remain quiet. Because the Government did not defy 
 Europe and insist upon her rights, which would have 
 been an insane proceeding, it became very unpopu- 
 lar. For this reason, as well as for despotic tenden- 
 cies, Otto was driven from power in 1862 by an insur- 
 rection, and left Greece, never to return. 
 
 A new king was secured in the person of a Danish 
 prince, second son of the then King of Denmark. The 
 new King, George I, ruled from 1863 to 1913. That 
 his popularity might be strengthened at the very out- 
 set, England in 1864 ceded to the kingdom the Ionian 
 Islands, which she had held since 1815. This was 
 the first enlargement of the kingdom since its founda- 
 tion. A new constitution was established (1864) 
 which abolished the Senate and left all parliamentary 
 power in the hands of a single assembly, the Boule, 
 elected by universal suffrage, and consisting of 192 
 members, with a four-year term. In 1881, mainly 
 through the exertions of England, the Sultan was in- 
 duced to cede Thessaly to Greece, and thus a second 
 enlargement of territory occurred. This was in ac- 
 cordance with the promise of the Congress of Berlin 
 that the Greek frontier should be " rectified." 
 
 In 1897 Greece declared war against Turkey, aim- 
 ing at the annexation of Crete, which had risen in 
 insurrection against Turkey. Greece was easily de- 
 
THE RISE OF THE BALKAN STATES 243 
 
 feated, and was forced to cede certain parts of Thes- 
 saly to Turkey and give up the project of the annexa- 
 tion of Crete. After long negotiations among the 
 powers, the latter island was made autonomous under 
 the suzerainty of the Sultan, and under the direct 
 administration of Prince George, a son of the King 
 of Greece, who remained in power until 1906. A 
 new problem, the Cretan, was thus pushed into the 
 foreground of Greek politics. 
 
 The financial condition of Greece was not sound. 
 Her debt grew enormously owing to armaments, the 
 building of railroads, and the digging of canals. She, 
 however, increased in population and much was ac- 
 complished in the direction of popular education. 
 Several millions of Greeks live outside the Greek 
 kingdom. Those inside are ambitious to have them 
 included. 
 
 Serbian, Bulgarian, and Greek rivalries met in the 
 plains of Macedonia, which each country coveted and 
 which was inhabited by representatives of all these 
 peoples, inextricably intermingled. The problem of 
 Macedonia was further complicated by the rivalry of 
 the great powers and by the revolution which broke 
 out in Turkey itself in 1908. 
 
 Revolution in Turkey 
 
 The Eastern Question entered upon a new and 
 startling phase in the summer of 1908. In July a 
 swift, sweeping, and pacific revolution occurred in 
 Turkey. The Young Turks, a revolutionary, con- 
 stitutional party, dominated by the political principles 
 
244 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 of western Europe, seized control of the government, 
 to the complete surprise of the diplomatists and pub- 
 lic of Europe. This party consisted of those who 
 had been driven from Turkey by the despotism of 
 the Sultan, Abdul Hamid II, and were resident 
 abroad, chiefly in Paris, and of those who, still 
 living in Turkey, dissembled their opinions and were 
 able to escape expulsion. Its members desired the 
 overthrow of the despotic, corrupt, and inefficient 
 government, and the creation in its place of a 
 modern liberal system, capable, by varied and thor- 
 oughgoing reforms, of ranging Turkey among pro- 
 gressive nations. Weaving their conspiracy in silence 
 and with remarkable adroitness, they succeeded 
 in drawing into it the Turkish army, hitherto the 
 solid bulwark of the Sultan's power. Then, at the 
 ripe moment, the army refused to obey the Sultan's 
 orders, and the conspirators demanded peremptorily 
 by telegraph that the Sultan restore the Constitution 
 of 1876, a constitution which had been granted by 
 the Sultan in that year merely to enable him to 
 weather a crisis, and which, having quickly served 
 the purpose, had been immediately suspended and 
 had remained suspended ever since. The Sultan, see- 
 ing the ominous defection of the army, complied at 
 once with the demands of the Young Turks, *' re- 
 stored," on July 24, the Constitution of 1876, and 
 ordered elections for a parliament which should meet 
 in November. Thus an odious tyranny was instantly 
 swept away. It was a veritable coup d'etat, this time 
 effected, not by some vvould-be autocrat, but by the 
 army, usually the chief support of despotism or of the 
 
THE RISE OF THE BALPCAN STATES 245 
 
 authority of the monarch, now, apparently, the main 
 instrument for the achievement of freedom for the 
 democracy. This miHtary revolution, completely 
 successful and almost bloodless, M^as received with 
 incredible enthusiasm throughout the entire breadth 
 of the Sultan's dominions. Insurgents and soldiers, 
 Mohammedans and Christians, Greeks, Serbs, Bul- 
 garians, Albanians, Armenians, Turks, all joined in 
 jubilant celebrations of the release from intolerable 
 conditions. The most astonishing feature was the 
 complete subsidence of the racial and religious 
 hatreds which had hitherto torn and ravaged the 
 Empire from end to end. The revolution proved 
 to be the most fraternal movement in modern his- 
 tory. Picturesque and memorable were the scenes 
 of universal reconciliation. The ease and sudden- 
 ness with which this astounding change was effected 
 proved the universality of the detestation of the reign 
 and methods of Abdul Hamid II throughout all his 
 provinces and among all his peoples. 
 
 Was this the beginning of a new era or was it the 
 beginning of the end of the Turkish Empire? It will 
 be more convenient to examine this question a little 
 later. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 
 
 Russia, a century ago, was the largest state in 
 Europe, and was a still larger Asiatic empire. It 
 extended in unbroken stretch from the German Con- 
 federation to the Pacific Ocean. Its population was 
 about 45,000,000. Its European territory covered 
 about 2,000,000 square miles. It was inhabited by 
 a variety of races, but the principal one was the 
 Slavic. Though there were many religions, the re- 
 ligion of the court and of more than two-thirds of 
 the population was the so-called Greek Orthodox 
 form of Christianity. Though various languages were 
 spoken, Russian was the chief one. The Russians 
 had conquered many peoples in various directions. 
 A considerable part of the former Kingdom of Poland 
 had been acquired in the three partitions at the close 
 of the eighteenth century, and more in 1815. Here 
 the people spoke a different language, the Polish, 
 and adhered to a different religion, the Roman Catho- 
 lic. In the Baltic provinces, Esthonia, Livonia, and 
 Courland, the upper class was of German origin and 
 spoke the German language, while the mass of peas- 
 ants were Finns and Lithuanians, speaking different 
 tongues. All the inhabitants were Lutherans. Fin- 
 land had recently been conquered from Sweden. The 
 
 246 
 
RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 247 
 
 languages spoken there were Swedish and Finnish, 
 and the reHgion was Lutheran. To the east and south 
 were peoples of Asiatic origin, many of them Moham- 
 medans in reHgion. There were in certain sections 
 considerable bodies of Jews. 
 
 All these dissimilar elements were bound together 
 by their allegiance to the sovereign, the Czar, a mon- 
 arch of absolute, unlimited power. 
 
 There were two classes of society in Russia — the 
 nobility and the peasantry. The large majority of 
 the latter were serfs of the Czar and the nobility. 
 The nobility numbered about 140,000 families. The 
 nobles secured offices in the army and the civil serv- 
 ice. They were exempt from many taxes, and en- 
 joyed certain monopolies. Their power over their 
 serfs was extensive and despotic. They enforced 
 obedience to their orders by the knout and by banish- 
 ment to Siberia. The middle class of well-to-do and 
 educated people, increasingly important in the other 
 countries of Europe, practically did not exist in Rus- 
 sia. Russia was an agricultural country, whose agri- 
 culture, moreover, was very primitive and inefficient. 
 It was a nation of serfs and of peasants little better 
 off than the serfs. This class was wretched, unedu- 
 cated, indolent, prone to drink excessively. In the 
 " mir," or village community, however, it possessed 
 a rudimentary form of communism and limited self- 
 government. 
 
 Over this vast and ill-equipped nation ruled the 
 Autocrat of All the Russias, or Czar, an absolute 
 monarch, whose decisions, expressed in the form of 
 ukases or decrees, were the law of the land, and the 
 
24^ FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 autocrats of the nineteenth century ruled, in the main, 
 as had the autocrats of the eighteenth, making no 
 improvements, or only fleeting ones, in the drab and 
 dull regime, which weighed heavily and hatefully upon 
 the people, barring the way to all progress, political 
 or economic or intellectual. Poverty and ignorance 
 characterized the masses, improvidence and selfish- 
 ness the upper classes, incompetence and intolerance 
 the governing authorities. The state was honey- 
 combed with abuses which, obviously, must be re- 
 formed if Russia was to prosper. 
 
 Yet decade after decade the old complacent, unin- 
 telligent system persisted. Not until after the middle 
 of the nineteenth century was any breach made in 
 this citadel of reaction and oppression, not until the 
 reign of Alexander II, a reign that lasted from 1855 
 to 1881, a reign that for a while aroused the highest 
 hopes, so liberal and energetic did it bid fair to be, 
 so rich in important and promising achievement, only, 
 at last, unfortunately, to be stricken with lassitude, 
 and to end in tragedy. That reign, however, merits 
 some description, because of the light it throws upon 
 the formidable problems of Russia and the later his- 
 tory of that country. 
 
 Alexander II v/as, unlike his immediate predeces- 
 sor and unlike most of the Romanoff rulers, of an 
 open mind, desirous of ameliorating the conditions of 
 Russian life. His courage and enlightenment were 
 shown when, shortly after coming to the throne, he 
 attacked the great national evil, serfdom. 
 
 Nearly all, practically nine-tenths, of the arable land 
 of Russia was owned by the imperial family and by 
 
RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 249 
 
 the one hundred and forty thousand families of the 
 nobihty. The land was, therefore, generally held in 
 large estates. It was owned by a small minority; it 
 was tilled by the millions of Russia who were serfs. 
 It was easy for the Emperor to free the crown serfs, 
 about 23,000,000, since no one could question the right 
 of the State to do what it would with its own. Con- 
 sequently the crown serfs were freed by a series of 
 measures covering several years, 1859 to 1866. But 
 the Edict of Emancipation, which was to constitute 
 Alexander IPs most legitimate title to fame, concerned 
 the serfs of private landowners, the nobles. There 
 were about 23,000,000 of these, also. The private 
 landlords reserved a part of their land for themselves, 
 requiring the serfs to work it without pay, generally 
 three days a week. The rest of the land was turned 
 over to the serfs, who cultivated it on their own ac- 
 count, getting therefrom what support they could, 
 hardly enough, as a matter of fact, for sustenance. 
 The serfs were not slaves in the strict sense of the 
 word. They could not be sold separately. But they 
 were attached to the soil, could not leave it without 
 the consent of the owner, and passed, if he sold his 
 estate, to the new owner. The landlord otherwise 
 had practically unlimited authority over his serfs. 
 They possessed no rights which, in practice, he was 
 bound to respect. Such a system, it is needless to 
 say, offended the conscience of the age. 
 
 On March 3, 1861, the Edict of Emancipation was 
 issued. It abolished serfdom throughout the Em- 
 pire, and it won for Alexander the popular title of 
 " the Czar Liberator." This manifesto did not merely 
 
250 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 declare the serfs free men; but it undertook also to 
 solve the far more dif^cult problem of the ownership 
 of the soil. The Czar felt that merely to give the 
 serfs freedom, and to leave all the land in the posses- 
 sion of the nobles, w^ould mean the creation of a great 
 proletariat possessing no property, therefore likely 
 to fall at once into a position of economic depend- 
 ence upon the nobles, vv^hich v^ould make the gift of 
 freedom a mere mockery. Moreover, the peasants 
 were firmly convinced that they were the rightful 
 owners of the lands which they and their ancestors 
 for centuries iiad lived upon and cultivated, and the 
 fact that the landlords were legally the owners did 
 not alter their opinion. To give them freedom with- 
 out land, leaving that with the nobles, who desired 
 to retain it, would be bitterly resented as making 
 their condition worse than ever. On the other hand, 
 to give them the land with their freedom would mean 
 the ruin of the nobility as a class, considered essen- 
 tial to the State. The consequence of this conflict of 
 interests was a compromise, satisfactory to neither 
 party, but more favorable to the nobility than to the 
 peasants. 
 
 The lands were divided into two parts. The land- 
 lords were to keep one; the other was to go to the 
 peasants, either individually, or collectively, as mem- 
 bers of the village community or mir to which they 
 belonged. But this was not given them outright; the 
 peasant and the village must pay the landlord for 
 the land assigned them. As they were not in a posi- 
 tion to do this the State was to advance the money, 
 getting it back from the peasant and the mir in easy 
 
RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 251 
 
 installments. These installments were to run for 
 forty-nine years, at the end of which time they would 
 cease and the peasant and the mir would then own 
 outright the lands they had acquired. 
 
 The arrangement was a great disappointment to 
 the peasants. Their newly acquired freedom seemed 
 a doubtful boon in the light of this method of divid- 
 ing the land. Indeed, they could not see that they 
 were profiting from the change. Personal liberty 
 would not mean much, when the conditions of earn- 
 ing a livelihood became harder rather than lighter. 
 The peasants regarded the land as their own. But 
 the State guaranteed forever a part to the landlords 
 and announced that the peasants must pay for the part 
 assigned to themselves. To the peasants this seemed 
 sheer robbery. Moreover, as the division worked out, 
 they found that they had less land for their own use 
 than in the preemancipation days, and that they had 
 to pay the landlords, through the State, more than 
 the lands which they did receive were worth. The 
 Edict of Emancipation did not therefore bring either 
 peace or prosperity to the peasants. The land ques- 
 tion became steadily more acute during the next fifty 
 years owing to the vast increase of population and 
 the consequent greater pressure upon the land. The 
 Russian peasant lived necessarily upon the verge of 
 starvation. 
 
 The emancipation of the serfs is seen, therefore, 
 not to have been an unalloyed boon. Yet Russia 
 gained morally in the esteem of other nations by 
 abolishing an indefensible wrong. Theoretically, at 
 least, every man was free. Moreover, the peasants. 
 
^52 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 though faring ill, yet fared better than had the peas- 
 ants of Prussia and Austria at the time of their 
 liberation. 
 
 The abolition of serfdom was the greatest act of 
 Alexander ITs reign, but it was only one of several 
 liberal measures enacted at that time of general enthu- 
 siasm. A certain amount of local self-government 
 was granted, reforms in the judicial system were car- 
 ried through, based upon a study of the systems of 
 Europe and the United States, the censorship of the 
 press was relaxed, educational facilities were some- 
 what developed. 
 
 This hopeful era of reform was, however, soon 
 over, and a period of reaction began, which charac- 
 terized the latter half of Alexander's reign and ended 
 in his assassination in 1881. There were several 
 causes for this change : the vacillating character of 
 the monarch himself, taking fright at his own work; 
 the disappointment felt by many who had expected 
 a millennium, but who found it not; the intense dis- 
 like of the privileged and conservative classes of the 
 measures just described. 
 
 Just at this time, when the attitude of the Emperor 
 was changing, when public opinion was in this fluid, 
 uncertain state, occurred an event which immensely 
 strengthened the reactionary forces, a new insurrec- 
 tion of Poland. The Poles had attempted to gain 
 their independence once more in 1831, but they had 
 been easily conquered and had lost what few liberties 
 had been previously given them. After the failure 
 of their attempt the Poles had remained quiet, the 
 quiet of despair. For a generation they were ruled 
 
RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 253 
 
 with the greatest severity, and they could not but 
 see the impracticabiHty of any attempt to throw off 
 their chains. But the accession of Alexander II 
 aroused hopes of better conditions. The spirit of 
 nationalism revived, greatly encouraged by the suc- 
 cess of the same spirit elsewhere. The Italians had 
 just realized their aspiration, the creation of an Ital- 
 ian nation — not solely by their own efforts, but by 
 the aid of foreign nations. Might not the Poles hope 
 for as much? Alexander would not for a moment 
 entertain the favorite idea of the Poles, that they 
 should be independent. He emphatically told them 
 that such a notion was an idle dream, that they 
 " must abandon all thoughts of independence, now 
 and forever impossible." This uncompromising atti- 
 tude, coupled with repressive measures, irritated the 
 Poles to the point of desperation. Finally in 1863 
 an insurrection broke out, aiming at independence. 
 It was put down with vigor and without mercy. The 
 only hope for the Poles lay in foreign intervention, 
 but in this they were bitterly disappointed. England, 
 France, and Austria intervened three times in their 
 behalf, but only by diplomatic notes, making no at- 
 tempt to give emphasis to their notes by a show of 
 force. Russia, seeing this, and supported by Prussia, 
 treated their intervention as an impertinence, and pro- 
 ceeded to wreak her vengeance. It was a fearful 
 punishment she meted out. 
 
 A process of Russification was now vigorously pur- 
 sued. The Russian language was prescribed for the 
 correspondence of the officials and the lectures of the 
 university professors, and the use of Polish was for- 
 
254 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 bidden in churches, schools, theaters, newspapers, on 
 business signs, in fact, everywhere. 
 
 It was not long before Alexander, always vacillat- 
 ing, gave up all dallying with reforms and relapsed 
 into the traditional repressive ways of Russian mon- 
 archs. This reaction aroused intense discontent and 
 engendered a movement which threatened the very 
 existence of the monarchy itself, namely, Nihilism. 
 
 The Nihilists belonged to the intellectual class of 
 Russia. Reading the works of the more radical phil- 
 osophers and scientists of western Europe, and re- 
 flecting upon the foundations of their own national 
 institutions and conditions, they became most destruc- 
 tive critics. They were extreme individualists, who 
 tested every human institution and custom by reason. 
 As few Russian institutions could meet such a test, 
 the Nihilists condemned them all. Theirs was an 
 attitude, first of intellectual challenge, then of revolt 
 against the whole established order. Shortly, Social- 
 ism was grafted upon this hatred of all established 
 institutions. In the place of the existing society, 
 which must be swept away, a new society was to be 
 erected, based on socialistic principles. Thus the 
 movement entered upon a new phase. It ceased to 
 be merely critical and destructive. It became con- 
 structive as well, in short, a political party with a 
 positive programme, a party very small but resolute 
 and reckless, willing to resort to any means to achieve 
 its aims. 
 
 This party now determined to institute an educa- 
 tional campaign in Russia, realizing that nothing 
 could be done unless the millions of peasants were 
 
RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 255 
 
 shaken out of their stolid acquiescence in the preva- 
 lent order which weighed so heavily upon them. 
 This extraordinary movement, called " going in 
 among the people," became very active after 1870. 
 Young men and women, all belonging co the edu- 
 cated class, and frequently to noble families, became 
 day laborers and peasants in order to mingle with 
 the people, to arouse them to action, '' to found," 
 as one of their documents said, '' on the ruins of the 
 present social organization the empire of the working 
 classes." They showed the self-sacrifice, the heroism 
 of the missionary laboring under the most discour- 
 aging conditions. It is estimated that, between 1872 
 and 1878, between two and three thousand such mis- 
 sionaries were active in this propaganda. Their ef- 
 forts, however, were not rewarded with success. The 
 peasantry remained stolid, if not contented. More- 
 over, this campaign of education and persuasion was 
 broken up wherever possible by the ubiquitous and 
 lawless police. Many were imprisoned or exiled to 
 Siberia. 
 
 A pacific propaganda being impossible, one of vio- 
 lence seemed to the more energetic spirits the only 
 alternative. As the Government held the people in 
 a subjection unworthy of human beings, as it em- 
 ployed all its engines of power against everyone 
 who demanded reform of any kind, as, in short, it 
 ruled by terror, these reformers resolved to fight it 
 with terror as the only method possible. The " Ter- 
 rorists " were not bloodthirsty or cruel by nature. 
 They simply believed that no progress whatever could 
 be made in raising Russia from her misery except by 
 
256 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 getting rid of the more unscrupulous officials. They 
 perfected their organization and entered upon a period 
 of violence. Numerous attempts, often successful, 
 were made to assassinate the high officials, chiefs of 
 police and others who had rendered themselves par- 
 ticularly odious. In turn many of the revolutionists 
 were executed. 
 
 Finally the terrorists determined to kill the Czar 
 as the only way of overthrowing the whole hated 
 arbitrary and oppressive system. Several attempts 
 were made. In April, 1879, ^ schoolmaster, Solovief, 
 fired five shots at the Emperor, none of which took 
 effect. In December of the same year a train on 
 which he was supposed to be returning from the 
 Crimea was wrecked, just at it reached Moscow, by 
 a mine placed between the rails. Alexander escaped 
 only because he had reached the capital secretly on 
 an earlier train. The next attempt (February, 1880), 
 was to kill him while at dinner in the Winter Palace 
 in St. Petersburg. Dynamite was exploded, ten sol- 
 diers were killed and fifty-three wounded in the guard- 
 room directly overhead, and the floor of the dining- 
 room was torn up. The Czar narrowly escaped, be- 
 cause he did not go to dinner at the usual hour. 
 
 St. Petersburg was by this time thoroughly ter- 
 rorized. Alexander now appointed Loris Melikoff 
 practically dictator. Melikoff sought to inaugurate 
 a milder regime. He released hundreds of prisoners, 
 and in many cases commuted the death sentence. He 
 urged the Czar to grant the people some share in 
 the government, believing that this would kill the 
 Nihilist movement, which was a violent expression 
 
RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 257 
 
 of the discontent of the nation with the abuses of an 
 arbitrary and lawless system of government. He 
 urged that this could be done without weakening the 
 principle of autocracy, and that thus Alexander would 
 win back the popularity he had enjoyed during his 
 early reforming years. After much hesitation and 
 mental perturbation the Czar ordered, March 13, 
 1881, Melikoif' s scheme to be published in the official 
 journal. But on that same afternoon, as he was 
 returning from a drive, escorted by Cossacks, a bomb 
 was thrown at his carriage. The carriage was 
 wrecked, and many of his escorts were injured. Alex- 
 ander escaped as by a miracle, but a second bomb 
 exploded near him as he was going to aid the in- 
 jured. He was horribly mangled, and died within an 
 hour. Thus perished the Czar Liberator. At the 
 same time the hopes of the Liberals perished also. 
 This act of supreme violence did not intimidate the 
 successor to the throne, Alexander III, whose entire 
 reign was one of stern repression. 
 
 The Reign of Alexander III 
 
 The man who now ascended the throne of Russia 
 was in the full flush of magnificent manhood. Alex- 
 ander III, son of Alexander II, was thirty-six years 
 of age, and of powerful physique. His education had 
 been chiefly military. He was a man of firm and reso- 
 lute rather than large or active mind. 
 
 It shortly became clear that he possessed a strong, 
 inflexible character, that he was a thorough believer 
 in absolutism, and was determined to maintain it un- 
 
258 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 diminished. He assumed an attitude of defiant hos- 
 tility to innovators and hberals. His reign, which 
 lasted from 1881 to 1894, was one of reversion to 
 the older ideals of government and of unqualified 
 absolutism. 
 
 The terrorists were hunted down, and their at- 
 tempts practically ceased. The press was thoroughly 
 gagged, university professors and students were 
 watched, suspended, exiled, as the case might be. 
 The reforms of Alexander H were in part undone, 
 and the secret police, the terrible Third Section, was 
 greatly augmented. Liberals gave up all hope of 
 any improvement during this reign, and waited for 
 better days. Under Alexander HI began the inhu- 
 man persecutions of the Jews which have been so 
 dark a feature of recent Russian history. The great 
 Jewish emigration to the United States dates from 
 this time. 
 
 In one sphere only was there any progress in this 
 bleak, stern reign. That sphere was the economic. 
 An industrial revolution began then which was car- 
 ried much further under its successor. Russia had 
 been for centuries an agricultural country whose agri- 
 culture, moreover, was of the primitive type. What- 
 ever industries existed were mainly of the household 
 kind. Russia was one of the poorest countries in 
 the world, her immense resources being undeveloped. 
 Under the system of protection adopted by Alexander 
 II, and continued and increased by Alexander III, 
 industries of a modern kind began to grow up. A 
 tremendous impetus was given to this development 
 by the appointment in 1892 as Minister of Finance 
 
RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 259 
 
 and Commerce of Sergius de Witte. Witte believed 
 that Russia, the largest and most populous country! 
 in Europe, a world in itself, ought to be self-sufficient, 
 that as long as it remained chiefly agricultural it 
 would be tributary to the industrial nations for manu- 
 factured articles, that it had abundant resources, in' 
 raw material and in labor, to enable it to supply its 
 own needs if they were but developed. He believed 
 that this development could be brought about by the 
 adoption of a policy of protection. Was not the aston- 
 ishing industrial growth of Germany and of the United 
 States convincing proof of the value of such a policy? 
 By adopting it for Russia, by encouraging foreigners 
 to invest heavily in the new protected industries, by 
 showing them that their rewards would inevitably 
 be large, he began and carried far the economic trans- 
 formation of his country. Immense amounts of for- 
 eign capital poured in and Russia advanced indus- 
 trially in the closing decade of the nineteenth century 
 with great swiftness. 
 
 One thing more was necessary. Russians greatest 
 lack was good means of communication. She now 
 undertook to supply this want by extensive railway 
 building. For some years before Witte assumed 
 office, Russia was building less than 400 miles of rail- 
 way a year; from that time on for the rest of the 
 decade, she built nearly 1,400 miles a year. The most 
 stupendous of these undertakings was that of a trunk 
 line connecting Europe with the Pacific Ocean, the 
 great Trans-Siberian railroad. For this Russia bor- 
 rowed vast sums of money in western Europe, prin- 
 cipally in France. Begun in 1891, the road was for- 
 
26o FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 mally opened in 1902. It has reduced the time and 
 cost of transportation to the East about one-half. In 
 1912 Russia possessed over 46,000 miles of railway, 
 nearly 34,000 of which were owned and operated by 
 the Government. 
 
 This tremendous change in the economic life of 
 the Empire was destined to have momentous con- 
 sequences, some of which were quickly apparent. 
 /Cities grew rapidly, a large laboring class developed, 
 and labor problems of the kind familiar to Western 
 countries, socialistic theories, spread among the work- 
 ing people; also a new middle class of capitalists and 
 manufacturers was created which might some day 
 demand a share in the government. These new forces 
 would, in time, threaten the old, illiberal, unprogres- 
 sive regime which had so long kept Russia stagnant 
 and profoundly unhappy. That the old system was 
 being undermined was not, however, apparent, and 
 might not have been for many years had not Russia, 
 ten years after Alexander's death, become involved 
 in a disastrous and humiliating war with Japan. 
 
 The Reign of Nicholas II 
 
 Alexander III died in 1894, and was succeeded by 
 his son, Nicholas II, then twenty-six years of age. 
 The hope was general that a milder regime might 
 now be introduced. This, however, was not to be. 
 For ten years the young Czar pursued the policy of 
 his father with scarcely a variation save in the direc- 
 tion of greater severity. A suggestion that repre- 
 sentative institutions might be granted was declared 
 
RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 261 
 
 " a senseless dream." The government was not one 
 of law, but of arbitrary power. Its instruments were 
 a numerous and corrupt body of state officials and 
 a ruthless, active police. No one was secure against 
 arrest, imprisonment, exile. The most elementary 
 personal rights were lacking. 
 
 The professional and educated man was in an intol- 
 erable position. If a professor in a university, he was 
 watched by the police, and was likely to be removed 
 at any moment as was Professor Milyoukov, an his- 
 torian of distinguished attainments, for no other rea- 
 son than '' generally noxious tendencies." If an edi- 
 tor, his position was even more precarious, unless he 
 was utterly servile to the authorities. It was a suf- 
 focating atmosphere for any man of the slightest 
 intellectual independence, living in the ideas of the 
 present age. The censorship grew more and more 
 rigorous, and included such books as Green's History 
 of England and Bryce's American Commonwealth. 
 Arbitrary arrests of all kinds increased from year to 
 year as the difficulty of thoroughly bottling up Rus- 
 sia increased. Students were the objects of special 
 police care, as it was the young and ardent and edu- 
 cated who were most indignant at this senseless des- 
 potism. Many of them disappeared, in one year as 
 many as a fifth of those in the University of Moscow, 
 probably sent to Siberia or to prisons in Europe. 
 
 A government of this kind was not likely to err 
 from excess of sympathy with the subject nationali- 
 ties, such as the Poles and the Finns. In Finland, 
 indeed, its arbitrary course attained its climax. Fin- 
 land had been acquired by Russia in 1809, but on 
 
262 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 liberal terms. It was not incorporated in Russia, but 
 continued a Grand Duchy, with the Emperor of Rus- 
 sia as simply Grand Duke. It had its own Parlia- 
 ment, its Fundamental Laws or constitution, to which 
 the Grand Duke swore fidelity. These Fundamental 
 Laws could not be altered or interpreted or repealed 
 except with the consent of the Diet and the Grand 
 Duke. Finland was a constitutional state, govern- 
 ing itself, connected with Russia in the person of its 
 sovereign. It had its own army, its own currency 
 and postal system. Under this liberal regime it pros- 
 pered greatly, its population increasing from less than 
 a million to nearly three millions by the close of the 
 century, and was, according to an historian of Russia, 
 at least thirty years in advance of that country in 
 all the appliances of material civilization. The sight 
 of this country enjoying a constitution of its own 
 and a separate organization was an offense to the 
 men controlling Russia. They wished to sweep away 
 all distinctions between the various parts of the Em- 
 peror's dominions, to unify, to Russify. The attack 
 upon the liberties of the Finns began under Alexan- 
 der III. It was carried much further by Nicholas 
 II, who, on February 15, 1899, issued an imperial 
 manifesto which really abrogated the constitution of 
 that country. The Finns began a stubborn but appar- 
 ently hopeless struggle for their historic rights with 
 the autocrat of one hundred and forty million men. 
 
 Under such a system as that just described men 
 could be terrorized into silence ; they could not be 
 made contented. Disaffection of all classes, driven 
 into subterranean channels, onl;>^ increased, awaiting 
 
RUSSIA TO THE WAR WITH JAPAN 263 
 
 the time for explosion. That time came with the dis- 
 astrous defeat of Russia in the war with Japan in 
 1904-5, a landmark in contemporary history. 
 
 To understand recent events in Russia it is neces- 
 sary to trace the course of that war, whose conse- 
 quences have been profound, and to show the signifi- 
 cance of that conflict we must interrupt this narrative 
 of Russian history in order to give an account of the 
 recent evolution of Asia, the rise of the so-called Far 
 Eastern Question, and the interaction of Occident and 
 Orient upon each other. 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 THE FAR EAST 
 
 England, France, and Russia in Asia 
 
 Europe has not only taken possession of Africa, but 
 she has taken possession of large parts of Asia, 
 and presses with increasing force upon the remainder. 
 England and France dominate southern Asia by their 
 control, the former of India and Burma, the latter 
 of a large part of Indo-China. Russia, on the other 
 hand, dominates the north, from the Ural Mountains 
 to the Pacific Ocean. As far as geographical extent 
 is concerned, she is far more an Asiatic power than 
 a European, which, indeed, is also true of England 
 and of France, and she has been an Asiatic power 
 much longer than they, for she began her expansion 
 into Asia before the Pilgrims came to America. For 
 nearly three centuries Russia has been a great Asiatic 
 state, while England has been a power in India for 
 only half that time. 
 
 It was not until the nineteenth century, however, 
 that Russia began to devote serious attention to Asia 
 as a field for colonial and commercial expansion. Si- 
 beria was regarded merely as a convenient prison to 
 which to send her disaffected or criminal citizens. 
 Events in Europe have caused her to concentrate her 
 
 264 
 
THE FAR EAST 265 
 
 attention more and more upon her Asiatic develop- 
 ment. She has sought there what she had long been 
 seeking in Europe, but without avail, because of the 
 opposition she encountered, namely, contact with the 
 ocean, free outlet to the world. Russia's coast line, 
 either in Europe or Asia, had no harbors free from 
 ice the year round. Blocked decisively and repeatedly 
 from obtaining such in Europe at the expense of 
 Turkey, she has sought them in Eastern Asia. This 
 ambition explains her Asiatic policies. In 1858 she 
 acquired from China the whole northern bank of the 
 Amur and two years later more territory farther 
 south, the Maritime Province, at the southern point 
 of which she founded as a naval base Vladivostok, 
 which means the Dominator of the East. But Vladi- 
 vostok was not ice-free in winter, Russia still lacked 
 her longed-for outlet. 
 
 China 
 
 Between Russian Asia on the north, and British and 
 French Asia on the south, lies the oldest nation of 
 the world, China, and one more extensive than Eu- 
 rope and probably more populous, with more than 
 400,000,000 inhabitants. It is a land of great navigable 
 rivers, of vast agricultural areas, and of mines rich 
 in coal and metals, as yet largely undeveloped. The 
 Chinese were a highly civilized people long before the 
 Europeans were. They preceded the latter by cen- 
 turies in the use of the compass, powder, porcelain, 
 paper. As early as the sixth century of our era they 
 knew the art of printing from movable wooden blocks. 
 They have long been famous for their work in bronze, 
 
266 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 in wood, in lacquer, for the marvels of their silk 
 manufacture. As a people laborious and intelligent, 
 they have always been devoted to the peaceful pur- 
 suits of industry, and have scorned the arts of war. 
 
 China had always lived a life of isolation, despising 
 the outside world. She had no diplomatic represen- 
 tatives in any foreign country, nor were any foreign 
 ambassadors resident in Peking. Foreigners were 
 permitted to trade in only one Chinese port. Canton, 
 and even there only under vexatious and humiliating 
 conditions. 
 
 It was not likely that a policy of such isolation 
 could be permanently maintained in the modern age, 
 and as the nineteenth century progressed it was grad- 
 ually shattered. The Chinese desired nothing better 
 than to be left alone. But this was not to be. By a 
 long series of aggressions extending to our own day 
 various European powers have forced China to enter 
 into relations with them, to make concessions of ter- 
 ritory, of trading privileges, of diplomatic intercourse. 
 In this story of European aggression the Opium War 
 waged by Great Britain against China from 1840 to 
 1842 was decisive, as showing how easy it was to con- 
 quer China. The Chinese had forbidden the importa- 
 tion of opium, as injurious to their people. But the 
 British did not wish to give up a trade in which the 
 profits were enormous. The war, the first between 
 China and a European power, lasted two years and 
 ended in the victory of Great Britain. The conse- 
 quences, in forcing the doors of China open to Euro- 
 pean influence, were important. By the Treaty of 
 Nanking, 1842, she was forced to pay a large indem- 
 
THE FAR EAST 267 
 
 nity, to open to British trade four ports in addition 
 to Canton, and to cede the island of Hong Kong, 
 near Canton, to England outright. Hong Kong has 
 since become one of the most important naval and 
 commercial stations of the British Empire. 
 
 Other powers now proceeded to take advantage of 
 the British success. The United States sent Caleb 
 Cushing to make a commercial treaty with China in 
 1844, and before long France, Belgium, Holland, Prus- 
 sia, and Portugal established trade centers at the five 
 treaty ports. The number of such ports has since 
 been increased to over forty. China was obliged to 
 abandon her policy of isolation and to send and re- 
 ceive ambassadors. 
 
 A period of critical importance in China's relations 
 with Europe began in the last decade of the nine- 
 teenth century as a result of a war with Japan in 
 1894-5. To appreciate this war it is necessary to give 
 some account of the previous evolution of Japan. 
 
 Japan 
 
 The rise of Japan as the most forceful state in the 
 Orient is a chapter of very recent history, of absorb- 
 ing interest, and of great significance to the present 
 age. Accomplished in the last third of the nineteenth 
 century it has already profoundly altered the condi- 
 tions of international politics, and seems likely to be a 
 factor of increasing moment in the future evolution 
 of the world. 
 
 Japan is an archipelago, consisting of several large 
 islands and about four thousand smaller ones. It 
 
262 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 covered, in 1894, an area of 147,000 square miles, an 
 area smaller than that of California. The main is- 
 lands form a crescent, the northern point being op- 
 posite Siberia, the southern turning in toward Korea. 
 Between it and Asia is the Sea of Japan. The coun- 
 try is very mountainous, its most famous peak, Fuji- 
 yama, rising to a height of 12,000 feet. Of volcanic 
 origin, numerous craters are still active. Earth- 
 quakes are not uncommon, and have determined the 
 character of domestic architecture. The coast line is 
 much indented, and there are many good harbors. 
 The Japanese call their country Nippon, or the Land 
 of the Rising Sun. Only about one-sixth of the land 
 is under cultivation, owing to its mountainous char- 
 acter, and owing to the prevalent mode of farming. 
 Yet into this small area is crowded a population of 
 fifty-six millions, which is larger than that of Great 
 Britain or France. It is no occasion for surprise that 
 the Japanese have desired territorial expansion. 
 
 The people of Japan derived the beginnings of their 
 civilization from China, but in many respects they 
 differed greatly from the Chinese. The virtues of 
 the soldier were held in high esteem. Patriotism was 
 a passion, and v/ith it went the spirit of unquestion- 
 ing self-sacrifice. " Thou shalt honor the gods and 
 love thy country," was a command of the Shinto 
 religion, and was universally obeyed. An art-loving 
 and pleasure-loving people, the Japanese possessed 
 active minds and a surprising power of assimilation 
 which they were to show on a national and momen- 
 tous scale. 
 
 The Japanese had followed the same policy of seclu- 
 
THE FAR EAST 269 
 
 sion as had the Chinese. Japan had for centuries been 
 almost hermetically sealed against the outside world. 
 On the peninsula of Deshima there was a single trad- 
 ing station which carried on a slight commerce with 
 the Dutch. This was Japan's sole point of contact 
 with the outside world for over two centuries. 
 
 This unnatural seclusion was rudely disturbed by 
 the arrival in Japanese waters of an American fleet 
 under Commodore Perry in 1853, sent out by the 
 government of the United States. American sailors, 
 engaged in the whale fisheries in the Pacific, were 
 now and then wrecked on the coasts of Japan, where 
 they generally received cruel treatment. Perry was 
 instructed to demand of the ruler of Japan protection 
 for American sailors and property thus wrecked, and 
 permission for American ships to put into one or more 
 Japanese ports, in order to obtain necessary supplies 
 and to dispose of their cargoes. He presented these 
 demands to the government. He announced further 
 that if his requests were refused, he would open hos- 
 tilities. The government granted certain immediate 
 demands, but insisted that the general question of 
 opening relations with a foreign state required care- 
 ful consideration. Perry consented to allow this dis- 
 cussion and sailed away, stating that he would return 
 the following year for the final answer. The discus- 
 sion of the general question on the part of the gov- 
 erning classes was very earnest. Some believed in 
 maintaining the old policy of complete exclusion of 
 foreigners. Others, however, believed this impossible, 
 owing to the manifest military superiority of the for- 
 eigners. They thought it well to enter into relations 
 
270 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 (/io 
 
 ith them in order to learn the secret of that super- 
 iority, and then to appropriate it for Japan. They be- 
 lieved this the only way to insure, in the long run, 
 the independence and power of their country. This 
 opinion finally prevailed, and when Perry reappeared 
 a treaty was made with him (1854) by which two 
 ports were opened to American ships. This was a 
 mere beginning, but the important fact was that 
 Japan had, after two centuries of seclusion, entered 
 into relations with a foreign state. Later other and 
 more liberal treaties were concluded with the United 
 States and with other countries. 
 
 The reaction of these events upon the internal 
 evolution of Japan was remarkable. They produced 
 a very critical situation, and precipitated a civil war, 
 the outcome of which discussion and conflict was 
 the triumph of the party that believed in change. 
 After 1868 Japan revolutionized her political and 
 social institutions in a few years, adopted with ardor 
 the material and scientific civilization of the West, 
 made herself in these respects a European state, and 
 entered as a result upon an international career, which 
 has already profoundly modified the world, and is 
 likely to be a constant and an increasing factor in the 
 future development of the East. So complete, so 
 rapid, so hearty an appropriation of an alien civiliza- 
 tion, a civilization against which every precaution of 
 exclusion had for centuries been taken, is a change 
 unique in the history of the world, and notable for 
 the audacity and the intelligence displayed. The en- 
 trance upon this course was a direct result of Perry's 
 expedition. The Japanese revolution will always re- 
 
THE FAR EAST 271 
 
 main an astounding story. Once begun it proceeded 
 with great rapidity. In place of the former miUtary 
 class arose an army based on European models. Mili- 
 tary service was declared universal and obligatory in 
 1872. The German system, which has revolutionized 
 Europe, began to revolutionize Asia. 
 
 The first railroad was begun in 1870 between Tokio 
 and Yokohama. Thirty years later there were over 
 3,600 miles in operation. To-day there are 7,600. 
 The educational methods of the West were also intro- 
 duced. A university was established at Tokio, and 
 later another at Kioto. Professors from abroad were 
 induced to accept important positions in them. Stu- 
 dents showed great enthusiasm in pursuing the new 
 learning. Public schools were created rapidly, and 
 by 1883 about 3,300,000 pupils were receiving educa- 
 tion. In 1873 the European calendar was adopted. 
 The codes of law were thoroughly remodeled after an 
 exhaustive study of European systems. Finally a 
 constitution was granted in 1889, after eight years 
 of careful elaboration and study of foreign models. 
 It established a parliament of two chambers, a House 
 of Peers (the so-called " Elder Statesmen ") and a 
 House of Representatives. The vote was given to 
 men of twenty-five years or older who paid a certain 
 property tax. The constitution reserved very large 
 powers for the monarch. Parliament met for the first 
 time in 1890. The test of reformed Japan came in 
 the last decade of the nineteenth century and the first 
 of the twentieth, and proved the solidity of this amaz- 
 ing achievement. During those years she fought and 
 defeated two powers apparently much stronger than 
 
272 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 herself, China and Russia, and took her place as an 
 equal in the family of nations. 
 
 Chino-Japanese War and its Consequences 
 
 A war in which the efficiency of the transformed 
 Japan was clearly established broke out with China 
 in 1894. The immediate cause was the relations of 
 the two powers to Korea. Korea was a kingdom, 
 but both China and Japan claimed suzerainty over 
 it. Japan had an interest in extending her claims, as 
 she desired larger markets for her products. Friction 
 was frequent between the two countries concerning 
 their rights in Korea, as a consequence of which 
 Japan began a war in which, with her modern army, 
 she was easily victorious over her giant neighbor, 
 whose armies fought in the old Asiatic style with a 
 traditional Asiatic equipment. The Japanese drove 
 the Chinese out of Korea, invaded Manchuria, where 
 they seized the fortress of Port Arthur, the strongest 
 position in eastern Asia, occupied the Liao-tung pen- 
 insula on which that fortress is located, and prepared 
 to advance toward Peking. The Chinese, alarmed 
 for their capital, agreed to make peace, and signed 
 the Treaty of Shimonoseki (April 17, 1895), by which 
 they ceded Port Arthur, the Liao-tung peninsula, the 
 Island of Formosa, and the Pescadores Islands to 
 Japan, also agreeing to pay a large war indemnity 
 of two hundred million taels (about $175,000,000). 
 China recognized the complete independence of 
 Korea. 
 
 But in the hour of her triumph Japan was thwarted 
 
THE FAR EAST 273 
 
 by a European intervention, and deprived of the fruits 
 of her victory. Russia now entered in decisive fashion 
 upon a scene w^here she v^as to play a prominent part 
 for the next ten years. She soon showed that she 
 entertained plans directly opposed to those of the 
 Japanese. She induced France and Germany to join 
 her in forcing them to give up the most important 
 rewards of their victory, in ordering them to surrender 
 the Liao-tung peninsula on the ground that the pos- 
 session of Port Arthur threatened the independence of 
 Peking and would be a perpetual menace " to the 
 peace of the Far East" This was a bitter blow to 
 the Japanese. Recognizing, however, that it would 
 be folly to oppose the three great military powers of 
 Europe, they yielded, restored Port Arthur and the 
 peninsula to China, and withdrew from the mainland, 
 indignant at the action of the powers, and resolved 
 to increase their army and navy and develop their 
 resources, believing that their enemy in Asia was 
 Russia, with whom a day of reckoning must come 
 sooner or later, and confirmed in this belief by events 
 that crowded thick and fast in the next few years. 
 
 The insincerity of the powers in talking about the 
 integrity of China and the peace of the East was 
 not long in manifesting itself. 
 
 In 1897 two German missionaries were murdered 
 in the province of Shantung. The German Emperor 
 immediately sent a fleet to demand redress. As a re- 
 sult Germany secured (March 5, 1898) from China 
 a ninety-nine year lease of the fine harbor of Kiau- 
 chau, with a considerable area round about, and ex- 
 tensive commercial and financial privileges in the 
 
274 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 whole province of Shantung. Indeed, that province 
 became a German " sphere of influence.'* 
 
 This action encouraged Russia to make further de- 
 mands. She acquired from China (March 27, 1898) 
 a lease for twenty-five years of Port Arthur, the 
 strongest position in eastern Asia, which, as she had 
 stated to Japan in 1895, enabled the possessor to 
 threaten Peking and to disturb the peace of the 
 Orient. France and England also each acquired a 
 port on similar terms of lease. The powers also 
 forced China to open a dozen new ports to the trade 
 of the world, and to grant extensive rights to estab- 
 lish factories and build railways and develop mines. 
 
 It seemed, in the summer of 1898, that China was 
 about to undergo the fate of Africa, that it was to be 
 carved up among the various powers. This tendency 
 was checked by the rise of a bitterly anti-foreign 
 party, occasioned by these acts of aggression, and 
 culminating in the Boxer insurrections of 1900. 
 These grew rapidly, and spread over northern China. 
 Their aim was to drive the " foreign devils into the 
 sea." Scores of missionaries and their families were 
 killed, and hundreds of Chinese converts murdered in 
 cold blood. Finally, the Legations of the various pow- 
 ers in Peking were besieged, and for weeks Europe 
 and America feared that all the foreigners there would 
 be massacred. In the presence of this common dan- 
 ger the powers were obliged to drop their jealousies 
 and rivalries, and send a relief expedition, consisting 
 of troops from Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Great 
 Britain, and the United States. The Legations were 
 rescued, just as their resources were exhausted by 
 
THE FAR EAST 275 
 
 the siege of two months (June 13-August 14, 1900). 
 The international army suppressed the Boxer move- 
 ment after a short campaign, forced the Chinese to 
 pay a large indemnity, and to punish the ringleaders. 
 In forming this international army, the powers had 
 agreed not to acquire territory, and at the close of 
 the war they guaranteed the integrity of China. 
 Whether this would mean anything remained to be 
 seen. 
 
 The integrity of China had been invoked in 1895 
 and ignored in the years following. Russia, France, 
 and Germany had appealed to it as a reason for de- 
 manding the evacuation of Port Arthur by the Jap- 
 anese in 1895. Soon afterward Germany had virtually 
 annexed a port and a province of China, and France 
 had also acquired a port in the south. Then came 
 the most decisive act, the securing of Port Arthur 
 by Russia. This caused a wave of indignation to 
 sw^eep over Japan, and the people of that country 
 were with difficulty kept in check by the prudence 
 of their statesmen. The acquisition of Port Arthur 
 by Russia meant that now she had a harbor ice-free 
 the year round. That Russia did not look upon her 
 possession as merely a short lease, but as a permanent 
 one, was unmistakably shown by her conduct. She 
 constructed a railroad south from Harbin, connect- 
 ing with the Trans-Siberian. She threw thousands of 
 troops into Manchuria; she set about immensely 
 strengthening Port Arthur as a fortress, and a con- 
 siderable fleet was stationed there. To the Japanese 
 all this seemed to prove that she purposed ultimately 
 to annex the immense province of Manchuria, and 
 
276 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 later probably Korea, which would give her a larger 
 number of ice-free harbors and place her in a dom- 
 inant position on the Pacific, menacing, the Japanese 
 felt, the very existence of Japan. Moreover, this 
 would absolutely cut off all chance of possible Jap- 
 anese expansion in these directions, and of the acquisi- 
 tion of their markets for Japanese industries. The 
 ambitions of the two powers to dominate the East 
 clashed, and, in addition, to Japan the matter seemed 
 to involve her permanent safety, even in her island 
 empire. 
 
 Russo-Japanese War and its Consequences 
 
 Japan's prestige at this time was greatly increased 
 by a treaty concluded with England in 1902 estab- 
 lishing a defensive alliance, each power promising the 
 other aid in certain contingencies. In case either 
 should become involved in war the other would re- 
 main neutral, but would abandon its neutrality and 
 come to the assistance of its ally if another power 
 should join the enemy. This meant that if France 
 or Germany should aid Russia in a war with Japan, 
 then England would aid Japan. In a war between 
 Russia and Japan alone England would be neutral. 
 The treaty was therefore of great practical import- 
 ance to Japan, and it also increased her prestige. For 
 the first time in history, an Asiatic power had entered 
 into an alliance with a European power on a plane of 
 entire equality. Japan had entered the family of 
 nations, and it was remarkable evidence of her im- 
 portance that Great Britain saw advantage in an alli- 
 ance with her. Meanwhile Russia had a large army 
 
THE FAR EAST 277 
 
 in Manchuria and a leasehold of the strong fortress 
 and naval base of Port Arthur. She had definitely 
 promised to withdraw from Manchuria when order 
 should be restored, but she declined to make the 
 statement more explicit. Her military preparations 
 increasing all the while, the Japanese demanded of 
 her the date at which she intended to withdraw her 
 troops from Manchuria, order having apparently been 
 restored. Negotiations between the two powers 
 dragged on from August, 1903, to February, 1904. 
 Japan, believing that Russia was merely trying to 
 gain time to tighten her grip on Manchuria by elabo- 
 rate and intentional delay and evasion, and to pro- 
 long the discussion until she had sufficient troops in 
 the province to be able to throw aside the mask, 
 suddenly broke oE diplomatic relations and com- 
 menced hostilities. On the night of the 8th-9th of 
 February, 1904, the Japanese torpedoed a part of the 
 Russian fleet before Port Arthur and threw their 
 armies into Korea. 
 
 The Russo-Japanese War, thus begun, lasted from 
 February, 1904, to September, 1905. It was fought 
 on both land and sea. Russia had two fleets in Asiatic 
 waters, one at Port Arthur and one at Vladivostok. 
 Her land connection with eastern Asia was by the 
 long single track of the Trans-Siberian railway. Japan 
 succeeded in bottling the Port Arthur fleet at the 
 very outset of the war. Controlling the Asiatic waters 
 she was able to transport armies and munitions to 
 the scene of the land warfare with only slight losses 
 at the hands of the Vladivostok fleet. One army 
 drove the Russians out of Korea, back from the 
 
278 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Yalu. Another under General Oku landed on the 
 Liaotung peninsula and cut off the connections of 
 Port Arthur with Russia. It attempted to take Port 
 Arthur by assault, but was unable to carry it, and 
 finally began a siege. This siege was conducted by 
 General Nogi, General Oku being engaged in driv- 
 ing the Russians back upon Mukden. The Russian 
 General Kuropatkin marched south from Mukden to 
 relieve Port Arthur. South of Mukden great battles 
 occurred, that of Liao-yang, engaging probably half 
 a million men and lasting several days, resulting in 
 a victory of the Japanese, who entered Liao-yang 
 September 4, 1904. Their objective now was Muk- 
 den. Meanwhile, in August, the Japanese had de- 
 feated disastrously both the Port Arthur and Vladi- 
 vostok fleets, eliminating them from the war. The 
 terrific bombardment of Port Arthur continued until 
 that fortress surrendered after a siege of ten months, 
 costing the Japanese 60,000 in killed and wounded 
 (January I, 1905). The army which had conducted 
 this siege was now able to march northward to coop- 
 erate with General Oku around Mukden. There sev- 
 eral battles were fought, the greatest since the 
 Franco-German war of 1870, lasting in each case sev- 
 eral days. The last, at Mukden (March 6-10, 1905), 
 cost both armies 120,000 men killed and wounded in 
 four days* fighting. The Russians were defeated and 
 evacuated Mukden, leaving 40,000 prisoners in the 
 hands of the Japanese. 
 
 Another incident of the war was the sending out 
 from Russia of a new fleet under Admiral Rodjest- 
 vensky, which, after a long voyage around the Cape 
 
THE FAR EAST 279 
 
 of Good Hope, was attacked by Admiral Togo as it 
 entered the Sea of Japan and annihilated in the great 
 naval battle of the Straits of Tsushima, May 27, 1905. 
 
 The two powers finally consented, at the suggestion 
 of President Roosevelt, to send delegates to Ports- 
 mouth, New Hampshire, to see if the war could be 
 brought to a close. The result was the signing of 
 the Treaty of Portsmouth, September 5, 1905. The 
 war between Japan and Russia had been fought in 
 lands belonging to neither power, in Korea, and prin- 
 cipally in Manchuria, a province of China, yet Korea 
 and China took no part in the war, were passive spec- 
 tators, powerless to preserve the neutrality of their 
 soil or their independent sovereignty. The war had 
 cost each nation about a billion dollars and about 
 200,000 in killed and wounded. 
 
 By the Treaty of Portsmouth Russia recognized 
 Japan's paramount interests in Korea, which country, 
 however, was to remain independent. Both the Rus- 
 sians and the Japanese were to evacuate Manchuria. 
 Russia transferred to Japan her lease of Port Arthur 
 and the Liao-tung peninsula, and ceded the southern 
 half of the island of Saghalin. 
 
 Japan thus stood forth the dominant power of the 
 Orient. She had expanded in ten years by the annexa- 
 tion of Formosa and Saghalin. She has not regarded 
 Korea as independent, but since the close of the war 
 has annexed her (1910). She possesses Port Arthur, 
 and her position in Manchuria is one which has given 
 rise to much diplomatic discussion. She has an army 
 of 600,000 men, equipped with all the most modern 
 appliances of destruction, a navy about the size of 
 
28o FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 that of France, flourishing industries, and flourishing 
 commerce. The drain upon her resources during the 
 period just passed had been tremendous, and, appre- 
 ciating the need of many years of quiet recuperation 
 and upbuilding, she was wilHng to make the Peace of 
 Portsmouth. Her financial difficulties were great, im- 
 posing an abnormally heavy taxation. No people had 
 accomplished so vast a transformation in so short a 
 time. 
 
 The lesson of these tremendous events was not lost 
 upon the Chinese. The victories of Japan, an Oriental 
 state, over a great Occidental power, as well as over 
 China, convinced many influential Chinese of the 
 advantage to be derived from an adoption of Euro- 
 pean methods, an appropriation of European knowl- 
 edge. Moreover, they saw that the only way to repel 
 the aggressions of outside powers was to be equipped 
 with the weapons used by the aggressor. 
 
 The leaven of reform began to work fruitfully in 
 the Middle Kingdom. A military spirit arose in this 
 state, which formerly despised the martial virtues. 
 Under the direction of Japanese instructors a begin- 
 ning was made in the construction of a Chinese army 
 after European models and equipped in European 
 fashion. The acquisition of Western knowledge was 
 encouraged. Students went in large numbers to the 
 schools and universities of Europe and America. 
 Twenty thousand of them went to Japan. The State 
 encouraged the process by throwing open the civil 
 service, that is, official careers, to those who obtained 
 honors in examinations in Western subjects. Schools 
 were opened throughout the country. Even public 
 
THE FAR EAST 281 
 
 schools for girls were established in some places, a 
 remarkable fact for any Oriental country. In 1906 
 an edict was issued aiming at the prohibition of the 
 use of opium within ten years. This edict has since 
 been put into execution and the opium trade has 
 finally been suppressed. 
 
 Political reorganization was also undertaken. An 
 imperial commission was sent to Europe in 1905 to 
 study the representative systems of various countries, 
 and on its return a committee, consisting of many 
 high dignitaries, was appointed to study its report. 
 In August, 1908, an ofHcial edict was issued prom- 
 ising, in the name of the Emperor, a constitution in 
 1917. 
 
 But the process of transformation was destined to 
 proceed more rapidly than was contemplated. Radi- 
 cal and revolutionary parties appeared upon the scene, 
 demanding a constitution immediately. As the Im- 
 perial Government could not resist, it granted one 
 in 191 1, establishing a parliament with extensive pow- 
 ers. To cap all, in central and southern China, a re- 
 publican movement arose and spread rapidly. Finally 
 a republic was proclaimed at Nanking and Dr. Sun 
 Yat Sen, who had been educated in part in the United 
 States, was elected president. A clash between this 
 republican movement and the imperial party in the 
 north resulted in the forced abdication of the boy 
 Emperor (February, 1912). This was the end of the 
 Manchu dynasty. Thereupon Yuan Shih K'ai was 
 chosen President of the Republic of China. The situ- 
 ation confronting the new Republic was extremely 
 grave. Would it prove possible to establish the new 
 
282 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 regime upon solid and enduring bases, or would the 
 Republic fall a prey to the internal dissensions of the 
 Chinese, or to foreign aggression at the hands of Eu- 
 ropean powers, or, more likely, at the hands of an 
 ambitious and militaristic neighbor, Japan? These 
 were the secrets of the future. 
 
 Yuan Shih K'ai was elected President for a term 
 of five years. His administration was marked by a 
 growing tension between his increasingly autocratic 
 tendencies and the liberal and radical tendencies of 
 Parliament. In the midst of his term, the President 
 died, June 6, 1916. He was succeeded by Li Yuan- 
 hung, the Vice-President, generally considered more 
 loyal to repubUcan principles. 
 
CHAPTER XIV 
 
 RUSSIA SINCE THE WAR WITH JAPAN 
 
 We are now in a position to follow with some 
 understanding the very recent history of Russia, a 
 history at once crowded, intricate, and turbulent. 
 That history is the record of the reaction of the Jap- 
 anese war upon Russia herself. 
 
 That war was from the beginning unpopular with 
 the Russians. Consisting of a series of defeats, its 
 unpopularity only increased, and the indignation and 
 wrath of the people were shown during its course in 
 many ways. The Government was justly held respon- 
 sible, and was discredited by its failure. As the war 
 added greatly to the already existing discontent, the 
 plight in which the Government found itself rendered 
 it powerless to repress the popular expression of that 
 discontent in the usual summary fashion. There was 
 for many months extraordinary freedom of discus- 
 sion, of the press, of speech, cut short now and then 
 by the officials, only to break out later. The war 
 with Japan had for the Government most unexpected 
 and unwelcome consequences. The very winds were 
 let loose. 
 
 The minister of the interior, in whose hands lay 
 the maintenance of public order, was at this time 
 Plehve, one of the most bitterly hated men in recent 
 
 283 
 
284 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Russian history. Plehve had been in power since 
 1902, and had revealed a character of unusual harsh- 
 ness. He had incessantly and pitilessly prosecuted 
 liberals everywhere, had filled the prisons with his 
 victims, had been the center of the movement against 
 the Finns, previously described, and seems to have 
 secretly favored the horrible massacres of Jews which 
 occurred at this time. He was detested as few men 
 have been. He attempted to suppress in the usual 
 manner the rising volume of criticism occasioned by 
 the war by applying the same ruthless methods of 
 breaking up meetings, and exiling to Siberia students, 
 professional men, laborers. He was killed July, 1904, 
 by a bomb thrown under his carriage by a former 
 student. Russia breathed more easily. 
 
 The various liberal and advanced elements of the 
 population uttered their desires with a freedom such 
 as they had never known before. They demanded 
 that the reign of law be established in Russia, that 
 the era of bureaucratic and police control, recogniz- 
 ing no limits of inquisition and of cruelty, should 
 cease. They demanded the individual rights usual 
 in western Europe, freedom of conscience, of speech, 
 of publication, of public meetings and associations, of 
 justice administered by independent judges. They 
 also demanded a constitution, to be framed by the 
 people, and a national parliament. 
 
 The Czar showing no inclination to accede to these 
 demands, disorder continued and became more wide- 
 spread, particularly when the shameful facts became 
 known that officials were enriching themselves at the 
 expense of the national honor, selling for private gain 
 
RUSSIA SINCE THE WAR WITH JAPAN 285 
 
 supplies intended for the army, even seizing the funds 
 of the Red Cross Society. The war continued to be 
 a series of humiliating and sanguinary defeats, and on 
 January i, 1905, came the surrender of Port Arthur 
 after a fearful siege. The horror of the civilized world 
 was aroused by an event which occurred a few weeks 
 later, the slaughter of " Bloody Sunday " (January 
 2,2, 1905). Workmen in immense numbers, under 
 the leadership of a radical priest, Father Gapon, tried 
 to approach the Imperial Palace in St. Petersburg, 
 hoping to be able to lay their grievances directly be- 
 fore the Emperor, as they had no faith in any of the 
 ojffiicials. Instead of that they were attacked by the 
 Cossacks and the regular troops and the result was 
 a fearful loss of life, how large cannot be accurately 
 stated. 
 
 All through the year 1905 tumults and disturbances 
 occurred. Peasants burned the houses of the nobles. 
 Mutinies in the army and navy were frequent. The 
 uncle of the Czar, the Grand Duke Sergius, one of 
 the most pronounced reactionaries in the Empire, 
 who had said " the people want the stick," was assas- 
 sinated. Russia was in a state bordering on anarchy. 
 Finally the Czar sought to reduce the ever-mounting 
 spirit of opposition by issuing a manifesto concerning 
 the representative assembly which was so vehemently 
 demanded (August 19, 1905). The manifesto proved 
 a bitter disappointment, as it spoke of the necessity 
 of preserving autocratic government and promised a 
 representative assembly which should only have the 
 power to give advice, not to see that its advice was fol- 
 lowed. The agitation, therefore, continued unabated, 
 
286 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 or rather increased, assuming new and alarming 
 aspects which exerted in the end a terrific pressure 
 upon the Government. Finally the Czar on Octo- 
 ber 30, 1905, issued a new manifesto which prom- 
 ised freedom of conscience, speech, meeting, and 
 association, also a representative assembly or Duma, 
 to be elected on a wide franchise, establishing " as 
 an immutable rule that no law can come into force 
 without the approval of the Duma," and giving to 
 the Duma also effective control over the acts of public 
 officials. 
 
 The Czar thus promised the Duma, which was to 
 be a law-making body and was to have a supervision 
 over state officials. But before it met he proceeded 
 to clip its wings. He issued a decree constituting the 
 Council of the Empire, that is, a body consisting 
 largely of official appointees from the bureaucracy, or 
 of persons associated with the old order of things, as 
 a kind of Upper Chamber of the legislature, of which 
 the Duma should be the Lower. Laws must have 
 the consent of both Council and Duma before being 
 submitted to the Czar for approval. 
 
 The elections to the Duma were held in March 
 and April, 1906, and resulted in a large majority for 
 the Constitutional Democrats, popularly called the 
 " Cadets." In the name of the Czar certain " organic 
 laws " were now issued, laws that could not be 
 touched by the Duma. Thus the powers of that body 
 were again restricted, before it had even met. 
 
 The Duma was opened by Nicholas II in person 
 with elaborate ceremony. May 10, 1906. It was des- 
 tined to have a short and stormy life. It showed 
 
RUSSIA SINCE THE WAR WITH JAPAN 287 
 
 from the beginning that it desired a comprehensive 
 reform of Russia along the well-known lines of west- 
 ern liberalism. It was combated by the court and 
 bureaucratic parties, which had not been able to pre- 
 vent its meeting, but which were bent upon render- 
 ing it powerless, and were only waiting for a favora- 
 ble time to secure its abolition. It demanded that 
 the Council of the Empire, the second chamber, should 
 be reformed, as it was under the complete control of 
 the Emperor, and was thus able to nullify the work 
 of the people's chamber. It demanded that the min- 
 isters be made responsible to the Duma as the only 
 way of giving the people control over the officials. 
 It demanded the abolition of martial law throughout 
 the Empire, under cover of which all kinds of crimes 
 were being perpetrated by the governing classes. It 
 passed a bill abolishing capital punishment. As the 
 needs of the peasants were most pressing, it demanded 
 that the lands belonging to the state, the crown, and 
 the monasteries be given to them on long lease. 
 
 The Duma lasted a little over two months. Its 
 debates were marked by a high degree of intelligence 
 and by frequent displays of eloquence, in which sev- 
 eral peasants distinguished themselves. It criticised 
 the abuses of the Government freely and scathingly. 
 Its sessions were often stormy, the attitude of the 
 ministers frequently contemptuous. It was foiled in 
 all its attempts at reform by the Council of the Em- 
 pire, and by the Czar. 
 
 The crucial contest was over the responsibility of 
 ministers. The Duma demanded this as the only 
 way of giving the people an effective participation 
 
288 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 in the government. The Czar steadily refused. A 
 deadlock ensued. The Czar cut the whole matter 
 short by dissolving the Duma, on July 22, 1906, ex- 
 pressing himself as " cruelly disappointed " by its 
 actions, and ordering elections for a new Duma. 
 
 The second Duma was opened by the Czar March 
 5, 1907. It did not work to the satisfaction of the 
 Government. Friction between it and the ministry 
 developed early and steadily increased. Finally the 
 Government arrested sixteen of the members and in- 
 dicted many others for carrying on an alleged revolu- 
 tionary propaganda. This was, of course, a vital 
 assault upon the integrity of the assembly, a gross 
 infringement upon even the most moderate constitu- 
 tional liberties. Preparing to contest this high- 
 handed action, the Duma was dissolved on June 
 16, 1907, and a new one ordered to be elected in Sep- 
 tember, and to meet in November. An imperial mani- 
 festo was issued at the same time altering the elec- 
 toral law in most sweeping fashion, and practically 
 bestowing the right of choosing the large majority 
 of the members upon about 130,000 landowners. This 
 also was a grave infringement upon the constitutional 
 liberties hitherto granted, which had, among other 
 things, promised that the electoral law should not be 
 changed without the consent of the Duma. 
 
 The Government declared by word and by act that 
 the autocracy of the ruler was undiminished. Illegali- 
 ties of the old, familiar kind were committed freely 
 by officials. Reaction ruled unchecked. The third 
 Duma, elected on a very limited and plutocratic suf- 
 frage, was opened on November 14, 1907. It was 
 
RUSSIA SINCE THE WAR WITH JAPAN 289 
 
 composed in large measure of reactionaries, of large 
 landowners. It proved a docile assembly. 
 
 The Government did not dare to abolish the Duma 
 outright, as urged by the reactionaries. The Duma 
 continued to exist, but was rather a consultative than 
 a legislative body. With the mere passage of time 
 it took on more and more the character of a perma- 
 nent institution, exerting a feeble influence on the 
 national life. However, the government of Russia 
 became again in practice what it had been before the 
 war with Japan, what it had been all through the nine- 
 teenth century. The tremendous struggle for liberty 
 had failed. The former governing classes recovered 
 control of the state, after the stormy years from 
 1904 to 1907, and applied once more their former 
 principles. Among these were renewed attacks upon 
 the Finns, increasingly severe measures against the 
 Poles, and savage treatment of the Jews. Russia was 
 still wedded to her idols, or at least her idols had 
 not been overthrown. Her mediaeval past was still 
 the strongest force in the state to which it still gave 
 a thoroughly mediaeval tone. Whether the war of 
 1914 would result in accomplishing what the war with 
 Japan began but did not achieve, a sweeping reforma- 
 tion of the institutions and policies, ambitions and 
 mental outlook of the nation, was, of course, the secret 
 of the future. 
 
CHAPTER XV 
 THE BALKAN WARS OF 1912 AND 1913 
 
 The Peace Movement 
 
 The contemporary world, to a degree altogether un- 
 precedented in history, has been dominated by the 
 thought of war, by extraordinary preparations for 
 war, and by zealous and concerted efforts to prevent 
 war. Finally a conflict came which staggered the 
 imagination and beggared description and whose is- 
 sues were incalculable, a conflict which soon clamped 
 the entire world in its iron grip. This was a ghastly 
 outcome of a century of development, rich beyond 
 compare in many lines. It is, however, not inexplica- 
 ble and it is important for us to see how so melan- 
 choly, so sinister a turn has been given to the des- 
 tinies of the race. 
 
 The rise and development of the militaristic spirit 
 have been shown in the preceding pages. The Prus- 
 sian military system, marked by scientific thorough- 
 ness and efficiency, has been adopted by most of the 
 countries of the Continent. Europe became in the 
 last quarter of the nineteenth century what she had 
 never been before, literally an armed continent. The 
 rivalry of the nations to have the most perfect instru- 
 ments of destruction, the strongest army, and the 
 
 290 
 
THE BALKAN WARS OF 1912 AND 1913 291 
 
 strongest navy, became one of the most conspicuous 
 features of the modern world. Ships of war were 
 made so strong that they could resist attack. New 
 projectiles of terrific force were consequently required 
 and the torpedo was invented. A new agency would 
 be useful to discharge this missile and thus the tor- 
 pedo boat was developed. To neutralize it was there- 
 fore the immediate necessity and the torpedo-boat 
 destroyer was the result. Boats that could navigate 
 beneath the waters would have an obvious advantage 
 over those that could be seen, and the submarine was 
 provided for this need. And finally men took posses- 
 sion of the air with dirigible balloons and aeroplanes, 
 as aerial auxiliaries of war. Thus man's immemorial 
 occupation, war, gained from the advance of science 
 and contributed to that advance. The wars of the 
 past were fought on the surface of the globe. Those 
 of the present are fought in the heavens above, and 
 in the earth beneath, and in the waters under the 
 earth. 
 
 But all this is tremendously expensive. It costs 
 more than a hundred thousand dollars to construct 
 the largest coast defense gun, which carries over 
 twenty miles, and its single discharge costs a thou- 
 sand dollars. Fifteen millions are necessary to build 
 a dreadnought, and now we have super-dreadnoughts, 
 more costly still and more destructive. The debts of 
 European countries were nearly doubled during the 
 last thirty years, largely because of military expendi- 
 tures. The military budgets of European states in a 
 time of " armed peace " amounted to not far from a 
 billion and a half dollars a year, half as much again 
 
292 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 as the indemnity exacted by Germany from France in 
 1871. The burden became so heavy, the rivalry so 
 keen that it gave rise to a movement which aimed 
 to end it. The very aggravation of the evil prompted 
 a desire for its cure. 
 sj In the summer of 1898 the civil and military authori- '^ 
 ties of Russia were considering how they might escape 
 the necessity of replacing an antiquated kind of artil- 
 lery with a more modern but very expensive kind. 
 Out of this discussion emerged the idea that it would 
 be desirable, if possible, to check the increase of arma- 
 ments. This could not be achieved by one nation 
 alone, but must be done by all, if done at all. The 
 outcome of these discussions was the issuance by the 
 Czar, Nicholas II, on August 24, 1898, of a communi- 
 cation to the powers, suggesting that an international 
 conference be held to consider the general problem. 
 
 The conference, thus suggested by the Czar, was 
 held at The Hague in 1899. Twenty-six of the fifty- 
 nine sovereign governments of the world were repre- 
 sented by one hundred members. Twenty of these 
 states were European, four were Asiatic — China, 
 Japan, Persia, and Siam — and two were American — 
 the United States and Mexico. The Conference was 
 opened on May 18 and closed on July 29. 
 
 The official utterances of most of the delegates em- 
 phasized the frightful burden and waste of this vast 
 expenditure upon the equipment for war, when all 
 nations, big and little, needed all their resources for 
 the works of peace, for education, for social improve- 
 ment in many directions. Most of the delegates em- 
 phasized also the loss entailed by compulsory military 
 
THE BALKAN WARS OF 1912 AND 1913 293 
 
 service, removing millions and millions of young men 
 from their careers, from productive activity for several 
 precious years. A German delegate, on the other 
 hand, denied all this, denied that the necessary weight 
 of charges and taxes portended approaching ruin and 
 exhaustion, declared that the general welfare was in- 
 creasing all the while, and that compulsory military 
 service was not regarded in his country as a heavy 
 burden, but as a sacred and patriotic duty to which 
 his country owed its existence, its prosperity, and its 
 future. 
 
 With such differences of opinion the Conference 
 was unable to reach any agreement upon the funda- 
 mental question which had given rise to its convo- 
 cation. It could only adopt a resolution expressing 
 the belief that " a limitation of the military expenses 
 which now burden the world is greatly to be desired 
 in the interests of the material and moral well-being 
 of mankind " and the desire that the governments 
 ** shall take up the study of the possibility of an agree- 
 ment concerning the limitation of armed forces on 
 land and sea, and of military budgets." 
 
 With regard to arbitration the Conference was 
 more successful. It established a Permanent Court 
 of Arbitration for the purpose of facilitating arbitra- 
 tion in the case of international disputes which it is 
 found impossible to settle by the ordinary means of 
 diplomacy. The Court does not consist of a group 
 of judges holding sessions at stated times to try such 
 cases as may be brought before it. But it is provided 
 that each power " shall select not more than four 
 persons of recognized competence in questions of 
 
/, 
 
 294 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 international law, enjoying the highest moral repu- 
 tation and disposed to accept the duties of arbitra- 
 tors," and that their appointment shall run for six 
 years and may be renewed. Out of this long list the 
 powers at variance may choose, in a manner indicated, 
 the judges who shall decide any given case. 
 
 Recourse to this Court is optional, but the Court 
 is always ready to be invoked. Arbitration is en- 
 tirely voluntary with the parties to a quarrel, but if 
 they wish to arbitrate the machinery is at hand, a 
 fact which is, perhaps, an encouragement to its use. 
 
 The work of the First Peace Conference was very 
 limited and modest, yet encouraging. But that the 
 new century was to bring not peace but a sword, that 
 force still ruled the world, was shortly apparent. 
 Those who were optimistic about the rapid spread 
 of arbitration as a principle destined to regulate the 
 international relations of the future were sadly dis- 
 appointed by the meager results of the Conference, 
 and were still more depressed by subsequent events. 
 For almost on the very heels of this Conference, 
 which it was hoped would further the interests of 
 peace, came the devastating war in South Africa, 
 followed quickly by the war between Russia and 
 Japan. Also the expenditures of European states 
 upon armies and navies continued to increase, and 
 at an even faster rate than ever. During the eight 
 years, from 1898 to 1906, they augmented nearly 
 £70,000,000, the sum total mounting from £250,000,- 
 000 to £320,000,000. 
 
 Such was the disappointing sequel of the Hague 
 Conference. But despite discouragements the friends 
 
THE BALKAN WARS OF 1912 AND 1913 295 
 
 of peace were active, and finally brought about the 
 Second Conference at The Hague in 1907. This also 
 was called by Nicholas II, though President Roose- 
 velt had first taken the initiative. The Second Con- 
 ference was in session from June 15 to October 18. 
 It was attended by representatives from forty-four of 
 the world's fifty-seven states claiming sovereignty in 
 1907. The number of countries represented in this 
 Conference, therefore, was nearly double that repre- 
 sented in the first, and the number of members was 
 more than double, mounting from one hundred to 
 two hundred and fifty-six. The chief additions came 
 from the republics of Central and South America. 
 The number of American governments represented 
 rose, indeed, from two to nineteen. Twenty-one 
 European, nineteen American, and four Asiatic states 
 sent delegates to this Second Conference. Its mem- 
 bership illustrated excellently certain features of our 
 day, among others the indubitable fact that we live 
 in an age of world politics, that isolation no longer 
 exists, either of nation or of hemispheres. The Con- 
 ference was not European but international — the ma- 
 jority of the states were non-European. 
 
 The Second Conference accomplished much prom- 
 ising work in the adoption of conventions regulating 
 the itCtual conduct of war in more humane fashion, 
 and in defining certain aspects of international law 
 with greater precision than heretofore. But, con- 
 cerning compulsory arbitration, and concerning dis- 
 armament or the limitation of armaments, nothing 
 was achieved. It passed this resolution : " The Con- 
 ference confirms the resolution adopted by the Con- 
 
296 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 ference of 1899 in regard to the restriction of mili- 
 tary expenditures ; and, since military expenditures 
 have increased considerably in nearly every country 
 since the said year, the Conference declares that it is 
 highly desirable to see the governments take up the 
 serious study of the question." 
 
 This Platonic resolution was adopted unanimously. 
 A grim commentary on its importance in the eyes of 
 the governments was contained in the history of the 
 succeeding years with their ever-increasing military 
 and naval appropriations, their tenser rivalry, their 
 deepening determination to be ready for whatever 
 the future might have in store. 
 
 That future had in store for 1912 and 1913 two 
 desperate wars in the Balkan peninsula and for 1914 
 an appalling cataclysm. 
 
 The Collapse of the Ottoman Empire 
 
 We have seen with what enthusiasm the bloodless 
 revolution of July 24, 1908, was hailed by all the 
 races of Turkey. It seemed the brilliant dawn of 
 a new era. It has, however, proved to be the begin- 
 ning of the end of the Turkish Empire in Europe, 
 if not in Asia as well. From that day to the out- 
 break of the European War six years later the Bal- 
 kan peninsula was the storm center of the world. 
 Event succeeded event, swift, startling, and sensa- 
 tional, throwing a lengthening and deepening shadow 
 before. No adequate description of these crowded 
 years can be attempted here. Only an outline can 
 be given indicating the successive stages of a portent- 
 ous and absorbing drama. 
 
THE BALKAN WARS OF 1912 AND 1913 297 
 
 The ease with which the Young Turks overthrew 
 in those July days of 1908 the loathsome regime of 
 Abdul Hamid, and the principles of freedom and fair 
 play which they proclaimed, aroused the happiest 
 anticipations, and enlisted the liveliest sympathy 
 among multitudes within and without the Empire. 
 The very atmosphere was charged with the hope and 
 the expectation that the reign of liberty, equality, 
 and fraternity was about to begin for this sorely vis- 
 ited land, where unreason in all its varied forms had 
 hitherto held sway. Would not Turkey, rejuvenated, 
 modernized, and liberalized, strong in the loyalty and 
 well-being of its citizens, freed from the blighting in- 
 heritance of its gloomy past, take an honorable place 
 at last in the family of humane and progressive na- 
 tions? Might not the old racial and religious feuds 
 disappear under a new regime, where each locality 
 would have a certain autonomy, large enough to en- 
 sure essential freedom in religion and in language? 
 Might not a strong national patriotism be developed 
 out of the polyglot conditions by freedom, a thing 
 which despotism had never been able to evoke? 
 Might not Turkey become a stronger nation by adopt- 
 ing the principles of true toleration toward all her 
 various races and religions? Had not the time come 
 for the elimination of these primitive but hardy preju- 
 dices and animosities? Might not races and creeds 
 be subordinated to a large and essential unity? Might 
 not this be the final, though unexpected, solution of 
 the famous Eastern Question? 
 
 Even in those golden days some doubted, not seeing 
 any authentic signs of an impending millennium for 
 
298 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 that distracted corner of the world. At least the 
 problem of so vast a transformation would be very 
 difficult. The unanimity shown in the joyous destruc- 
 tion of the old system might not be shown in the con- 
 struction of the new, as many precedents in European 
 history suggested. If Turkey were left alone to con- 
 centrate her entire energy upon the impending work 
 of reform, she might perhaps succeed. But she was 
 not to be left alone now any more than she had been 
 for centuries. The Eastern Question had long per- 
 plexed the powers of Europe, and had at the same 
 time lured them on to seek their own advantage in 
 its labyrinthine mazes. It was conspicuously an in- 
 ternational problem. . But the internal reform of 
 Turkey might profoundly alter her international posi- 
 tion by increasing the power of the Empire. 
 
 Thus it came about that the July Revolution of 
 1908 instantly riveted the attention of European pow- 
 ers and precipitated a series of startling events. 
 Might not a reformed Turkey, animated with a new 
 national spirit, with her army and finances reorgan- 
 ized and placed upon a solid basis, attempt to recover 
 complete control of some of the possessions which, 
 as we have seen, had been really, though not nomi- 
 nally and technically, torn from her — Bosnia, Herze- 
 govina, Bulgaria, Crete, possibly Cyprus, possibly 
 Egypt? There was very little evidence to show that 
 the Young Turks had any such intention or dreamed 
 of entering upon so hazardous an adventure. Indeed, 
 it was quite apparent that they asked nothing better 
 than to be left alone, fully recognizing the intricacy 
 of their immediate problem, the need of quiet for its 
 
THE BALKAN WARS OF 1912 AND 1913 299 
 
 solution. But the extremity of one is the oppor- 
 tunity of another. 
 
 On October 3, 1908, Emperor Francis Joseph of 
 Austria-Hungary announced, through autograph let- 
 ters to various rulers, his decision to incorporate 
 Bosnia and Herzegovina definitely v^ithin his empire. 
 These were Turkish provinces, handed over by the 
 Congress of Berlin in 1878 to Austria-Hungary for 
 *' occupation " and administration, though they still 
 remained officially under the suzerainty of the Porte. 
 On October 5 Prince Ferdinand of Bulgaria pro- 
 claimed, amid great ceremony, the complete independ- 
 ence of Bulgaria from Turkish suzerainty, and as- 
 sumed the title of Czar. Tw^o days later the Greek 
 population of the island of Crete repudiated all con- 
 nection with Turkey and declared for union with 
 Greece. On the same day, October 7, Francis Joseph 
 issued a proclamation to the people of Bosnia and 
 Herzegovina announcing the annexation of those 
 provinces. Against this action Serbia protested vig- 
 orously to the powers, her parliament was imme- 
 diately convoked, and the war spirit flamed up and 
 threatened to get beyond control. Ferdinand was 
 prepared to defend the independence of Bulgaria by 
 going to war with Turkey, if necessary. 
 
 These startling events immediately aroused intense 
 excitement throughout Europe. They constituted 
 violent breaches of the Treaty of Berlin. The crisis 
 precipitated by the actions of Austria-Hungary and 
 Bulgaria brought all the great powers, signatories 
 of that treaty, upon the scene. It became quickly 
 apparent that they did not agree. Germany made 
 
300 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 it clear that she would support Austria, and Italy 
 seemed likely to do the same. The Triple Alliance, 
 therefore, remained firm. In another group were 
 Great Britain, France, and Russia, their precise posi- 
 tion not clear, but plainly irritated at the defiance 
 of the Treaty of Berlin. A tremendous interchange 
 of diplomatic notes ensued. The British Foreign Min- 
 ister, Sir Edward Grey, announced that Great Brit- 
 ain could not admit " the right of any power to alter 
 an international treaty without the consent of the 
 other parties to it," and demanded that, as the public 
 law of the Balkans rested upon the Treaty of Berlin 
 of 1878, and that as that treaty was made by all the 
 great powers, it could only be revised by the great 
 powers, meeting again in Congress. But neither Aus- 
 tria nor Germany would listen to this suggestion. 
 They knew that Russia could not intervene, lamed, 
 as she was, by the disastrous war with Japan, with 
 her army disorganized and her finances in bad condi- 
 tion. And they had no fear of Great Britain and 
 France. Thus the Treaty of Berlin was flouted, al- 
 though later the signatories of that treaty formally 
 recognized the accomplished fact. 
 
 Of all the states the most aggrieved by these occur- 
 rences was Serbia, and the most helpless. For years 
 the Serbians had entertained the ambition of uniting 
 Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Montenegro, peo- 
 pled by m.embers of the same Serbian race, thus re- 
 storing the Serbian empire of the Middle Ages, and 
 gaining access to the sea. This plan was blocked, 
 apparently forever. Serbia could not expand to the 
 west, as Austria barred the way with Bosnia and 
 
THE BALKAN WARS OF 1912 AND 1913 301 
 
 Herzegovina. She could not reach the sea. Thus 
 she could get her products to market only with the 
 consent of other nations. She alone of all the states 
 in Europe, with the exception of Switzerland, was 
 in this predicament. Feeling that she must thus be- 
 come a vassal state, probably to her enemy, Austria- 
 Hungary, seeing all possibility of expansion ended, 
 all hopes of combining the Serbs of the Balkans under 
 her banner frustrated, the feeling was strong that 
 war, even against desperate odds, was preferable to 
 strangulation. However, she did not fly to arms. 
 But the feeling of anger and alarm remained, an ele- 
 ment in the general situation that could not be ig- 
 nored, auguring ill for the future. 
 
 But trouble for the Young Turks came not only 
 from the outside. It also came from inside and, as 
 was shortly seen, it lay in large measure in their own 
 unwisdom. Difficulties manifold encompassed them 
 about. 
 
 The new Turkish Parliament met in December, 
 
 1908, amid general enthusiasm. It consisted of two 
 chambers, a Senate, appointed by the Sultan, and 
 a Chamber of Deputies, elected by the people. Four 
 months later events occurred which threatened the 
 abrupt termination of this experiment in constitu- 
 tional and parliamentary government. On April 13, 
 
 1909, without warning, thousands of troops in Con- 
 stantinople broke into mutiny, killed some of their 
 officers, denounced the Young Turks, and demanded 
 the abolition of the constitution. The city was ter- 
 rorized. At the same time sickening massacres oc- 
 curred in Asia Minor, particularly at Adana, showing 
 
302 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 that the rehgious and racial animosities of former 
 times had lost none of their force. It seemed that 
 the new regime was about to founder utterly. A 
 counter-revolution was to undo the work of July. But 
 this counter-revolution was energetically suppressed 
 by troops sent up from Salonica and Adrianople 
 and the Young Turks were soon in power again. 
 Holding that the mutiny had been inspired and or- 
 ganized by the Sultan, who had corrupted the troops 
 so that he might restore the old regime, they resolved 
 to terminate his rule. On April 27, 1909, Abdul 
 Hamid II was deposed, and was immediately taken 
 as a prisoner of state to Salonica. He was succeeded 
 by his brother, whom he had kept imprisoned many 
 years. The new Sultan, Mohammed V, was in his 
 sixty-fourth year. He at once expressed his entire 
 sympathy with the armies of the Young Turks, his 
 intention to be a constitutional monarch. The Young 
 Turks were in power once more. 
 
 From the very beginning they failed. They did 
 not rise to the height of their opportunity, they did 
 not meet the expectations that had been aroused, 
 they did not loyally live up to the principles they 
 professed. They made no attempt to introduce the 
 spirit of justice, of fair play toward the various ele- 
 ments of their highly composite empire. Instead of 
 seeking to apply the principles of liberty, equality, 
 and fraternity, they resorted to autocratic govern- 
 ment, to domination by a single race, to the ruthless 
 suppression of the rights of the people. They did just 
 what the Germans have done in Alsace-Lorraine and 
 Posen, what the Russians have done in Finland and 
 
THE BALKAN WARS OF 1912 AND 1913 303 
 
 in Poland, and what the Austrians and Hungarians 
 have done with the Slavic peoples within their bor- 
 ders. The policy of oppression of subject races, the 
 attempt at amalgamation by force and craft, have 
 strewn Europe with combustible material and the 
 combustion has finally come. The government of the 
 Young Turks was just as despotic as that of Abdul 
 Hamid and its outcome was the same, a further and 
 decisive disruption of the Empire. 
 
 From the very first they showed their purpose. 
 They, the Turks, that is the Mohammedan ruling 
 race, determined to keep power absolutely in their 
 cjwn hands by hook or crook. In the very first elec- 
 tions to Parliament they arranged affairs so that they 
 would have a majority over all other races combined. 
 They did not intend to divide power with the Chris- 
 tian Greeks and Armenians or the Mohammedan 
 Arabs. Their policy was one of Turkification, just 
 as the Russian policy was one of Russification, the 
 German of Germanization. They made no attempt 
 to punish the perpetrators of the Adana massacres in 
 which over thirty thousand Armenian Christians were 
 slaughtered. The Armenian population was thus 
 alienated from them. They tried to suppress the 
 liberties which under all previous regimes the Ortho- 
 dox Greek Church had enjoyed. As they intended 
 to subject all the races of the Empire to their own 
 race, so they intended to suppress by force all reli- 
 gious privileges. They thus offended and infuriated 
 the Greeks, whom they also alarmed and embittered 
 by a commercial boycott because the Greeks would 
 not agree to their repressive policy in regard to the 
 
304 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Cretans. Their treatment of Macedonia was the acme 
 of folly. They sought to reinforce the Moslem ele- 
 ments of the population by bringing in Moslems from 
 other regions. This aroused the Christian elements, 
 Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian. Large numbers of 
 these Christians fled from Macedonia to Greece, Bul- 
 garia, and Serbia, carrying with them their griev- 
 ances, urging the governments of those countries to 
 hostility against the Turks. 
 
 The Turks went a step farther. In the west were 
 the Albanians, a Moslem people who had hitherto 
 combined local independence with loyal and appre- 
 ciated services to the Turkish authorities, in both the 
 army and the government. The Turks decided to 
 suppress this independence and to make the Alba- 
 nians submit in all matters to the authorities at Con- 
 stantinople. But the Albanians had been for cen- 
 turies remarkable fighters. They now flew to arms. 
 Year after year the Albanian rebellion broke out, 
 only temporarily subdued or smothered by the Turks, 
 who thus exhausted their strength and squandered 
 their resources in fruitless but costly efforts to 
 " pacify " these hardy war-loving mountaineers. 
 
 Thus only a few years of Young Turk rule were 
 necessary to create a highly critical situation, so nu- 
 merous were the disaffected elements. There had 
 been no serious attempt to regenerate Turkey, to 
 bring together the various races on the basis of lib- 
 erty for all. Turkey lost hundreds of thousands of 
 its Christian subjects who fled to surrounding coun- 
 tries rather than endure the odious oppression. These 
 
THE BALKAN WARS OF 1912 AND 1913 305 
 
 exiles did what they could to hit back at their op- 
 pressors. 
 
 The Young Turks from the very beginning failed 
 as reformers because they were untrue to their prom- 
 ises. Their failure led to war in the Balkans and 
 the war in the Balkans led to the European War. 
 They spent their time in endeavoring to assert them- 
 selves as a race of masters. They sowed the wind 
 and they quickly reaped the whirlwind. 
 
 The Turko-Italian War of 191 i 
 
 While the Turkish Empire was in this highly per- 
 turbed condition and while the Balkan states were 
 aglow with indignation at the treatment being meted 
 out to the members of their races resident in Mace- 
 donia and were trembling with the desire to act, 
 trouble flared up for the Young Turks in another 
 quarter. Italy had for years been casting longing 
 eyes on the territories which fringe the southern 
 shores of the Mediterranean. She had once hoped 
 to acquire Tunis, but had unexpectedly found herself 
 forestalled by France, which seized that country in 
 1881. At the same time England began her occu- 
 pation of Egypt. All that remained therefore was 
 Tripoli, like Egypt, a part of the Turkish Empire. 
 For many years the thought that this territory ought 
 to belong to Italy had been accepted as axiomatic 
 in influential quarters in the Italian government and 
 diplomatic circles. Schemes had been worked out 
 and partly put into force for a " pacific penetration " 
 of an economic character of this land. Now, how- 
 
3o6 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 ever, the time to seize it outright seemed to have ar- 
 rived. Austria-Hungary had annexed Bosnia and 
 Herzegovina, and Bulgaria had declared her inde- 
 pendence in 1908, and there had been no successful 
 opposition on the part of Turkey or of any of the 
 Great Powers. Was not this the ripe moment for 
 Italy's project? 
 
 She evidently thought so, for, in September, 191 1, 
 she sent her warships to Tripoli and began the con- 
 quest of that country. It proved a more difficult 
 undertaking than had been imagined. While she 
 seized the coast towns, her hold on them was pre- 
 carious and her progress into the interior was slow 
 and costly, owing to the fact that the Turks aroused 
 and directed the natives against the invaders. Italy 
 had given her ally Austria-Hungary to understand 
 that she would not attack Turkey directly in Europe, 
 as European Turkey was a veritable tinder-box which, 
 if it once caught fire, might blaze up into a devastat- 
 ing and incalculable conflagration. But as month 
 after month went by and Italy was producing only 
 an uncertain effect in Tripoli, she resolved on more 
 decisive action nearer Constantinople, hoping to bring 
 the Turks to terms. She attacked and seized Rhodes 
 and eleven other Turkish islands in the ^gean, the 
 Dodecanese. This, and the fact that an Albanian rev- 
 olution against the Turks was at the same time at- 
 taining alarming proportions, made the latter ready 
 to conclude peace with Italy so that they might be 
 free to put down the Albanians. On October 15, 
 1912, was signed at Ouchy, or Lausanne, a treaty 
 whereby Turkey relinquished Tripoli. It was also 
 
THE BALKAN WARS OF 1912 AND 1913 307 
 
 provided that Italy should withdraw her troops from 
 the Dodecanese as soon as the Turkish troops were 
 withdrawn from Tripoli, a phrase about which it was 
 easy to quibble later. 
 
 The great significance of this war did not lie in 
 the fact that Italy acquired a new colony. It lay in 
 the fact that it began again the process, arrested since 
 1878, of the violent dismemberment of the Turkish 
 Empire; that it revealed the military weakness of that 
 Empire, powerless to preserve its integrity; and, what 
 is most important, that it contributed directly and 
 greatly to a far more serious attack upon Turkey 
 by the Balkan states, which, in turn, led to the Euro- 
 pean War. The tinder-box was lighted and a general 
 European conflagration resulted. The Italian attack 
 upon Tripoli was momentous in its consequences. 
 
 The Balkan Wars 
 
 During the war the Balkan states were negotiating 
 with each other with a view to united action against 
 Turkey. This union was not easy to bring about, 
 as Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece disliked each other 
 intensely, for historical, racial, sentimental reasons, 
 too numerous and too complex to be described here. 
 However, they disliked the Turks more and they 
 were suffering constantly from the Turks. Terrible 
 persecutions, even massacres, of the Christians in 
 Macedonia in which large numbers of Greeks, Bul- 
 garians, and Serbians lost their lives, inflamed the 
 people of those states with the desire to liberate their 
 brothers in Macedonia. By doing this they would 
 
3o8 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 also increase their own territories and diminish or 
 end an odious tyranny. These nations found it possi- 
 ble to unite for the purpose of overwhelming the 
 Turks; they might not find it possible to agree as to 
 the partition among themselves of any territories 
 they might acquire, since here their old, established 
 ambitions and antipathies might conflict. It was be- 
 cause of the strength of these rivalries and hatreds 
 that neither the Turks nor the outside powers con- 
 sidered an alliance of the Balkan states as at all among 
 the possibilities. But the statesmen of the Balkans 
 had learned something from the troubled history of 
 the peninsula, and saw the folly of continuing their 
 dissensions. They also realized that now was their 
 chance, that they might never again find their com- 
 mon enemy so weak and demoralized, the general 
 European situation so favorable. 
 
 Thus it came about that in October, 1912, the four 
 Balkan states, Montenegro, Serbia, Bulgaria, and 
 Greece made war on Turkey. The war was brief and 
 an overwhelming success for the allies. Fighting be- 
 gan on October 15, the very day of the signing of 
 the Treaty of Lausanne between Italy and Turkey, 
 although technically the declarations of war were not 
 v'^issued until October 18. The Greeks pushed north- 
 ward into Macedonia, gained several victories over 
 the enemy, and on November 8, only three weeks 
 after the beginning of the campaign, they entered the 
 important city and port of Salonica, with Crown 
 Prince Constantine at their head. Farther west the 
 Serbians and Montenegrins were also successful. The 
 Serbians won a great victory at Kumanovo, where 
 
THE BALKAN WARS OF 1912 AND 1913 309 
 
 they avenged the defeat of their ancestors of Kosovo, 
 which they had not forgotten for five hundred years. 
 They then captured Monastir. 
 
 Meanw^hile the Bulgarians, w^ho had the larger 
 armies, had gone from victory to victory, defeating 
 the Turks brilliantly in the battles of Kirk Kilisse 
 and Lule Burgas. The latter w^as one of the great 
 battles of modern times, three hundred and fifty thou- 
 sand troops being involved in fierce, tenacious strug- 
 gle for three days. The result was the destruction 
 of the military power of the Turks. By the middle 
 of November the Bulgarians had reached the Cha- 
 taldja line of fortifications which extend from the 
 Sea of Marmora to the Black Sea. Only twenty- 
 five miles beyond them lay Constantinople. 
 
 The collapse of the Turkish power in Europe was 
 nearly complete. Only the very important fortresses 
 of Adrianople in the east, and Janina and Scutari in 
 the west, had not fallen. In a six weeks' campaign 
 Turkish possessions in Europe had shrunk to Con- 
 stantinople and the twenty-five mile stretch west to 
 the Chataldja fortifications. This overthrow and col- 
 lapse came as a staggering surprise to the Turks, the 
 Balkan Allies themselves, and the Great Powers. The 
 Ottoman Empire in Europe had ceased to exist, with 
 the exception of Constantinople, Adrianople, Janina, 
 and Scutari. The military prestige of Turkey was 
 gone. 
 
 In December delegates from the various states met 
 in London to make peace. They were unsuccessful 
 because Bulgaria demanded the surrender of Adrian- 
 ople, which the Turks flatly refused. In March, 1913, 
 
3IO FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 therefore, the war was resumed. One after another 
 the fortresses fell, Janina on March 6, Adrianople on 
 March 26, Scutari on April 23. Turkey was now 
 compelled to accept terms of peace. On May 30, the 
 Treaty of London was signed. It provided that a 
 line should be drawn from Enos on the ^gean Sea 
 to Midia on the Black Sea and that all Turkey west 
 of that line should be ceded to the Balkan Allies, 
 except a region of undefined dimensions on the Adri- 
 atic, Albania, w^hose boundaries and status should be 
 determined by the Great Powers. Crete was ceded 
 to the Great Powers and the decision as to the islands 
 in the ^gean which Greece had seized was also left 
 to them. In December, 1913, Crete was incorporated 
 in the kingdom of Greece. The Sultan's dominions 
 in Europe had shrunk nearly to the vanishing point. 
 After five centuries of proud possession he found him- 
 self almost expelled from Europe, retaining still Con- 
 stantinople and only enough territory round about 
 to protect it. This great achievement was the work 
 of the four Balkan states, united for once in the com- 
 mon work of liberation. The Great Powers had done 
 nothing. Europe felt relieved, however, that so great 
 a change as this in the map of the Balkan peninsula 
 had been effected without involving the Great Pow- 
 ers in war. 
 
 The Treaty of London, however, had not long to 
 live. No sooner had the Balkan states conquered 
 Turkey than they fell to fighting among themselves 
 over the division of the spoils. The responsibility for 
 this calamity does not rest solely with them. It rests 
 in part with the Great Powers, particularly with Aus- 
 
THE BALKAN WARS OF 1912 AND 1913 311 
 
 tria and Italy. It was the intervention of these pow- 
 ers and their insistence upon the creation of a new 
 independent state, Albania, out of a part of the terri- 
 tory now relinquished by the Turks, that precipitated 
 a crisis whose very probable issue would be war. For 
 the creation of this new state on the Adriatic coast 
 absolutely prevented Serbia from realizing one of her 
 most passionate and legitimate ambitions, an outlet 
 to the sea, an escape from her land-locked condition 
 which placed her at the mercy of her neighbors. 
 
 Before beginning the war with the Turks, Serbia 
 and Bulgaria had defined their future spheres of in- 
 fluence in upper Macedonia, should the war result in 
 their favor. The larger part of Macedonia should 
 go to Bulgaria, and Serbia's gains should be chiefly 
 in the west, including the longed-for Adriatic sea- 
 coast Bu^t now Albania was planted there and Ser- 
 bia was as land-locked as ever. Austria was resolved 
 that Serbia should under no conditions become an 
 Adriatic state. She had always been opposed to the 
 aggrandizement of Serbia, because slie had millions 
 of Serbs under her own rule who might be attracted 
 to an independent Serbia, enlarged and with prestige 
 heightened. Moreover, she believed that Serbia 
 would be the pawn of Russia, and she would not tol- 
 erate Russia's influence on her southern borders and 
 along the Adriatic, if she could help it. She did not 
 propose to be less important in those waters than 
 she had been in the past. Therefore, Serbia must 
 be excluded from the Adriatic. It was the blocking 
 of Serbia's outlet to the sea that caused the second 
 Balkan war between the allies. Intense was the in- 
 
312 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 dignation of the Serbians, but they could do nothing. 
 They, therefore, sought as partial compensation larger 
 territories in Macedonia than their treaty with Bul- 
 garia had assigned them, arguing, correctly enough, 
 that the conditions had greatly changed from those 
 contemplated when that agreement was made and that 
 the new conditions justified and necessitated a new 
 arrangement. But here they encountered the stub- 
 born opposition of Bulgaria, which refused any con- 
 cessions along this line and insisted upon the strict 
 observance of the treaty. Instantly the old, bitter 
 hatred of these two countries for each other flamed 
 up again. The Serbians insisted that the expulsion 
 of the Turks had been the work of all the allies and 
 that there should be a fair division of the territories 
 acquired in the name of all. On the other hand, the 
 Bulgarians argued that it had been they who had 
 done the heavy fighting in the war, which was true, 
 that they had furnished by far the larger number of 
 troops, that it was their victories at Kirk Kilisse and 
 Lule Burgas that had annihilated the power of the 
 Turks in Europe, that they were entitled to annex 
 territories in Macedonia which they declared were 
 peopled by Bulgarians. Other considerations also 
 entered into the situation. 
 
 Suffice it to say that Bulgaria intended to have her 
 way. Her army was elated by the recent astounding 
 successes, was rather contemptuous of the Serbians 
 and Greeks, emphatically minimized the services ren- 
 dered by these to the common cause, thought that 
 it could easily conquer both if necessary, and could 
 take what territories it chose. It was Bulgaria, whose 
 
THE BALKAN WARS OF 1912 AND 1913 313 
 
 war party had lost all sense of proportion, all sense of 
 the rights of her former allies, that began the new 
 struggle. She treacherously attacked Greece and Ser- 
 bia at the end of June, 1913. Fierce fighting ensued 
 for several days. 
 
 Bulgaria's action in plunging into this avoidable 
 conflict was all the more foolhardy as her relations 
 with her northern neighbor, Roumania, were also un- 
 settled and precarious. Roumania had demanded that 
 Bulgaria cede her a strip of territory in the northeast 
 of Bulgaria, in order that the balance of power among 
 the Balkan states might remain practically what it 
 had been. Bifigaria had refused this so-called com- 
 pensation. The result was that Roumania also went 
 to war with Bulgaria. The Turks, too, seeing a 
 chance to recover some of the land they had recently 
 lost, joined in the war. 
 
 Thus Bulgaria was confronted on all sides by ene- 
 mies. She was at war with five states, not three, for 
 Montenegro was also involved. By the middle of 
 July she saw that the case was hopeless and consented 
 to make peace, by the Treaty of Bucharest, signed 
 August 10, 1913, by which Serbia and Greece secured 
 larger possessions than they had ever anticipated, and 
 by which Roumania was given the territory she de- 
 sired. Turkey also recovered a large area which she 
 had lost the year before, including the important city 
 and fortress of Adrianople. All this was at the ex- 
 pense of Bulgaria, who paid for her arrogance and 
 unconciliatory temper by losing much territory which 
 she would otherwise have secured, by seeing her for- 
 mer and hated allies victorious over her in the field 
 
314 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 and in annexations of territory which she regarded 
 as rightfully hers. Bulgaria was deeply embittered 
 by all this and only waited for an opportunity to tear 
 up the Treaty of Bucharest, which she refused to 
 consider as morally binding, as in any sense a per- 
 manent settlement of the Balkans. The year 1913 
 will remain of bitter memory in the minds of all Bul- 
 garians. 
 
 The two Balkan wars cost heavily in human life 
 and in treasure. Turkey and Bulgaria each lost over 
 150,000 in killed and wounded, Serbia over 70,000, 
 Greece nearly as many, little Montenegro over 10,000. 
 The losses among non-combatants were heavy in 
 those who died from starvation, or disease, or mas- 
 sacre, for the second war was one of indisputable 
 atrocity. On the other hand, Montenegro, Greece, 
 and Serbia had nearly doubled in size. Bulgaria and 
 Roumania had grown. The Turkish Empire in 
 Europe had shrunk to a comparatively small area. 
 
 We must now examine the reaction of all these 
 profound and astonishing changes in the Balkans upon 
 Europe in general. In other words, we must study 
 the causes of the war of 1914. For the Balkan wars 
 of 1912 and 1913 were a prelude to the European 
 War. The sequence of events from the Turkish 
 Revolution of July, 1908, to the Austrian declaration 
 of war upon Serbia in July, 1914, is direct, unmis- 
 takable, disastrous. Each year added a link to the 
 lengthening chain of iron. The map of Europe was 
 thrown into the flames. What the new map would 
 be no one could foresee. 
 
 It may be said in passing that the new Albanian 
 
THE BALKAN WARS OF 1912 AND 1913 315 
 
 state proved a fiasco from the start and that it dis- 
 appeared completely when the war began in August, 
 1914, the powers that had created it withdrawing 
 their support and its German prince, William of Wied, 
 leaving for Germany, where he joined the army that 
 was fighting France. He had meanwhile announced 
 his abdication in a high-flown manifesto. 
 
/ 
 
 CHAPTER XVI 
 
 THE WORLD WAR 
 
 In August, 1913, the long-drawn-out crisis in the 
 Balkans seemed safely over with the Treaty of Bu- 
 charest, to the apparent satisfaction of the people of 
 Europe. It had not resulted in what had been greatly 
 feared, a European war. That had been avoided and 
 the world breathed more freely. But that this feeling 
 was not shared by the governments of Austria and 
 Germany has since been revealed. Though this was 
 not publicly known until more than a year afterward, 
 it is now established that on August 9, 1913, the day 
 ^ before the Treaty of Bucharest was formally signed, 
 Austria informed her ally, Italy, that she proposed 
 to take action against Serbia. She represented this 
 proposed action as defensive and as therefore justify- 
 ing her in expecting the aid of Italy under the terms 
 of the treaty of the Triple Alliance. Italy through 
 her prime minister, Giolitti, refused to accede to this 
 view, stating that such a war would not be one of 
 defense on the part of Austria, as no one was thinking 
 of attacking her. The treaty of Triple Alliance re- 
 quired its members to aid each other only in the case 
 of a defensive war forced upon a colleague. Austria, 
 then, planned war upon Serbia in August, 1913. 
 Whether she was restrained by the knowledge that 
 
 316. 
 
THE WORLD WAR 317 
 
 Italy would not support her or by other considera- 
 tions is a matter for conjecture. 
 
 Prince von Biilow, who for nine years had been 
 Chancellor of Germany, has declared that the col- 
 lapse of Turkey was a blow to Germany, which meant 
 that it imperiled the plans which Germany was nour- 
 ishing for expansion or influence in the Balkans and 
 the East. It was on this ground that in 1913 new 
 army and taxation bills, extraordinarily increasing 
 Germany's preparedness for war, were carried 
 through. This inevitably led to similar, though not 
 to as sweeping, legislation in France. 
 
 Austria and Germany, therefore, were far from 
 pleased at the outcome of events in the Balkans, and 
 the former, a great European state of fifty millions, 
 was planning action by arms against Serbia, a nation 
 of now perhaps four millions, a nation both exhausted 
 and elated by two years of war. Of course Austria 
 knew that any such action would bring Russia upon 
 the scene, and that was the reason for her desiring 
 the eventual support of her two allies. While for 
 reasons that are somewhat obscure, Austria finally 
 did not consider the moment opportune for making 
 war on Serbia in August, 1913, she did consider it 
 opportune in July, 1914, and from her action at that 
 time came swiftly and dramatically the Great War. 
 
 The relations of Austria-Hungary and Serbia have 
 already been alluded to, the former's annexation of 
 Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1908, and her part in the 
 creation of the new state of Albania for the same 
 purpose, to prevent Serbia's getting any outlet to the 
 sea. Yet, though successful in this, she had not been 
 
3i8 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 able to prevent the growth of Serbia. Serbia had, 
 however, submitted in 1908 and 1909 and in 1913, 
 to demands which emanated from Austria-Hungary 
 and which were deeply humiliating. On both sides 
 there was, as there had long been, plenty of bad 
 blood. 
 
 Suddenly a horrible crime occurred which set in 
 motion a mighty and lamentable train of events. On 
 June 28, 1914, the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, 
 nephew of the Emperor of Austria, and heir to the 
 throne, was, with his wife, assassinated in the streets 
 of Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia. The men who 
 had done the infamous deed were Austrian subjects, 
 natives of Bosnia. But they were Serbians by race. 
 An outburst of intense indignation followed against 
 the Serbians, '* a nation of assassins," it was declared. 
 Serbia was, by Austrian opinion, held responsible, 
 although the crime occurred on Austrian soil and 
 was committed by Austrian subjects, and although 
 Austrian methods of rule in Bosnia were of such a 
 character as sufficiently to account for the dastardly 
 crime. At any rate, the desire for war was expressed 
 in many Austrian newspapers, which held the Serbian 
 government responsible. 
 
 But four weeks went by and the Austrian Govern- 
 ment took no action. No information could be ob- 
 tained by the diplomats in Vienna as to what she 
 proposed to do. They saw no reason for any par- 
 ticular worry, as the government was evidently so 
 self-contained, and they therefore took their usual 
 vacations. It was intimated that Austria would make 
 some demands upon Serbia, but that they would be 
 
SSESSIONS 
 
 e 
 
 POWERS 
 
 15 30 
 
 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 
 
THE WORLD WAR 319 
 
 of a moderate character. There was widespread sym- 
 pathy with her and a general feeling that she would 
 be justified in demanding certain things of Serbia. 
 The representatives of the various European govern- 
 ments were kept in ignorance. A despatch, which 
 was destined to shake the very foundations of the 
 world, was being fashioned, in utter silence and 
 mystery. 
 
 On July 23, Austria delivered this despatch to Ser- 
 bia. It began by accusing the Serbian Government 
 of not having fulfilled the obligations it had assumed 
 in 1909 toward Austria. It demanded that the Ser- 
 bian Government should publish an official statement, 
 the terms of which were dictated in the despatch, 
 expressing its disapproval of the propaganda in Ser- 
 bia against Austria-Hungary and its regret that Ser- 
 bian officials had taken part in this propaganda. In 
 the despatch the murder of the Archduke was ascribed 
 to that propaganda. Then followed ten demands upon 
 the Serbian Government concerning the suppression 
 of the Pan-Serbian propaganda carried on by the 
 newspapers and the secret societies of Serbia. The 
 despatch demanded that the Serbian Government 
 should suppress any publication which fostered hatred 
 of and contempt for the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, 
 should take the most comprehensive measures for the 
 suppression and extinction of the secret societies, 
 should eliminate from the schools all teachers and 
 from text-books anything that served or might serve 
 to foster the propaganda against Austria-Hungary, 
 should remove from the army and from government 
 positions all officials involved in the same propaganda, 
 
320 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 whose names the Austrian Government reserved the 
 right to communicate, and that Serbia should accept 
 the cooperation of Austrian officials in the v^^ork of in- 
 vestigating the conspiracy of June 28. Other clauses 
 in this fateful despatch concerned the arrest of the 
 accomplices in the assassination and the prevention 
 of the trade in arms and explosives across the fron- 
 tier. Annexed to the despatch was a memorandum 
 asserting that the murder of the Archduke and the 
 Archduchess had been plotted in Serbia and had been 
 executed through the complicity of Serbian officials. 
 
 This despatch, harsh in its language, dictatorial 
 in its demands, was an ultimatum, for it required the 
 acceptance of it in its entirety within forty-eight 
 hours, and it allowed no time for investigation or 
 discussion of the charges made and the problems cre- 
 ated by the peremptory demand. No nation would 
 issue such a note to an equal without intending and 
 without desiring war. Issued to a power vastly in- 
 ferior, it could mean only unprecedented humiliation 
 or national extinction, if followed up at the expiration 
 of forty-eight hours. 
 
 This Austrian ultimatum created a grave crisis. 
 The ultimatum was not a passionate and unreflect- 
 ing outburst of the Austrian Government, swept away 
 by a natural anger at the foul murders. It was a cold- 
 blooded and deliberate document, composed after four 
 weeks of secret preparation. The Russian ambassa- 
 dor had not been told that it was coming and had 
 left Vienna for his vacation. The Italian Govern- 
 ment had not been informed, although it was an ally 
 and was particularly concerned with anything that 
 
THE WORLD WAR 321 
 
 affected the Balkan peninsula in any way or part. 
 In this fact Italy was to find her justification for re- 
 maining neutral when the war finally broke out, as 
 she regarded that war as an aggressive one begun 
 by Austria. The ultimatum gave Serbia the alterna- 
 tive of accepting egregiously humiliating conditions, 
 practically reducing her to the state of a vassal of 
 Austria, or of accepting war. 
 
 England, France, and Russia tried to induce Aus- 
 tria to extend her time limit as the only way in which 
 diplomacy might seek to act in the matter, as, more- 
 over, required if the relations of nations were to be 
 governed by a reasonable consideration for each 
 other's rights or wishes. Their efforts were in vain. 
 They then turned to Serbia, urging her, in the inter- 
 ests of Europe in general, to make her answer as con- 
 ciliatory as possible. The result was that Serbia in 
 her reply yielded to the greater part of what Austria 
 demanded and that she offered, in case Austria was 
 not satisfied with her answer, to refer the question 
 to the Hague Tribunal or to a conference of the 
 Great Powers. 
 
 No state ever made a more complete submission 
 under particularly humiliating circumstances. Aus- 
 tria, however, immediately declared the Serbian an- 
 swer unsatisfactory and prepared for war. She well 
 knew that such action would necessarily draw Rus- 
 sia into the controversy. She had every reason a 
 state can have for knowing that, after the defiance 
 of the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1908, 
 another attack upon a small Slavic people would 
 deeply offend the leading Slavic power. Austria could 
 
322 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 not and did not expect to be able to wreak her venge- 
 ance upon Serbia without having to take Russia 
 into account. Hers, therefore, is the responsibility 
 for a deliberate and highly dangerous provocation 
 of a great state. Russia, a Slavic power, could not 
 be ignored by Teutonic powers in determining the 
 future of Slavic peoples. If there was a single well- 
 known fact in the whole domain of European politics 
 it was that Russia was greatly interested in the fate 
 of the Slav states of the Balkans. If there was any 
 other well-established commonplace of European poli- 
 tics, it was this, that every Balkan question has al- 
 ways been considered as of general concern, as dis- 
 tinctly international. As a matter of fact, Serbia's 
 obligations of 1909, already referred to, were under- 
 taken to the Powers, not to Austria alone. 
 
 Austria's position was that her action concerned 
 herself and Serbia alone; that no other nation or 
 nations were involved or had any rights in the mat- 
 ter. In this she was supported from start to finish 
 by Germany. Both Austria and Germany were aware 
 that waflike steps against Serbia would bring Russia 
 into the question and that, owing to the obligations 
 of the Triple and Dual alliances, a general European 
 war might result, yet both steadily refused to con- 
 sider that Russia had any right to intervene; it was 
 all a matter solely between the two, Austria and 
 Serbia. 
 
 Naturally Russia did not take this view. Her warn- 
 ings having proved unavailing, when Austria began 
 to prepare for the attack upon Serbia, Russia began 
 to mobilize. The policy of Germany through that last 
 
THE WORLD WAR 323 
 
 week of July was to support Austria in her contention 
 that this was her affair. She asserted that the quar- 
 rel was solely one between those two and that no 
 outside power had the right to intervene, that, if the 
 trouble could be kept confined to those two, there 
 would be no general disturbance of the peace, that if 
 the Czar, however, interfered there would be " on ac- 
 count of the various alliances, inconceivable conse- 
 quences." If this was all that Germany did for peace, 
 which she asserts she made every effort to maintain, 
 then she did simply nothing, for this policy of " local- 
 ization of the conflict " begged the whole question. 
 It assumed that neither Russia nor any other power 
 was in any way concerned. This was an absolutely 
 untenable position in the light of history, of reason, 
 of interest. The question was a part of the Eastern 
 Question which over and over has been considered 
 and known to be emphatically international. No as- 
 pect of that question is to be left to the determina- 
 tion of a state of fifty millions in conflict with one 
 of four or five. 
 
 A proposal was made by England that the question 
 at issue should be submitted to a conference to be 
 held in London by the Great Powers not directly con- 
 cerned, namely Germany^ France, England, and Italy. 
 Perhaps these four might bring about the adjustment 
 of the difficulties between Serbia and Austria and 
 Russia. Russia signified her willingness, but the pro- 
 posal was declined by Germany. Other suggestions 
 of a somewhat similar nature looking toward delay 
 and diplomatic discussion or mediation likewise fell 
 before the opposition or indifference of Germany. 
 
324 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Then when England asked Germany herself to sug- 
 gest some method of mediation for the preservation 
 of peace, she had nothing to suggest. She simply re- 
 afifirmed her position that the whole matter concerned 
 merely Austria and Serbia. She was willing to appeal 
 and did appeal to Russia to keep out, to refrain from 
 mobilizing, but her appeal was always based on this 
 thesis that the quarrel did not concern Russia, but 
 did concern simply Austria and Serbia, a point of 
 view which, naturally, Russia did not and could not 
 share. Germany was ready to cooperate with other 
 powers in bringing pressure to bear upon Russia, but 
 not upon her ally Austria, who had begun the whole 
 trouble and to whom she gave a free hand in her 
 procedure toward Serbia. 
 
 The attitudes of Germany and Russia were irre- 
 concilable. Germany held that Russia should allow 
 Austria entire liberty of action. Russia believed that 
 Austria's uncompromising and violent procedure de- 
 manded a Russian mobilization ** directed solely 
 against Austria-Hungary " as the only method that 
 might cause that country to moderate her procedure 
 and induce her to recognize the rights of others. If 
 Russia remained inactive, then Austria would do what 
 she liked with Serbia. Russia emphatically claimed 
 the right to be consulted in the settlement of Balkan 
 matters. Austria had mobilized and on July 28 had 
 begun a war upon Serbia. Russia accordingly mobil- 
 ized against Austria. Germany considered this action 
 a menace to herself, and on July 31 sent an ultimatum 
 to Russia demanding that Russia begin to demobilize 
 her army within twelve hours : otherwise Germany 
 
THE WORLD WAR 325 
 
 would mobilize. As Russia did not reply to this per- 
 emptory demand, Germany, on August i, declared 
 that a state of war existed between Russia and Ger- 
 many. The German declaration of war against Russia 
 necessarily meant war with France as well, because 
 of the Dual Alliance. 
 
 We have seen that this Dual Alliance was the in- 
 evitable outcome of the existence and power of the 
 Triple Alliance, concluded between Germany, Aus- 
 tria, and Italy in 1882. The Dual Alliance grew out 
 of the need which both Russia and France felt of 
 outside support in the presence of so powerful a com- 
 bination. If there was to be anything like a balance 
 of power in Europe, Russia and France must com- 
 bine. Both alliances were defensive. The action of 
 Austria against Serbia brought Russia upon the scene. 
 Russia's action brought Germany forward. Ger- 
 many's action necessitated action on the part of 
 France. 
 
 One state was free to act as it saw fit, its conduct 
 not controlled by any entangling alliance, England. 
 The Triple and Dual Alliances rested on definite 
 treaties, neither of which had been made public, and 
 imposed obligations upon the contracting parties. 
 There had in recent years also grown up what was 
 called the Triple Entente. The commercial rivalry 
 of Germany and England, during the past fifteen or 
 twenty years, expressing itself in a struggle for mar- 
 kets, in colonial competitions, in a striking develop- 
 ment of naval power, has been an outstanding fact 
 in recent European history. Great Britain, seeing 
 that her policy of isolation was possibly becoming 
 
326 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 dangerous with so active and successful a rival in tlie 
 field, sought, in the first decade of the twentieth cen- 
 tury, to settle long continued misunderstandings with 
 France and Russia. This she did by a treaty with 
 France in 1904 and with Russia in 1907. These agree- 
 ments settled certain problems and provided certain 
 measures in common, the former in Africa, the latter 
 in Asia. During succeeding diplomatic crises the 
 three powers worked in substantial harmony. But 
 the Triple Entente was not an alliance : it was simply 
 a diplomatic group that might be found working to- 
 gether when the interests of its members happened 
 to coincide. There was no actual alliance between 
 Great Britain and France and there was no under- 
 standing of any kind between Great Britain and Rus- 
 sia, with regard to any European policy or contin- 
 gency. When the crisis of 1914 arose Great Britain 
 was free to act as she chose, in the light of what she 
 considered her interests. The diplomatic correspond- 
 ence shows that this was understood in Berlin and 
 Vienna as it was understood in Paris and St. Peters- 
 burg. 
 
 But while Great Britain had no alliances that nec- 
 essarily involved her in the present war, yet as a 
 European power, and as a great, imperial, colonial 
 state, she had many and important interests for which 
 she must care. It was for her interest that there 
 should be no European war and it was also for the 
 interest of Europe and the world. The negotiations 
 of that week in July, from the issuance of the ulti- 
 matum to Serbia to the declarations of war, abun- 
 dantly demonstrate that she made earnest, repeated, 
 
THE WORLD WAR 327 
 
 and varied efforts to bring about a peaceful solution 
 of the problems that had been so suddenly thrust 
 forward. She was wedded to no particular scheme 
 or formula and invited Germany to make suggestions 
 that might effect the adjustment, if dissatisfied with 
 hers. But despite her efforts a war had come in- 
 volving at least four large states, Austria, Russia, 
 Germany, and France, and one small state, Serbia. 
 Would the conflagration spread? What would 
 England do? 
 
 It was certainly not for her interest that France 
 should be conquered by Germany, as that would re- 
 duce France to the position of a satellite and would 
 immensely augment the power and prestige of Ger- 
 many. Moreover, England was bound in honor to 
 prevent any attack upon the Atlantic seacoast of 
 France, as, since 1912, she had had a naval agreement 
 with France whereby the French fleet was concen- 
 trated in the Mediterranean in order that England 
 might keep larger naval forces in the home waters. 
 It seems probable that England would have been 
 drawn into the war necessarily if France was attacked, 
 which was, of course, the purpose of Germany. But 
 her participation was rendered inevitable by Ger- 
 many's attack upon Belgium. 
 
 Three of the small states of Europe, Belgium, Lux- 
 emburg, and Switzerland, have been by international 
 agreements declared neutral territory forever. By 
 these agreements the countries concerned should 
 never make war, nor should they ever be attacked. 
 The powers that signed the treaties bound them- 
 selves to respect and preserve that neutrality. The 
 
328 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 treaty guaranteeing the neutralization of Belgium was 
 signed by England, France, Prussia, Austria, and Rus- 
 sia. For over eighty years that obligation had been 
 scrupulously observed. Now, on August 2, Germany 
 sent an ultimatum to Belgium, demanding that she 
 allow the German armies to cross her territory, prom- 
 ising to evacuate it after peace was concluded, and 
 stating that, if she refused, her fate would be deter- 
 mined by the fortunes of war. Belgium replied that 
 she had always been faithful to her international obli- 
 gations, that the attack upon her independence would 
 constitute a flagrant violation of international law, 
 that she would not sacrifice her honor and at the same 
 time be recreant to her duty toward Europe, but that 
 her army would resist the invader to the utmost of 
 its ability. 
 
 As Austria's ultimatum of July 23 meant the anni- 
 hiliation of the independence of one small state, Ser- 
 bia, Germany's ultimatum of August 2 meant the an- 
 nihilation of the independence of another small state, 
 Belgium. Germany's action was the baser and the 
 more dishonorable, as she had promised to respect the 
 neutrality of the country which she was now about 
 to destroy. 
 
 The reason for this action was that the easiest 
 way for German armies to get into France was over 
 Belgian soil. Germany intended to crush France as 
 rapidly as possible, then to turn upon Russia and 
 crush her. The invasion of France direct from Ger- 
 many would necessarily be slower, if possible at all, 
 as that frontier was strongly fortified. The official 
 statement of the Chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg, 
 
THE WORLD WAR 329 
 
 made in the Reichstag on August 4, declared that 
 Germany was acting in self-defense : ** Necessity 
 knows no law. Our troops have occupied Luxem- 
 burg and have perhaps already entered on Belgian 
 soil. Gentlemen, this is a breach of international 
 law. The French Government has, it is true, notified 
 Brussels that it would respect the neutrality of Bel- 
 gium as long as the enemy respected it. But we 
 know that France stood ready for an invasion. France 
 could wait, we could not. A French attack upon our 
 flank in the lower Rhine might have been disastrous. 
 Thus we have been obliged to ignore the just pro- 
 tests of the governments of Luxemburg and Belgium. 
 The injustice, I speak frankly, the injustice that we 
 are committing we will endeavor to make good as 
 soon as our military aims have been attained. Any- 
 body who is threatened as we are threatened and is 
 fighting for his highest possessions can think only of 
 one thing, how he is to hack his way through." Thus 
 the official, authoritative spokesman of Germany pro- 
 nounced her own act unjust, thereby proclaiming the 
 faithfulness of Belgium to all her obligations, admit- 
 ted that Germany was doing Belgium a wrong, and 
 that the action was in defiance of the law of nations. 
 It was justified by necessity, he said. 
 
 A nation of sixty-five millions attacked a nation 
 of seven millions, whose neutrality it had sworn to 
 maintain, because, as the German Secretary of State, 
 Jagow, said on that same August 4, with frankness, 
 '' they had to advance into France by the quickest 
 and easiest way, so as to be able to get well ahead with 
 their operations and endeavor to strike some decisive 
 
330 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 blow as early as possible. It was a matter of life and 
 death for them." 
 
 England could correctly assert that she had worked 
 for peace " up to the last moment, and beyond the 
 last moment." Now she entered the war because 
 she had vital interests in the independence of Bel- 
 gium, and because of her explicit treaty obligations. 
 For hundreds of years her policy had been to prevent 
 the control of those coasts from being a menace to her 
 own coast across the narrow channel as they would 
 be in the hands of a strong military power. Over this 
 question England had fought or acted repeatedly for 
 centuries against the Spaniards, against the French; 
 now it was to be against the Germans. That in pro- 
 tecting her vital interests she would also be keeping 
 her solemn promises and defending a small and peace- 
 ful state against the wanton aggression of a ruthless 
 and mighty miUtary power, engaged, according to its 
 own admission, in a flagrant violation of the law of 
 nations, was to her vast moral advantage in securing 
 the spontaneous sympathy and support of her own 
 people and widespread approval beyond her borders. 
 
 On the 23d of July, 1914, there was a dull mid- 
 summer peace in Europe. By August 4 seven nations 
 were at war. The responsibility for this tragic, mon- 
 strous, unnecessary crime against civilization, against 
 humanity, was lightly assumed. The situation was 
 created by the authorized heads of various states. 
 Any power that in that crisis showed a willingness 
 to delay, to negotiate, to confer, was working in the 
 interest of peace. Any power that declined to do 
 this, that adopted a peremptory attitude, that issued 
 
THE WORLD WAR 331 
 
 ultimatums with incredibly short time limits, hastened 
 the appalling entanglement and was ready for war, 
 whether it desired or intended it or not. 
 
 The opinion of the outside world as to where that 
 responsibility lies has been overwhelmingly expressed. 
 That opinion was shared by a state that had for thirty- 
 two years been the ally of Austria and Germany and 
 was an ally in August, 1914. When asked on August 
 I, by the German ambassador, what were Italy's in- 
 tentions, the Italian Government replied through its 
 minister of foreign affairs that " as the war under- 
 taken by Austria was aggressive and did not fall with- 
 in the purely defensive character of the Triple Alli- 
 ance, particularly in view of the consequences which 
 might result from it according to the declaration of 
 the German ambassador, Italy would not be able to 
 take part in the war." 
 
 The War in 1914 
 
 Austria's determination to wreak her wrath upon 
 Serbia, to punish, humiliate, and master that small 
 but independent and successful state, had led straight, 
 and with incredible swiftness, to an appalling issue. 
 Five great nations, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Rus- 
 sia, France, and England, and two small nations, Ser- 
 bia and Belgium, had passed, within a space of twelve 
 momentous days, from a state of peace to one of war. 
 From the Ural Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean, from 
 the North Sea to the Mediterranean, hundreds of mil- 
 lions of men found themselves caught in the meshes 
 oi a gigantic conflict, whose cost in human life and 
 
332 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 happiness and treasure must inevitably be tremen- 
 dous. The world was stunned by the criminal levity 
 with which Austria-Hungary and Germany had cre- 
 ated this hideous situation. 
 
 The sinister and brutal challenge was, however, 
 accepted immediately and with iron resolution by 
 those who had done their utmost during those twelve 
 days to avert the catastrophe, and not only great 
 powers like France and England, but small ones, 
 like Belgium and Serbia, never hesitated, but re- 
 solved to do or die. That the contest was not merely 
 a material one, but that the most precious moral and 
 spiritual interests were involved, was clearly seen 
 and stated at the very beginning of the war by the 
 responsible statesmen of France and England. In 
 those early days Mr. Asquith, prime minister of 
 Great Britain, expressed the common resolution of the 
 Western powers when he declared: " We shall never 
 sheathe the sword which we have not lightly drawn 
 until Belgium recovers in full measure all and more 
 than all that she has sacrificed, until France is ade- 
 quately secured against the menace of aggression, 
 until the rights of the smaller nationalities of Europe 
 are placed upon an unassailable foundation, and until 
 the military domination of Prussia is wholly and 
 finally destroyed." A cause dedicated to such aims 
 as those was worthy of the supreme sacrifice it would 
 pitilessly exact. 
 
 Why these references to Belgium and France? Be- 
 cause, in the military plans of Germany, these two 
 were to be overrun and conquered first, then Rus- 
 sia, and then the dominance of Europe by Germany 
 
THE WORLD WAR 333 
 
 would be achieved and rendered unassailable. After 
 that let the world look out. It would receive its 
 orders from Berlin and it would know full well the 
 meaning of disobedience. 
 
 Germany had demanded free passage for her troops 
 through Belgium. King Albert, one of the unsullied 
 heroes of a war rich in heroes, had at that critical 
 moment embodied the spirit of his people and had 
 added luster to the name of Belgium forever when, 
 in reply to the arrogant demand, he announced that 
 *' the Belgian Government is firmly resolved to repel 
 with all the means in its power every attack upon 
 its rights.'* Then the thunder-cloud broke. The 
 mighty German army burst upon the land, resolved 
 to get to Paris by the shortest route, the valley of 
 the Meuse. The fortress of Liege stood in the way. 
 It was bombarded by powerful artillery and forced 
 to surrender on August 7. Brussels was occupied 
 on August 20. But the fall of Liege did not clear 
 the route to France. Namur stood in the way and 
 here the Belgians were aided by the French, and 
 by the British, hurrying to the scene their " con- 
 temptible little army," as the Kaiser is said to have 
 called it. Namur was occupied on August 22. Mons 
 was next attacked and the French and English were 
 compelled to begin a retreat. Withdraw they must 
 or the German armies would envelop them and a 
 disaster like that of Sedan in 1870 might result. The 
 great retreat from Mons southward continued day 
 after day, night after night, rapid, harrowing, critical, 
 incessant, annihilation constantly threatening. City 
 after city in northern France fell into the hands of 
 
334 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 the Germans, who advanced to within fifteen miles 
 of Paris. The Government of France was removed 
 to Bordeaux. The completion of German victory 
 seemed at hand. August was a month of gloom 
 for the Allies. 
 
 Then General Joffre, commander of the French 
 armies, issued his famous order, stating that the re- 
 treat was over. To his generals he sent this mes- 
 sage : " The hour has come to hold fast and to let 
 yourselves be killed rather than to yield." And to 
 the army JofTre issued this : '' At the moment when 
 we are about to engage in battle it is imperative that 
 everyone should remember that the time has passed 
 for looking backward; every effort must be devoted 
 to attacking and repulsing the enemy. Troops that 
 can no longer advance, must, at all cost, keep the 
 ground they have won and be shot down where they 
 stand rather than retreat. In the present circum- 
 stances no weakness can be tolerated." 
 
 The decisive moment had arrived. There was no 
 faltering, but the whole French army was nerved to 
 supreme effort. From September 5 to September 
 10, along a line of more than a hundred miles from 
 Paris to Verdun, raged the famous Battle of the 
 Marne, one of the decisive battles of the world's his- 
 tory. The spirit in which these men fought was 
 typified in General Foch, one of Joffre's subordinates, 
 who at a critical moment telegraphed to his chief: 
 " My right is in retreat; my center is yielding. Situa- 
 tion excellent. I shall attack." And attack he did, 
 with great success. 
 
 The Germans were defeated. Their terrific, crush- 
 
THE WORLD WAR 335 
 
 ing blow, intended to eliminate the French from the 
 war, had failed. They retired as precipitatel}^ as they 
 had advanced, the French at their heels. Only 
 when they were across the Aisne and in trenches al- 
 ready prepared for them were they safe. At the Bat- 
 tle of the Marne France had saved herself and 
 Europe and the world. 
 
 After the Battle of the Marne the Allies sought to 
 break through the German lines along the Aisne, but 
 were unsuccessful. Thereupon there ensued a race 
 to the sea, an extension of the trenches northward to 
 the EngHsh Channel. The Germans overran the 
 western part of Belgium, seized Antwerp (October 
 10) and Ostend, and tried to get to Dunkirk and 
 Calais, but were arrested at the Yser River. By 
 the end of October the opposing sides were en- 
 trenched against each other all the way from Nieu- 
 port to Switzerland. The " war of positions," which 
 was to last with only minor changes down to March, 
 1918, had begun. 
 
 As the results of all these events the Germans were 
 in possession of a large area of northeastern France 
 and of nearly all of Belgium. The possession of this 
 territory greatly augmented their power to make war, 
 for it carried with it ninety per cent of the iron ore 
 of France, and fifty per cent of the coal of France, 
 and the harbors of the Belgian coast became favora- 
 ble bases for the submarine warfare adopted later. 
 
 The Germans had not only won great and rich 
 territories in a two months' campaign : they had also 
 won undying hatred and a moral loathing so gen- 
 eral and so intense that it is hard, if not impossible, 
 
336 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 to find its equal in human history. From the moment 
 they stepped upon Belgian territory they trampled 
 under foot all considerations of humanity, of de- 
 cency, of honor. No savage ever tortured a helpless 
 victim with a greater display of heartlessness and 
 cruelty than Germany showed in her treatment of 
 Belgium. Not only were conscienceless pillage and 
 systematic looting the order of the day, not only 
 were towns and cities fined and mulcted of enormous 
 sums of money, not only were villages fired, not only 
 were works of art and public monuments destroyed, 
 but great numbers of civilians, men, women, and lit- 
 tle children, were murdered in cold blood or sub- 
 jected to treatment worse than death. The Germans 
 killed prisoners, they poisoned wells, they bombarded 
 undefended towns and hospitals. It is no wonder 
 that Belgium's most distinguished poet and man of 
 letters, Maurice Maeterlinck, called the German *' the 
 foulest invader that the world has ever borne." A 
 prosperous and peaceful people was ruined, and 
 threatened with starvation from which it was only 
 saved by the charity of the world. The martyrdom 
 of Belgium is the deep damnation of modern mili- 
 taristic Germany. The multitudinous seas would not 
 suffice to wash out the abysmal guilt. 
 
 Such was the course of events in western Europe 
 after the fateful August 4, 1914. Meanwhile events 
 were occurring in the east and the southeast. Rus- 
 sia, mobilizing far more rapidly than the Germans 
 had supposed she could, invaded East Prussia about 
 the middle of August, gaining several victories. 
 The Germans were forced to withdraw some of their 
 
WESTERN FRONT 
 
 Farthest Germ. advance ISH-"*-*^' 
 Battle line on Jan.lst.I915- 
 
 Scale in !&CIes 
 
338 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 troops from the western front to meet this unex- 
 pected menace, and this contributed to the German 
 defeat at the Marne. The victories of the Russians 
 were short-lived, for under the command of General 
 von Hindenburg the Germans defeated them disas- 
 trously in the battle of Tannenberg (August 26- 
 September i, 1914). Hindenburg was henceforth the 
 idol of Germany. 
 
 The Russians were more successful against Aus- 
 tria. Invading the Austrian province of Galicia, they 
 captured Tarnopol and Lemberg and Jaroslav and 
 began the siege of Przemysl, which surrendered in 
 March, 191 5. An invasion of Hungary was intended 
 as the next step. 
 
 As Austria was thus fully occupied with Russia, 
 the Serbians were able to expel the Austrian armies 
 which had invaded their country (December, 1914). 
 
 Other events of those months of 1914, which must 
 be chronicled, are : the entrance of little Montenegro 
 into the war out of sympathy for Serbia, the Mon- 
 tenegrins being Serbians by race (August 7) ; and the 
 entrance of Turkey into the war on the side of the 
 Central Powers (November 3). The latter was an 
 event of considerable importance. Though European 
 Turkey had been greatly reduced as a result of the 
 Balkan Wars, the Ottoman Empire was still exten- 
 sive, including Asia Minor, Armenia, Mesopotamia, 
 Syria, Palestine, and Arabia, in all over seven hun- 
 dred thousand square miles, or an area more than 
 three times as large as the German Empire, and 
 with a population estimated at twenty-one million. 
 Its capital, Constantinople, was a city of over a mil- 
 
THE WORLD WAR 339 
 
 lion inhabitants, and its location incomparable, lying, 
 as it does, at the point where Europe and Asia meet, 
 and barring the entrance to and the exit from the 
 Black Sea, that is, from southern Russia. The Sultan 
 ruled over a most motley collection of peoples, over 
 Turks, a minority of the v^hole population, and over 
 Arabs, Greeks, Syrians, Kurds, Circassians, Armeni- 
 ans, Jews, and numerous other races. The only unity 
 that these races knew was to be found in the oppres- 
 sion they all experienced from their Government, 
 which was an unrestrained tyrrany. The Govern- 
 ment was strongly pro-German. Enver Pasha was 
 minister of war, a man who had been a military at- 
 tache in Berlin, and had formed the most intimate 
 relations with the German military circles. During 
 most of his reign the Emperor of Germany had striven 
 successfully to build up German influence in Tur- 
 key, and by 1914 Turkey was the willing and eager 
 tool of Germany, her army largely officered by Ger- 
 mans. The expected therefore occurred when the 
 Turkish Government permitted two German warships 
 to enter the Bosporus, whence they sailed into the 
 Black Sea and bombarded Russian ports. Russia 
 thereupon declared war upon Turkey, November 3, 
 1914, and England and France immediately did the 
 same. 
 
 Turkey's entrance into the war was intended to 
 be, and was, a threat at the Balkan states and at the 
 British Empire, that is at India and Egypt. It in- 
 volved Asia and Africa in the war, Mesopotamia, 
 Syria, Palestine, Egypt. An immediate consequence 
 was the dethronement of the Khedive of Egypt, who 
 
340 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 was plotting with the Sultan to expel the British. 
 Great Britain declared Egypt a protectorate of the 
 British Empire and appointed the uncle of the de- 
 throned Khedive in his place, with the title of Sultan. 
 Turkish attempts to invade Egypt and get control 
 of the Suez Canal, thus cutting England's connection 
 with India, were frustrated early in the following 
 year (February, 1915). 
 
 Still another power entered the war almost at the 
 beginning, Japan (August 23, 1914). Japan had two 
 reasons for participating. One was loyalty to her 
 alliance with Great Britain, which, concluded orig- 
 inally in 1902, had been renewed in 1905 and 191 1. 
 That treaty had been of the greatest service to Japan, 
 increasing her international prestige and guarantee- 
 ing her territorial rights. It was a defensive alliance, 
 each side promising the other support in certain con- 
 tingencies in case of war. 
 
 Such a case having arisen, England now applied 
 to Japan for assistance in protecting her trade in 
 the East, and Japan loyally responded. But that pro- 
 tection could not be Secured as long as Germany held 
 her strong naval base at Kiauchau. The Japanese 
 knew how Germany had acquired that base, seven- 
 teen years before, after having in conjunction with 
 Russia and France forced Japan to relinquish the 
 fruits of her victory in her war with China. They 
 therefore took pleasure in requiting this injury and 
 in expressing their demand in the same language that 
 Germany had used to them twenty years before. On 
 August 17, 1914, an ultimatum was issued by Japan 
 to Germany demanding that she withdraw her fleet 
 
THE WORLD WAR 341 
 
 and surrender Kiauchau as necessary " to the peace 
 of the Far East " and requesting an answer by Au- 
 gust 23. Germany sent no answer to this ultimatum, 
 but the Kaiser telegraphed to Kiauchau : " It would 
 shame me more to surrender Kiauchau to the Jap- 
 anese than Berlin to the Russians." On August 23, 
 war was declared by Japan against Germany, and by 
 the middle of November she had conquered the Ger- 
 man colony. From that time on until 1918 her partici- 
 pation in the war was slight. She was, however, one 
 of the Allies, having agreed with England, France, 
 and Russia not to make a separate peace. 
 
 Meanwhile another aspect of the war was being 
 played upon the high seas. The immense importance 
 to the Allies of the naval preponderance of Great 
 Britain was shown from the first days of the war and 
 has been made each day increasingly apparent. The 
 British won a naval victory near Helgoland in Au- 
 gust, the Germans won a naval victory off the coast 
 of Chili in November, which was avenged by England 
 in a complete defeat of a German fleet off the Falk- 
 land Islands (December 8). The total result of these 
 events was the sweeping of German naval vessels 
 from the high seas and the bottling up of the main 
 German fleet in the Kiel Canal; also the sweeping 
 of German merchant shipping from the ocean. Now 
 and then a German raider might still get out and do 
 damage. The submarine danger was as yet not se- 
 rious. Owing to Great Britain's practical control of 
 the great water routes of communication the trans- 
 port of troops to the scene of battle from England, 
 Canada, Australia, South Africa, and the transport 
 
342 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 of munitions and merchandise, and the exchanges of 
 commerce, could go on, in the main, unimpeded. The 
 importance of this fact cannot be exaggerated. It 
 enabled the Allies vigorously to prosecute the war, 
 and it kept industrial and commercial life active, a 
 source not only of comfort and convenience, but of 
 wealth, and wealth was necessary to the maintenance 
 in full and increasing vigor of armies and navies and 
 all the various war services. 
 
 Thus we see how crowded with decisive events 
 were those months from August to December, 1914. 
 The flame so lightly and joyously ignited by Austria 
 and by Germany was spreading rapidly and porten- 
 tously. By the end of that year ten nations were at 
 war, Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Turkey on the 
 one side, Serbia, Russia, France, Belgium, Great Brit- 
 ain, Montenegro, and Japan on the other. Two great 
 nations, the United States and Italy, and many small 
 ones, had declared their neutrality. Whether they 
 would be able to maintain it, in a war which, as was 
 already clear, aflfected every nation, not only in its 
 economic life, but in its intellectual, moral, and spir- 
 itual outlook, remained to be seen. 
 
 The War in 191 5 
 
 The year 1914 closed with the Allies holding the 
 Germans on the western front, having defeated them 
 at the Battle of the Marne. But the Germans had 
 conquered all but a small section of Belgium, had 
 conquered northeastern France, and had dug them- 
 selves in from the North Sea to Switzerland. At- 
 
THE WORLD WAR 343 
 
 tempts on the part of the AlUes to dislodge them 
 and to break through the Hne were made repeatedly 
 in 1915. At the battle of Neuve Chapelle the Eng- 
 lish under Sir John French attacked over a front of 
 a little more than four miles. The attack was pre- 
 ceded by the most terrific artillery engagement ever 
 known in warfare. On that narrow front more than 
 three hundred British cannon opened fire on March 
 10. After they had prepared the way the infantry 
 pressed forward, gaining a mile. On the two follow- 
 ing days the Germans delivered repeated counter- 
 attacks, but without success. The British held their 
 new front, but the casualties were extremely heavy. 
 A mere local dent had been made in the German line. 
 The battle was important as showing sharply how tre- 
 mendous must be the effort and the sacrifice if the 
 Germans were to be driven out of France and Bel- 
 gium. Both England and Germany lost more in 
 killed, wounded, and captured than the English and 
 Prussians had lost in the battle of Waterloo. 
 
 From April 22 to April 26 occurred a similar bat- 
 tle on a narrow front, this time begun by the Ger- 
 mans. Here gas was used for the first time. The 
 French line collapsed. Those who survived the gas 
 retreated three miles. The battle is famous for this 
 new feature of warfare, and for the remarkable cool- 
 ness, heroism, and spirit of sacrifice of the Canadians. 
 " On the Canadians the storm broke with its full force 
 and Canadian militia repeated the glories of British 
 regulars from Mons to the Marne. In British im- 
 perial history the second battle of Ypres will be 
 memorable." But it broke no line and like the battle 
 
344 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 of Neuve Chapelle it was mere " nibbling," a word 
 that now passed into current use to describe the char- 
 acter of the fighting. 
 
 All through the summer of 191 5 there was only 
 desultory fighting on the western front, broken by 
 special attempts to break the line which would not 
 break. One incident of importance was the relieving 
 of Sir John French and the appointment of Gen- 
 eral Haig as commander-in-chief of the British arm- 
 ies. The issue was to prove that England had at last 
 found her leader. 
 
 Other disappointments were reserved for the Allies 
 during that bitter year of 1915. Germany's original 
 plan of campaign had been, as we have seen, first to 
 crush France and to eliminate her from the war, then 
 to turn eastward and eliminate Russia, after which 
 she would dictate whatever peace she chose to Eu- 
 rope. The Battle of the Marne and the solid line of 
 the French and English from Nieuport in Belgium 
 to Switzerland had blocked this plan. France was 
 not easily to be eliminated. Therefore the Germans 
 adopted a new plan, namely, to crush and eliminate 
 Russia, then to turn westward, settle accounts with 
 France, and bring England to her knees. Of course 
 while attending to their eastern enemy, they must 
 hold their western front tight, and even attack, if 
 the opportunity offered. There must be no suspen- 
 sion or relaxation of effort anywhere, but the main 
 emphasis must be put upon the eastern campaign, 
 as it was the more inviting and promised the more 
 immediate gains. There was an additional argument 
 in favor of making the main effort in the east. Hin- 
 
THE WORLD WAR 345 
 
 denburg, the new idol of Germany, from long years 
 of study was minutely acquainted with all the nat- 
 ural features of that theater of war. What he had 
 done at Tannenberg he could do again, and again, 
 perhaps. 
 
 Therefore eastward the path of empire took its 
 way. The developments there were destined to ex- 
 ceed the wildest imagination of the Germans. After 
 Tannenberg the Russians, recovering, resumed the 
 offensive, and again invaded East Prussia, whereupon 
 Hindenburg fell upon them, administering a crush- 
 ing defeat in the Battle of the Mazurian Lakes (Feb- 
 ruary 12, 1915). The Russians lost in killed and 
 wounded a hundred and fifty thousand and a hun- 
 dred thousand of them were taken prisoners. 
 
 This was a mere beginning. East Prussia was 
 freed from the presence of the Russians. But they 
 had overrun Galicia, a northern province of Austria. 
 They must be expelled, and then no foreign soldiers 
 would stand on the soil of the Central Empires. More- 
 over the war should be carried straight over into 
 Russia. The tables must be turned, and turned they 
 were in a memorable fashion. All through the sum- 
 mer, from April to August, a mammoth drive of Ger- 
 mans and Austrians combined, under Hindenburg and 
 Mackensen, went on over a wide front. Victory fol- 
 lowed victory in rapid succession. The Russians were 
 driven out of Galicia. Przemysl fell on June 2; Lem- 
 berg on June 22. Russian Poland was invaded. War- 
 saw, its capital, was captured on August 5. All of 
 Poland was conquered and Lithuania and Courland 
 were overrun. When the campaign was over the 
 
346 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Russian line was still intact, but it had been forced 
 far back and now ran from Riga, in the north, to 
 Czernowitz, in the south, near the northern border 
 of Roumania. 
 
 It was a notable summer's work. Mackensen took 
 his place beside Hindenburg, as a national hero. The 
 process of Russian disintegration which two years 
 later was to lead to the shameful Treaty of Brest- 
 Litovsk had begun. Russia had lost 65,000 square 
 miles of territory, a territory larger than New Eng- 
 land. The military statistics of this war are uncer- 
 tain, being subject to no control outside official circles, 
 but it is said that Russian losses in killed and wounded 
 were a million two hundred thousand and nearly a mil- 
 lion in prisoners. The Russian commander, Grand 
 Duke Nicholas, was removed from chief command and 
 sent to the Caucasus. So much for the eastern front. 
 As 1914 had seen the Germans seizing Belgium and 
 northern and eastern France, 191 5 had seen them 
 seizing a large part of Russia. The Germans were 
 entitled to the elation which they experienced and 
 which they volubly expressed. 
 
 The Allies suffered another notable discomfiture 
 that year, 1915, and a serious diminution of prestige, 
 this time in the extreme southeastern point of Europe. 
 They attempted the capture of Constantinople, the 
 capital of the Turkish Empire, a very difficult thing 
 to achieve owing to topographical reasons. Could 
 they accomplish this, then the Balkan states not 
 yet in the war would probably enter it on the side of 
 the Allies, and with that alignment Austria could be 
 attacked and invaded from the south and east; also 
 
THE WORLD WAR 347 
 
 Turkey might be compelled to sue for peace or at any 
 rate would be put on the defensive. And could the 
 Allies control the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, they 
 could secure a connection with Russia through the 
 Black Sea. They could thus send to Russia the war 
 supplies she so greatly needed and could receive from 
 her the food supplies she produced. 
 
 In February and March a British and French fleet 
 tried to force the Dardanelles. Penetrating the chan- 
 nel as far as the " Narrows," they could get no farther. 
 The shores were powerfully fortified, and in the bat- 
 tle between the forts and the ships of war, several 
 of the latter were destroyed. The fleet was forced 
 to withdraw. Constantinople could not be reached 
 that way. Next an attempt was made by land. After 
 a costly delay Anglo-French troops, reinforced by 
 troops from Australia and New Zealand, called " An- 
 zacs," ^ who had been brought up by way of the 
 Red Sea, landed on the peninsula of Gallipoli, Sir 
 Ian Hamilton in command. But the Turks had had 
 their warning and, under the command of a German 
 general, Liman von Sanders, were ready for them. 
 The landing was effected only at a heavy cost and 
 the positions which the Allies confronted proved im- 
 pregnable. A flanking movement from Suvla Bay 
 likewise proved unsuccessful. The Allies held on all 
 through the year, but they were foiled, and in De- 
 cember they abandoned the attempt. Their losses 
 had been enormous and nothing had been accom- 
 plished, save that possibly the expedition had kept 
 
 ^ A composite word made by the initial letters of the words Aus- 
 tralian New Zealand Army Corps. 
 
348 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 the Turks from pressing any attack upon the Suez 
 Canal. The reaction of this conspicuous and com- 
 plete failure upon the hesitating Balkan states, Bul- 
 garia and Greece, was disastrous. They, hitherto 
 neutral, began to think that the Central Powers would 
 ultimately be victorious and that it would be more 
 prudent as well as pleasanter to be on the winning 
 side. 
 
 Bulgarians dislike of Serbia, Roumania, and Greece 
 was intense; she resented bitterly the Treaty of Bu- 
 charest ^ and only awaited a favorable opportunity to 
 tear it up. With the Russians retreating week after 
 week and month after month before the terrific on- 
 slaughts of Hindenburg and Mackensen, with the 
 Turks and Germans blocking the straits of the Dar- 
 danelles and holding the British tightly to the coasts 
 of Gallipoli, it seemed evident to Czar Ferdinand and 
 to his minister Radoslavoff that the Germans were 
 the predestined victors in this gigantic war. There- 
 fore, after a disreputable display of double-dealing, 
 they enlisted Bulgaria on the side of the Central 
 Powers (October 4, 1915). This action of Bulgaria 
 had two immediate consequences. It linked the Cen- 
 tral Powers with Turkey, completing the '' corridor " 
 to the East, to Asia. And it sounded the doom of 
 Serbia. 
 
 Serbia had been the unwilling pretext of a war 
 which had so soon broken all bounds, dragging the 
 world with it toward the abyss. Austria's ultimatum 
 to Serbia had been the signal for the general melee. 
 Austrian armies had immediately invaded Serbia and 
 
 *See pp. 313-314. 
 
THE WORLD WAR 349 
 
 had seized Belgrade, though only after having en- 
 countered a stubborn resistance, during which the 
 Serbians had at one moment won a brilliant victory 
 (August 20, 1914, and succeeding days), the first gen- 
 eral battle on a European front. The Serbians, aided 
 by the Montengrins, fought desperately against the 
 Austrian invasion, and by the middle of December 
 their victory was complete. Belgrade was reoccupied 
 on December 15. The Austrians retreated precipi- 
 tately out of the land for which they had had such 
 lordly contempt. Their retirement was a rout. Ser- 
 bia even invaded Austria. A Serbian author may be 
 pardoned for writing: "In ten days the Serbian vic- 
 tory over five Austrian army corps was complete. 
 Since the days when Scipio saved Rome from Han- 
 nibal, or when England destroyed the might of Spain, 
 the world has never seen such a spectacle, and never 
 has victory been more deserved.'' General Misitch 
 was the hero of the Serbian hour. 
 
 Such was the first chapter of Serbian history in the 
 Great War. The second was very different. The 
 Germans and Austrians, fresh from their successes 
 in Russia and Galicia, invaded Serbia in great strength 
 in October, 191 5, under General von Mackensen. At 
 the same time the Bulgarians invaded her from the 
 east. For two months the Serbians fought single- 
 handed and with unquenchable valor against the over- 
 whelming forces of Germany, Austria, and Bulgaria, 
 left in the lurch, moreover, by their ally Greece, which 
 was by treaty bound to aid them in a contingency 
 like this. Serbia was completely conquered and 
 crushed. A remnant only of her armies was able 
 
350 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 to reach safety on the coast of Albania, whence it 
 was transported in Allied vessels to the island of 
 Corfu. It is difficult to find words adequately to 
 characterize the awful retreat across the barren Al- 
 banian mountains, the unspeakable hardships en- 
 dured. The war exacted another martyrdom. The 
 Austro-Germans followed up their conquest by over- 
 running Montenegro (January, 1916). 
 
 Simultaneously with this conquest and extinction 
 of Serbia another train of events was being started, 
 whose full significance was not to be made manifest 
 until two more eventful and discouraging years had 
 passed. In October, 1915, an Anglo-French force 
 landed at Salonica, the leading port of Greece. It 
 had come to aid Serbia in response to an invitation 
 from the prime minister of Greece, Venizelos. Con- 
 stantine, the King of Greece and a brother-in-law of 
 the German Emperor, did not propose to aid Serbia, 
 although by treaty bound to do so. He now dis- 
 missed Venizelos and began a tortuous pro-German 
 policy which was ultimately to cost him his throne. 
 
 This Anglo-French army marched northward to 
 help the Serbians, but was unsuccessful and had to 
 withdraw behind the lines of Salonica. But out of 
 the union of this force, subsequently greatly enlarged, 
 with the reorganized and reinvigorated remnant of 
 the Serbian army which had found refuge in the 
 island of Corfu, was to emerge in time salvation for 
 the stricken land. 
 
 While the situation had, during the year, grown 
 worse for the Allies in the east and in the Balkans, 
 there had been a distinct and a promising gain for 
 
THE WORLD WAR 351 
 
 them in another quarter. Italy had entered the war 
 on their side. For over thirty years Italy had been 
 a member of the Triple Alliance, concluded, in 1882, 
 with Germany and Austria-Hungary. That alliance 
 she had renewed as late as 1912 and that renewal 
 was to run until 1920. But when the war broke out 
 in 1914 and when Italy was asked by her allies to 
 cooperate with them, she declined on the ground that 
 she was obliged to aid them only if they were at- 
 tacked. Instead of being attacked they had them- 
 selves begun the war. Italy therefore adopted a pol- 
 icy of neutrality, which she maintained until May 23, 
 1915. Then, at the moment when the Russians were 
 in full retreat, she entered the war on the side of 
 the Western powers. This was the great gain of the 
 year for the Allies and one that bade fair to redress 
 the balance of power in their favor. 
 
 The Italian Government, in acting thus, was but 
 responding to a widespread popular demand. Ever 
 since the Kingdom of Italy had been formed in the 
 decade between 1859 ^^^ 1870 the Italians had been 
 restless under the thought that their unification had 
 been incomplete, that outside the boundaries of the 
 state as determined at that time there were hundreds 
 of thousands of Italians still subject to Austria, in 
 the Trentino to the north, and in Trieste and the 
 peninsula of Istria to the northeast. This was Italia 
 Irredenta or Unredeemed Italy. This territory the 
 Italian Government now endeavored to acquire, at 
 first peacefully through direct negotiations with 
 Austria-Hungary, then, that method failing, through 
 war. Another motive also influenced the Govern- 
 
352 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 ment, the insistent popular demand that Italy do her 
 share in the work of the defense of civilization against 
 Kultur, of democracy and liberty against autocracy 
 and despotism. The strong instinct of the Italian 
 people was that they belonged with the Allies by rea- 
 son of the principles they held in common with them. 
 Their action in entering the war was naturally greeted 
 with enthusiasm in France and England, and with 
 deep resentment in Germany and Austria. 
 
 The intervention of Italy was followed shortly by 
 that of the little independent republic of San Marino, 
 a state which claims to be the oldest in Europe and 
 which is located on a spur of the Apennines, entirely 
 surrounded by Italy, and which has a population of 
 about twelve thousand. San Marino is the sole sur- 
 vivor of those city-republics which were so numerous 
 in Italy during the Middle Ages. She declared war 
 upon the Central Powers, June 3, 1915. 
 
 Another Allied gain during 1914 and 1915 was the 
 conquest of the German colonies. Japan seized Kiau- 
 chau, as we have seen, soon after her entrance into 
 the war. In Africa, British and French troops easily 
 overran Togoland and Kamerun. German Southwest 
 Africa was conquered by South African troops under 
 General Smuts, though the conquest was not com- 
 pleted until early in 1917. A campaign against Ger- 
 man East Africa was begun early and resulted in 
 soon freeing that colony of most of the German 
 troops, some of whom, however, remained untracked 
 and undefeated, apparently, until the end of the war. 
 In the main the vast German colonial empire had 
 shrunk to very small proportions by the close of 1915. 
 
THE WORLD WAR 353 
 
 In the same year, 1915, occurred an event which 
 shocked the world by its wanton and cowardly bar- 
 barity and which was in time to have far-reaching 
 consequences, the sinking, on May 7, of the mam- 
 moth Atlantic liner, the Lusitania, off the coast of 
 Ireland. This incident may best be described later. 
 It should, however, be included in this untoward list 
 of events which darkened the year 191 5. 
 
 The War in 1916 
 
 We have seen that Germany's original plan of war 
 was to crush France first and then to turn against 
 Russia and force her to her knees. This plan had 
 been attempted in 1914, but had not succeeded. 
 France had not been crushed, but had, in the famous 
 Battle of the Marne, defeated the Germans, driving 
 them precipitately back to the Aisne, had preserved 
 her own field army intact, had saved Paris and the 
 most important fortresses of France, Verdun, Belfort, 
 Toul, and Epinal. Unconquered and undaunted, 
 France was all through 191 5 and in 1916 the hope and 
 the mainstay of the world, the flaming and resolute 
 soul of the Allied cause. After a year and a half of 
 war Russia had, however, been badly defeated and had 
 given many signs of that weakness and disintegration 
 that were later to develop so rapidly and appallingly. 
 England was not yet fully conscious of the part she 
 must play; she had not yet brought herself to adopt 
 universal military service although she had accom- 
 plished wonders in volunteering. Italy had done lit- 
 tle to justify the great hopes with which the Allies 
 
354 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 had greeted her entrance into the war. Belgium had 
 been virtually wiped off the map; so had Serbia, 
 Montenegro, and Albania; all had been overrun by 
 the armies of the Central Powers and were securely 
 held. France, however, stood defiant and resolute, 
 tense, straining every nerve, steeled for every con- 
 tingency. 
 
 But France had suffered terribly and the German 
 military authorities believed it was possible to do, in 
 1916, what they had failed to accomplish in 1914. 
 This is the meaning of Verdun. The German Gen- 
 eral Staff thought that, by delivering one terrific, 
 irresistible, deadly blow against the French army, 
 they could smash it. Then peace would be in sight, 
 as France would recognize the hopelessness of further 
 struggle, the sheer impossibility of ever recovering 
 Alsace-Lorraine. Verdun was a strong position, but, 
 once taken, no equally stout defense could be made 
 between there and Paris. The capital would fall and 
 the fall of Paris would certainly mean the elimination 
 of France. Incidentally, as the German Crown Prince 
 was in command near Verdun, blinding military glory 
 would irradiate the person of the heir to the Prus- 
 sian throne. Could anything be more desirable or 
 more appropriate? 
 
 On February 21, 1916, at 7.15 in the morning, the 
 storm broke upon Verdun, a place long famous in 
 the military annals of France, but destined now to 
 win a glory beyond compare. Never had there been 
 so pulverizing an artillery fire as that which inau- 
 gurated this attack. The Germans had made enor- 
 mous preparations, had enormous armies and sup- 
 
THE WORLD WAR 355 
 
 plies. It seemed humanly impossible to prevent them 
 from blasting their way through. But the impossible 
 was done. The French disputed every inch of ground 
 with incredible coolness and inexhaustible bravery. 
 Nevertheless they lost position after position, and in 
 four days of frenzied fighting were driven back four 
 miles. Then French reinforcements arrived, hurried 
 thither by thousands of motors. And one of Joffre's 
 most brilliant subordinates, Petain, reached the scene 
 and infused new energy into the army of defense. 
 Superb and spirit-stirring was Petain's cry to his sol- 
 diers : " Courage, comrades ! We'll get them." 
 
 It is impossible to summarize this battle, for it raged 
 for many months, from February to October, and 
 was characterized by a multitude of incidents. The 
 fighting back and forth for critical positions continued 
 week after week and month, after month. Douau- 
 mont and Vaux are the names of two subsidiary forts 
 which stand forth most conspicuously in the murder- 
 ous welter of repeated attack and counter-attack, of 
 thrust and counter-thrust. The Germans were re- 
 solved to take Verdun, cost what it might. They 
 were ready to pay the price, but victory they would 
 have. They paid the price, in irreparable losses, but 
 victory they did not win. The French stiffened, under 
 Petain and later under Nivelle, and with the electrify- 
 ing cry: '^ lis ne passeront past'' ("They shall not 
 pass! ") they baffled the fury of the enemy and at the 
 end pitched him out of most of the positions he 
 had won. Verdun did not fall. The military reputa- 
 tions of Petain and Nivelle had grown enormously 
 and the latter soon succeeded Joffre as commander- 
 
356 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 in-chief. The Crown Prince did not emerge from this 
 enterprise irradiated with the bhnding effulgence ol 
 glory. His experiences were, however, calculated to 
 make him a wiser if not a better man. 
 
 The course and outcome of the later phases of the 
 Verdun campaign were affected by another campaign 
 which was being carried on simultaneously on another 
 sector of the long line that ran from Belgium through 
 France to Switzerland. This was the Battle of the 
 Somme. This was an Anglo-French attack, stretch- 
 ing from Arras to some distance south of the Somme 
 River, the English under General Haig, the French 
 under Foch, the Germans under Hindenburg, who 
 had been transferred to the west after his great suc- 
 cesses in the east. England was now striking a nev/ 
 pace, which she was to continue and to increase, in 
 participation in the war on land. In 1914 she had had 
 only a small regular army of a hundred thousand 
 men. This was rapidly increased by volunteering, 
 which achieved notable proportions, but not notable 
 enough. Finally in January, 1916, she had adopted 
 conscription for single men, and, in May, for married 
 men as well. Thus she now had universal service 
 for all between the ages of 18 and 41. She was train- 
 ing the new recruits hastily and was increasing her 
 munition supplies enormously. She had taken over 
 more and more of the line until she was now man- 
 ning about ninety miles from the sea to the Somme. 
 
 The people of the Allied countries expected that 
 their armies, thus enlarged and elaborately equipped, 
 would attempt to break through the German lines. 
 The Battle of the Somme was an endeavor to bring 
 
THE WORLD WAR 357 
 
 to an end the long deadlock on the western front. 
 After a terrific bombardment, which had by this time 
 become the customary prelude to an ofifensive, the 
 general assault was begun on July i. For a few days 
 the Allies made progress, though on the whole very 
 slowly. The railroad centers, Bapaume and Peronne, 
 were their objectives. The German line stiffened and 
 fiercely counter-attacked. The battle dragged and 
 the rainy season set in, making it almost impossible 
 to move the heavy guns over the muddy roads. While 
 both the English and the French took a number of 
 towns and considerable bodies of prisoners, they were 
 unable to attain their objectives. All through the 
 summer and well into the fall the desperate struggle 
 went on, dying down in October. The total area 
 won by the Allies was small, about 120 square miles. 
 Nowhere had they advanced more than seven miles 
 from their starting point. Nevertheless Haig was 
 right when he announced that the campaign had been 
 a success for three reasons, namely, because it had 
 relieved Verdun; because, by holding large masses 
 of Germans on the western front, it had enabled Rus- 
 sia to win a considerable victory on the eastern front; 
 and because it had worn down the German strength. 
 It was in the second phase of this Battle of the Somme 
 that a new and redoubtable engine of war was intro- 
 duced by the British, powerful armored cars, quickly 
 nicknamed " tanks," which could cross trenches, break 
 through barbed-wire entanglements, and at the same 
 time could scatter a murderous fire all about from 
 the guns within. Machine-gun fire against them was 
 entirely ineffectual. Only when squarely hit by pow- 
 
358 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 erful missiles from big cannon were the tanks dis- 
 abled. 
 
 There was also serious fighting during 1916 on 
 the Italian and Russian fronts. The Austrians, believ- 
 ing that the Russians had learned their lesson in 
 the previous year and that they would think twice 
 before again assuming the offensive, left their eastern 
 front lightly guarded and prepared to punish the 
 Italians, their historic enemy, and now more hated 
 than ever because of their " treachery " in breaking 
 the Triple Alliance. In May the Austrians began an 
 attack from the Tyrol. Controlling the passes of the 
 Alps, they were able to form a large army and to 
 threaten Verona and Vicenza. The Italians resisted 
 desperately, but lost a large number of guns and men. 
 They also lost about two hundred and thirty square 
 miles of Italian territory. But the Austrians had 
 weakened their eastern front so seriously that the 
 Russians were winning great victories over them in 
 that theater. This in turn reacted upon the Italian 
 campaign by forcing the Austrians to recall many 
 troops in order to ward off the new danger. There- 
 fore, they were obliged to forego for the time being 
 their dream of breaking into the plains of Venetia. 
 
 While the Russians had been forced by Hinden- 
 burg and Mackensen to make a great retreat in 1915, 
 they had not been put out of the war and, in June, 
 1916, they began, under Brusiloff, a new offensive, 
 this time between the Pripet Marshes and the Aus- 
 trian province of Bukowina. Brusiloff's drive was 
 for a while successful and netted far larger territorial 
 gains than were made on the western front in the 
 
THE WORLD WAR 359 
 
 Battle of the Somme. Brusiloff was able to push the 
 Austrians back from twenty to fifty miles, to take 
 a large number of prisoners, and to capture many 
 towns and cities, including the important ones of 
 Lutsk and Czernowitz. The campaign lasted from 
 June to October, but after the first month no great 
 progress was made and the offensive gradually wore 
 down and stopped. Russia was far from having re- 
 covered what she had lost in the previous year. In- 
 deed, she recovered practically nothing in the north 
 from the Pripet Marshes to the Baltic Sea. 
 
 The interplay of these various campaigns was un- 
 mistakable. The Somme helped Verdun, the Russian 
 drive helped Italy by freeing her of the Austrians 
 and by enabling her to begin an offensive along the 
 Isonzo which yielded Gorizia on August 9 and 
 brought her to within thirteen miles of coveted 
 Trieste. But while there was this interplay, this re- 
 lieving of pressure in one region by bringing pressure 
 to bear in another, the team-work was most imper- 
 fect. The desirability of a unified command of all the 
 Allied forces had hardly begun to dawn. It took the 
 experiences of another year and more to drive that 
 idea into the minds of the governing authorities of 
 the various countries concerned. 
 
 The unhappy consequences of the lack of proper 
 coordination in a common cause were conspicuously 
 shown in another field in this same year of 1916, 
 namely, in Roumania. Roumania entered the war on 
 the side of the Allies on August 27, 1916. Her chief 
 motive was to assure " the realization of her national 
 unity," by which phrase was meant the liberation 
 
36o FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 from Austria-Hungary of the three million Rouma- 
 nians who lived in the eastern section of the Dual 
 Monarchy, in Transylvania, and their incorporation 
 in the Kingdom of Roumania. The principle of na- 
 tionality was at the basis of Roumania's action, the 
 principle that kindred peoples desiring to be united 
 should be united. Roumania's declaration of war was 
 naturally warmly applauded by the Allies. It was 
 followed immediately by a Roumanian invasion of 
 Transylvania, which achieved very considerable suc- 
 cesses. 
 
 But the Germans were resolved to prevent this 
 threatened mutilation of their ally and also this threat- 
 ened cutting of the connection between the Central 
 Powers and Turkey. Roumanian success, if unim- 
 peded, would widen out into the Balkans and imperil 
 the famous '' corridor " through Bulgaria and Serbia. 
 The German General Staff determined, therefore, to 
 strike with all the force at its command, to deal a 
 blow that should be both swift and memorable. Two 
 large armies composed of Germans, Austro-Hunga- 
 rians, Bulgarians, and Turks, and under the command 
 of Falkenhayn and Mackensen, were sent against 
 Roumania. They conquered the southern part of the 
 kingdom with comparative ease and entered Bucharest, 
 the capital, on December 6. What was left of the 
 Roumanian army withdrew to the north. Jassy be- 
 came the provisional seat of Roumanian government. 
 Peace was not concluded until much later, but mean- 
 while the Central Powers controlled most of the ter- 
 ritory of Roumania, and exploited its rich resources in 
 wheat and oil. The corridor to Constantinople was 
 
THE WORLD WAR 361 
 
 widened rather than cut. From this time forth the 
 German ambition to create a Middle Europe, domi- 
 nated by Germany, became more and more pro- 
 nounced and more and more insistent. 
 
 The Roumanian disaster was due to the immense 
 superiority of German resources, equipment, and gen- 
 eralship; also to the mistakes of Roumania. One of 
 these mistakes was the lateness of her decision to 
 enter the war. None of the Allies was in a position 
 to help her, except Russia. Had Roumania declared 
 war in June at the moment of Brusiloff's great vic- 
 tories, the outcome might have been very different. 
 As it was she declared it when Brusiloff's drive had 
 been brought to a standstill. This was but one more 
 proof of the fact that the Allies must bring about a 
 closer adjustment of their efforts, if they were to win. 
 
 One more state entered the European War in 1916, 
 Portugal. On February 23, Portugal seized the Ger- 
 man ships in her harbors, claiming that the shortage 
 of tonnage created by Germany's submarine campaign 
 justified the action. Whereupon Germany declared 
 war upon her, March 9. A few days later it was 
 oflficially announced by the Portuguese minister to 
 the United States that " Portugal is drawn into the 
 war as a result of her long-standing alliance with 
 England, an alliance that has withstood unbroken 
 the strain of five hundred years." This, it is curious 
 to note, is a reference to a treaty signed in London 
 on June 16, 1373, by which each country pledged it- 
 self to assist the other in case of war, a treaty as 
 legitimate as that of the Triple AlHance, much more 
 venerable, and far less injurious to the welfare of 
 
362 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Europe. During all these centuries the Anglo- 
 Portuguese Alliance has continued, frequently reaf- 
 firmed, the friendship it was designed to bring about 
 still exists, the treaty concluded in 1373 has been 
 broken by neither party and is still considered in 
 force. Portugal participated in the war by sending 
 an army to France and by aiding England in Africa. 
 
 The year 1916 witnessed also a great naval engage- 
 ment between England and Germany, the Battle of 
 Jutland. England had given since the outbreak of 
 the w^ar remarkable evidence of her might upon the 
 ocean. The mobilization of her fleet in the opening 
 days was quite as noteworthy in its way as the mobili- 
 zation of the German army, and as the latter entered 
 forthwith upon a career of victory, so also did the 
 former. The pressure of the British navy began at 
 once to be felt where it was intended it should be, 
 in Germany. A blockade of the German coast was 
 established at the very outset, which was destined 
 to be made steadily more effective. Germany's mer- 
 chant shipping was swept from the ocean, the vast 
 fabric of her sea-borne commerce collapsed. The 
 British fleet prevented Germany from importing such 
 essentials as foodstuffs, petroleum, cotton, coffee, rub- 
 ber, zinc, tin, so necessary in the work of war. The 
 blockade was not perfect, as now and then a German 
 raider could get through — sure, however, in the end, 
 to be hunted down. But the attention of the world, 
 the attention even of England herself, was not riveted 
 upon this incessant naval war as it was upon the mili- 
 tary operations on land. One reason for this was 
 that the naval war was silent and unseen, although 
 
THE WORLD WAR 363 
 
 its effects were most important. Another was that 
 the war on land was bitterly contested and gave rise 
 to numberless incidents, was a tense, critical and 
 doubtful struggle, while the war on the sea was, gen- 
 erally speaking, devoid of incident. England's com- 
 mand of her element was never in doubt, and was 
 even challenged only infrequently. Submarines could 
 and did do occasional damage, even in one instance 
 sinking three English war vessels, and there had been 
 two or three sea fights between small fractions of the 
 fleets, Germany winning a victory in the early days 
 off Chili, England a far more significant one subse- 
 quently off the Falkland Islands. These events were, 
 however, of minor importance. But the main Ger- 
 man fleet stuck tightly to its base, the harbor of Kiel, 
 and the unremitting, perpetual stress of the blockade 
 offered no sensations to a world which was surfeited 
 with them as a result of the land warfare. 
 
 But on May 31, 1916, the German High Seas fleet, 
 commanded by Admiral von Scheer, steamed forth, and 
 skirted up the western coast of Denmark. Sighted 
 by the British scouts under Admiral Beatty, about 
 3.30 in the afternoon, an engagement immediately 
 began, the main British squadron, under Admiral 
 Jellicoe, coming up only later. The battle continued 
 for several hours, until darkness came on, be- 
 tween eight and nine. It was the greatest naval bat- 
 tle since Trafalgar and, in the strength and power of 
 the units engaged, undoubtedly the greatest in all 
 history. The result was inconclusive. Both sides lost 
 important ships, but both claimed to be victorious. 
 That the real victor, however, was England was 
 
364 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 proved by the fact that the German fleet was obliged 
 to return to Kiel and did not again emerge from that 
 refuge. Britannia still ruled the wave, and it was 
 extremely fortunate for the safety of democracy in 
 England, France, Italy, and the United States, and 
 for liberty everywhere, that she did. 
 
 Had England rendered no other service than this 
 of making the seas safe for freedom and dangerous 
 for despotism, the debt of humanity to her would 
 be incalculable. But she was doing far more than 
 this. The utterances of her statesmen, like those of 
 France; from the first of August, 1914, defined the 
 issues at stake, and set forth adequately the appalling 
 gravity of the crisis. Not only were those utterances 
 profoundly educative, but they were veritable trumpet 
 blasts, summoning to action, action, action, in the in- 
 terest of all that men in western Europe and in Amer- 
 ica had long held most precious. In the darkest hours, 
 and there were many such during those first three 
 years, there was no faltering in high places, no talk 
 of compromise of right with wrong, no weakening of 
 resolution, no abatement of demand that this world 
 be made safe for civilized men. It must never be 
 forgotten that the leaders of France and England, 
 and the nations they represented, were constant and 
 valorous defenders of the New World, as of the Old, 
 that it was their heroism and their immeasurable 
 spirit of sacrifice that barred the way of a vulgar 
 and conscienceless tyrant toward universal domina- 
 tion. Never did men die in a holier cause. And they 
 died in enormous numbers, literally by the million. 
 
THE WORLD WAR 365 
 
 Entrance of the United States into the War 
 
 In such a contest as that the United States be- 
 longed, body and soul. If she was to preserve a shred 
 of self-respect, if she was to maintain inviolate the 
 honor of the American name, if she was to safeguard 
 the elementary rights of American citizens, if she was 
 bound in any sense to be her brother's helper in the 
 defense of freedom in the world, then she must take 
 her stand shoulder to shoulder with the hosts of free- 
 men in Europe who were giving and had long been 
 giving the last full measure of devotion to that cause, 
 then she must spend her manhood and her wealth 
 freely and without complaint, as France and England 
 and Belgium and Serbia had done. 
 
 From very early in the war there were Americans 
 who endeavored to arouse their country to a sense 
 of its danger and its duty, to persuade it to prepare, 
 to fire it with the resolve to keep the nation's 'scutch- 
 eon clean. Among those who, by their quick and 
 intelligent appreciation of the situation, by their cour- 
 age and activity, rendered invaluable service in the 
 campaign of national education were Ex-President 
 Roosevelt and General Leonard Wood. 
 
 From August, 1914, to April, 1917, America passed 
 through a painful, humiliating, and dangerous expe- 
 rience. Her declaration of war was the expression of 
 the wisdom she distilled from that experience. Her 
 entrance into the war was the most important event 
 of the year 1917, though not immediately the most 
 important, for the collapse of Russia, occurring also 
 
366 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 in that year, had a quicker and more direct bearing 
 upon the miUtary situation. But in the end, if 
 America kept the faith, she could tip the scales de- 
 cisively. 
 
 We entered the war, finally, because Germany 
 forced us in, because she rendered it absolutely im- 
 possible for us to stay out unless we were the most 
 craven and pigeon-hearted people on the earth. Any- 
 one who counted on that being the case was enter- 
 taining a notion for which he could certainly cite no 
 evidence in our previous history. 
 
 How did Germany force us into this war? What 
 specific things did she do that could be answered in 
 the end in one way and one way only? 
 
 The record is a long one, of offenses to the moral, 
 the intellectual, the spiritual, the material interests of 
 America. First, the wanton attack upon Serbia,, a 
 small state, by two bullies, Austria and Germany, and 
 the flouting of all suggestions of arbitration or at- 
 tempts to settle international difficulties peacefully, 
 methods in which America believed, as had been 
 shown by her own repeated use of them, and by her 
 enthusiastic support of the efforts of the two Hague 
 Conferences to perfect those methods and to win 
 general adhesion to them. Second, the invasion of 
 Belgium and the martyrdom of that country, amid 
 nameless indignities and inhumanities. The indig- 
 nation of America was spontaneous, widespread, and 
 intense, nor has it shown any tendency to abate from 
 that day to this. The sentiment of horror, thus need- 
 lessly aroused, coupled with admiration for the brave 
 resistance of the Belgians and sympathy for their suf- 
 
THE WORLD WAR 367 
 
 ferings, contributed powerfully to the creation of that 
 state of mind which finally gained expression on April 
 6, 191 7. 
 
 But the conquest and the inhuman treatment of 
 Belgium was no direct infringement of our rights. 
 The national indignation was profoundly stirred, the 
 national sympathy aroused, but neither the sover- 
 eignty of the Government nor the persons or property 
 of the citizens of the United States were affected. 
 These were, however, not long to remain immune 
 from attack. German and Austrian officials, accred- 
 ited to our Government and enjoying the hospitality 
 of our country, proceeded to use their positions here 
 for the purpose of damaging Germany's enemies. 
 They fomented strikes among American munition 
 workers and seamen; they caused bombs to be placed 
 on ships carrying munitions of war; they plotted in- 
 cendiary fires, and conspired to bring about the de- 
 struction of ships and factories. In 191 5 the ambas- 
 sador of Austria-Hungary, Dumba, and the German 
 military and naval attaches, Papen and Boy-Ed, were 
 caught in such activities, and were forced to leave the 
 country. Under the supervision of Papen a regular 
 office was maintained to procure fraudulent passports, 
 by lying and by forgery, for German reservists. 
 American territory was used as a base of supplies, 
 and military enterprises against Canada and against 
 India were hatched by Germans on American soil. 
 These German plots were in gross defiance of our 
 position as a neutral and of our sovereignty as an 
 independent nation. The German Embassy in Wash- 
 ington was a nest of scoundrels, plotting arson, and 
 
368 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 murder also, since the incendiary fires and explosions 
 cost many innocent lives. 
 
 While the diplomatic representatives of Germany 
 were engaged in plotting criminal enterprises against 
 Americans at home, the German Government itself 
 had embarked upon a course of procedure that in- 
 evitably ended in the destruction of American lives 
 and property on the high seas. In February, 191 5, 
 Germany proclaimed the waters around the British 
 Isles *' a war zone " and announced that enemy ships 
 found within that zone would be sunk without warn- 
 ing. Neutrals were expected to keep their ships and 
 citizens out of this area. If they did not, the respon- 
 sibility for what might happen would be theirs, not 
 Germany's. 
 
 Such was the announcement of Germany's subma- 
 rine policy, a policy that was to have more momentous 
 consequences than its authors imagined. A subma- 
 rine is a war vessel and as such has a perfect right to 
 attack an enemy war vessel without warning and 
 sink her if she can. But neither a submarine nor 
 any other war vessel has any right, under interna- 
 tional law, to sink a merchantman belonging to the 
 enemy or belonging to a neutral, except under cer- 
 tain conditions, and one of the conditions is that the 
 persons on board, crew and passengers, shall be re- 
 moved to the ship attacking or their lives otherwise 
 absolutely safeguarded. 
 
 President Wilson, six days after the German proc- 
 lamation, dispatched a note to Germany announcing 
 that the United States would hold the German Gov- 
 ernment to " a strict accountability " should any 
 
THE WORLD WAR 369 
 
 American ships be sunk or American lives lost, and 
 that the United States would take all steps necessary 
 *' to safeguard American lives and property and to 
 secure to American citizens the full enjoyment of their 
 acknowledged rights on the high seas." 
 
 To this the German Government replied that neu- 
 tral vessels entering the war zone ''will themselves 
 bear the responsibility for any unfortunate accidents 
 that may occur. Germany disclaims all responsibility 
 for such accidents and their consequences." This was 
 a clear announcement that not only did she propose 
 to sink enemy merchantmen, but neutral merchant- 
 men as well, were they found within the prohibited 
 zone, without removing the passengers to safety or 
 even giving them the warning necessary to enable 
 them to take to the lifeboats, which, on the high 
 seas, would themselves not be places of safety, but 
 which at least might perhaps give some chance for 
 life. 
 
 On March 28, a British steamer, the Falaha, was 
 torpedoed and one American was drowned. On May 
 I, an American ship, the GulHight, was torpedoed 
 without warning. The vessel managed to remain 
 afloat and was later towed into port, but the captain 
 died of heart failure caused by the shock, and two of 
 the crew who jumped overboard were drowned. The 
 Government of the United States began at once to 
 investigate the case, as here apparently were all the 
 elements calling for strict accountability. But before 
 the investigation was completed, indeed before a week 
 had passed, the case was overshadowed by another, 
 the sinking of the Lusitania. 
 
370 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Germany's ruthless submarine campaign, in force 
 since February, had resulted by the first of May in 
 the sinking of over sixty merchant ships in the war 
 zone, several of them belonging to neutral nations, 
 v^ith a loss of about two hundred and fifty lives, all 
 of them the lives of non-combatants. Germany had 
 deliberately adopted a policy that involved the kill- 
 ing of as many non-combatants, hitherto protected by 
 international law and the usages of warfare among 
 civilized nations, as might be necessary to enable her 
 to achieve her ends. What she had done on land to 
 hundreds and thousands of peaceful, unarmed, non- 
 fighting people in Belgium and France she was now 
 ready and resolved to do on the sea. But while she 
 was torpedoing many vessels, yet England's commerce 
 went on as before, thousands of ships entering and 
 clearing British ports, and Great Britain was trans- 
 porting an army to France without the loss of a single 
 man. As the German people had been told that the 
 submarines would quickly bring England to her knees 
 and as they were not doing so, something spectacular 
 and sensational must be achieved to justify the prom- 
 ises and expectations, and to silence criticism or 
 discouragement at home. Consequently, the largest 
 trans-Atlantic British liner still in service was selected 
 for destruction. The world, it was believed, would 
 then take notice and people would think twice before 
 entering the war zone. On May 7, the Lusitania was 
 torpedoed twice without warning and sank in less 
 than twenty minutes. Nearly twelve hundred men, 
 women, and children were drowned, among them over 
 a hundred Americans. This cold-blooded, deliberate 
 
THE WORLD WAR 371 
 
 murder of innocent non-combatants was the most bril- 
 liant achievement of Germany's submarine campaign 
 and was celebrated with enthusiasm in Germany as 
 a great " victory." The rest of the world regarded 
 it as both barbarous and cowardly. The indignation 
 of Americans at this murder of Americans was uni- 
 versal and intense. When, three years later, Ameri- 
 can soldiers in France went over the top, in the cam- 
 paign of 1918, shouting " Lusitania ! '' at their foes, 
 they were but expressing the deep-seated indignation 
 of an outraged people, an indignation and resentment 
 which time had done nothing to assuage. 
 
 On May 13, President Wilson dispatched a mes- 
 sage to Germany denouncing this act as a gross vio- 
 lation of international law, demanding that Germany 
 disavow it and make reparation as " far as reparation 
 is possible," and declaring that the Government of the 
 United States would not " omit any word or any act 
 necessary to the performance of its sacred duty of 
 maintaining the rights of the United States and its 
 citizens and of safeguarding their free exercise and 
 enjoyment." 
 
 Germany replied on May 28, evading the main is- 
 sues of the American note and making many asser- 
 tions that were quickly proved to be lies. A corre- 
 spondence ensued between the two Governments, in 
 which the President repeated his demand for dis- 
 avowal and all possible reparation. In the end Ger- 
 many offered to pay for the lives lost, but refused 
 to admit that the sinking of the ship was illegal. No 
 agreement was reached between the two nations. 
 No action, however, was taken. 
 
372 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 All through 1915, torpedoing of vessels continued, 
 and several Americans were drowned. The Govern- 
 ment steadily asserted our rights, the German Gov- 
 ernment evading the fundamental principles involved, 
 trying to confuse the issue by raising irrelevant points. 
 
 On March 24, 1916, occurred another major event 
 in this campaign of indiscriminate murder of inno- 
 cent non-combatants, namely, the torpedoing without 
 warning of an English ship, the Sussex, while cross- 
 ing the English Channel. Two Americans were in- 
 jured and about seventy others, who were on board, 
 were endangered. President Wilson again protested 
 and declared the United States could " have no choice 
 but to sever diplomatic relations with the German 
 Empire altogether," unless the German Government 
 *' should now immediately declare and effect an aban- 
 donment of its present methods of submarine war- 
 fare against passenger and freight-carrying vessels." 
 Finally, on May 4, Germany agreed that henceforth 
 merchant vessels should not be sunk without warning 
 and without saving human lives, unless these ships 
 should attempt to escape or offer resistance. But 
 she appended a condition, namely, that the United 
 States should compel Great Britain to observe inter- 
 national law. If the United States should not suc- 
 ceed, then Germany " must reserve to itself complete 
 liberty of decision." 
 
 President Wilson accepted the promise and repu- 
 diated the condition on the ground that our plain 
 rights could not be made contingent by Germany 
 upon what any other power should or should not 
 do. To this note Germany sent no reply. 
 
THE WORLD WAR 573 
 
 That the promise was entirely insincere, that it was 
 the intention to keep it only as long as it should be 
 convenient, that ruthless submarine warfare was to 
 be resumed whenever it seemed likely to be success- 
 ful, was admitted later by the German Chancellor, 
 Bethmann-Hollweg. Sinkings continued to occur 
 from time to time throughout 1916, and finally, on 
 January 31, 1917, the mask of hypocrisy and duplicity 
 was thrown aside and a policy of unrestricted and 
 ruthless submarine warfare was proclaimed. Ger- 
 many announced that beginning the next day, Feb- 
 ruary I, she would prevent "in a zone around Great 
 Britain, France, and Italy, and in the Eastern Medi- 
 terranean, all navigation, that of neutrals included. 
 . . . All ships met within that zone will be sunk." 
 The insulting concession was made that one Ameri- 
 can passenger ship per week might go to England, if 
 it were first painted in stripes, the breadth of which 
 was indicated, and if it carefully followed a route laid 
 down by Germany. " Give us two months of this 
 kind of warfare," said the German foreign secre- 
 tary, Zimmermann, to Ambassador Gerard, on Jan- 
 uary 31, " and we shall end the war and make peace 
 within three months." 
 
 There was only one answer possible to such a note 
 as this, unless the people of the United States were 
 willing to hold their rights and liberties subject to the 
 pleasure and interest of Germany. On February 3 
 the President severed diplomatic relations with Ger- 
 many, recalled our ambassador, and dismissed von 
 Bernstorff. Toward the end of the month Secretary 
 Lansing made public an intercepted dispatch from the 
 
374 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 German foreign secretary, Zimmermann, to the Ger- 
 man minister to Mexico, instructing him to propose 
 an alHance with Mexico and Japan and war upon the 
 United States, Mexico's reward to be the acquisition 
 of the states of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. 
 In other words the United States was to be dismem- 
 bered. 
 
 When, on April 2, 191 7, President Wilson appeared 
 before Congress and in an address, which was a scath- 
 ing arraignment of Germany before the world, rec- 
 ommended a declaration of war against this '' natural 
 foe to liberty " he had a predestined and enthusiastic 
 response, for he was but expressing the wishes of the 
 American people, who did not intend to have war 
 made upon them indefinitely without their hitting 
 back at the aggressor with all the force at their com- 
 mand, and who were resolved to share in the enter- 
 prise of saving the world from Prussian domination, 
 or, in the words of the President, " to vindicate the 
 principles of peace and justice in the life of the world, 
 as against selfish and autocratic power '' and " to make 
 the world safe for democracy." On April 6, Congress 
 passed a resolution to the effect ''that the state of 
 war between the United States and the Imperial Ger- 
 man Government which has thus been thrust upon 
 the United States is hereby formally declared," and it 
 shortly proceeded to pass a series of important mili- 
 tary, financial, and economic measures designed to en- 
 able the country to play a worthy part in the great 
 struggle. The United States did not declare war 
 upon Austria-Hungary until December 7, nor did it 
 then or later declare war upon Bulgaria and Turkey. 
 
THE WORLD WAR 375 
 
 With the two latter diplomatic relations only were 
 broken. 
 
 Thus a war, begun with incredible lightness of heart 
 by Austria-Hungary and Germany upon the banks of 
 the Danube, had expanded until it included not only 
 most of Europe, but Asia and Africa, and now all of 
 North America. Canada had been in the war since its 
 beginning and had greatly distinguished herself on 
 many fields. Now came the United States, unpre- 
 pared, save for her navy, which at once began to 
 prove its mettle and its value to our allies, but po- 
 tentially an immense addition to the fighting ranks, 
 should its enormous and varied resources be devel- 
 oped and properly applied. The entrance of the 
 United States into the war was followed by the en- 
 trance of the republics of Cuba and Panama on the 
 following day (April 7). In June, 191 7, King Con- 
 stantine of Greece was deposed and Greece joined the 
 Allies July 2. Siam declared war on Germany July 22, 
 Liberia on August 4, China on August 14, Brazil on 
 October 26, and in the same year several Central and 
 South American states broke off diplomatic relations 
 with Germany. 
 
 Of more immediate and direct influence upon the 
 course of the war than this intervention of the United 
 States, which could only make itself greatly felt after 
 a period of preparation, was a series of far-reaching 
 and startling occurrences in another quarter. 
 
 Revolution in Russia 
 
 The most important event of 191 7 was the collapse 
 of Russia and its withdrawal from the war. This 
 
376 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 meant an enormous increase of Germany's power and 
 at the same time imposed a new and mighty burden 
 upon the Allies, a burden which threatened to be too 
 great for them to bear. 
 
 Russia had been badly defeated by Hindenburg in 
 1915, and Brusiloff's campaign of 1916, after impor- 
 tant initial successes, had been brought to a stand- 
 still. The result of these events was to arouse criti- 
 cism of the Government. The belief spread that the 
 old familiar " dark forces " were in control once more, 
 that they were using the distresses of the nation for 
 their individual advantage, that the court was pro- 
 German, that the Czar was meditating a separate 
 peace with Germany. Charges of incompetence and 
 dishonesty were made against certain oflficials. The 
 leading members of the Duma demanded that a re- 
 sponsible ministry be created, a demand supported by 
 the army and the people, and that radical changes 
 be made in the Government in the direction of greater 
 efficiency, such as were being made in France and 
 England. In February 100,000 workingmen went on 
 strike in Petrograd, and 25,000 in Moscow. An acute 
 food crisis developed and lawless raids on bakeries 
 occurred. When ordered to fire on the mobs some 
 of the soldiers refused to do so, an ominous sign. On 
 March 11 the Czar dissolved the Duma, wishing to 
 get rid of it. But the Duma refused to dissolve. A 
 revolution was in full swing. There was considerable 
 street fighting, the police being the particular objects 
 of popular wrath. Revolutionary bands captured 
 some important buildings and seized the prime min- 
 ister Golitzin, and a former prime minister Sttirmer, 
 
378 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 under suspicion as being involved in pro-German in- 
 trigues. The Duma now effected a coup d'etatj voting 
 to establish a Provisional Government. The Czar 
 was informed of this change and required to abdicate. 
 This he did on March 15. Thus ended the reign of 
 Nicholas II, the last of the Romanoffs, a family which 
 had ruled in Russia for three hundred years and 
 more. 
 
 The Provisional Government was a coalition rep- 
 resenting the three different parties which had had 
 most to do with bringing about this surprising change. 
 Prince Lvoff, the head of the ministry, represented 
 the business men and landowners of a liberal type, 
 Paul Milyukoff, minister of foreign affairs, long as- 
 sociated with Russian reform movements, represented 
 the Constitutional Democratic party, and Kerensky 
 represented the third group, namely, the soldiers and 
 workingmen. Kerensky was a Revolutionary Social- 
 ist, sympathetic with the popular demand for a 
 juster division of the land in the interest of the agri- 
 cultural masses. The ministry proceeded to give back 
 to Finland her constitution, to promise self-govern- 
 ment and unity to Poland, to endow the Jews with 
 equal political, civil, and mihtary rights. On March 
 31 it abolished the death penalty. A general amnesty 
 was proclaimed and exiles in large numbers returned 
 from Siberia and were greeted with frenzied enthu- 
 siasm. The public mood was optimistic and ex- 
 cited. 
 
 Revolutions once successful are difficult to arrest 
 and have a way of passing rapidly through several 
 stages, each more radical than its predecessor. The 
 
THE WORLD WAR 379 
 
 Russian Revolution formed no exception to this rule, 
 but rather illustrated it afresh. The period of rea- 
 soned liberalism, of rational and ordered reform did 
 not last long. The Socialists entered aggressively 
 upon the scene, organizing Soviets or councils of w^ork^ 
 ingmen and soldiers. These Soviets, particularly the 
 one in Petrograd, began to oppose the Provisional 
 Government as much as they dared and to im- 
 pose their views. In regard to the war the LvofiE 
 ministry declared that free Russia did not aspire to 
 dominate other countries or to get their territory, 
 but that it would not allow its own country to come 
 out of the war weakened or humiliated. On May 2 
 it announced to the Allies that Russia would continue 
 in the war until a complete victory was achieved. The 
 Petrograd Council or Soviet, on the other hand, was 
 in favor of a general peace to be secured by the work- 
 ers of all lands, and asserted that the war had been 
 begun and was being carried on in the interest of 
 kings and capitalists. The Council was powerful as 
 representing the capital and was striving hard to 
 dominate the Provisional Government. On May 16 
 Milyukoff, the able foreign minister, was forced out 
 of the Government on the ground that he was an im- 
 perialist, as having expressed the hope that Russia 
 would acquire Constantinople. A Socialist was ap- 
 pointed in his place and Kerensky now became min- 
 ister of war. This reorganized ministry was against 
 a separate peace. 
 
 Kerensky soon became the dominant personality 
 in the Government. As minister of war he endeav- 
 ored to check the demoralization which was mak- 
 
38o FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 ing serious inroads into the army. Discipline was 
 disappearing, acts of disobedience, if not actual mu- 
 tiny, were occurring at various points. Kerensky suc- 
 ceeded for a while in checking this alarming disor- 
 ganization and even in arousing the army in Galicia 
 to begin a new "drive" which made an advance of 
 ten miles, only to be brought to a standstill by re- 
 newed mutinies, so that all that had been gained was 
 lost (July, 1917). 
 
 On July 22, Kerensky became head of the Provi- 
 sional Government and remained such until he and 
 his colleagues were overthrown, on November 7, by 
 the Bolsheviki of Petrograd. Kerensky was a Social- 
 ist and was strongly opposed to a separate peace with 
 Germany, but was in favor of a revision of peace 
 terms by the Allies in the direction of the formula, 
 "no annexations, no indemnities." The breakdown 
 of discipline in the army continued to increase porten- 
 tously. During the retreat in Galicia, generals found 
 that they were obliged to discuss their orders with 
 numerous committees of soldiers, and to secure their 
 consent, before those orders could be executed. Offi- 
 cers were in some cases shot by their soldiers. Large 
 numbers of troops retreated without making any re- 
 sistance, so thoroughly pacifistic had they become as 
 a result of the Socialistic propaganda carried on 
 among them. Kerensky publicly characterized these 
 acts as shameful and labored incessantly and with 
 extraordinary energy to stop the growing anarchy and 
 to restore the army as a fighting force, necessary even 
 for the defense of the country, for the country was 
 again threatened. His efforts were unavailing and 
 
THE WORLD WAR 381 
 
 conditions steadily grew worse. The Germans took 
 the important city of Riga on September 2, with 
 practically no opposition. The shame and impotence 
 of a great state were being demonstrated every day 
 anew. 
 
 That shame and that impotence were illustrated in 
 perfection by the policy and conduct of the new rulers 
 of Russia, the Bolsheviki, who succeeded in over- 
 throwing Kerensky on November 7, and in seizing 
 the government, under the leadership of Lenine and 
 Trotzky. Several of the ministers were arrested, and 
 army headquarters were captured. Kerensky man- 
 aged to escape, and was not heard of again for sev- 
 eral months, when he finally appeared in London. 
 Lenine became prime minister and Trotzky minister 
 of foreign affairs. 
 
 The new Government announced its policy at once : 
 an immediate democratic peace, the confiscation of 
 all landed property, the recognition of the supreme 
 authority of the Soviets or workingmen's and soldiers' 
 councils, the election of a constitutional convention. 
 The Bolsheviki revealed themselves adequately, 
 though not completely, in these demands. They were 
 extreme Socialists, resolved to effect a Socialistic rev- 
 olution at once. They were unwilling to fight Ger- 
 mans or Austrians. They were willing to fight their 
 own fellow-citizens for the purpose of robbing them 
 of their property. They cared nothing about national 
 honor. " Honor " was not a word in their vocabu- 
 lary; it was only a conception of hypocritical capi- 
 talists interested solely in feathering their own nests 
 and exploiting the downtrodden. The Bolsheviki 
 
382 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 cared nothing for the good faith of Russia, for they 
 wished and intended to desert Russia's aUies and to 
 make a separate peace with her enemies despite the 
 fact that Russia had signed a treaty promising not to 
 make a separate peace. Their moral standards were 
 not above considering a treaty a scrap of paper, were 
 not, therefore, superior to the standards of the Ger- 
 mans, in whose pay they were accused of being and 
 probably were. As destroyers of a great nation, as 
 artists in anarchy, as ruthless murderers of fellow- 
 Russians, they were a great success. 
 
 It was evident that with such men in power Rus- 
 sia's participation in the war was over and that the 
 burden imposed upon the Western Allies would be 
 far greater than ever. The Bolsheviki immediately 
 started peace negotiations with the Germans, con- 
 cluding with them an armistice at Brest- Litovsk (De- 
 cember 15), where three months later they supinely 
 signed what was probably the most disgraceful and 
 disastrous treaty known in the history of any Euro- 
 pean nation. 
 
 The Russian Revolution and the rise of the Bol- 
 sheviki brought about the rapid disintegration, not 
 only of the Russian people, but of the Russian state 
 as a territorial entity. Finland declared its independ- 
 ence. The Ukraine, an immense region in the south, 
 did the same. Siberia later followed suit. The 
 Germans had control of Poland, Lithuania and the 
 Baltic Provinces, and consequently declarations of in- 
 dependence were not in order there. General Kaledin, 
 the leader of the Cossacks, declared war upon the 
 Bolsheviki in the name of the safety of the country. 
 
THE WORLD WAR 383 
 
 None of Russia's allies and none of the neutral states 
 recognized the Bolsheviki as the lawful government 
 of Russia. That honor was reserved for the Germans 
 and Austrians and Turks. 
 
 In December the Constituent Assembly, called by 
 the Bolsheviki, met in Petrograd. Not proving satis- 
 factory to the latter at its first session, they sent a 
 body of sailors into the chamber to disperse it. That 
 ended the Constituent Assembly and gave a further 
 illustration of the meaning of the Bolshevik formula 
 about the self-determination of peoples. 
 
 The War in 1917 
 
 The revolution in Russia in its immediate effects 
 and the intervention of the United States in its pos- 
 sible ultimate effects were the two most outstanding 
 events in the history of 1917. But, also, during that 
 year military events of importance occurred. The 
 eastern front saw comparatively little activity as, after 
 the Russian Revolution, the Germans were content to 
 watch the development of affairs in that country 
 and in the main merely to guard the positions they 
 had gained in Russia and Roumania, probably in the 
 expectation of shortly imposing peace upon those 
 countries and then being able to withdraw their troops 
 from them and throw them with decisive force upon 
 the western front. 
 
 In the early months of 1917 the effects of the Bat- 
 tle of the Somme of the previous year were shown 
 to be more important than had been supposed, for 
 when the English and the French renewed their cam- 
 paign in the same region they encountered a weak- 
 
384 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 ened resistance, the enemy withdrawing before them. 
 Then ensued, in March and April, a retreat of the 
 Germans to the famous " Hindenburg Line," called by 
 their leaders a " strategical retreat." The Germans 
 retired along a hundred-mile front, from Arras to 
 the neighborhood of Noyon, evacuating more than 
 a thousand square miles of French territory which 
 had formerly contained over three hundred towns and 
 villages. But, compelled to abandon this territory, 
 they committed deeds which added a new hideous- 
 ness to the name of German. They devastated the 
 country as no country in Europe had ever been 
 devastated before, and they did it w^th scientific thor- 
 oughness and wanton satisfaction. France recovered 
 only a scene of indescribable desolation. Buildings, 
 public and private, schools and churches, works of 
 art, historical monuments and priceless historical rec- 
 ords were ruthlessly destroyed; private homes were 
 stripped clean of furniture which was carted away 
 by the Germans, wells were filled with dung, orchards 
 were cut down, roads and bridges and railways were 
 blown up. If they must retire the Germans were re- 
 solved to leave a region, hitherto one of the most 
 fertile in France, ruined and blasted for years and 
 even for decades to come. An eye-witness wrote as 
 follows : " With field glasses I could see far on either 
 side of every road for miles and miles ; every farm 
 is burned, fields destroyed, every garden and every 
 bush uprooted, every tree sawed ofif close to the bot- 
 tom. It was a terrible sight and seemed almost worse 
 than the destruction of men. Those thousands of 
 trees prone upon the earth, their branches waving in 
 
The world war 385 
 
 the wind, seemed undergoing agonies before our 
 eyes." 
 
 Other events on the western front in 1917 were: 
 the battle of Arras, fought by the British, from April 
 to June, and in the course of which the Canadians 
 distinguished themselves at Vimy Ridge; the long- 
 drawn-out Battle of the Aisne, fought by the French 
 from April to November, famous for the fighting 
 about the Chemin des Dames; the British offensive 
 in Flanders, from July to December, which yielded 
 Passchendaele Ridge and other positions, the battle 
 of Cambrai, in November and December, in which 
 the Germans were compelled to retire several miles 
 on a front of twenty miles. 
 
 But while on the French front the Allies made con- 
 siderable gains, in another region they sustained a 
 serious reverse, in Italy. The Italians had seized Go- 
 rizia in 1916 and in the summer of 1917 they carried 
 on a very successful offensive along the Isonzo and 
 the Carso Plateau. But with the breakdown of Rus- 
 sia and the spread of pacifism in the Russian armies 
 the Germans were able to send large bodies of troops 
 and a great quantity of heavy artillery to the aid of 
 their ally, Austria. On October 28, 1917, the Austro- 
 German army seized Gorizia; on the 30th Udine fell; 
 a rapid retreat of the Italians followed to the Ta- 
 gliamento. The Germans announced that they had 
 captured 180,000 prisoners and 1,500 guns. The 
 Tagliamento could not be held and the Italians were 
 driven back to the Piave. For days the Allied world 
 held its breath, fearing that what had happened to 
 Serbia in 191 5, to Roumania in 1916, was now in 1917 
 
386 
 
 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 to happen to Italy, and that she would be conquered 
 and eliminated from the war. But the Piave held and 
 the attempts of the Central Powers to outflank it in 
 the mountains to the north of Venetia, along the 
 Asiago Plateau and other ridges, failed. There the 
 invasion was halted. French and English troops were 
 rushed to the aid of Italy and their arrival greatly 
 
 a^^aM* Farthest Italian Advance. Austrian Invasion, October, 1917. 
 
 ? ( Italian Front 
 
 helped and encouraged the Italians. But the world 
 had had a bad shock and was apprehensive still, lest 
 the Italian line should be broken. The Germans an- 
 nounced that the campaign had netted them 300,000 
 prisoners and nearly 3,000 guns. Whether this was 
 true or not, certain it was that they had freed Aus- 
 tria of the enemy and that they now themselves occu- 
 pied four thousand square miles of Italian territory 
 
THE WORLD WAR 387 
 
 and that they were in a position to threaten the rich- 
 est section of Italy, which contained, among other 
 things, the great munition plants. 
 
 The Allied gains on the western front and those 
 in Asia, which will be referred to later, were but a 
 slight comfort in view of the Russian and Italian dis- 
 asters. The year ended in gloom in the Allied camp. 
 But there was at least some satisfaction to be derived 
 from the fact that Venice had not been taken, and 
 that that matchless creation of art had not been de- 
 stroyed by the barbarism of the enemy as had the in- 
 comparable cathedral of Rheims, the masterpiece of 
 Gothic architecture, the living embodiment of French 
 history, whose every stone spoke of long lines of 
 kings — and of Joan of Arc. 
 
 The year 1917, therefore, closed in gloom. The col- 
 lapse of Russia, the disaster in Italy, were more alarm- 
 ing in their possible, if not probable, consequences 
 than the scattered and costly gains of the Allies on the 
 western front and the entrance of America into the 
 war, perhaps too late to be of any material value, 
 were reassuring. In western Asia, it is true, the year 
 brought some encouragement to the Allies, but how 
 durable or significant the successes there would prove 
 to be it was quite impossible to forecast. As the Ger- 
 mans had loudly proclaimed their intention to link 
 Berlin with Bagdad, and erect a Middle Europe, and to 
 extend it through Turkey and the great valleys of the 
 Euphrates and the Tigris, and as this meant nothing 
 less than a pointed threat at the British Empire in 
 India and Egypt, it was natural and inevitable that 
 England should accept the German challenge in that 
 
Territory of the Centra! Empires 
 and Turltey 
 
 Territory Invaded by Central Powers 
 Railroad to the East and to Africa 
 
 6^0 
 
 Scale of Miles 
 P 200 490_ 
 
 CiWeilAL 0»AfItN6 CO. INC. H 1 
 
 The " Middle Europe " Scheme 
 
THE WORLD WAR 389 
 
 part of the world as she had accepted it in western 
 Europe and on the high seas. Consequently as early 
 as 191 5 an expedition had been sent out from India, 
 under General Townshend, to prevent the consumma- 
 tion of the German plans. But the expedition failed 
 disastrously. After having advanced two hundred 
 miles up the Tigris and after having seized the city 
 of Kut-el-Amara, General Townshend found himself 
 besieged in that place by the Turks and after a few 
 months, no relief having reached him, he was forced 
 to surrender with his entire army, about ten thou- 
 sand men, on April 28, 1916, after a siege of a hun- 
 dred and forty-three days. Not only was this a se- 
 rious reverse in itself, but it gravely injured Great 
 Britain's prestige in the East. There was nothing 
 for her to do but endeavor to repair the damage done. 
 She at once organized another expedition on a larger 
 scale and with more careful preparation, which she 
 sent into Mesopotamia under General Maude, early 
 in 191 7. This expedition was successful. Kut-el- 
 Amara was recaptured on February 24 and on March 
 II the British entered Bagdad in triumph. Bagdad 
 was not of great strategic importance, but its capture 
 exercised a decided moral effect throughout the world. 
 Toward the close of the year the British achieved 
 other victories over the Turks, farther west, in Pales- 
 tine. During the earlier years of the war the Turks 
 had seriously menaced England's control of the Suez 
 Canal and Egypt. The English resolved to eliminate 
 this danger once for all by sending an army into 
 Palestine, under General Allenby. This army grad- 
 ually forced its way northward, captured Jaffa, the 
 
390 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 seaport of Jerusalem, in November, and entered Jeru- 
 salem itself in triumph on December lo, 1917. Great 
 was the rejoicing throughout the Christian world at 
 this recovery of its sacred city after seven centuries 
 of Mohammedan control. The achievement of the 
 mediaeval Crusaders was being repeated. Would 
 the new victory of the Christian over the Infidel 
 prove ephemeral, as had the earlier one? 
 
 The Germans were not downcast over the turn of 
 events in these remote theaters of war. Nor had they 
 any reason to be. On the whole, they were hold- 
 ing the western front, and the eastern front had dis- 
 appeared under the terrific blows they had delivered 
 to Russia and which had laid her low. On the 22d 
 of December the German Emperor was undoubtedly 
 expressing the prevalent German opinion of the gen- 
 eral situation when he said to the army in France: 
 " The year 191 7 with its great battles has proved that 
 the German people has, in the Lord of Creation above, 
 an unconditional and avowed ally on whom it can 
 absolutely depend. ... If the enemy does not want 
 peace, then we must bring peace to the world by bat- 
 tering in with the iron fist and shining sword the doors 
 of those who will not have peace. . . . But our ene- 
 mies still hope, with the assistance of new allies, to 
 defeat you and then to destroy forever the world posi- 
 tion won by Germany in hard endeavor. They will 
 not succeed. Trusting in our righteous cause and 
 in our strength, we face the year 191 8 with firm con- 
 fidence and iron will. Therefore, forward with God 
 to fresh deeds and fresh victories ! " 
 
 The first of the fresh victories were to be achieved 
 
THE WORLD WAR 391 
 
 on the diplomatic field and were to be supremely sat- 
 isfactory to the Germans. They consisted in the 
 treaties of peace imposed by them upon Russia and 
 Roumania, and upon the big fragments of former 
 Russia which had declared their independence, rather 
 than remain connected with a country controlled by 
 the Bolsheviki, namely, the Ukraine and Finland. 
 
 The Bolsheviki demanded immediate peace and 
 when they succeeded in driving Kerensky from 
 power, and themselves assumed control, they began 
 negotiations to that end. They signed an armistice 
 at Brest- Litovsk, the German army headquarters, on 
 December 15, 1917. The leading personages in the 
 ensuing discussions were Kuhlmann for Germany, 
 Czernin for Austria-Hungary, and Trotzky for Russia. 
 The negotiations were long and frequently stormy. 
 Trotzky urged that the peace be based upon the prin- 
 ciples of " no annexations, no indemnities." The Cen- 
 tral Powers pretended to accept this formula. Their 
 insincerity and duplicity in announcing their adhesion 
 to this principle and to that of the right of peoples 
 to determine their own allegiance were shortly made 
 apparent. They refused to withdraw their troops 
 from the occupied parts of Russia and they indicated 
 clearly that their aims were the opposite of their pro- 
 fessions. At this Trotzky balked and withdrew from 
 the conference and the Russian Government an- 
 nounced that it would not sign " an annexationist 
 treaty," but at the same time it announced that the 
 war was at an end and it ordered the complete de- 
 mobilization of the Russian troops on all fronts. 
 
 Germany, however, refused to accept this solution 
 
392 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 of '* no war, but no peace." It insisted on a treaty 
 in black and white. As the negotiations had been 
 broken off by the departure of the Russian delegates 
 on February lo, the German army immediately as- 
 sumed the offensive and began a fresh invasion of 
 Russia, advancing on a front of five hundred miles 
 and to within seventy miles of Petrograd. This 
 speedily brought the Russians to terms and they 
 signed on March 3, 1918, the Treaty of Brest- Litovsk, 
 the most notorious " annexationist treaty " on record. 
 Its principal provisions were: Russia surrendered all 
 claims to Poland, Lithuania, Courland, Livonia, and 
 Esthonia; she also renounced all claims to Finland 
 and the Ukraine and agreed to recognize their inde- 
 pendence and to make peace with them ; she sur- 
 rendered Batum, Erivan, and Kars in the Caucasus to 
 Turkey, and she promised to cease all revolutionary 
 propaganda in the ceded regions and in the countries 
 of the Central Alliance. 
 
 Subsequently and in direct violation of the plain 
 intent of one of the articles of the treaty, the promise 
 of a large money indemnity was exacted from Russia. 
 
 By this treaty Russia lost an enormous territory, 
 about half a million square miles, a territory more 
 than twice as large as the German Empire. She lost 
 a population of about 65,000,000, which was about 
 that of the German Empire. A year or less of Bol- 
 shevism had sufficed to undo the work of all the Rus- 
 sian Emperors from Peter the Great to Nicholas II. 
 So complete a mutilation of a great country Europe 
 had never seen. Russia was thrust back into the con- 
 dition in which she had been in the seventeenth cen- 
 
SBRVIA/. RUM AN 
 
 <• Bucharest < 
 
 ^- -^BULGARIA 
 
 TREATY OFBREST-UTOVSK 
 
 1918 
 
 SHOWING TERRITORY SURRENDERED BY RUSSIA 
 
 ^caleofMiTes 
 
 «tllEIMl Oli«PT|ll 
 
 TURKEY IN ASIA 
 
394 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 tury and which even then was found intolerable. 
 Never in modern times has a great power surren- 
 dered such vast territories by a single stroke of the 
 pen. Pacifism and internationalism had borne their 
 natural fruit with unexpected swiftness. Gorky, the 
 Russian novelist, and considered a radical until the 
 Bolsheviki appeared and gave a new extension to 
 that word, has estimated that this treaty robbed Rus- 
 sia of 37 per cent of her manufacturing industries, 
 75 per cent of her coal, and 73 per cent of her 
 iron. 
 
 What the future of the ceded territories should be 
 was not indicated beyond the statement that " Ger- 
 many and Austria-Hungary intend to decide the fu- 
 ture fate of these territories by agreement with their 
 population." A few weeks later the Central Powers 
 dictated a pitiless treaty to Roumania, forcing large 
 cessions of territory and minutely and ingeniously 
 squeezing her of her economic resources for their ad- 
 vantage. 
 
 The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk laid bare the soul of 
 modern Germany. It proved to all the world that, 
 whatever her professions might be, her greed was un- 
 abashed and unrestrained. And this greed was char- 
 acteristic not simply of her rulers, military and civil. 
 All Germany applauded. The same Reichstag which 
 in July, 191 7, had voted in favor of the principle of 
 " no annexations, no indemnities,'* now enthusiasti- 
 cally ratified the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Socialists 
 joining in. The rest of the world now knew, if it had 
 not known before, what it might expect, if it was 
 force to pass under the same yoke. Germany stood 
 
THE WORLD WAR 395 
 
 completely unmasked. Her ideal was revealed in all 
 its nakedness. 
 
 Having arranged matters in the east to her satis- 
 faction, and no longer threatened or preoccupied in 
 that quarter, Germany nov^ turned practically her en- 
 tire attention to the western front, confident that, by 
 concentrated energy of attack, she could at last con- 
 quer there and snatch the victory which had so long 
 eluded her and which would end the war. Transfer- 
 ring thither her large eastern armies, she was con- 
 fident that now she could compel a decision and could 
 force a settlement to her taste. One more campaign 
 in France and all would be well. The spring drive 
 was to be begun early, the intention being to sepa- 
 rate the French and English armies, and then defeat 
 each in turn swiftly — before the Americans should ar- 
 rive in any such numbers as to be able to influence 
 the course of events. 
 
 The War in 1918 
 
 The drive opened on March 21, 1918. The mood 
 in which it was begun was expressed by the Kaiser 
 the day before : " The prize of victory," said he, 
 '' must not and will not fail us. No soft peace, but 
 one corresponding to Germany's interests." A month 
 later the German financial secretary added an append- 
 ant to this imperial thought when he said in the 
 Reichstag on April 23 : " We do not yet know the 
 amount of the indemnity which we shall win." 
 
 This great offensive, the greatest of the war, opened 
 auspiciously and for three months proceeded accord- 
 
396 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 ing to the heart's desire. It was ushered in by the 
 greatest gas attack Europe had ever known; also by 
 a long-distance bombardment of Paris by a new gun 
 of greater range than any previous gun had possessed. 
 The ensuing attack was one of terrific force and was 
 designed to spring the French and English armies 
 apart at their point of juncture. The objective was 
 Amiens. As a matter of fact, the English left was, in 
 the next few days, driven back toward Arras and 
 the English center driven beyond the Somme. This 
 actually made an opening. The English front was 
 broken and a great disaster might have easily re- 
 sulted, for the Germans now tried to turn the Eng- 
 lish right by cavalry. They were, however, met and 
 checked by French cavalry just in the nick of time. 
 But between March 21 and March 28 the Germans 
 made great progress. Town after town fell into their 
 hands, Peronne, Bapaume, Ham, Albert, Noyon, 
 Montdidier. It was at this critical moment that Gen- 
 eral Pershing placed all the forces under his command 
 absolutely at the disposal of Marshal Foch to be used 
 as he might see fit. Foch, so great was the danger, 
 the greatest since the Battle of the Marne, had been 
 appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Armies 
 on the Western Front on March 28. At last the 
 Allies had achieved unity of command. 
 
 After a slight pause the Germans attacked the 
 English in the north, in Flanders at the point where 
 their army and the Portuguese were joined. By April 
 12 the English had been forced to make a consid- 
 erable retreat. It was then that General Haig issued 
 a special order to his men which would have discour- 
 
THE WORLD WAR 397 
 
 aged and demoralized men less self-reliant and less 
 fond of the blunt truth, however unpleasant. This 
 utterance of the EngUsh commander will remain his- 
 toric : 
 
 ** Three weeks ago to-day the enemy began his ter- 
 rific attacks against us on a fifty-mile front. His ob- 
 jects are to separate us from the French, to take the 
 Channel ports, and to destroy the British Army. . . . 
 Words fail me to express the admiration which I 
 feel for the splendid resistance offered by all ranks 
 of our army under the most trying circumstances. 
 
 '' Many among us are now tired. To those I would 
 say that victory will belong to the side which holds 
 out the longest. The French Army is moving rapidly 
 and in great force to our support. There is no other 
 course open to us but to fight it out. 
 
 " Every position must be held to the last man. 
 There must be no retirement. With our backs to 
 the wall, and believing in the justice of our cause, 
 each one of us must fight to the end. The safety of 
 our homes and the freedom of mankind depend alike 
 upon the conduct of each one of us at this critical 
 moment." 
 
 The bitterest fighting continued and the British lost 
 important positions near Ypres, the famous Messines 
 and Wytschaete ridges, and then Mount Kemmel. 
 But French reinforcements came and the Germans 
 were checked. Ypres still held out. 
 
 The Germans had suffered very severe losses in 
 making these attacks and gains. They needed time 
 to reorganize their exhausted divisions. Apparently, 
 too, there was a change at this moment in their high 
 
398 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 command, Ludendorff succeeding Hindenburg. Sud- 
 denly, on May 27, Ludendorff launched a new at- 
 tack in an unexpected quarter on a forty-mile front, 
 from Soissons to Rheims. On the 29th Soissons fell. 
 The Germans advanced rapidly. By May 31 they 
 were at the Marne once more after four years. In 
 four days they had taken 45,000 prisoners and an enor- 
 mous amount of war material. They were held at 
 Chateau-Thierry on June 2 by French reserves which 
 were rushed to the scene. The Germans were within 
 forty miles of Paris and had gained nearly a thousand 
 square miles of territory. 
 
 The Americans were beginning to count. On June 
 2 the Marines captured Cantigny and two hundred 
 and forty prisoners. Two days later they helped to 
 check the Germans at Chateau-Thierry. They also 
 foiled an attack in Neuilly Wood, advanced two-thirds 
 of a mile and took two hundred and seventy prison- 
 ers. On June 6 and 7 they advanced two miles on 
 a front of six miles and seized Torchy and Bouresches. 
 A little later they occupied Belleau Wood. These 
 were details, but useful and auspicious. 
 
 On June 9 the Germans made an attack on a front 
 of twenty miles from Montdidier to Noyon, pressing 
 the French center back several miles, but at great 
 cost. Then came a lull. 
 
 On July 15 they began their fifth and final drive 
 in this remarkably successful campaign. Attacking 
 on a sixty-mile front east and west of Rheims, they 
 pushed forward, crossed the Marne at several points, 
 and were evidently aiming at Chalons. They seized 
 Chateau-Thierry. 
 
THE WORLD WAR 399 
 
 From March 21 to July 18, 1918, the Germans had 
 carried on a colossal offensive and had taken many 
 prisoners, much territory, and enormous booty. They 
 were astride the rivers that lead dow^n to Paris, itself 
 not far away. Might not one or tv^o more pushes 
 give them the coveted capital of France and seal the 
 doom of the Allied cause? Elated by four months of 
 victories, which had brought them nearer and nearer 
 the intended prey, inflamed by visions of imminent 
 and unparalleled success, they were eager for the final 
 spring. Then all would be over and a peace could be 
 imposed upon the West similar to that imposed upon 
 the East at Brest-Litovsk. The world would recog- 
 nize its master, would be reshaped according to 
 Hohenzollern ideas, and would henceforth receive its 
 marching orders from Berlin. 
 
 Not many graver moments, if any, have ever oc- 
 curred in history. The world stood gripped by an 
 intensity of anxiety and apprehension painful, heart- 
 sinking, intolerable. Particularly in America did a 
 great and desolating wave of dread and foreboding 
 sweep over the public mind. Minutes seemed like 
 hours and hours like weeks, so racking was the sus- 
 pense. Had we arrived too late? We had been so 
 slow in seeing our duty, in recognizing our respon- 
 sibility in the desperate drama of our times, we had 
 finally entered the war so unprepared, that it seemed 
 only too Hkely that we were to pay, and that the 
 world was to pay, a grievous price for our tardy per- 
 ception and decision. And would that price include, 
 for us, not only national insecurity, but national dis- 
 honor and disgrace? The answer to these questions 
 
400 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 hung upon events, and events thus far had not been 
 reassuring, had, on the contrary, seemed to be con- 
 verging toward disaster. 
 
 We had done much in material ways for the com- 
 mon cause since our entrance into the war. Our 
 navy, efficient and ready, had begun, from the first 
 day, to render useful and important services. By the 
 close of 191 7 we had less than 200,000 men in France. 
 How many of these were prepared for front-line work 
 it is impossible to say. But certainly they were far 
 too few for the emergency. On March 27 Lloyd- 
 George, the British prime minister, made an urgent 
 appeal for " American reinforcements in the shortest 
 possible space of time " and declared that '' we are 
 at the crisis of the war, attacked by an immense 
 superiority of German troops." The appeal was 
 answered. From then on there was a rapid and 
 increasing movement of American troops to Europe, 
 83,000 in March, 117,000 in April, 244,000 in May, 
 278,000 in June, and by the end of July there were 
 1,300,000 American soldiers in France. By Novem- 
 ber there were more than two million. 
 
 So desperate was the situation in midsummer, 
 1918, that the French Government was prepared at 
 any moment to leave Paris, as it had done in 1914. 
 
 But this moment was never to come. For Mar- 
 shal Foch now struck a blow which freed Paris from 
 danger, and which inaugurated a new and, as we 
 now see, the final phase of the war. On July 18 
 he assumed the offensive, attacking the enemy on 
 the flank from Chateau-Thierry on the Marne to the 
 River Aisne. With French and American troops he 
 
THE WORLD WAR 401 
 
 took the Germans by surprise, and achieved a bril- 
 liant success. His entire line advanced from four to 
 six miles, reclaiming tv^enty villages. Thousands of 
 prisoners were taken, the Americans alone capturing 
 over four thousand. A large number of guns v^ere 
 also seized. On the follov^^ing days, the counter- 
 offensive continued. Each day it achieved successes; 
 each day it gained additional momentum. The Allied 
 world passed through a new experience. An unin- 
 terrupted series of triumphs for the armies of Mar- 
 shal Foch filled the days and then the weeks, after 
 he had seized the initiative on July 18. 
 
 By July 21 the Germans, threatened on the flank, 
 were forced to withdraw the troops which had crossed 
 the Marne. The Second Battle of the Marne was 
 over and took its place in history, alongside the First 
 Battle of the Marne, having accomplished the same 
 deliverance of Paris and having begun the deliver- 
 ance of France. In that battle Americans had taken 
 an important part, although it should not be exagger- 
 ated. Seventy per cent of the troops participating 
 in it were French. Forced to recross the Marne, the 
 Germans next took their stand on the River Vesle. 
 Bitter fighting occurred there. Again they were com- 
 pelled to retreat, and their next stand was at the Aisne. 
 Week after week their backward movement con- 
 tinued, stubbornly yet unsuccessfully contested. 
 Foch's counter-offensive widened out far to the east 
 of Rheims, far to the north of Soissons. Between 
 the Argonne Forest and the River Meuse the main 
 American army, entrusted with a formidable and dif- 
 ficult task, fought desperately day after day, pushing 
 
402 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 steadily but slowly and at great cost farther and 
 farther north. West of the Argonne the French 
 were driving the Germans back. 
 
 At the same time, the French and the British, with 
 contingents of the other Allies, Italians, Belgians, 
 Portuguese, Americans, interspersed, were attacking 
 various points in the long line from Soissons to the 
 English Channel. All these scattered attacks, care- 
 fully coordinated, were but parts of a comprehensive 
 plan elaborated by Marshal Foch, who was now re- 
 vealing himself to the world as the master-intellect of 
 the war. One does not know which to admire the more, 
 the incomparable conception of this campaign or the 
 marvelous execution. Unremitting pressure every- 
 where, damaging thrusts here and there, such was 
 the evident policy, the purpose being to maintain in 
 Allied hands the initiative and the offensive which 
 had been seized on the fateful July i8. Without haste, 
 without rest, all through August and September and 
 October, the gigantic assault continued. The Allies 
 steadily advanced as victors over ground which a 
 short time before they had been compelled to aban- 
 don. Verdun was freed from the German menace, 
 so was Rheims, so was Ypres. It would be impossi- 
 ble in any brief space, or, indeed, at length, even to 
 catalogue the long list of incidents and events, in 
 themselves often of great importance and interest, 
 in this vast and complicated movement. Many towns 
 and villages, some of them in possession of the Ger- 
 mans since 1914, were recovered. All that the Ger- 
 mans had won in their drive from March 21 to July 
 18 was lost, and the Allies then pressed on to con- 
 
THE WORLD WAR 403 
 
 quer the rest of the territory of France, held so long 
 by the Germans, to smash their retreating lines, wher- 
 ever established, and to hurl them out of France and 
 out of Belgium. 
 
 One detail of importance and of great interest to 
 Americans in this general campaign was the elimi- 
 nation of the St. Mihiel salient by Pershing's troops 
 on September 12-13. 
 
 By the end of September, after paying a heavy 
 price for their retreat, the Germans were back on 
 the famous Hindenburg Line, an intricate and pow- 
 erful system of defenses which they had for years 
 been building. Here they planned to hold, and then 
 to institute an aggressive peace propaganda among 
 the nations supposed to be tired of war. The only 
 way to block this purpose was to smash the Hinden- 
 burg Line and to compel the enemy to hurry on in- 
 cessantly toward Germany. Could this be done? 
 
 The Battle of the Hindenburg Line will perhaps 
 rank in history as the decisive battle of the Great War, 
 as momentous as the " Battle of the Nations " at 
 Leipsic in 1813, which foreshadowed the doom of the 
 Napoleonic Empire. In each case the arrogant dream 
 of world power was summarily dissipated. As, after 
 Leipsic, France had been invaded, so, after the Bat- 
 tle of the Hindenburg Line, the invasion of Germany 
 seemed possible and likely. Napoleon, in a few 
 months, had been compelled to abdicate. Might his- 
 tory repeat itself, after an interval of a hundred and 
 five years? The climax of the four years* war was 
 rapidly approaching. 
 
 The battle opened on September 26, with attacks 
 
404 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 on the two widely separated flanks. On that day 
 the first American Army under General Liggett, in 
 conjunction with a French army under Gouraud, 
 moved against the Germans on the German left. The 
 Americans fought between the Argonne Forest and 
 the Meuse and at first advanced swiftly, taking many 
 villages. Gouraud on the other side of the Argonne 
 pushed forward. The Franco-America drive was not 
 halted, but rendered slower when German reserves 
 were rushed to the scene. 
 
 Meanwhile Belgian and British troops had attacked 
 the German right flank far to the north in Belgium 
 and had been successful in driving a wedge between 
 the Germans on the Belgian coast and those in the 
 region of Lille. Again reserves were rushed by Lu- 
 dendorflF to meet this danger. But neither here in 
 Flanders nor at the other extremity in the Argonne 
 was the Allied pressure relaxed. 
 
 Finally Foch was ready for his chief blow. On 
 October 8 he attacked the enemy, anxious about both 
 flanks, in the center. The attack was made between 
 Cambrai and St. Quentin by three British armies 
 under Byng, Rawlinson and Home, aided by the 
 French under Debeney. Here the British achieved 
 perhaps the greatest victory in their history. Hope, 
 repeatedly deferred, was realized at last. In three 
 days the British drove straight through the Hinden- 
 burg Line on a front of twelve miles, and where it 
 was strongest, and then pushed on into the open 
 country. That boasted defense was no longer 
 invincible. St. Quentin fell and so, shortly, did 
 Cambrai. 
 
4o6 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 The consequences of this breaking of the Hinden- 
 burg Line were enormous. The British pushed on 
 toward Valenciennes. Activity was redoubled along 
 the two flanks and soon advances were made pretty 
 much along the whole line from the English Chan- 
 nel to Verdun. It was a wonderful cooperative move- 
 ment, with glory enough for all the Allies, and to 
 spare. Laon, a tremendous stronghold, was soon 
 evacuated. By October i6 the Germans had had to 
 give up the Belgian coast, Ostend, Zeebrugge. Then 
 Lille, Roubaix, and Turcoing were evacuated. In 
 three weeks an amazing victory had been won over 
 positions selected and long prepared by the Germans 
 themselves. The Americans pushed steadily down 
 the Meuse. After October i6 it was merely a ques- 
 tion of time when the Germans would inevitably be 
 driven back into their own country. Each subse- 
 quent day continued the tale of territory recovered, 
 of towns captured, of a growing demoralization of the 
 German army. The greatest battle of the war had 
 been decisively won. It only remained to gather in 
 the harvest. The superiority of French military 
 science over German military science was established, 
 and the name of Marshal Foch took its place among 
 the greatest names of military history. 
 
 Meanwhile in other theaters of this far-flung war 
 momentous events were occurring, contributing pow- 
 erfully to the gathering culmination. From every 
 front and with each new day came news of victories 
 so astounding and so decisive and attended with con- 
 sequences so immediate and far-reaching that it was 
 evident that the hour of supreme triumph was rapidly 
 
THE WORLD WAR 407 
 
 approaching, that a terrible chapter in the history of 
 humanity was drawing to a close. 
 
 From Palestine came the news that AUenby, who 
 had taken Jerusalem in December, 1917, was on the 
 go again. With an army of 125,000 men, among 
 whom was a small French contingent, he carried out a 
 brilliant campaign against the Turks. Beginning in 
 the middle of September, and making a rapid and con- 
 summate use of cavalry, he was able to get around 
 them and in their rear, enveloping them, and deliver- 
 ing a staggering blow in the plains of Samaria. In 
 the course of a few days, Allenby captured 70,000 
 prisoners and 700 guns and practically all the sup- 
 plies of the Turkish army. Following up this victory 
 he pushed up to Damascus, which he entered on 
 October i, 1918, taking 7,000 prisoners. On October 
 6 a French squadron seized Beirut, the chief seaport 
 of Syria. Then began a rapid drive toward Aleppo, 
 the object being to cut the Bagdad railway and thus 
 isolate the Turks who were fighting in Mesopotamia. 
 On October 15 Homs, halfway between Damascus 
 and Aleppo, fell, and also the port of Tripoli on the 
 coast. A few days later Aleppo was taken. The fate 
 of Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and Arabia was 
 decided. Those regions, which for centuries had been 
 under the blight of Turkish rule, were now freed. 
 The Turkish Empire in that quarter of the world was 
 a thing of the past. Also the dream of a German 
 road from Berlin to Bagdad was now shattered. 
 
 And while the Turkish Empire was being ampu- 
 tated in the East, it was being effectively isolated 
 in the West. Bulgaria, which borders Turkey in 
 
4o8 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 Europe, was being eliminated from the war. Almost 
 at the very time that Allenby began his attack in Sa- 
 maria, Franchet d'Esperey, a hero of the First Bat- 
 tle of the Marne, and now commander of the Allied 
 army in the Balkans, an army consisting of French, 
 British, Greek, Serbian, and Italian troops, attacked 
 the Bulgarians between the Vardar and the Cerna 
 Rivers, and broke their lines in two, rendering their 
 position highly critical. Ten days later, on Septem- 
 ber 29, Bulgaria signed an armistice which meant 
 nothing less than unconditional surrender. She 
 agreed to evacuate all the Greek and Serbian terri- 
 tory which she had occupied, to demobilize her army, 
 to permit the Allied troops to use any strategic points 
 in Bulgaria they might wish to, as well as all means 
 of communication. Bulgaria was thus out of the war. 
 The Berlin-Bagdad dream was twice dead. Railroad 
 communication between Turkey and Germany was 
 cut. The grandiose German plan of a Middle-Europe, 
 of which the world had heard so much, was rapidly 
 being shoved into the lumber-room of damaged and 
 discarded gimcracks. Turkey was verging swiftly to- 
 ward her fate. Serbia was quickly reconquered by 
 the Serbians and for the Serbians, and it could only 
 be a question of a short time before Roumania would 
 be able to rise again and denounce the infamous 
 Treaty of Bucharest which Germany and Austria- 
 Hungary had imposed upon her less than five months 
 before, on May 7, 1918, a treaty which had practi- 
 cally robbed her of her independence, both economic 
 and political. 
 
 It was a matter of detail, though pleasing in itself, 
 
THE WORLD WAR 409 
 
 when on October 3 the self-styled Czar of Bulgaria, 
 Ferdinand, who had ruled for thirty-one years, abdi- 
 cated in favor of his son. Crown Prince Boris, twenty- 
 four years of age. Ferdinand was the second of the 
 Balkan kings to lose his throne as a result of his con- 
 duct in the world war, Constantine of Greece having 
 preceded him into exile in June, 1917. The new King 
 Boris was destined to rule one month only, when a 
 popular revolution on November i overturned the 
 throne and drove him from the land. The Czardom 
 of Bulgaria became a republic. 
 
 While such shattering events were occurring in the 
 East, in the Balkans and in France, the war flamed 
 up once more in Italy. It was in October, 1917, that 
 Italy had suffered her great and dangerous reverse. 
 It was then that she was thrown out of Austria, across 
 the Isonzo, and that she herself was invaded as far 
 as the Piave. She had experienced colossal losses in 
 men and in equipment. A year from that date, Octo- 
 ber, 1918, restored in morale and reinvigorated in 
 every way, Italy assumed the offensive against the 
 Austrians. Her attack was successful from the start 
 and in the succeeding days grew portentously until 
 she achieved an amazing triumph which largely ef- 
 faced the memories of the previous year. The hostile 
 line was broken and the Austrians were compelled to 
 withdraw pell-mell toward their own country. It was 
 a rout and resulted in the loss of hundreds of thou- 
 sands of prisoners and thousands of big guns. 
 
 The atmosphere was clearing rapidly owing to these 
 decisive events. Both Turkey and Austria were ready 
 to quit the war. Both asked an armistice. On Octo- 
 
410 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 ber 31 the Allied Powers granted an armistice to 
 Turkey on terms that amounted to unconditional sur- 
 render. The Dardanelles and the Bosporus were to 
 be freely opened to the Allies, who might also occupy 
 the forts that protected them. Access to the Black 
 Sea was thus guaranteed. The Turkish army was 
 to be immediately demobilized. The Allies were to 
 have the right to occupy any strategic points they 
 might desire or need to. Other terms completed the 
 defeat of Turkey and registered her exit from the 
 war. 
 
 The armistice granted Austria on November 4 con- 
 tained similar conditions and also conditions even 
 more severe. The Austro-Hungarian armies must be 
 demobilized and must relinquish to the Allies and the 
 United States a large part of their equipment. Aus- 
 tria must evacuate all territories occupied since the 
 beginning of the war. Practically, too, she must give 
 up the Trentino, Trieste, Istria, and a part of the 
 Dalmatian coast. All military and railway equipment 
 must be left where it was and be at the disposal of 
 the Allies. All German troops must be evacuated 
 from Austria within fifteen days. All Allied pris- 
 oners held by Austria must be immediately restored 
 to the Allies. A large part of the Austrian navy must 
 be handed over. Several other provisions only em- 
 phasized in detail Austria's complete defeat. 
 
 Meanwhile Austria-Hungary was in rapid process 
 of disintegration. Every dispatch brought news of 
 popular outbreaks from all parts of the Dual Mon- 
 archy. The Czecho-Slovaks declared their independ- 
 ence, dethroned the monarch, and proclaimed a re- 
 
THE WORLD WAR 411 
 
 public. Hungary declared her independence and ap- 
 parently prepared to become a republic. It was ru- 
 mored that Emperor Karl had fled, had abdicated, 
 had been deposed. The truth was hard to discover, 
 reports being so fragmentary and conflicting. Vienna 
 evidently fell into the hands of the revolutionists and 
 socialists and the German sections of Austria were 
 said to have likewise declared their independence. 
 The ancient empire was breaking up and several new 
 states were rapidly evolving. Nationalistic, demo- 
 cratic, and socialistic forces were struggling for rec- 
 ognition and control. What the ultimate outcome 
 would be no man could tell. The very winds had 
 been let loose. Whether the House of Hapsburg 
 still existed was uncertain. That it was doomed to 
 vanish completely, and that, too, very soon, seemed 
 assured, if indeed it had not already vanished. No 
 one knew what the next day or hour would bring 
 forth in this maelstrom of fermentation, in this con- 
 fusion worse confounded. 
 
 The curtain was rapidly descending, the fifth act 
 of the fearful tragedy of our times was closing 
 with unexpected abruptness. Bulgaria, Turkey, and 
 Austria-Hungary were out of the war. There re- 
 mained the German Empire. Deserted by her allies, 
 and herself being rapidly driven from France and Bel- 
 gium, and with the invasion of her own country not 
 only probable but actually impending, what would 
 this arch-conspirator of the age, this " natural foe to 
 liberty " at home and everywhere, what would she 
 do, what could she do, in a world so strangely altered 
 since Brest- Litovsk, since Chateau-Thierry? The 
 
412 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 handwriting on the wall was becoming larger and 
 more legible and more terrifying. The evil days were 
 drawing nigh for a dread accounting. What could 
 the proud and mighty German Empire do? 
 
 What she did was to make a frantic effort for peace, 
 appealing to President Wilson to bring about a peace 
 conference, pretending to accept the various terms 
 he had indicated in his speeches of the year as a proper 
 basis for the new age, reforming her government 
 rapidly in order to meet the more obvious criticisms 
 which foreigners had made against it as autocratic 
 and militaristic. The outcome of these maneuvers 
 was the elaboration by the Allies and the United 
 States at Versailles of the terms on which they would 
 grant an armistice. These terms were to be com- 
 municated by Marshal Foch to such a delegation as 
 the German Government should send to receive them 
 at a place to be indicated by the Generalissimo, On 
 Friday morning, November 8, Marshal Foch received 
 the German armistice delegation in a railroad car at 
 Senlis in France and read to them the terms agreed 
 upon for a cessation of hostilities. They were allowed 
 seventy-two hours in which to consult their superiors 
 and in which to sign or reject the armistice. 
 
 Meanwhile revolution had begun in Germany. On 
 Thursday, November 7, mutiny broke out at Kiel. 
 Several of the German warships were seized by the 
 mutineers and the red flag was hoisted over them. On 
 that and succeeding days similar movements occurred 
 in various cities and states, and revolutionary govern- 
 ments, local or regional, generally headed by social- 
 ists, were announced from various localities, with what 
 
THE WORLD WAR 413 
 
 exactness we cannot tell, from Hamburg, Bremen, 
 Tilsit, Chemnitz, Stuttgart, Brunswick, Bavaria, 
 finally from Berlin. Reports circulated like wild-fire 
 that reigning princes w^ere abdicating or being de- 
 throned, that workmen's and soldiers' councils or 
 Soviets were being formed in various centers and were 
 seizing power. Demands were being made that the 
 Kaiser abdicate. There were all the phenomena of a 
 breaking up of the great deep. German society was 
 being torn by alarming dissensions the practical una- 
 nimity of the past four years was pounding to pieces 
 upon the jagged reefs of defeat, and defeat with dis- 
 credit and dishonor. An hour of fearful retribution 
 had struck. There was dismay and disarray in the 
 public mind, vacillation and poverty of counsel among 
 the military and political leaders of the land. Moral 
 bankruptcy, as well as material, stared the German 
 nation in the face, that nation which had been a unit 
 in war as long as war offered chances for aggrandize- 
 ment and loot. Socialists, with the exception of a paltry 
 few, had worked hand in glove with militarists and 
 Pan-Germans and the assorted hosts of embattled ad- 
 venturers and soldiers of fortune; they had done this 
 for four years, the easy tools of autocracy and egre- 
 gious militarism. But now this band of international 
 plunderers was falling apart. Each was seeking 
 safety as he might from the fast approaching storm. 
 On Saturday, November 9, a wireless message 
 picked up by Paris and by London announced, to the 
 stupefaction of the world, that the Emperor of Ger- 
 many, William II, had abdicated, and that his son, 
 the Crown Prince Frederick William, had renounced 
 
414 FIFTY YEARS OF EUROPE 
 
 his rights to the throne, that a socialist, Ebert, had 
 been made Chancellor, and that a German National 
 Assembly would be speedily elected by universal suf- 
 frage and that that Assembly would " settle finally 
 the future form of government of the German nation 
 and of those peoples which might be desirous of com- 
 ing within the empire." 
 
 On the following day, Sunday, the world heard that 
 the revolution was still spreading, that Cologne cathe- 
 dral was flying a red flag, that Hanover, Oldenberg, 
 Magdeburg, Saxony, and other towns and states were 
 seething with rebellion. 
 
 On Monday, November ii, 1918, Americans awoke 
 to the screeching of whistles and the din of bells 
 which signified that the armistice terms had been ac- 
 cepted by the German Government and that " the 
 war was over," hostilities to cease at 11 o'clock that 
 morning, Paris time. Rushing for their morning 
 papers, they ascertained this further fact that Wil- 
 liam II, Emperor of Germany, who for thirty years 
 had been the most powerful monarch in the world, 
 had fled for refuge in an automobile to Holland. 
 Thus the Last of the Hohenzollerns made his sorry 
 exit from the scene, having plunged the world into 
 turmoil and tribulation indescribable, the memory of 
 which would haunt mankind with nameless horror 
 for decades to come, the heartless, crushing cost of 
 which would afilict and sadden generations yet un- 
 born. 
 
 The evil that men do lives after them. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Abd-el-Kader, 90 
 
 Abdul Hamid II, 244, 245, 297, 
 302 
 
 Abyssinia, lOi 
 
 Adana massacres, 301, 303 
 
 Adowa, loi 
 
 Adrianople, 302, 309, 310, 313 
 
 yEgean islands, 104, 306, 310 
 
 Afghanistan, 170 
 
 Africa, British expansion into, 
 i8i ; exploration, 192 ; French 
 authority, 92; German colo- 
 nies, 48-49; German colonies 
 conquered in World War, 
 352; partition, 191, 194; situa- 
 tion in 1815, 192 
 
 Agadir, 95 
 
 Aisne, Battle of the, 335, 385 
 
 Alabama affair, 134 
 
 Albania, 202, 203, 311, 314-315, 
 317 
 
 Albanian rebellion, 304, 306 
 
 Albert, King of Belgium, 333 
 
 Alexander I, of Serbia, 240-241 
 
 Alexander II, of Russia, 248, 
 256, 257; abolition of serfdom, 
 249, 251-252 
 
 Alexander III, of Russia, 257, 
 260 
 
 Alexander of Battenberg, 235 
 
 Alfonso XII, 221, 222 
 
 Alfonso XIII, 222, 223 
 
 Algeciras, 95 
 
 Algeria, 93, 192; French con- 
 quest, 89-90 
 
 Algiers, 90 
 
 Allenby, General, 389, 407 
 
 Allied forces in World War, uni- 
 fied command, 359, 396; see 
 also World War 
 
 Alsace-Lorraine, 2; German en- 
 trance, 28; loss, 31 
 
 Amadeo, 219, 220 
 
 Amiens, 396 
 
 Andorra, 202 
 
 AngHcan Church, Ireland, 129; 
 Wales, 165 
 
 Anglo-Portuguese Alliance, 361- 
 362 
 
 Annam, 91, 92 
 
 Antwerp, 335 
 
 "Anzacs," 347 
 
 Arabi Pasha, 198, 199 
 
 Arabia, 407 
 
 Arbitration, international, 134 ; 
 New Zealand, 180; Permanent 
 Court of Arbitration, 293, 
 294 
 
 Argonne Forest, 401, 402, 404 
 
 Armaments, reduction of, 292, 
 293, 295 
 
 Armenian massacres, 303 
 
 Armies, American, in France, 
 398, 400; British, 133; Chinese, 
 280; European, 290; French, 
 69, 80, 82; Russian, 379-380 
 
 Armored cars in war (tanks), 
 357 
 
 Arras, 384, 385, 396 
 
 Asia, European nations in, 264 
 
 Asquith, Herbert, 155, 157, 159, 
 162; quoted on the position of 
 the AlHes in World War, 332; 
 third Home Rule Bill (1912), 
 164 
 
 Associations Law, France, 86 
 
 Auckland, N. Z., 179 
 
 Ausgleich. See Compromise of 
 1867 
 
 Australia, 174; Confederation, 
 177; constitution, 178 
 
 Australian ballot, 133 
 
 Austria, Bismarck and, 18; Ca- 
 vour's opposition to, 8, 9; de- 
 feat and disintegration in 
 1918, 410-41 1 ; France and 
 
 415 
 
4i6 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Piedmont against, 8, 9; Gari- 
 baldi and, 12 ; German support 
 in World War, 322-323; occu- 
 pation of Italy, 5, 6; proposed 
 action against Serbia in 1913, 
 316, 317; Prussian war of 1866, 
 24; races, no; reorganization 
 after 1866, 106; responsibility 
 for World War, 322; since 
 1867, in; territory, 106-107; 
 ultimatum to Serbia, July 22, 
 
 1914, 319 
 
 Austria-Hungary, annexation of 
 Bosnia and Herzegovina, 299; 
 dualism and racial struggles, 
 106, 108-109; Italy wars on, 
 105 ; population and races, 109- 
 Tio; United States declares 
 war on, 374 
 
 Austro-German Treaty of 1879, 
 
 51 
 Azores, 225 
 
 Bagdad, 389, 407 
 Balance of power, 25, 203, 325 
 Balfour, A. J., 151, I53 
 Balkan states, 120 ; revolts in 
 
 1875, 230; rise, 226; war on 
 
 Turkey, 308 
 Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913, 
 
 290, 307 ; cost in human life, 
 
 314 
 
 Baltic Provinces, 382 
 
 Baluchistan, 170 
 
 Bapaume, 357, 396 
 
 Bashi-Bazouks, 231 
 
 Bastille Day, 76 
 
 Bazaine, 28 
 
 Beaconsfield. See Disraeli 
 
 Beatty, Admiral, 363 
 
 Beirut, 407 
 
 Belgium, Congo Free State and, 
 I95> 196; German cruelty to- 
 ward, 336, 366-367; German 
 ultimatum in 1914, 328; Ger- 
 many's attack in 1914, 327 ; 
 neutrality, 203, 204; signifi- 
 cance, 205 
 
 Belgrade, 228, 349 
 
 Belleau Wood, 398 
 
 Berlin, 32 
 
 Berlin, Congress of, 50, 233, 
 234 
 
 Berlin, Congress of, 50, 233, 
 240; breaches, 299, 300 
 
 Berlin to Bagdad, 407, 408 
 
 Bernadotte, 213 
 
 BernstorflF, 373 
 
 Bethmann-Hollweg, 328-329, 373 
 
 Bismarck, " blood and iron " 
 policy, 17 ; enmity against 
 France, 25-26; great achieve- 
 ment, 37; North German Con- 
 federation, 22; position, 38; 
 protective tariff, 46; resigna- 
 tion, S3 ; Socialism and, 41 
 
 Black Sea, 339, 347, 4io 
 
 Blockade, 362, 363 
 
 " Blood and iron," 17 
 
 " Bloody Sunday," 285 
 
 Boer War, 152, 186; Unionists 
 and, 156 
 
 Boers, 181, 183, 192 
 
 Bohemia, 107, no, in, 112; in- 
 vasion, 20 
 
 Bolsheviki, 380, 381, 382, 383, 391, 
 
 394 
 
 Bolshevism, 392 
 
 Bonapartists, 70 
 
 Bordeaux, 334 
 
 Bordeaux, Assembly of, 65 
 
 Boris, King, 409 
 
 Bosnia, 120, 234; annexation to 
 Austria-Hungary, 299 ; Aus- 
 trian rule, 318 
 
 Bosporus, 339, 347, 410 
 
 Botany Bay, 175, 176 
 
 Boulanger, 78 
 
 Bourbon family, 71, 219 
 
 Bouresches, 398 
 
 Boxer movement of 1900, 274, 
 275 
 
 Boy-Ed, 367 
 
 Braga, Theophile, 224 
 
 Brazil, 224, 375 
 
 Brest-Litovsk, Treaty of, 382; 
 map, 393; provisions, 392; 
 revelation of German greed, 
 394; territory lost to Russia, 
 392 
 
 British Empire, 166; Egypt and 
 the Soudan, 201 ; twentieth 
 
INDEX 
 
 417 
 
 century, 188; see also Great 
 
 Britain 
 British North America, 170, 173 
 Broglie, Duke of, 75 
 Brusiloff, General, 358, 359, 361, 
 
 375 
 
 Brussels, 333 
 
 Bucharest, capture, 360 
 
 Bucharest, Treaty of, 313, 314, 
 316, 348, 408 
 
 Budapest, 108 
 
 Budget in England, 158 
 
 Bukowina, 358 
 
 Bulgaria, after 1878, 235; atroci- 
 ties, 231 ; attack on Greece and 
 Serbia in 1913, 313 ; entrance 
 into war in 1915, 348; hatred 
 of Serbia, 311, 312; independ- 
 ence, 239 ; insurrection in 1876, 
 232; statehood, 232, 233, 234; 
 surrender, 408; United States 
 relations, 374-375 
 
 Billow, Prince von, 53, 56, 63, 64, 
 317 
 
 Bundesrath, 22, 33, 62; member- 
 ship and powers, 34 
 
 Burma, 170 
 
 Cabinet government, Canada, 
 
 172; Germany, 37 
 " Cadets," Russia, 286 
 Cambodia, 91 
 Cambrai, 385, 404 
 Cambridge University, 133 
 Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Henry, 
 
 154 
 Canada, 170; Dominion formed, 
 
 172; government, 172, 173 
 Canadian Pacific Railway, 174 
 Canadians in World War, 343, 
 
 375, 385 
 Cantigny, 398 
 Canton, China, 266, 267 
 Cantons, Swiss, 206, 207 
 Cape Colony, 181 
 Cape Town, 188 
 Carlos I, 224 
 Carlstad, 217 
 ** Carmen Sylva," 230 
 Carnot, 78, 80 
 Carso Plateau, 385 
 
 Carthage, 191 
 
 Casimir-Perier, 80 
 
 Catholic Emancipation, 127 
 
 Catholics, conflict with govern- 
 ment in Germany, 38; France, 
 75 ; Ireland, 126 
 
 Cavite, 222 
 
 Cavour, Camillo di, character, 6; 
 diplornacy, 8; Garibaldi and, 
 14; principles, 15 
 
 Censorship in Russia, 261 
 
 Chalons, 398 
 
 Chamber of Deputies, France, 
 73 
 
 Chamberlain, Joseph, colonies 
 and imperialism, 151 ; South 
 African policy, 185; tariff re- 
 form, 154 
 
 Chambord, Count of, 70 
 
 Chancellors, German, 36, 53 
 
 Charles I, of Austria, 120 
 
 Charles I, of Roumania, 230, 239, 
 240 
 
 Chateau-Thierry, 398, 400 
 
 Chemin des Dames, 385 
 
 China, 265 ; break with Germany, 
 375 ; European relations, 267 ; 
 integrity, 275; isolation, 266; 
 reforms, 280; republican move- 
 ment, 281 ; treaty ports, 267 
 
 Chino-japanese War in 1894, 272 
 
 Christiania, 214, 218 
 
 Church and State, France, 85; 
 Ireland, 129 ; Italy, 97 ; Por- 
 tugal, 224; Wales, 165 
 
 Civil Service in Great Britain, 
 
 Class legislation in England, 154, 
 
 156, 159 
 ClericaHsm, 75, 86 
 Cochin-China, 91 
 Colonial Society, 48 
 Colonies, British, 135, I37, 151; 
 
 British, in North America, 
 
 170; British management, 171; 
 
 Dutch, 205; French, 77, 89; 
 
 German, 47, $4; German loss, 
 
 352; Italian, loo-ioi, 104; 
 
 Russian in Asia, 264; Spanish, 
 
 223 
 Combes, 86 
 
4i8 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Commerce of Great Britain and 
 India, 135 
 
 Commons, House of, Parliament 
 Bill restricting Lords, 159, 162 
 
 Commune, Paris, 66 
 
 Compromise of 1867 (Austria- 
 Hungary), 108, III, 112 
 
 Concordat (1801), 87; abroga- 
 tion, 87 
 
 Confederation, Australian, 177; 
 see also Federation 
 
 Congo Colony, 205 
 
 Congo Free State, 195, 196 
 
 Congo River, 194, 195, 196 
 
 Conservative party, England, 
 146, 147, 149, 153 
 
 Constantine, King of Greece, 
 350, 375 
 
 Constantinople, 309, 310, 338 ; at- 
 tempted capture by Allies in 
 191 5, 346-347; mutiny in 1909, 
 301 
 
 Convicts in Australia, 175-176 
 
 Cook, Captain, 175 
 
 Corfu, 350 
 
 Corn Laws, 128 
 
 Cossacks, 382 
 
 Courland, 345 
 
 Crete, 242-243, 299, 304, 310 
 
 Crispi, loi 
 
 Croatians, 116 
 
 Cromer, Lord, 199 
 
 Cuba, 221, 222, 375 
 
 Gushing, Caleb, 267 
 
 Custozza, 21 
 
 Cyprus, 234 
 
 Czar, 247, 256, 375, 378 
 
 Czecho-Slovaks, 410 
 
 Czechs, III, 113 
 
 Czernin, 391 
 
 Czernowitz, 346, 359 
 
 Dalmatia, 107 
 Damascus, 407 
 Danish language, 2X2 
 Dardanelles, 410 
 Deak, Francis, 118 
 Delbriick, Professor, 63 
 Delcasse, Theophile, 93 
 Democracy, Austria, 114; Ger- 
 man effort of 1848, 17; Great 
 
 Britain, 121, 139-140; Italy, 
 100; Prussia, 57, 58; Sweden, 
 218; Switzerland, 207 
 
 Denmark, 209; Prussia's war 
 against, 18 
 
 Disraeli, Benjamin, 134; policy 
 and achievements, 135, 137 
 
 Dodecanese, 306, 307 
 
 Douaumont, 355 
 
 Dreyfus case, 80 
 
 Dual Alliance, 79, 325 
 
 Dual Control (of Egypt), 198, 
 199 
 
 Dual Monarchy. 5^ Austria- 
 Hungary 
 
 Duma, 286, 288, 375, 378 
 
 Dumba, 367 
 
 Durham, Lord, 171, 172 
 
 East India Company, 168 
 Eastern front of World War, 
 
 346, 383 ; map, 377 
 Eastern Question, definition, 227 ; 
 
 Disraeli and, 137; in 1875, 230; 
 
 in 1878, 233 ; in 1908, 243, 297, 
 
 298 ; international character, 
 
 323 
 Ebert, 414 
 Edict of Emancipation, Russia, 
 
 249 
 
 Education, England, 131-132, 153, 
 154; France, 76; Italy, 99; re- 
 ligious, in France, 85 ; Switzer- 
 land, 209 
 
 Edward VII, i53, 161 
 
 Egypt, 94, 191 ; annexation to 
 British Empire, 197, 201 ; de- 
 clared a protectorate of Brit- 
 ish Empire in 1914, 340; Dual 
 Control, 198, 199; England 
 and, 135-136; finances, 198; 
 " occupation " by England, 194, 
 
 199 
 
 Eidsvold, Constitution of, 213, 
 215, 216 
 
 Elgin, Lord, 172 
 
 Emigration, European, 166; Ire- 
 land, 128; Italy, 103; Russian 
 Jews, 258 
 
 " Empress of India," 136, 169 
 
 Ena, Princess, 223 
 
INDEX 
 
 419 
 
 England. See British Empire; 
 
 Great Britain 
 Entente Cordiale, 94 
 Enver Pasha, 339 
 Eritrea, loi 
 
 Esperey, Franchet d', 408 
 Esterhazy, Major, 81 
 Eviction, 130, 131 
 
 Falaba, 369 
 
 Falk Laws. See May Laws 
 
 Falkenhayn, General, 360 
 
 Far East, England, France, and 
 Russia in, 264 
 
 Fashoda incident, 94 
 
 Faure, Felix, 80 
 
 Federation, British colonies in 
 North America, 172; Switzer- 
 land, 206; see also Imperial 
 Federation 
 
 Ferdinand I, of Roumania, 240 
 
 Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg (Bul- 
 garia), 237, 299; abdication, 
 409 
 
 Ferry, Jules, y6, 77, 78, 91 
 
 Finland, 261-262, 378, 382, 391 
 
 Florence, 96 
 
 Foch, Marshal, 334, 356; com- 
 mander-in-chief of AlHes, 396; 
 counter offensive, 400, 401, 
 402, 404; final stroke, 404, 
 406; German armistice terms, 
 412 
 
 Formosa, 272, 279 
 
 Forster Education Act of 1870, 
 131-132, 153 
 
 France, apprehension of war 
 (1866-70), 25; assistance for 
 Italy against Austria, 8, 9; 
 Church and State, 85; civil 
 war of 1870-71, 65 ; colonial 
 expansion, 89; colonies, 77 ; 
 constitution, framing in 1875, 
 70, 7Z ; devastation by the Ger- 
 mans in World War, 384; 
 Dual Alliance in 1892, 79; 
 Great Britain's relations in 
 1914, Z27', invasion in 1914, 
 328, 2)Z2)\ presidency, 72; rec- 
 onciliation with England, 94 ; 
 reconstruction under Thiers, 
 
 68-69; resolution and defiance 
 
 in World War, 353, 354; Third 
 
 Republic, 23; Third Republic, 
 
 fundamental feature, 73-74 ; 
 
 Third Republic proclaimed, 29, 
 
 32; Senate and Chamber, 7y, 
 
 suffrage and education, 76; 
 
 under the Third Republic, 65; 
 
 with England in Egypt, 198, 
 
 199 
 
 Franchise. See Suffrage 
 
 Francis II, of Naples, 11, 13, 14 
 
 Francis Ferdinand, Archduke, 
 
 318 
 Francis Joseph, 107, in, 119, 
 
 120, 299 
 Franco-Prussian War, duration, 
 29; French reverses, 27; inci- 
 dental results, 23; outbreak, 
 26, 27; peace terms, 31; spe- 
 cific results, I, 2 
 Frankfort, Diet of (1815), 34 
 Frankfort, Treaty of, 31, 49 
 Frederick III, 52 
 Free trade in England, 154 
 Freedom of speech in Germany, 
 
 55 
 French, Sir John, 343, 344 
 Fujiyama, 268 
 
 Galicia, 107, 113, 338, 345, 380 
 
 Gallipoli, 347 
 
 Gambetta, 29, 30, 65, 75, 76, 78, 
 
 86 
 Gapon, Father, 285 
 Garibaldi, Giuseppe, 5 ; story, 
 
 II 
 Gas in war, 343, 396 
 Geneva Commission, 134 
 George I, King of Greece, 242 
 George V, 161, 162 
 Gerard, Ambassador, 373 
 German Chancellors, 36, 53 
 German Crown Prince, 354» 356, 
 
 413 
 German East Africa, 352 
 German Emperor, power, 37 
 German Empire, 18, 22,^ 32, 33; 
 acquisitions from China, 273- 
 274, 275 ; acts which forced 
 the United States into war, 
 
420 
 
 INDEX 
 
 366; attempt at democratic 
 unity, 16; attitude at outbreak 
 of World War, 323-324; brief 
 history since 1871, 38; Cath- 
 olic or Center party, 41 ; Cen- 
 tral and South American 
 states in the World War, 375 ; 
 colonies, 47, 54; confederation 
 of loose states, 16; constitu- 
 tion, 3St 56; constitution, 
 amending, 61-62; cruelty to 
 Belgium, 336, 366-367 ; declara- 
 tion of war against Russia in 
 1914, 325 ; effect of collapse of 
 Turkey, 317; German soul re- 
 vealed by treaty of Brest- 
 Litovsk, 394; loss of African 
 colonies in 1914-15 ; Moroc- 
 can crisis, 95; National As- 
 sembly, 414; naval power de- 
 stroyed in 1914, 341 ; navy, 55 ; 
 peace proposed and armistice 
 in 1918, 412; plots in United 
 States, 367, 368 ; protective 
 tariff, 46; retribution in 1918, 
 413; revolution in 1918, 412; 
 states composing, 35-36; sub- 
 marine policy, 368, 370, 373; 
 suffrage, 60; support for Aus- 
 tria in World War, 322-323; 
 unification, 32 
 
 German Southwest Africa, 352 
 
 Giolitti, 316 
 
 Gladstone, W. E., 122 ; education 
 measure, 132 ; fall of ministry 
 in 1886, 146; fourth ministry, 
 150; foreign policy, 138; Irish 
 Government Bill and Land 
 Bill (1886), 143; Land Act of 
 (1870), 131-132; elections of 
 1881, 138; leadership and pol- 
 icy, 124; Second Home Rule 
 Bill (1893), 149; South Afri- 
 can policy, 182-183 ; third min- 
 istry (1886), 141, 142; Turk- 
 ish expulsion from Europe, 
 231-232 
 
 Gold, Australia, 176; South 
 Africa, 184 
 
 Golitzin, 376 
 
 Gordon, General, 200, 201 
 
 Gorizia, 359, 385 
 
 Gorky, 394 
 
 Gortchakoff, 50 
 
 Gouraud, General, 404 
 
 Government ownership in New 
 Zealand, 179 
 
 Gramont, 26 
 
 Great Britain, army conscrip- 
 tion, 356; diplomacy at out- 
 break of World War, 323, 
 325, 326; Eastern Question in 
 1878, 2SS; education (1902), 
 153. 1545 education measure 
 (1870), 131-132; elections of 
 1910, 160, 162 ; entrance into 
 World War, 330; financial 
 legislation, 163 ; Imperialism 
 and Disraeli, 134, 137; Ire- 
 land and, 121 ; opium war, 
 266 ; possessions at close of 
 eighteenth century, 167; sea 
 power, 364; service to Italy, 
 10; suffrage extension, 121, 
 133; United States arbitra- 
 tion, 134; see also British Em- 
 pire 
 
 Greece, after 1833, 241 ; deser- 
 tion of Serbia, 349; entrance 
 into World War, 375 ; German 
 influence, 241 ; independence, 
 229 
 
 Grevy, Jules, 75, 78 
 
 Grey, Sir Edward, 300 
 
 Guiflight, 369 
 
 Gustavus V, 218 
 
 Haakon VII, 218 
 
 Hague Conferences, 292, 295 
 
 Haig, General, 356, 357; historic 
 utterance, 396-397 ; made com- 
 mander-in-chief of British 
 armies, 344 
 
 Hallam, Arthur, 123 
 
 Hamilton, Sir Ian, 347 
 
 Hapsburg, House of, 106, 112, 
 120, 411 
 
 Henry, Colonel, 81 
 
 Henry V, 71 
 
 Herzegovina, 120, 231, 234; an- 
 nexation to Austria-Hungary, 
 299 
 
INDEX 
 
 421 
 
 Hindenburg, 338, 344-345, 346, 
 356, 375 
 
 " Hindenburg Line," 384 ; break- 
 ing of, 403, 404 
 
 Hohenzollern, House of, 23, 26, 
 28, 219, 414 
 
 Holland, 205; colonies, 205 
 
 Holstein, 18, 21, 210 
 
 Home Rule, 141 
 
 Home Rule Bill (second), 149 
 
 Home Rule Bill (third, 1912), 
 164 
 
 Hong Kong, 267 
 
 House of Commons, of Lords. 
 See Commons; Lords 
 
 Hudson Bay Company, 173 
 
 Humbert I, 98, 102 
 
 Hungary, 106 ; " historic rights," 
 107; independence in 1918, 
 411; races, 115; since 1867, 
 114 
 
 Illiteracy, Italy, 99 ; Spain, 223 
 Imperial Federation, 188 
 Imperialism, European, 166 ; 
 Great Britain, 134, 151, 152, 
 
 India, acquisition by Great Brit- 
 ain, 168; commerce with, 168; 
 German plans against, 387, 389 ; 
 government, 169 ; importance 
 in British Empire, 136; road 
 to, 135 
 
 Industry, Germany, 54; Italy, 
 103 ; Russia, 258-259 ; Switzer- 
 land, 209 
 
 Initiative, 208 
 
 Insurance of workingmen, Bis- 
 marck's system, 45 
 
 International African Associa- 
 tion, 195 
 
 International law, 295; Ger- 
 many's violation in 1914, 328, 
 370, 371 
 
 Ionian Islands, 242 
 
 Ireland, 121 ; cause of Irish 
 question, 125; emigration, 128; 
 eviction and agrarian crimes, 
 130, 131; famine, 127; Glad- 
 stone's policy, 124, 129; Home 
 Rule party, 142; Irish Parlia- 
 
 ment, 143; Land Act of 1870, 
 131, 138; Land Act of 1881, 
 138; Land Act of 1903, 148; 
 land tenure, 125, 129; national 
 feeling, 141 ; religious ques- 
 tion, 126, 129 
 
 Isabella II, 219 
 
 Ismail Pasha, 197 
 
 Isonzo, 359, 385 
 
 Italia Irredenta, 104, 351 
 
 ItaUan front in World War, 
 map, 386 
 
 " Italian Legion," 11 
 
 Italy, aid from British and 
 French troops in 1917, 386; 
 aspiration toward unification, 
 4; campaign against Austria 
 in 1916, 358; capitals, 96; 
 Church and State, 97; colonial 
 expansion, loo-ioi, 104; con- 
 stitution, 96; education, 99; 
 emigration, 103; Entente Al- 
 lies, 105 ; finances, 98 ; in al- 
 liance with Prussia against 
 Austria, 19, 21 ; industry, 103 ; 
 intervention in World War, 
 351; kingdom proclaimed, 15; 
 making of, 6; neutrality in 
 World War, 321, 331 ; offen- 
 sive in 1918, 409; prosperity, 
 102; refusal to support Aus- 
 tria in 1913 against Serbia, 
 316; reverses in war in 1916 
 and 1917, 385, 387; since 1870, 
 96; sketch of the rise of mod- 
 ern, 3; suffrage, 99-100; Triple 
 Alliance, 51, 100, 104, 105; 
 Tripoli project, 305, 306, 307; 
 unity, 9; unity consummated, 
 
 Jaffa, 389 
 
 Jagow, 329 
 
 Jameson Raid, 185 
 
 Janina, 309, 310 
 
 Japan, 267 ; alliance with Eng- 
 land in 1902, 276; constitu- 
 tion, education, etc., 2,71 ; 
 dominance in the Orient, 279- 
 280 ; entrance into World 
 War, 340; European interven- 
 
422 
 
 INDEX 
 
 tion, 273; evolution, 270; Rus- 
 sian menace, 276; seclusion, 
 268-269; war with China in 
 1894, 272; war with Russia, 
 
 277 
 Jaroslav, 338 
 Jellicoe, Admiral, 363 
 Jerusalem, 390, 407 
 Jews, France, 84; Russia, 258, 
 
 378 
 Joffre, General, famous order, 
 
 334 
 Johannesburg, 184 
 Jutland, Battle of, 362 
 
 Kaiser. See William II 
 
 Kaledin, General, 382 
 
 Kamerun, 352 
 
 Kara George, 228 
 
 Kemmel, Mt., 397 
 
 Kerensky, 378, 379, 380, 381, 
 
 391 
 Khartoum, 200, 201 
 Khedive, 197, 198, i99» 201, 339 
 Kiauchau, 273, 340, 34i, 352 
 Kiel, 363, 364; naval mutiny, 
 
 412 
 Kiel, Treaty of, 209, 215 
 Kiel Canal, 341 
 Kirk Kilisse, 309 
 Kitchener, Lord, Boer War, 186; 
 
 Soudan, 152, 201 
 Koniggratz. See Sadowa 
 Korea, 272, 276 
 Kossuth, Francis, 118 
 Kiihlmann, 391 
 Kulturkampf, 38 
 Kumanovo, 308 
 Kuropatkin, General, 278 
 Kut-el-Amara, 389 
 
 Labor legislation in New Zea- 
 land, 180 
 
 Labor party in England, 157 
 
 Land, Ireland, 125, 129, 148; 
 Russia, 249, 250, 251 
 
 Land Act of 1870, Ireland, 131, 
 138 
 
 Land Act of 1881, Ireland, 138 
 
 Land Act of 1903, Ireland, 148 
 
 Laon, 406 
 
 Lassalle, Ferdinand, 41, 43 
 Lausanne (Ouchy), Treaty of, 
 
 306, 308 
 Legitimists, 70 
 Lernberg, 338, 345 
 Lenine, 381 
 Leo XIII, 98 
 Leopold II, 195, 196 
 Li Yuan-hung, 282 
 Liao-tung peninsula, 272, 2^7^, 
 
 Liao-yang. 278 
 
 Liberal party. Great Britain, 
 122 ; disruption, 146 ; Glad- 
 stone's leadership, 124; Home 
 Rulers and, 142; House of 
 Lords and, 159; radicalism, 
 156-157; restoration in 1880, 
 137; return to power in 1892, 
 149; in 1905, 154 
 
 Liberal-Unionists, 146 
 
 Liberalism in Germany, 63 
 
 Liberia, 375 
 
 Liechtenstein, 202 
 
 Liege, 333 
 
 Liggett, General, 404 
 
 Lisbon, 224 
 
 Lissa, 21 
 
 Lithuania, 345, 382 
 
 Livingstone, David, 193 
 
 Lloyd George, David, 155; ap- 
 peal for American soldiers, 
 400; budget and taxes in 
 1909, 158 
 
 Lombardy, 5, 9 
 
 London, Treaty of, 310 
 
 Lords, House of, attack upon, 
 150; budget opposition^, 157, 
 158 
 
 "Lords' Veto," 161 
 
 Loubet, £mile, 80, 82 
 
 Ludendorff, General, 398 
 
 Lule Burgas, 309 
 
 Lusitania, sinking of, 353, 369, 
 370, 371 
 
 Lutsk, 359 
 
 Luxemburg, 203, 204, 327, 329 
 
 Lvoff, Prince, 378 
 
 Macedonia, 233, 234, 239, 243, 
 304, 307, 312 
 
INDEX 
 
 423 
 
 Mackensen, 345, 346, 349 
 MacMahon, Marshal, 70, ^2, 74- 
 
 75 
 
 Madagascar, 92 
 
 Madeira, 225 
 
 Maeterlinck, Maurice, 336 
 
 Magenta, 9 
 
 Magyar language, 116, 119 
 
 Magyars, 112, 115, 117 
 
 Mahdi, 200, 201 
 
 Mahratta confederacy, 168 
 
 Majuba Hill, 183, 184, 186 
 
 Manchu dynasty, 281 
 
 Manchuria, 272, 275, 277, 279 
 
 Manuel, 224 
 
 Maria Christina, 222 
 
 Marne River, 398; First Battle 
 of, 334, 335 ; Second Battle of, 
 400-401 
 
 Marx, Karl, 41 
 
 Massawa, loi 
 
 Maude, General, 389 
 
 May Laws, 39-40 
 
 Mazurian Lakes, 345 
 
 Mazzini, Joseph, 3, 4. 
 
 Mehemet Ali, 197 
 
 Melikofif, Loris, 256, 257 
 
 Mesopotamia, 389, 407 
 
 Messines Ridge, 397 
 
 Metz, 28, 29, 30 
 
 Meuse River, 406 
 
 Mexico, German proposal of al- 
 liance with Japan against the 
 United States, 374 
 
 Middle Europe, 361, 387, 408; 
 map, 388 
 
 Milan, capture, 9 
 
 Milan, King, 240 
 
 Militarism, 64, 290 ; France, 69 
 
 MilyukofT, Paul, 261, 378, 379 
 
 Ministerial responsibility, Can- 
 ada, 172; France, 73-74; Ger- 
 many, 60-61 ; Russia, 287 
 
 M'/r, 247, 250-251 
 
 Misitch, General, 349 
 
 Modena, 9, 10 
 
 Mohammed V, 302 
 
 Moldavia, 229 
 
 Moltke, General von, 20 
 
 Mommsen, 64 
 
 Monarchists, France, 65, 69, 71 
 
 Monastir, 309 
 
 Monks and nuns in France, 
 85 
 
 Mons, zzz 
 
 Montdidier, 396, 398 
 
 Montenegro, 232; entrance into 
 World War, 338; independ- 
 ence, 2ZZ, 234; overrunning 
 of, 350 
 
 Morley, John, 143 
 
 Morocco, crisis, 95; France and, 
 93 
 
 Moscow, 376 
 
 Mukden, 278 
 
 Namur, 2>2>Z 
 
 Nanking, treaty, 1842, 266 
 
 Naples, Kingdom of, 11, 13 
 
 Napoleon I, 210 
 
 Napoleon III, personaHty, 23, 
 24; popular estimation, 25; 
 support for Cavour, 8, 9, 10; 
 support for the Pope, 14 
 
 National Assembly, France, 65; 
 Germany, 414 
 
 NationaHty, effect of the prin- 
 ciple in Austria, no; Ireland, 
 141 ; South African Union, 
 188 
 
 Navarino, 229 
 
 Navies, American, 400; British, 
 149, 362 ; European, 291 ; Ger- 
 man, 55, 362 
 
 Netherlands. See Holland 
 
 Neuilly Wood, 398 
 
 Neutralized states, 203, 204, 327 
 
 Neuve Chapelle, 343 
 
 New Holland, 175 
 
 New South Wales, 175, 178 
 
 New Zealand, 175, 178; democ- 
 racy, 178-179; government 
 ownership and social legisla- 
 tion, 179 
 
 Newfoundland, 170, 173 
 
 Nicholas II, of Russia, 260; ab- 
 dication, 378; Duma, 286; 
 Hague Conferences, 292, 295 
 
 Nicholas, Grand Duke, 346 
 
 Nihilism, 254 
 
 Nikolsburg, Peace of, 19 
 
 Nile, 191 ; sources, 193 
 
424 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Nippon, 268 
 
 Nivelle, General, 355 
 
 " No annexations, no indemni- 
 ties," 380, 391, 394 
 
 Nogi, General, 278 
 
 Norway, separation from Swe- 
 den, 217; suffrage, 318; Swe- 
 den and, 210, 213 
 
 North America, British p6sses- 
 sions, 170, 173 
 
 North German Confederation, 
 22 
 
 Noyon, 384, 396, 398 
 
 Obrenovitch, Milosch, 228 
 
 O'Connell, Daniel, 127 
 
 Oku, General, 278 
 
 Old Age Pensions Act, 155 
 
 Old Catholics, 39 
 
 Omdurman, 201 
 
 Opium War, 266 
 
 Orange Free State, 182, 186, 187 
 
 Orange River Colony, 187 
 
 Oregon dispute, 173 
 
 Orleanists, 70 
 
 Oscar II, 215, 218 
 
 Ostend, 335, 406 
 
 Otto, King of Greece, 229, 241, 
 
 242 
 Ouchy. See Lausanne 
 Oudh, 169 
 Oxford University, 133 
 
 Palestine, 389-407 
 
 Palmerston, Lord, 10 
 
 Panama, 375 
 
 Pan-Germanism, 205 
 
 Papacy. See Popes 
 
 Papal Guarantees, 97 
 
 Papen, 367 
 
 Paris, dangerous situation in 
 1918, 399, 400; long-range 
 bomlDardment, 396; republican- 
 ism, 66; revolution and insur- 
 rection (1871), 67; siege 
 (1870), 29, 30, 31 
 
 Paris, Count of, 70 
 
 Parliament, British, duration, 
 163; Irish exclusion, 143, 144; 
 Irish representation, 126 
 
 Parliament Act (1911), 162, 
 163 
 
 Parliamentary government, 61 ; 
 Cavour and, 15; France, Third 
 Republic, 74; Lords and Com- 
 mons, England, 160; Pied- 
 mont, 7; Prussia, 38 
 
 Parma, 10 
 
 Parnell, C. S., 142 
 
 Passchendaele Ridge, 385 
 
 Patriotism in Japan, 268 
 
 Peace, movement toward, in 
 1898, 290 
 
 Peel, Sir Robert, 124 
 
 Peers, creation of new, 162 
 
 Peking, 266, 272, 273, 274 
 
 Pensions, old age, England, 155 ; 
 New Zealand, 180 
 
 Permanent Court of Arbitra- 
 tion, 293, 294 
 
 Peronne, 357, 396 
 
 Perry, Commodore, 269, 270 
 
 Pershing, General, 396 
 
 Pescadores Islands, 272 
 
 Petain, General, 355 
 
 Peter I, of Serbia, 241 
 
 Petrograd, 376, 379, 380, 392; 
 see also St. Petersburg 
 
 Philippine Islands, 222 
 
 Piave River, 385 
 
 Picquart, Colonel, 81, 83 
 
 Piedmont, 7, 10 
 
 Piracy, 90 
 
 Pius IX, 98 
 
 Pius X, 87-88 
 
 Plehve, 283, 284 
 
 Plevna, 232, 239 
 
 Plutocracy in Prussia, 58, 59 
 
 Poland, 378, 382; conquered in 
 1915. 345; insurrection in 
 1881, 252 
 
 Poles in Galicia, 113 
 
 Popes, end of temporal rule, 32; 
 political status, 96-97 
 
 Port Arthur, 272, 273, 274, 277, 
 278, 279, 285; acquisition by 
 Russia, 275 
 
 Porto Rico, 220, 222 
 
 Portsmouth, Treaty of, 279 
 
 Portugal, 22^; claims in Africa, 
 195; entrance into World 
 
INDEX 
 
 425 
 
 War, 361 ; Republic pro- 
 claimed, 224 
 
 Prague, in, 113 
 
 Prague, Peace of, 19 
 
 Pretoria, 188 
 
 Pripet Marshes, 358, 359 
 
 Property, qualification for fran- 
 chise in England, 140; rights, 
 
 157, 159 
 
 Protective tariff, England, 154; 
 Germany, 46 
 
 Prussia, annexations, 21 ; army, 
 9; Austrian war of 1866, 24, 
 32; Bismarck's policy for, 17; 
 despotism toward Denmark, 
 210; governing classes, 56, 57; 
 king's power, Zly 62; mili- 
 tarism, 290 
 
 Prussia, East, 345 
 
 Przemysl, 338, 345 
 
 Punjab, 169 
 
 Races in Austria, no 
 
 Radoslavoff, 348 
 
 Railways, Japan, 271 ; New Zea- 
 land, 179; Russia, 259 
 
 Rand, 184 
 
 Referendum, 208 
 
 Reform Bill of 1867, 122, 
 123 
 
 Reform Bills of 1884-85, 138, 
 140 
 
 Reichstag, 22; character, 62- 
 63 ; popular representation, 
 60; powers, 35 
 
 Religious intolerance in Ireland, 
 126 
 
 Religious orders in France, 
 85 
 
 Religious tests in English uni- 
 versities, 133 
 
 Rennes tribunal, 81 
 
 Representative government. See 
 Parliamentary government 
 
 Republicanism, France, 66, 'j^^, 
 74; small states of Europe, 
 202; Spain, 220, 221 
 
 Rheims, 387, 398, 402 
 
 Rhodes, Cecil, 185 
 
 Rhodesia, 188 
 
 Riga, 346, 380 
 
 Roberts, Lord, 186 
 
 Rodjestvensky, Admiral, 278 
 
 Roman CathoHcs. See Catho- 
 lics 
 
 Romanoffs, 248, 378 
 
 Rome, 15; capital of kingdom 
 of Italy, 32, 96; Garibaldi's 
 attempt against, 14 
 
 Roosevelt, Theodore, 279, 295, 
 365 
 
 Roumania, 229; after 1878, 239; 
 conquest, 360; entrance on 
 World War, 359; independ- 
 ence, 233, 234; peace treaty, 
 39i» 394; war with Bulgaria 
 in 1913, 313 
 
 Roumanians, 115, 118 
 
 Roumelia, Eastern, 236 
 
 Russia, agitation after the Jap- 
 anese war, 284, 285 ; Asiatic 
 power and policies, 264, 265 ; 
 censorship, 261 ; Congress of 
 Berlin, 50; Constituent As- 
 sembly, 383 ; disintegration, 
 346, 353, 365, 375; Dual Alli- 
 ance in 1892, 79; early vic- 
 tories in World War, 336, 
 338; entrance into Far East- 
 ern poHtics, 273 ; extent and 
 races, 246; German campaign 
 against, in 1915, 344; indus- 
 trial development, 258-259; in- 
 fluence in Bulgaria, 235 ; Jews, 
 258, 378; land, 249, 250, 251; 
 mobilization in 1914, Z'2'2, 324; 
 Nihilism and Socialism, 254; 
 Polish insurrection, 252; posi- 
 tion at opening events of 
 World War, 2>'^2 ; Provisional 
 Government, 378, 379; recent 
 history, 283 ; Revolution, 375, 
 Zl^, 378, 382; serfdom, 248, 
 249, 251-252; Socialist propa- 
 ganda, 379, 380; war on Tur- 
 key in 1877, 232; see also 
 Brest-Litovsk 
 
 Russification, 253, 262 
 
 Russo-Japanese War, 276 
 
 Sadowa (Koniggratz), 20; "Re- 
 venge for," 25 
 
426 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Saghalin, 279 
 
 St. Mihiel salient, 403 
 
 St. Petersburg, 256, 285 ; see also 
 
 Petrograd 
 St. Quentin, 404 
 Salisbury, Lord, 141, 147, H9, 
 
 150, 151 
 Salonica, 302, 308, 350 
 Samaria, 407 
 San Marino, 202, 352 
 San Stefano, Treaty of, 50. 232, 
 
 233 
 
 Sanders, Liman von, 347 
 
 Santiago, 222 
 
 Sarajevo, 318 
 
 Savoy, House of, 23 ; leader- 
 ship in Italian unification, 
 
 7, 9 
 
 Scandinavian states, 209 
 
 Scheer, Admiral von, 363 
 
 Schleswig, 18, 21, 210 
 
 Scutari, 309, 310 
 
 Sea power, 189, 364 
 
 Sedan, 28, 32 
 
 Senegal, 89, 90, 92 
 
 Senlis, 412 
 
 Sepoy Mutiny, 169 
 
 Septennate, 72 
 
 Serbia, after 1878, 239; Aus- 
 tria's proposed action in 1913, 
 
 316, 317; exclusion from 
 Adriatic, 311; grievance, 300; 
 independence, 233, 234; prep- 
 aration for war in 1914, 321, 
 322 ; protest to the Powers in 
 1908, 299; reconquest in 1918, 
 408; relations with Austria, 
 
 317, 318; rise, 228; success 
 and defense in World War, 
 348-349, 350; ultimatum from 
 Austria, July 23, 1914, 319 
 
 Serbs, 115, 116, 118 
 Serfdom, 248, 249, 251-252 
 Sergius, Grand Duke, 285 
 Seven Weeks' War, 19, 21 
 Shantung, 273, 274 
 Shimonoseki. Treaty of, 272 
 Shipping, sinking of neutral, 
 
 369, 370 
 Siam, 375 
 Siberia, 264, 378, 382 
 
 Sicily, 99, 103 ; revolt and Gari- 
 baldi, II, 13 
 
 Slavs, evolution, 113; Hungary, 
 112; Russia's interest, 322 
 
 Slovaks, 115 
 
 Smuts, General, 352 
 
 Social Democrats, 45, 55 
 
 Social legislation, England, 148, 
 157 ; New Zealand, 179 
 
 SociaHsts, Austria, 114; Bis- 
 marck and, 41 ; growth of 
 party in Germany, 42 ; perse- 
 cution in Germany, 43, 44; 
 Russia, 254; Russian Revolu- 
 tion, 379, 380; secret propa- 
 ganda, 44; William H and, 
 
 54 
 Sofia, 238, 239 
 Soissons, 398 ^ 
 
 Solferino, 9 
 Solovief, 256 
 Somaliland, loi 
 Somme, Battle of the, 356, 357, 
 
 383 
 Soudan, 92 ; England and, 200, 
 
 201 ; Kitchener's recovery, 152 
 South Africa. Boer War, 152; 
 
 British in, 181 
 South African RepubHc. See 
 
 Transvaal 
 South African Union, 187 
 Soviets, 379, 381 ; Germany, 413 
 Spain, 218; constitution, 221; 
 
 Hohenzollern candidacy, 26, 28 ; 
 
 presidents, 221 ; republicans, 
 
 220, 221 
 Stambuloff, personality and 
 
 work, 237, 238 
 Stanley, H. M., 193, 194 
 State. See Church and State 
 State Socialism, 45 
 Stockholm, 214 
 Storthing, 213, 214, 216, 218 
 Strasburg, surrender (1870), 30 
 Sturmer, 376 
 Submarines, 341, 363. 368, 370, 
 
 373 
 
 Suez Canal, 197; Disraeli's pur- 
 chase, 135, 198; Turkish at- 
 tacks, 340 
 
 Suffrage, Austria, 114; Austria- 
 
INDEX 
 
 4^7 
 
 Hungary, 109; France, 76; 
 Great Britain, 121, 133, 138- 
 140; Italy, 99-100; Norway 
 and Sweden, 218; Prussia, 57, 
 58; Spain, 22^; see also 
 Woman Suffrage 
 
 Sultan, Egypt and, 197; see also 
 Turkish Empire 
 
 Sun Yat Sen, Dr., 281 
 
 Suvla Bay, 347 
 
 Sussex, 372 
 
 Sweden, democracy, 218; Nor- 
 way and, 213, 217 
 
 Switzerland, neutrality, 203, 204, 
 327; significance, 206 
 
 Sydney, 176 
 
 Syria, 407 
 
 Taaffe ministry, 112, 113, 114 
 
 Tagliamento River, 385 
 
 "Tanks," 357 
 
 Tannenberg, 338, 345 
 
 Tariff. See Protective tariff 
 
 Tarnopol, 338 
 
 Tasman, 175 
 
 Taxation in England (1909), 
 158 
 
 Tewfik Pasha, 198 
 
 Thessaly, 241, 242, 243 
 
 Thiers, 66 ; reconstruction, 68-69 
 
 Tigris River, 387, 389 
 
 Togo, Admiral, 279 
 
 Togoland, 352 
 
 Tonkin, 92 
 
 Torchy, 398 
 
 Townshend, General, 389 
 
 Trans-Siberian railroad, 259, 277 
 
 Transvaal (South African Re- 
 public), 182, 184, 187 
 
 Transvaal Colony, 187 
 
 Trentino, 104 
 
 Tricolor, 71 
 
 Triple Alliance, 300, 316, 325, 
 351; formation, 49; Italy and, 
 100, 104, 105 
 
 Triple Entente, 325, 326 
 
 Tripoli, 93, 104; Italy and, 305, 
 306, 307 
 
 Trotzky, 381, 391 
 
 Tunis, 51, 100, 194; French con- 
 trol, 91, 93 
 
 Turin, 10, 15, 96 
 
 Turkification, 303 
 
 Turkish Empire, attempts against 
 Egypt in 1914, 340; British 
 victories in 1917 and 1918, 387, 
 389, 407; collapse in Europe, 
 296, 309; conquered races, 
 227; disruption, 226, 307; ef- 
 fect of collapse on Germany, 
 317; Egypt and, 197, 199; en- 
 trance into World War, 338, 
 339; extent in 181 5, 226; Ger- 
 man influence, 339; Parlia- 
 ment, 301 ; revolution of the 
 Young Turks in 1908, 243-244, 
 298; surrender, 410; United 
 States relations, 374-375; see 
 also Young Turks 
 
 Turko-Italian War of 191 1, 305 
 
 Tuscany, 9, 10 
 
 Tyrol, 3S8 
 
 Udine, 385 
 
 Uitlanders, 184, 185 
 
 Ukraine, 382, 391 
 
 Ulster, 164, 165 
 
 Unionist Coalition, 146 
 
 Unionist party, 150; disruption 
 (1905), 154; Imperialism, 156 
 
 United States, arbitration with 
 England, 134; entrance into 
 the World War, 365, 373, 374; 
 how forced into war by Ger- 
 many, 366; Japanese rela- 
 tions, 269, 270; Spanish War, 
 222 
 
 Vatican, 97, 98, 99 
 
 Vaux, 355 
 
 Venetia, 5, 9, 15, 19, 21, 96, 385 
 
 Venice, 387 
 
 Venizelos, 350 
 
 Verdun, 354, 402 
 
 Versailles, Assembly, 66; As- 
 sembly removed, 76; German 
 armistice of 1918, 412 
 
 Vesle River, 401 
 
 Veto Act. See Parliament Act 
 
 Victor Emmanuel, 10, 97 
 
 Victor Emmanuel II, 15, 98 
 
 Victor Emmanuel III, 102 
 
428 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Victoria (colony), 176, 181 
 Victoria, Queen, death, 152; dia- 
 mond jubilee, 151-152; Em- 
 press of India, 136, i6g 
 Vienna, 108, 318, 320, 411 
 Villafranca, Peace of, 9, 10 
 Vimy Ridge, 385 
 Vladivostok, 265, 277 
 
 Waldeck-Rousseau, 85, 86 
 
 Wales, disestablishment, 165 
 
 Wallachia, 229 
 
 War, conduct of, 295; costs, 
 291 ■ see also Armaments ; 
 World War 
 
 " War zone," 368, 369, 373 
 
 Warsaw, 345 
 
 Wealth. See Plutocracy 
 
 Wellington, N. Z., 179 
 
 Western front of World War, 
 map for 1914-15, 337; map for 
 191 8, 405 
 
 Weyler, General, 222 
 
 William I, 17, 18, 32, 38 
 
 WiHiam II, 18, 38; abdication 
 and flight, 413, 414; indiscre- 
 tions, 60-61 ; personality, 53 ; 
 quoted in 1917 and 1918 on 
 the war, 390, 395; reign, 
 52 
 
 William of Wied, 315 
 
 Wilson, President, correspond- 
 ence with Germany, 368, 371, 
 372 
 
 Witte, Sergius de, 259 
 
 Woman suffrage, England, 122, 
 141 ; New Zealand, 180 ; Nor- 
 way, 218 
 
 Wood, General Leonard, 365 
 
 Workingmen's and Soldiers* 
 Councils. See Soviets 
 
 World War, 316; cause, 318; 
 events in 1914, 331 ; in 1915, 
 342; in 1916, 353; in 1917, 383; 
 in 1918, 395 ; nations and in- 
 terests involved, 331, 332, 342; 
 responsibility, 330, 331 
 
 Wytschaete Ridge, 397 
 
 "Young Ireland," 127 
 
 "Young Italy," 4, 5 
 
 "Young Turks," 243-244, 297, 
 298; difficulties, 301, 305; gov- 
 ernment, 302, 303, 305 
 
 Ypres, 343, 397, 402 
 
 Yser River, 335 
 
 Yuan Shih K'ai, 281. 282 
 
 Zimmermann, 373, 374 
 Zola, fimile, 81, 83 
 Zurich, 209 
 
BY CHARLES DOWNER HAZEN 
 
 Professor of History, Columbia University 
 
 EUROPE SINCE 1815 
 
 Octavo, with 14 colored maps. Library edition. $i.00 
 net. 
 
 The author starts at the Congress of Vienna, and 
 comes down to and explains the situation out of which 
 the present war has developed. The style is fresh and 
 attractive, the matter authoritative, the scope widely 
 inclusive. 
 
 " Has easily the field in English. For the last twenty-five 
 years it is almost without a competitor. Should be on every 
 book-shelf for reading or reference." — Harvard Graduates' 
 Magazine. 
 
 ALSACE-LORRAINE UNDER GERMAN RULE 
 
 12mo. 3rd printing. ;^1.30 net. 
 
 Belgium has suffered under our own eyes, but the 
 earlier fate of Alsace-Lorraine lies in a period of 
 European history which is hazy to most Americans. 
 This book provides a brief and reliable account of the 
 raatter. It gives the facts upon which opinion may 
 safely rest. 
 
 " By far the best short, yet actually sufficient, presentment 
 of a question that is at the very heart of the present struggle." 
 — Boston Transcript. 
 
 "The first volume of note in this field of history. The 
 author's 'magic of style' makes his books the most widely 
 circulated of any American historian's writings, and their 
 great popularity is based as much on their accuracy and fair- 
 ness as on their readability." — Publisher^ Weekly. 
 
 HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 
 
 PUBLISHERS NEW YORK 
 
BOOKS FOR THESE TIMES 
 THE PEOPLE'S PART IN PEACE 
 
 ByORDWAY TEAD 
 
 The economic basis of the League of Nations, and the 
 question of how labor is to be represented. ($1.10 net.) 
 
 PROPOSED ROADS TO FREEDOM : 
 
 SOCIALISM. ANARCHISM AND SYNDICALISM 
 
 B})BERTRAND RUSSELL, author of " Why Men Fight'* 
 
 The London Times: "A remarkable book by a remark- 
 able man." ($1.50 net.) 
 
 THE SIX HOUR DAY: 
 
 AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS 
 
 By LORD LEVERHVLME 
 
 London Christian World: "Here is the one clear voice 
 from the side of enlightened capitalism heard above the 
 babel of reconstructive chatter." ($3.50 net.) 
 
 THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS: 
 
 THE WAY TO THE WORLDS PEACE 
 
 By M. ERZBERGER, Member of the Reichstag. TranslateJ hy 
 Bernard Miall. 
 
 A German view of the League of Nations as presented by 
 one of Germany's radical leaders. ($2.25 net.) 
 
 THE PEACE-PRESIDENT: 
 
 A BRIEF APPRECIATION OF WOODROW WILSON 
 
 By WILLIAM ARCHER 
 
 The New York Sun: "Will reap the reward of time- 
 liness, but deserves . . . reward of attention for its own 
 merit." ($1.00 net.) 
 
 HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 
 PUBLISHERS NEW YORK 
 
BY WALTER LIPPMANN 
 
 DRIFT AND MASTERY 
 
 $L50 Net 
 
 Theodore Roosevelt in The Outlook: 
 
 "No man who wishes seriously to study our present 
 social, industrial and political life can afford not to read 
 it through and through and to ponder and digest it." 
 
 William Marion Reedy in The St. Louis Mirror: 
 
 "When 'A Preface to Politics' was published, I ven- 
 tured the opinion that it was the best book on politics since 
 Walter Bagehot's 'Physics and Politics.' Now he has fol- 
 lowed it with 'Drift and Mastery,' an even more brilliant 
 performance." 
 
 A PREFACE TO POLITICS 
 
 $1,50 Net 
 
 The Boston Transcript: 
 
 " In many respects it is the ablest brief book of its 
 kind published during the last ten years." 
 
 THE STAKES OF DIPLOMACY 
 
 $1.40 Net 
 
 J. B. Kerfoot in Life: \ 
 
 " Deals with human nature involved in international 
 human relations impersonally, yet brings significances per- 
 sonally home to us. A book that widens horizons and 
 quickens consciousness." 
 
 THE POLITICAL SCENE 
 An essay on the victory of 19 18. $1,00 Net 
 
 HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 
 
 Publishers New York 
 
MAKERS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 
 
 Biographies of men of all countries who have had a definite influence 
 on thought or action in the Nineteenth Century. 
 
 Edited by; BASIL WILLIAMS, author of " The Life of William 
 Pitt. ' ' Octavo, with frontispiece, each volume sold separately, 
 $2.25 net. 
 
 DELANE OF "THE TIMES" 
 By SIR EDWARD COOK 
 
 " In its human interest and its rapid power of character delineation 
 the book may be compared to Thayer's ' The Life of John Hay.' "—The 
 Literary Digest. 
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN 
 
 By LORD CHARNWOOD 
 
 " Bound to take a first rank in the literature of Lincoln, and in many 
 respects may be pronounced the best of the biographies yet produced."— 
 The Nation. 
 
 PORFIRIO DIAZ 
 By DAVID H ANN AY 
 
 " A volume of singular charm and of unrivaled value as an authentic 
 history of Diaz and the Mexico of his day." — The New York Tribune. 
 
 HERBERT SPENCER 
 By HUGH ELLIOT 
 
 " Rarelv, if ever, has the man and his work been set forth so com- 
 pactly and so lucidly as in Mr. Elliot's biographical study." — The Boston 
 Transcript. 
 
 ABDUL HAMID 
 
 By SIR EDWIN PEARS, author of "Forty Years in ConsfanHno- 
 pie, ' ' former President of the European Bar in Constantinople. 
 
 " An intimate study and searching analysis of the Turkish question 
 in its various ramifix:atior»s." — Boston Transcrpt. 
 
 LI HUNG CHANG 
 By J. O. P. BLAND 
 
 " Discloses most instru^ 
 Chinese; his strength and his weakness." — The Argonaut. 
 
 BISMARCK 
 
 By C. GRANT ROBERTSON 
 
 Of especial interest now, when the world is dewing the wreck of tte 
 Empire Bismarck built. The book contains much new material, including 
 the authentic text of the famous Ems dispatch. 
 
 HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 
 PUBLISHERS NEW YORK 
 
 Discloses most instructively the complex character of the great 
 
 ^,, — Yhe 
 
HISTORY BOOKS IN THE HOME UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 Absolutely new books, not reprints, 
 interest by men of world-wide reputation. 
 
 American History 
 
 TH£3 COIiONIAL PERIOD 
 
 (1607-1766) 
 
 By Charles McLean An- 
 drews, Professor of American 
 History, Yale. 
 THE WARS BETWEEN 
 ENGLAXD AND 
 AMERICA (1763-1815) 
 By Theodore C. Smith, Pro- 
 fessor of American History, 
 Williams College. 
 FROM JEFFERSON TO LIN- 
 COLN (1815-1860) 
 By William MacDonald, Pro- 
 fessor of History, Brown Uni- 
 versity. 
 THE CIVIL WAR (1854- 
 1865) 
 By Frederic L. Paxson, Pro- 
 fessor of American History, 
 University of Wisconsin. 
 RECONSTRUCTION AND 
 UNION (1865-1912) 
 By Paul Leland Haworth. 
 
 General History 
 
 LATIN AMERICA 
 
 By William R. Shepherd, 
 Professor of History, Colum- 
 
 GERMANY OP TO-DAY 
 
 By Charles Tower. 
 WAPOLEON 
 
 By H. A. L. Fisher, Vice- 
 Chancellor of Sheffield Uni- 
 versity, author of ^ The Re- 
 publican Tradition in Europe. 
 
 THE DAWN OF HISTORY 
 By J. L. Myers, Professor of 
 Ancient History, Oxford. 
 
 ROME 
 
 By W. Warde Fowler, author 
 of Social Life in Rome. 
 
 THE GROWTH OF EUROPE 
 By Grenville Cole. 
 
 MEDIEVAL EUROPE 
 
 By H. W. C. Davis, Fellow at 
 Balliol College, Oxford. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF ENG- 
 LAND 
 By A. F. Pollard, Professor 
 
 Cloth bound, good paper, clear type, 256 pages 
 
 per volume, bibliographies, indices, also maps 
 
 Excellent books, on topics of reall 
 Literary Digest, 
 of English History, Univer- 
 sity of London. 
 
 THE IRISH NATIONALITY 
 By Alice Stopford Green. 
 
 CANADA 
 
 By A. G. Bradley, author of 
 Canada in the Twentieth Cen- 
 tury. 
 
 THE RENAISSANCE 
 
 By Edith Sichel, puthor of 
 Catherine De Medici. 
 A HISTORY OF FREEDOM 
 OF THOUGHT 
 By John B. Bury, Regius Pro- 
 fessor of Modern History, 
 Cambridge. 
 THE FRENCH REVOLU- 
 TION 
 By HiLAiRE Belloc. 
 A SHORT HISTORY OF 
 W^AR AND PEACE 
 By G. H. Perris, author of 
 Russia in Revolution, etc. 
 HISTORY OF OUR TIME 
 (1885-1911) 
 By G. P. GoocH. A 
 picture" of the times, 
 THE PAPACY AND 
 ERN TIMES 
 By Rev. William Barry, D.D. 
 POLAR EXPLORATION 
 
 By Dr. W. S. Bruce, Leader 
 of the "Scotia" expedition. 
 THE OPENING - UP OF 
 AFRICA 
 By Sir H. H. Johnston. 
 THE CIVILIZATION O F 
 CHINA 
 By H. A. Giles, Professor of 
 Chinese, Cambridge. 
 PEOPLES AND PROBLEMS 
 OF INDIA 
 By Sir T. W. Holderness. 
 MODERN GEOGRAPHY 
 
 By Dr. Marion Newbigin. 
 MASTER MARINERS 
 
 By John R. Spears, author of 
 The History of Our Navy. 
 THE OCEAN. A General 
 Account of the Science 
 of the Sea 
 By Sir John Murray. 
 
 ^ ' ""* per 
 
 moving 
 MOD- 
 
 or illustrations where needed, 
 and sold separately. 
 
 Each complete 
 
 /^C. 
 
 net, 
 
 Volume 
 
 HENRY 
 
 PUBLISHERS 
 
 HOLT AND 
 
 COM PAN Y 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
AMERICAN HISTORICAL SERIES 
 
 Under the editorship of Charles H. Haskins, Professor of 
 History in Harvard University. 
 
 A series of text-books intended, like the American Science 
 Series, to be comprehensive, systematic, and authoritative. 
 The series will aim to justify the title "American" not only 
 by its American authorship but also by specifically regarding 
 American educational needs. 
 
 The treatment will be descriptive as well as narrative, and 
 due attention will be given to economic and social conditions 
 and to institutional development. 
 
 Ready 
 
 Europe Since 1815. ,, . . , ,. . 
 
 By Charles D. Hazen, Professor in Columbia University. School 
 
 Edition, $3.00. Library Edition, $3.75' 
 
 Modern European History. 
 
 By Charles D. Hazen. $i.75> 
 
 Historical Atlas. , „ , 
 
 By William R. Shepherd, Professor In Columbia University. 
 
 Atlas of Ancient History. 
 
 By William R. Shepherd. 90 cents. 
 
 American Diplomacy. 
 
 By Carl Russell Fish, Professor in the University of Wisconsin 
 School Edition, $2.50. Library Edition, $3.00. 
 History of England. 
 
 By L. M. Larson, Professor in the University of Illinois. $150. 
 
 In preparation 
 
 Medieval and Modern Europe. 
 
 By Charles W. Colby, Professor in McGill University. 
 The Reformation. 
 
 By Preserved Smith. 
 
 The Renaissance. 
 
 By Ferdinand Schevill, Professor in the University ofChicagro, 
 
 Europe in the XVH. and XVHI. Centuries. 
 By Sidney B. Fay, Professor in Smith College. 
 
 History of Greece. 
 
 By Paul Shorey, Professor in the University of Chicago. 
 History of Rome. 
 
 By Jesse B. Carter, Director of the American School of Clas* 
 
 sical Studies at Rome. 
 
 History of Germany. 
 
 By Guy Stanton Ford, Professor in the University of Minnesota. 
 History of the United States. 
 
 By Frederick J. Turner, Professor in Harvard University. 
 
 HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 
 
 PuBLISHEBS Iij£V^ YoRK 
 
 CJ 
 
 \> 
 
 **- 95. 
 
■^ n^ 
 
 
 "^n^ 
 
 - 0' 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 S^r 
 
 'oK 
 
 > V 
 
 
 > V, 
 
 
 0' 
 
 > 
 
 
 •s^ 
 
 ^\^ <^> 
 
 0- 
 
 
 ■o"^ '•:;^% 
 
 
 ^°-^-^ 
 
 
 *>-. o 
 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 ^^ '^ -?^ Treatment Date. MAY - 2002 
 
 ^^ * PreservationTechnologies 
 
 " ''^ A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
 "'P^. 111 Thomson Park Drive 
 
 Cranberry Township. PA 1 6066 
 
 'A' 
 
 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proces! 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 
<^. 
 
 .0^ 
 
 
 & 
 
 
 ^^-^^^ 
 
 V .^1 
 
 
 
 JC l.^; .°'. ■•^.' /"-^o, %:^,- 0^ 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 
 ."i^' 
 
 ^_ 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 .^^ 
 
 ^ OOBBS BROS. c, vP 
 
 -• ^ LIBRARY BINOINQ C,^ 0^ 
 
 ''^ ST.JIJGUSTINE 
 ^'''^ FLA. 
 
 32084 SI.U^W 
 
 v^ ^^ *."'<^*^^*K7^' . "^^ r'^ 
 
 
 
 
 

 009 474 441 6< 
 
 1 
 
 ;■