clung together. We passed by Pressburg, by Gran with its proud episcopal
palace, and at Waitzen a deputation from Budapest which had been sent
out to meet us came aboard,—three members of the Congress committee, and
with them a reporter of the _Pesti Napló_ (the “_Budapest Journal_”). It
was already evening and all the lights were ablaze when we slowly came
into port. On the dock stood other members of the committee, among them
Director Kemény, who greeted us with an address; and gathered about was
a dense throng shouting _Éljen!_ (“Hail!”) at the top of their voices.
Carriages in waiting whirled us all to the Hotel Royal, where General
Türr and a number of other colleagues were already awaiting us. That was
the day of our arrival, September 15. By the entries in my diary I will
now bring in review before my memory the week of the Budapest Congress
and Conference.
September 16. Interviews the whole morning. Leopold Katscher brings me
newspapers and tells about the preliminary labors. Luncheon in the Hotel
Hungaria given by General Türr with only a few intimate friends. Visits
with Karolyi, Banffy, and others. In the evening of this day before the
opening of the Congress all the delegates are invited to a reception in
the great drawing-rooms of the Hotel Royal. Türr and Count Eugen Zichy,
the great Asiatic traveler, act as hosts. At supper various addresses:
Pierantoni, a giant in stature, with a stentorian voice, speaks in
Italian, and as fascinatingly as if he were a famous reader rather than
a famous teacher of international law. I make the acquaintance of Dr.
Ludwig Stein, professor in Bern University, whose philosophical
feuilletons in the press have long been a delight to me. Frédéric Passy
and Frédéric Bajer speak, and the “Peace Fury” is also obliged to take
part.
September 17. Opening session in the council chamber of the new City
Hall. Before the door, in the entrance hall, and on the stairs are
stationed pandours, splendid in their lace-adorned uniforms and armor.
It reminds one of the reception at the Capitol. The hall is packed. The
galleries are densely crowded. Türr takes his place on the platform
between the Minister of the Interior and the Mayor. He opens the
Congress with a brief, vigorous address. Here is a passage from it:
Not so very long ago there were princes and noblemen who fought one
another and exercised jurisdiction over their subjects and serfs. If
any one at that day had told them that the time would come when they
would be required to bring their quarrels before a judge, they would
have declared that person a dreamer, a Utopian, or something worse.
And now these great lords are compelled to appear before the judge,
where all their former serfs stand on the same footing with them.
This change might be brought about also in the relations of the
powers, and all the easier since it does not here concern two or three
hundred princes and thousands of members of the high and lower
nobility. We have to-day six great powers; and even these have
united,—some in the Triple Alliance, the others in a friendly union;
and all for the purpose of preserving peace.
Now then, only one further step is required. If these two groups
unite, then the smaller states will join, and the free confederation
of the European powers is accomplished.
After the session the participants in the Congress are conducted to the
Millennial Exposition,—the “Historical Exposition,” ... a thousand years
of Hungarian history, from the primitive simplicity of the semibarbarous
time of Arpád down to the refined industry of the highly developed—let
us say only quarter-barbarous—to-day. And if another thousand years pass
by and again an exposition illustrates the course of development, will
the little medals with the word _pax_ on them, such as we all have
attached to our clothes as tokens, at that time be found perchance among
the articles of apparel?
In the evening a garden party in Oes-Budavar. Everywhere at the
appearance of the troops of peace ring forth from the densely encircling
public hearty shouts of _Éljen!_
September 18. An interesting session. Élie Ducommun reads the report
about the events of the past year. In the first place the progress of
arbitration and the other successes and labors of the League; then a
survey of the military events in Egypt, Abyssinia, Cuba, and Madagascar;
finally, the latest events in Turkey. “Whoever may have been the
originators of the atrocities, every civilized man must condemn them,
just as he must condemn those who permitted the atrocities.”[10]
James Capper, the sympathetic Englishman with the white, apostolic head,
with the hearty, ringing voice, gets the floor. “The report of the
Central Bureau,” he says, “shows so clearly the absurdity of the
so-called armed peace.... What! The many armies, the terrible engines of
destruction, are for the purpose of furnishing and maintaining peace,
are they? and yet six million soldiers have not sufficed to prevent the
infamies that have been taking place in the Orient! We should not look
idly on while brigands trample down a whole nation! If I see in the
street a child attacked by villains, I consider it my duty to interfere
with both fists in defense of the one attacked, and if in the struggle I
should have to lose my life, I would do it willingly!” Loud applause. We
all feel it would be a legitimate use of force to protect the persecuted
against force.
A young French priest, Abbé Pichot, moves that the Congress send an
address to the Pope, begging him to grant the movement his support: it
is known to him that Leo XIII had the peace cause much at heart, and
that a word of approval from that quarter would be of the highest value.
I spring to my feet and second the motion. I also know for a fact that
the Pope has frequently of late years spoken against preparations for
war and in favor of the international arbitration tribunal; but it is
not sufficiently well known, because these utterances were made to a
Russian publicist and an editor of the _Daily Chronicle_. The Catholic
press and the Church generally, as well as the whole Catholic world,
have failed to hear those words. How very different would be the effect
if the Pope should direct these observations of his directly to the
millions of his faithful. So then, I urged, let the respectful request
be submitted to him that he embody in an encyclical the expressions of
encouragement already often pronounced by him in the presence of the
advocates of peace. Some one objects: the motion could not fail to
offend those of other beliefs, especially freethinkers; no religious
tendency should be introduced. Frédéric Passy explains that we are
dealing not with religious but with humanitarian demonstrations. The
motion is carried.
In the evening, gala performance of the opera _Der Geiger von
Cremona_.[11]
I receive a letter from Dr. Julius Ofner, deputy to the Austrian
Parliament. I give the text of it here:
... I should gladly have taken part in the deliberations on the
international arbitration tribunal. The talk that is made on this
point seems to me too timid, too much directed to the welfare of the
states and too little to their duties; _apostles do not flatter_.
From a legal point of view there can be no doubt: no law without a
judge; no one can decide in his own cause, and history teaches that if
states desire even the most unrighteous things, they have always found
crown jurists to defend them and declare them lawful. As long,
therefore, as there is no tribunal erected for international
differences, there will be international politeness, international
morals, but no international justice. The strong is infallible;
injured justice turns only against the weak. The appeal to
sovereignty, which, it is said, must not be curtailed, is nothing but
a cloak for the desire to be permitted to do arbitrary wrong. For all
law limits the single individual for the advantage of the rest, limits
arbitrariness for the advantage of universal liberty. Law and
righteousness are at the foundation of all culture, and what Kant said
in regard to mankind in general applies to states,—“If there were no
law it would not be worth while for men to live on earth.”
There is nothing sensational in the session. The afternoon is spent at
the Othon, a journalists’ club. In Türr’s company my niece and I make a
call on Prime Minister Banffy.
September 20. Outing for the members of the Congress. We are taken on
special steamboats to the Margareteninsel, where the committee provide a
luncheon. The weather is splendid—the tables are set in the open air,
surrounded by the wonderful grounds of the park. “Do you know, my dear
colleagues and friends,” said General Türr, “this island was formerly a
wilderness. The owner, Archduke Joseph, by clearing, cultivating, and
decorating it, has made a paradise of it. So may that wilderness which
to-day prevails in international life be turned by the civilizing power
of the work of peace into a blooming land like the Margareteninsel.”
Of course others also speak. Deep emotion is caused, however, when an
Italian delegate, a former captain on the general staff, Conte di
Pampero, lifting up his eight-year-old son and standing him on the
table, asks permission to speak in the name of the youngest member of
the Congress, and, laying his hand as if in blessing on the lad’s head,
adjures those present to bring up their children, just as he is doing,
to hate war and love humanity....
September 21. Very lively debate over dueling. A delegate—Félix Lacaze
from France—makes the motion that all Peace Societies shall require
their members to agree to decline all duels. A great controversy arises.
Count Eugen Zichy declares that if this is carried he must as a matter
of honor resign from the Union. Such an obligation cannot be undertaken
in certain countries and in certain circles. The English members, who
are indignant that the duel is being discussed, are provoked and refuse
to allow Count Zichy to have the floor a second time, although he
declares he wishes to speak in the line of conciliation. Finally Houzeau
de Lehaye, the ever conciliatory, offers a compromise resolution which,
although declaring that nothing can be mandatory upon the members,
nevertheless urges them to make every effort to discourage the use of
the duel, as contradictory to the principles which they are supporting,
and to secure the execution of the laws that relate to it.
I have made an interesting new acquaintance,—a Russian by the name of
Nepluief. He introduced himself to me during a recess in the
proceedings, and is urging me to support his ideas. He has founded in
his country an institution based on the principles of education for
peace. He gives the impression of being a _grand seigneur_, and at the
same time a deeply religious man. His idea in coming here is to acquaint
the Congress with the institution which he has called into life, and
have it imitated everywhere. He called himself on his visiting card
“Président de la Confrérie ouvrière de l’Exaltation de la Croix.” In
this way he imparts an ecclesiastical tinge to his socialistic
undertaking. A multimillionaire, possesser of wide landed estates and
numerous factories in the Government of Chernigof, he began his career
as a diplomat, but gave it up in order to devote himself wholly to the
task of elevating the Russian peasants morally and materially. At his
own expense he founded popular schools for industrial and agricultural
training, and peasant unions which he calls “Brotherhoods.” From the
first he gave these unions a share in the profits of his undertaking;
later he turned over his whole property to their complete control,
reserving for himself only the title of life president of these
enterprises. But things did not run smoothly. For years he had to
contend with the ill will of the Russian bureaucracy, which suspected
him of being a socialist. Finally, however, his work of education
brought him satisfactory results. He has explained his methods and
experiences in a pamphlet, which he distributed to the members of the
Congress. He himself departed from Budapest the same day.[12]
In the evening a banquet is given by the city.
September 22. A deputation from the Society for the Protection of
Animals call upon me and beg me to support their endeavors. I reply that
I have at that moment a book under way, entitled _Schach der Qual_
(“Check to Suffering”), in which there is to be a chapter pleading for
our poor dumb fellow-creatures, that are so cruelly treated.
Final session. At half past one General Türr ends the Congress with the
greeting _Auf Wiedersehn_. The “meeting again” takes place two hours
later, in the Hotel Royal, where a farewell dinner is given to the
president and the committee and the rest of us. Malaria—Olga
Wisinger—had taken charge of the arrangements. But even now there is no
general breaking up, for many of the participants remain here in order
to be present at the opening to-morrow of the Interparliamentary
Conference.
We were also among those who were going to remain a few days longer. As
early as the sixteenth of August the following letter had reached us at
Harmannsdorf:
Interparliamentary Conference, Hungarian Group
Budapest, August 15
Your Highness:
The useful zeal and the self-sacrificing and profitable labors which
you have undertaken in the interest and service of universal peace
make it a pleasant duty for us to invite you, as well as your husband,
and your niece the Baroness von Suttner, to the Interparliamentary
Conference which is to open at Budapest on the twenty-second of
September.
As you are aware, only members of legislatures can take part in the
Conference; yet it may interest you to follow the sessions from the
gallery and to participate in the festivities and excursions.
In this hope, etc.
Koloman v. Szell, Chairman
Aristide v. Deszewffy, Secretary
of the Executive Committee
I return to my Budapest diary.
September 23. Yesterday, as on the eve of the Congress, a great soirée
in the Parkklub, cards of invitation for which were sent out by Koloman
von Szell. This clubhouse is really beautiful—massive, splendid, with
English comfort. All the members of the Conference are present; we have
a joyous meeting with old acquaintances,—Stanhope, Beernaert, Cremer,
Descamps, and others. Many ladies of Hungarian society and the wives of
the members of the Conference are there. Almost all the Hungarian
ministers, Baron Banffy at their head; Counts Eugen Zichy, Albert
Apponyi, Szapary, Esterhazy, and many journalists and artists. Our old
Passy is closely surrounded. Maria Louise looks wondrously pretty and,
it seems to me, is turning the heads of several of the Magyars! Also
that northern maiden, Ranghild Lund, the beauty of the conference days
at Rome, is here and arousing much admiration. John Lund comes up to me
and brings me a message from Björnson. I make the acquaintance of a
young Countess Kalnoky (unmarried and very independent), and her free
and broad-minded views greatly appeal to me. Then we are joined by a
Countess Forgac; she has much to tell us of Empress Elisabeth, among
other things the following: Some spirit communications had been made
(presumably at a spiritualistic séance) to the effect that the place
where the Crown Prince Rudolf is staying is worse than hell and no
prayers are of any avail; the Empress is full of despair about it.
Melinda Karolyi and I exchange glances equivalent to many exclamation
marks.
Servants bring round delicious edibles and drinkables. A journalist
remarks, “One need not be a member of a peace league to find this sort
of international meeting decidedly pleasanter than those where bombs and
grenades are served.”
To-day the opening session takes place in the House of Magnates. Before
the building, on the edge of the street, fastened together with garlands
of flowers, stand masts, from which float the flags of all the nations
that participate in the Conference,—an object lesson for the passers-by.
That conception of a “European Confederation,” still so strange, is here
expressed in the language of emblems.
We reach our places in the gallery before the members of the
Conference make their appearance in the hall, so we watch them as they
come in deliberately and take their places. In the ministerial chairs,
where of late the King’s Hungarian councilors sat, now the foreign
parliamentarians are taking their seats. Frédéric Passy is between
Cardinal Schlauch and Minister Darany. Gobat mounts the platform and
proposes that the president of the Hungarian House of Deputies,
Desider Szilagyi, be chairman of the Conference. He accepts and
delivers the welcoming address. Now follow the speeches of old
acquaintances,—Pirquet, Descamps, Beernaert, Von Bar, Bajer, and
others. Apponyi is new and surprising to me. What a speaker! He has a
tall, elegant figure, a powerful barytone voice, and an easy mastery
of foreign tongues.
At the second session at four o’clock begin the actual transactions.
Point I: “Permanent International Arbitration Tribunal.” Descamps
reports that he has sent to all the sovereigns and governments the
memorandum in regard to this question, drawn up in accordance with the
motion of the previous year. Most of the governments had replied
favorably to the principles, but the most decisive answer came from St.
Petersburg, from the recently departed Prince Lobanof.
In the evening a great soirée at the Prime Minister’s.
I see that my diary has not kept a very strict account of the various
phases of the transactions of the Conference. But the official protocol
lies before me and I will here dwell upon something that seems to me
important in the historical development of the peace cause. In that
session of September 22, 1896, the following resolution was offered by
Pierantoni:
The Seventh Interparliamentary Conference requests all civilized
states to call a diplomatic conference in order that the question of
an international court of arbitration may be laid before it; at this
conference the labors of the Interparliamentary Union shall serve as a
basis for further resolves.
A Conference of Diplomatists. In this term does there not already
ring—how shall I express it?—a note suggestive of the conferences at The
Hague, in which, indeed, the labors of Descamps and La Fontaine served
as the foundation of the establishment of the Hague Tribunal.
And still another debate of historical interest. During the session of
the twenty-fourth of September the order of the day contains the
question whether those nations that have no parliament may be able to
participate in the Interparliamentary Conferences, and what their status
shall be. Count Albert Apponyi, who has composed a memorial on this
subject, which is distributed through the hall, makes the report. He
refers to the memorial, and confines himself to a brief exposition. He
reserves the privilege of again expressing his views at the conclusion
of the debate; now he will only state the motion:
That an amendment be added to the statutes to the effect that the
Conferences shall admit to their deliberations also the delegates of
sovereigns, rulers, and governments, as well as of the Russian
Imperial Council or any similar institution in nonconstitutional
countries, in so far as such delegates are accredited by their
governments. The Management (_Bureau_) shall be authorized to inform
the rulers and governments of nonconstitutional countries that the
Conference would be pleased to welcome their delegates to its
deliberations.
Lewakowski, member of the Austrian Parliament, opposes Apponyi’s motion;
its aim is wholly and solely the admission of Russia.
“We are here,” he declares, “as the representatives of the people, and
we are working here in the spirit of our commissions. The Russian nation
cannot send any representative that can have the same authority as we
have.” Norton, Snape, Pirquet, Rahusen, and Passy speak in favor of the
motion.
M. G. Conrad[13] opposes the motion in the most violent terms: “Either
we are a parliamentary conference or we are not. We do not need to know
what the governments say; we want to hear the views of the people
themselves. And the views of the Russian people you surely will not be
likely to hear from the mouths of the delegates of the Russian
government.”
Stanhope favors the adoption of the motion. The magnificent object of
the Conference, he declares, would only be furthered by it. There
actually exists in Russia something that corresponds to a parliamentary
body, and, who knows? some day, directly through the influence of our
Conference, something may develop that will lead to constitutionalism.
Then Count Apponyi brings the debate to a conclusion. He takes strong
issue with his opponents. In reply to Lewakowski he declares that
numerous gentlemen are sitting here who have not received their
credentials from their nation and indeed are members of the upper houses
appointed by their sovereigns. In the one scale are placed the
objections that have been adduced, in the other the immense importance
of the fact that such a great empire as Russia, occupying a third of all
Europe, ought to share in our deliberations. This question came up for
the first time in the Hungarian Group, and was agitated in the interest
of those countries that have, to be sure, no parliaments, and yet desire
to participate in our labors and to battle for the peace of the world.
These also have the right to collaborate with us in the great work of
civilization. We are all pursuing the one aim of helping a righteous
cause to victory, and any kind of assistance can be welcomed by us. The
honored president of the former Conference has sent to all the
governments his memorandum regarding the Court of Arbitration, and the
most sympathetic reply was that received from the late Prince Lobanof.
Descamps: “That is correct.”
Apponyi: “In Russia, as may be seen by many indications, the tendency to
take part in European affairs is strong; for some time Russia has been
represented at most Congresses. We must give her the opportunity to
share also in our labors; it is indeed not beyond the bounds of
possibility that the development of affairs in Russia will be in this
way favorably influenced. At all events the sympathy of such a powerful
state could only strengthen our endeavors.”
It is interesting to connect with this debate of September 24, 1896, the
fact that on the 24th of August, 1898, the manifesto calling the Peace
Conference at The Hague emanated from Russia.
One other circumstance must also be mentioned here. The then Russian
consul, Vasily, was present at the sessions and exercises of the
Conference at Budapest, and communicated to his government accurate and
sympathetic reports. He was an unhesitating friend of peace. His report
was, as I afterwards learned, cast in the form of an impassioned plea
for cessation of war preparations. The suggestion did not receive the
approval of his superiors, and remained for some time forgotten. A year
later, however, when Lord Salisbury in his Guildhall address
animadverted on the endless increase in armament among the nations, and
declared that the only hope of escaping general ruin lay in the union of
the powers in some kind of an international constitution, then M. Vasily
presented anew his idea in behalf of an attempt to bring about an
international understanding on this point. Vasily was attached to the
ministry of foreign affairs; he naturally communicated his ideas to his
chief, Count Lamsdorff, who, in turn, laid them before the Emperor.
When, in 1906, the Interparliamentary Conference met in London, a
parliament was sitting in St. Petersburg which sent its representatives
to England, not in the name of a group, but of the whole Duma. To be
sure, on the very day when, at the opening session in Westminster Hall,
the Russian delegate was to deliver his salutatory, the news arrived
that the Duma was prorogued. The Russians were obliged, therefore, to
quit London with their business unaccomplished, and Campbell-Bannerman,
who opened the Interparliamentary Conference, was given the opportunity
of perpetrating his _mot_, which afterwards became so famous: _La douma
est morte, vive la douma!_
After this brief excursion into the future I return to the Budapest
notes in my diary.