of firearms and explosives, or of any kinds of powder more powerful
than those now in use either for rifles or cannon.
3. To restrict the use of the formidable explosives now existing, and
to prohibit the throwing of projectiles or explosives of any kind from
balloons or by similar means.
4. To prohibit the use, in naval warfare, of submarine torpedo boats
or plungers, or other similar engines of destruction, and to adopt an
agreement not to construct, in the future, vessels with rams.
5. To apply to naval warfare the definitions of the Geneva Convention
of 1864 as amended by the additional articles of 1868.
6. To neutralize, in accordance with the same convention, ships and
boats engaged in saving those in danger of drowning during or after an
engagement.
7. To revise the declaration concerning the laws and customs of war
which was elaborated in 1874 by the Conference of Brussels but has
remained unratified to the present time.
8. To accept in principle the employment of the “good offices” of
mediation and optional arbitration in cases lending themselves
thereto, with the object of preventing armed conflicts between
nations; and to come to an understanding with respect to the mode of
applying these good offices, and to establish a uniform practice in
using them.
It is understood that all questions concerning the political relations
of states and the order of things established by treaties, and, in
general, all questions which do not directly fall within the programme
adopted by the cabinets, are to be absolutely excluded from the
deliberations of the conference.
When the text of the second circular is compared with the first, it can
be seen how much water had been poured into the fiery wine that was
first offered to the world. In the first document there is no trace of
points 3–7. Only in points 1 and 8 are the fundamental thoughts
preserved. The other six points were evidently inserted as a result of
the replies, recommendations, and opinions that Count Muravieff had
gathered in his journey through Europe, and perhaps also from personal
letters emanating from the various courts.
In the press, also, numerous utterances had declared that the only
reasonable and positive result which could be attained by the Conference
was to be found in modifying the regulations of war and in the domain of
the Red Cross. Here even those who were not opponents of war and
militarism would be able and willing to coöperate. Out of diplomatic
consideration for such persons the six points in question were inserted.
The famous military surgeon Professor Esmarch, a brother-in-law of the
German Empress, worked especially hard for the Red Cross at the
Conference.
By this introduction of questions concerning military customs and the
humanizing of war into the deliberations of the Peace Conference, a
wedge (surely not without purpose) was driven into it calculated to rob
it of its individual character. That was distinctly shown in the Second
Hague Conference, in 1907.
But I will not anticipate the historic evolution of things. For the time
being I will confine myself to the year 1899, the last year of the
departing century.
The conference was called; the date of its opening was set. Points 1 and
8 of the programme contained in essence everything that a complete
revolution in accordance with the opinions of the peace champions could
involve; and I remember that we—I mean my husband and myself and all our
colleagues—faced the event, when it was announced, as one would face a
momentous crisis full of promise, or rather already fulfilled. I was
conscious of this historic phenomenon not merely as something that was
taking place in the world without, but as my own inmost experience, as
altogether a phase of my personal destiny. And I regarded it as “the one
important thing.”
The skeptics of that day shrugged their shoulders at this notion, and
even the wise ones of to-day would largely smile at it. Certainly, they
might say, universal peace has not resulted from the Hague Conference;
on the contrary, horrible wars followed it, and since it was called and
repeated, the rivalry in increasing armaments has gone on with
accelerating strength.
It is hard to make headway against such naïve arguments when they are
based on succession of events rather than on their connection and their
causes. There are minds on the chessboard of society which absolutely
cannot see farther than from one square, from one move, to the next.
Assuredly, for the great majority the whole matter was something so
novel, so unprecedented, so unexpected, and it was so unapproachable by
familiar paths of thought and feeling, that the widespread misconception
of it was quite natural. For the rest of us, who for years had been
concentrating our labor, our thought, and our desires on this field, for
us who had traced its origins and seen the bright-shining goal clearly
outlined before us, for us it was just as natural to realize that the
new epoch—the warless day, _l’ère sans violence_, as Egidy used to call
it—had already come when the first steps toward its practical
inauguration were taken so publicly.
In January, 1899, my husband and I went to Berlin to work there in
behalf of the crusade, or at least to arrange for a meeting in behalf of
the coming Conference. Our first call was on the Russian ambassador,
Osten-Sacken. It was remarkable, but we found that he was no enthusiast
for the affair inaugurated by his _auguste maître_; his wife also showed
herself rather skeptical.
I addressed notes of invitation to the various leaders of political and
scientific circles of Berlin to meet for a discussion. Many of the
gentlemen responded to my call, and after a very interesting debate a
committee was formed to take charge of public demonstrations in favor of
the Peace Conference. Unfortunately, my diary of that period was not
kept up, and I cannot mention by name all those who responded to my
invitation and suggestion, or who declined it. I remember only that the
deputies, Theodor Barth and Professor Förster,—the latter also director
of the observatory,—were among the first group; that General du Verdy
wrote a very sympathetic letter, and that Bebel replied with the
following interesting note, which is still in my possession:
Berlin, January 31, 1899
Dear Madam:
You had the kindness to invite me to call last Sunday. Unfortunately,
I was unable to respond to your desire, because the letter did not
tell me where you were, and I was unable to learn until it was too
late.
Permit me herewith to add a few words regarding my position on the
question of the Russian Emperor’s peace manifesto, since I may take it
for granted that I have to attribute to this matter the honor of your
letter.
The Social-Democratic party is sympathetically disposed toward the
thought that underlies the manifesto. Up to the present time it has
been the only party that has opposed the development of militarism in
almost the same words as the Russian Emperor’s; it has been alone and
consistent in upholding the idea of national brotherhood for the
purpose of promoting the common interests of mankind.
The fact that now the sovereign of an empire like Russia, whose policy
hitherto has demanded militarism first of all and made it necessary,
should at this time appear as its opponent, is highly noteworthy, but
cannot prevent us from looking upon the action with a certain distrust
until it is proved by corresponding deeds that this is unjustified.
The calling of the Conference, with the familiar programme lately
published, is not as yet sufficient.
Moreover, there are at all events very important internal political
reasons that have incited the Russian government to undertake the
advocacy of the imperial plan, which otherwise would scarcely have
happened. Even an absolute autocrat is not supremely powerful.
For the reason here briefly summarized, the Social-Democratic party is
somewhat cool toward an agitation in behalf of the Emperor’s
manifesto; it cannot by a heart-and-soul participation in this
agitation undertake the responsibility for what will be said and done
towards the acceptance and glorification of the Emperor’s manifesto.
If representatives of the party should then wish to protest, this
would only cause discord, which would be detrimental to the cause
itself.
I believe, therefore, that it is in the interest of both sides to
march in separate columns in this campaign, and to allow each tendency
to advocate its special standpoint independently.
With great respect,
A. Bebel
While we were in Berlin a great service in honor of Egidy was held
(January 29). It was inspiring and elevating.
The next day there was a public meeting called by the Berlin Peace
Society, at which Dr. Hirsch, Schmidt-Cabanis the writer, and I made
addresses.
In response to an invitation from the Countess Gurowska we went from
Berlin for a fortnight’s visit at Château Montboron in Nice. I was to
speak both at Cannes and at Nice about the approaching conference. We
were met at the railway station at Nice by our hostess’s husband and
General Türr. It was just at the time of the great carnival, and the two
gentlemen took us to the city hall, where we had a fine view of the
battle of flowers. The following day we were again invited to the city
hall to witness the burning of Prince Carnival, a figure constructed of
straw.
The reception rooms of the hall were crowded with distinguished guests,
and among others I met Madame Juliette Adam. “You must come to-morrow to
the Baroness’s lecture,” said a gentleman of our group to her. “To a
lecture on peace? I?” cried the editor of _La Nouvelle Revue_.
“Certainly not, I am for war.” I was drawn into a discussion with her,
in which I defended my side in a low voice, she hers in a wrathful tone
well suited to the subject discussed.
The same evening I made the acquaintance of a very sympathetic
Frenchman, M. Catusse, who had just been appointed consul general for
France in Sweden. He proved to be a warm fellow-champion. Our
conversation—as was the case with almost all conversations at that
time—turned upon the _Affaire_. And then he told me the following: His
wife kept a diary. On one page in it, during the year 1894, it was noted
that an officer who had been sitting next her at a banquet, and who had
followed the trial and had the day before been present at the
degradation of Alfred Dreyfus, said to her after dinner, _Hier nous
avons condamné un innocent_ (“Yesterday we punished an innocent man”).
My lecture, which I delivered under the chairmanship of General Türr,
won me enthusiastic applause from a very large cosmopolitan audience.
Many of the Russians who were present asked to be presented to me in
order to express their appreciation; among others an elderly lady clad
in deep mourning, who announced that she was the mother of Marie
Bashkirtseff, that young genius who died so prematurely.
The next day I saw her in her own home, and found that it was a sort of
memorial temple to the departed; on all the walls there was nothing but
pictures painted by Marie Bashkirtseff, or representing Marie herself at
all periods of her life and in the most varying phases, always full of
beauty and charm. Neither could the sorrowful mother speak of anything
else than of her famous daughter.
A few days later I gave a lecture in Cannes. Luncheon on the _Arche de
Noé_; Italian singers on board; magnificent weather; guests Count
Rochechouart, the mayor, the president of the Nautical Club, Türr, and
another gentleman—I do not remember his name—with a brutal face. The
table talk turns on Dreyfus.
“I do not admit,” says Count Rochechouart, “that seven officers
condemned a comrade without being certain of their position.”
The Mayor: “Other people, not knowing the circumstances, have no right
to express an opinion.”
The Nautical President: “A dozen bullets ought to have been sent through
his body.”
Rochechouart: “I belong to only one league—it is impossible to be of
another—Déroulède’s.”
The Brutal Man: “Obviously; I should like to see you being anything
else.”
So these are my fellow-banqueters before a lecture on peace!
The lecture fell very flat. The hall was pretty empty. No enthusiasm. I
have not often made such a miserable speech. After the lecture, which
ended about four o’clock in the afternoon, we took a walk through the
wonderful city of gardens.
In Nice we were rejoiced by a call which brought back sweet
recollections of the beautiful days in the Caucasus. I read in the local
newspaper that Prince Lucien Murat and his wife, born Princesse de
Rohan, had come to make a visit to the Empress Eugénie in neighboring
Cimièz. I immediately wrote a note to my former little German pupil to
tell him that we were near at hand. The next day the young couple came
to see us. One cloud only darkened the delight of the reunion, namely,
the tragic death of Prince Achille Murat, Lucien’s father. The incident
was not mentioned.
On our return to Harmannsdorf our days were filled with preparations for
the journey to The Hague; I wrote numerous articles and sent letters to
all points of the compass. I had buried myself in Bloch’s great work and
had written him about it. In reply I received the following letter:
Warsaw, April 8, 1899
My dear Baroness:
Heartiest thanks for your kind lines. The service ascribed to me is,
however, only the result of the movement against war which has been
going on, and in which you personally, gracious Baroness, have taken
such an important part; and I must bear witness that your personal
talent, in my opinion, has accomplished more than all technical
arguments can possibly accomplish.
Unfortunately I could not write you sooner because I had an unusual
task to finish. Unfortunately, also, I am still so very busy that I
can only send a sketch in place of the desired programme.
In my opinion it would be best for an agitation to be made, to the end
that the Conference _in pleno_, or that single states, should
inaugurate an investigation as to the possibility of carrying through
a great war.
At this moment the governments are not humble enough, public opinion
is not as yet ripe enough, to be able to obtain results from the
Conference. It would be much more practical if the sessions could be
postponed until autumn, so as to let the separate states have time for
arranging investigations and preparing public opinion.
I will at all events endeavor to meet you so as to talk the matter
over more in detail. I shall be in London about the fourteenth, at
Hotel Cecil, and shall be at the Grand Hôtel in Paris toward the
eighteenth, and there I expect to remain about a fortnight.
I will do my best to promote matters in the direction indicated.
It is impossible for me to predict to-day whether I shall be able to
get to Scheveningen. At any rate I shall take the liberty of writing
you in regard to this, and one of the principal motives of my desire
to be there would be to have the opportunity of becoming better
acquainted with you.
With genuine loyalty and respect
J. Bloch
I also asked Prince Scipione Borghese to come to The Hague, as I had
just been informed that he had come out in favor of the peace cause. He
wrote back:
Felice Scovolo, Lago di Garda, April 20, 1899
My dear Madam:
Your pleasant letter, which I am very late in answering, has excited
our desires more than you would believe possible. To spend some time
with you and _un groupe du high-life pacifique_, closely following the
work of this Conference, which is without contradiction one of the
culminating facts of the history of our century, seems to us a
delicious dream.
Unhappily your interesting invitation will preserve all the beauty of
a dream, which is always somewhat melancholy because of its unreality.
The marriage of my youngest sister to Count Hoyos, which is to be
celebrated toward the end of May in the depths of Hungary, calls us in
that direction, and up to that time I am kept here by the carrying out
of a social and agrarian transformation in which I am enormously
interested and which keeps me at its beck and call.
As for the Conference, the idea of which is in itself so beautiful and
its convocation such a great victory, I hope that the good will of
certain governments may compensate for the ill will of so many others,
and that the whole thing will not remain in the realm of ideas but
will give us some practical fruits....
You will find in our two Italian delegates, Count Nigra and Count
Zanini, two charming men who are personally very well disposed.
Sincerely yours
Scipione Borghese
I received from Paris the subjoined letter, from one who was quite
unknown to me. It was the first step of an animated intercourse both
epistolary and personal,—I may say of a faithful friendship and
collaboration which has not yet ceased to ally me with the author, the
most successful peace worker in France.
Paris, April 10, 1899
My dear Madam:
Since I have abandoned diplomacy to enter Parliament, I have begun to
publish in the _Revue des deux mondes_ a series of studies on the
precarious state of Europe and on the necessity imposed on all
civilized states of uniting in behalf of progress and of war on evil.
These studies, the first dated April 1, 1896, the second July 19,
1897, will shortly be brought to a close by a third part, in which
international arbitration and relative disarmament are brought forward
as the conclusion.
My nomination as one of the French delegates to The Hague will prevent
me from finishing this long work, though at the same time permitting
me to make it more united. I perceive, in fact, that I still require
many indispensable data not found in books. Perhaps I might obtain
them by addressing myself to your kindness of heart, since you allow
none of the manifestations of public opinion regarding universal peace
to escape you.
This is the question that preoccupies me: Is popular sentiment in
Austria-Hungary generally and personally hostile to war? No one can
know that, but still one may have an impression. What is yours?
If in each country in the world a like opinion, not in the clouds but
well thought out, could be obtained, with what force it could and
should weigh on the governments and consequently on their delegates at
the Conference.
Please accept, madam, the very respectful admiration of a Frenchman
who, without knowing you, is devoted to you.
D’Estournelles de Constant
In my reply to this letter I brought up the hindrances which, through
the apathetic and sometimes hostile opinions of influential persons and
of the masses, were blocking the work of the Conference. From this point
of view I pleaded for a continuity of the international conferences;
for, while I expected everything from the development of the movement as
already started, certainly not much was to be expected from this first
session, made up as it was of at least as many doubters and opponents as
adherents. Thereupon Baron d’Estournelles wrote me a long letter, from
which I translate the following passage:
I am completely in accord with you, gracious lady, only I am somewhat
more optimistic than you are with regard to the results of the
Conference. I believe, and the more I think it over the more I
believe, that the Conference cannot help doing some good—more than is
expected of it. The members will feel the revelation of the living
world, the wishes of humanity, and the nearness of the terrible
dangers that threaten Europe.
None of the governments represented at The Hague will be willing to
expose themselves to the unpopularity, the dissatisfaction, the
ridicule, of the people, which would be evoked by a failure or a
wretched, disappointing result.
Therefore, voluntarily or involuntarily, some good will be
accomplished, and, once on this path, it must be pursued to the end.
It will be impossible, it will be dangerous, to hold back.
The pamphlet entitled “Perpetual Peace,” by the Munich professor Von
Stengel, came out. In this all the arguments of the opponents, all the
glorification of war and of armaments, that have ever been brought
against the notion of peace are summed up, and there is added
out-and-out derision of the approaching conference daydream. And the
author of this pamphlet had been nominated by the German government as
its representative at the Hague Conference! This aroused great
consternation in our circles, and the German peace associations
protested publicly.
From Austria, Lammasch, professor of international law, and Count
Welsersheimb, attached to the diplomatic service, were appointed as
delegates. The latter, hitherto a stranger to me, made me a call in
order to secure facts relating to the peace movement.
On the eleventh of May I received a telegram from Bloch. The desire to
form a committee, consisting of political economists, military men, and
politicians, which should institute and publish investigations
concerning the presumable results of a future war between the great
powers, characterized the aim of Bloch’s plans and action. He
telegraphed:
Shall reach The Hague the sixteenth. Hope to find room at your hotel.
In case Conference at the beginning fails to institute serious
investigation, plan to form a committee which shall undertake this
work. I have letters from Prussian generals which show that the idea
is already ripe. I am ready to guarantee the expenses. It would be
very desirable, using Vienna as a rendezvous, to secure a number of
names of political economists and statisticians, and, if possible, of
military men. I think that, for execution of the plan, reporters on
special divisions of my work, or independent workers, should be
nominated, who subsequently should be coördinated through a central
committee. Any other method, however, equally acceptable.
Bloch.
The two grand masters of the movement, Hodgson Pratt and Élie Ducommun,
sent me the following letters before my departure for The Hague:
St. Germain-en-Laye [without date]
Madame la Baronne:
I see from the newspapers that you are, as is most fitting, at The
Hague. You are a witness of one of the greatest events of modern
times, and I venture to write a few lines to congratulate you on the
fact that you have been able to contribute to the bringing about of
this great event. All changes in human affairs are in these days due
to the all-powerful influence of _public opinion_; and you have
possessed special gifts and opportunities of contributing to the
formation of that great power of opinion. The very fact of your being
_a woman_, and of your being a member of the aristocracy in an
essentially aristocratic and military nation, has powerfully attracted
attention in Continental Europe by your writings and speeches. You
have been able to speak and write with a special and personal
experience not possessed by the majority of the advocates of
international unity and concord. To this work you have brought the
great gifts of eloquence and sincere enthusiasm. God has blessed your
efforts in enabling you to see at least some of the results of your
devoted and unselfish work.
In such a moment it is alike a pleasure and a duty to give expression
to the feelings which, as a humble brother during many years, I
entertained in regard to your great services with all my heart.
I hoped to have said this to you _viva voce_ at Bern a few weeks ago,
and was much disappointed at not seeing you there. I regretted that
the members of the commission did not see their way to the appointment
of two or three experts in the question of arbitration tribunals, and
so forth, such as Mr. La Fontaine, and others.
But doubtless there are delegates who will do all that is necessary,
and influence their colleagues by their knowledge and earnestness. It
is a profound source of satisfaction to know that Sir Julian
Pauncefote is taking part in the proceedings; no better man in our
cause could have been sent.
I desire to be heartily remembered to the Baron von Suttner; and
remain with profound esteem,
Yours truly
Hodgson Pratt
Bern, May 10, 1899
My dear Madam and dear Colleague: