accurately, with the left wing of the present régime,—was on strike,
Deschanel, president of the chamber, included; the press was partly
indifferent, partly hostile. I am afraid that this Conference will
have a bad reactionary influence on men’s minds everywhere. The German
group seemed to me infected by the French unsteadiness; it was
numerously represented, but evaporated almost completely toward the
end.
Perhaps I see things in too dark colors, but truly I have no personal
reasons for doing so; my efforts were received in the friendliest
spirit, and my group, numerously represented, made the most delightful
picture. I can guarantee the soundness of this group.
But I do not give up the cause in France; as far as it was permitted
me by the brevity of the time and the general flight of those
concerned, I tried to get into touch with the absent parliamentary
circles, and I shall certainly be able to strengthen these relations
and perhaps serve as a neutral connecting link in the interest of our
cause. No Frenchman is capable of uniting two of his fellow-countrymen
who are not wholly unanimous in their views, even though it concerns
an object highly regarded by both; not even our very sympathetic
friend D’Estournelles, who is in great favor in all camps, at least
socially. And without France nothing can be accomplished.
If you ask the question, Who is to blame for this? I can only reply,
All. But who is most to blame? That would be a long chapter, and I
will not go into it, although I have a definite answer ready. I hope
you will not lay this pessimistic statement of the case up against me;
but we must see clearly, not so as to be discouraged, but so as to act
in a suitable manner.
With great respect
Your wholly devoted
Albert Apponyi
Our friend Dr. Clark, a Scotchman, who has never missed a Peace Congress
and has always distinguished himself by his clever speeches
characterized by a certain dry humor, had just been made the object of
bitter attacks by the British press. He sent me the following
explanation of the circumstances:
Ardnahane Cove, Dunbartonshire, September 11, 1900
Dear Madam von Suttner:
I have received your letter, for which I thank you very heartily.
These are indeed evil days for the cause with which we are associated,
though I cannot but think that the events of the last year must have
led many to the contemplation of the awful waste of life and suffering
caused by the present system of settling international disputes by
force of arms, and will induce them to work for the day when
arbitration shall take the place of war with its horrible human
sacrifice.
You mention the letters written to President Kruger and General
Joubert by me on the 29th of September of last year, which have lately
been published by Mr. Chamberlain and copied by the continental press.
It is quite true that there has been a great deal of misrepresentation
on that subject. For some months before the war began there had been a
small party in this country who had been working to bring about a
peaceable settlement. I had some correspondence with President Kruger
and General Joubert, in which I had advised them to make such
concessions to the British government that the calamity of war might
be averted, since the prosperity of South Africa must depend on the
good faith and friendly feeling between the two white races. The
published letters, to which you refer, are the last portion of this
correspondence, and were written less than a fortnight before the war
began. In my letter to President Kruger I gave him the result of an
interview which I had with Mr. Chamberlain, in which I endeavored to
induce him to accede to the repeated request which the Transvaal
government had made that matters at issue should be settled by
arbitration, and to consent that a permanent arbitration tribunal
should be formed to which all present and future disputes should at
once be submitted. I told him that the Transvaal government were
willing to submit the differences pending between the two governments
to a court of arbitration, consisting of the four chief justices of
South Africa, and to accept the Lord Chief Justice of England as
umpire in the event of the two colonial and two republican chief
justices not being able to agree,—a suggestion which, as you will have
seen, the colonial secretary was not able to accept.
The force of misrepresentation and calumny which the peace party here
have had to endure from the virulent and unscrupulous jingo press can
be estimated by the manner in which they have misrepresented my
warning to President Kruger. I knew, as every one who knew anything of
the geography of South Africa must have known, that the obvious line
of action for the Boers to adopt would be that of seizing the passes,
and I warned President Kruger that to do so would alienate the
sympathy of many of their supporters in this country and on the
continent of Europe. My words were deliberately misconstrued, and it
was asserted that I urged the Boers to seize the passes. Nothing
further from the truth can be imagined.
But, in spite of the difficulties with which we have had to contend,
there is, undoubtedly, a large minority here who are firmly convinced
that the war is an unjust one, and who regard the settlement by
annexation as another wrong against which they will continue to
protest. We shall go on working by all constitutional means for the
restoration of the independence of the two republics, believing that
by these means only can peace and prosperity exist once more in South
Africa. We believe that we are working in a just cause, and shall hope
in the not too distant future that we may be able to appeal to the
justice of this people, who will then have recognized the folly and
wickedness for which they have been made responsible.
We do not doubt the future. We are sure that it is with us. It is true
that the middle classes and the moderate liberals have abandoned their
old watchword of “Peace, retrenchment, and reform,” but the radicals
and socialists are standing firmly by these principles. I send you a
copy of the socialist paper _Justice_, which expressed fairly the
attitude of the democratic party. I have, as you know, opposed the
growth of socialism, which I formerly believed to be inimical to
freedom and progress, but I am considerably modifying my views. The
power for evil of the lawless and conscienceless capitalism which is
now rampant is so great, and entails such unlimited moral and physical
degeneracy, that I am convinced some form of collective action is a
necessity to put an end to its baneful influence.
The history of this miserable war determines us to stand more
determinedly by the principle of the substitution of arbitration for
war. It becomes clearer and clearer that no permanent settlement can
be based on war, and that, as between individuals, so between nations,
magnanimity is not only morally desirable, _but it is the best
policy_.
I am taking a yachting holiday in Scotland, but we may be overtaken by
a general election here at any time.
Thanking you again for your letter, believe me to remain
Yours faithfully
G. B. Clark
But in this Transvaal affair I must also let the _altera pars_ have its
say. The English nation, so vilified on the Continent because of the
Boer War, was not as a whole (as many liked to assert) led into this
campaign merely by the passion for gain and through love of warfare.
Noble motives—as is usually the case in every war—animated the majority.
The desire is to “give freedom,” to make wrong into right, to serve the
fatherland; life itself is sacrificed. The object and aim may be
praiseworthy; only it is unfortunate that the method is so unholy and
vicious. I received the following letter from the sister of the Minister
of Cape Colony:
Stockton, April 18, 1900
Madam:
Because of the high honor in which I bear you and the deep sympathy
with which I read _Die Waffen nieder_, I send you this letter, written
by a Cape Dutch woman, sister of Mr. Schreiner, Prime Minister of Cape
Colony. I do not know if you are well enough acquainted with Cape
politics to be aware of the full significance of the fact that he came
into office as leader of the Afrikander Bond.
That his sister should write as she does about this war should surely
come as a startling revelation to many people on the Continent who are
so sorely misjudging my beloved country.
She will answer for you as to the motives of those Cape Dutch who are
holding by the Union Jack. For those of my own country I, living in
the heart of England, daily in touch with the lower, middle, and upper
middle classes, affirm to you, as before God, that no wish for
conquest and no lust for gold weighs anything at all with us.
We are giving the lives of our best beloved—giving them by
thousands—to right wrong, to destroy oppression of our
fellow-subjects, both white and black, to put an end to a very unjust
and most corrupt form of government. Also to prevent our Colony of the
Cape, Natal, Rhodesia, and Bechuanaland, conquered by our blood and
treasure at various times, from being wrested from us.
This is the simple truth. We should like high-minded people abroad to
know and recognize that truth. But if it may not be, we can only still
repeat the old battle cry of our forefathers, “May God defend the
right!”
Pardon an insignificant old Englishwoman for venturing to address you.
It is only because of the immense sympathy with your noble-hearted
efforts to stop wars, ambitious and unjust, that I have done so.
England loves peace also, and her united millions who now with one
heart and soul are carrying out this war (and madam, the very peasants
are naming their children after our generals) would never allow war to
be made on our European neighbors. There is not the slightest wish or
expectation of such a thing among us. Foreign journals which assert
the contrary and thereby try to fan the flames of war are guilty of a
European crime.
I am, madam, faithfully yours
Emily Axbell
The year 1900 brought, besides the struggle so obstinately contested in
South Africa, still other warlike events into the world, notably the
troubles in China. First the Boxer uprising, the assassination of the
German ambassador Ketteler, then the expedition for rescue and revenge
sent by the combined European powers.
I can still remember vividly with what feelings we followed the
successive phases of these events. First the tidings of
alarm, then the full horror of it. Then the Emperor William’s
“Pardon-will-not-be-granted” speech—“Never in a thousand years shall a
Chinaman venture to look askance at a German!” Great Heavens! in a
thousand years it is to be hoped that no man will any longer inspire
other men with fear.... Then the anxious question every day, “Are the
legations still safe?” Then the joy that something corresponding to our
ideal had been spontaneously developed: an international protective army
for the rescue of the oppressed European brotherhood-in-arms,—a
precursor of European unity. Then again the sorrow at the behavior of
this army. Not only protection but also revenge, cruelty, and looting!
The description of the outrages committed there by Europeans on
noncombatants, even on the innocent, made one’s blood run cold. The
thing itself—a united force of French, Russian, and other troops under
the command of a German general—belonged to the new methods that are to
come; but the execution still showed the old spirit.
Even before things had reached their worst in China, the Chinese
ambassador in St. Petersburg, Yang-Yü, whom we met at The Hague, wrote
the following letter in reply to one which my husband had addressed to
him in this emergency:
Imperial Chinese Embassy
St. Petersburg, August 4 (17), 1900
My dear Baron:
The melancholy events now happening in my country often make me think
of the friends of peace and those whom I had the honor of knowing at
The Hague.
Your letter of the eighth instant has deeply touched me, and I am
persuaded that, in spite of the fact that you are, as you say, a
negligible quantity, you will finally triumph and rule. The light will
shine from this negligible quantity, and a spark will suffice to
kindle forever this pharos of peace. May the sword and the cannon of
which you speak soon be beaten into plowshares.
So, then, it is a sacred duty for you to defend this noble cause
without ever yielding to discouragement, with absolute firmness,
resolution, and conviction, and without ever ceasing to make your
voice heard!
I should be most happy if by my opinion and my personal impressions I
could contribute in some way to the humanitarian work in which you are
engaged. During journeys which I have taken, both as an envoy and as
an investigator, I have visited the United States of America, Peru and
other states of South America, Austria-Hungary, Germany, England,
Spain, France, Holland, Japan, and Russia; everywhere I went I studied
the customs of the people, and I have been particularly interested in
the army, in commerce, and in agriculture, all of which I have found
most perfectly administered. I took note of what differentiates these
countries from ours and what benefits they have to confer upon my
country. But what should I say? This incessant rivalry and this
jealousy manifested among all nations somewhat detract from this
perfection. If I have one desire to formulate, it is to see all
countries rise superior to these sentiments and live always in a good
understanding; this would assure them a lasting peace.
The conflict existing at present between China and the foreign powers
comes in large part from mutual misunderstandings. I am firmly
convinced that neither China nor any of these powers desires to break
these pleasant relationships. Things have been pushed to this point,
owing to the heedlessness of Chinese functionaries and military
parties blinded by ambition. It is more than time to do away with
these misunderstandings, and to reëstablish the old relations;
otherwise, not only will China be brought to the greatest distress,
but, moreover, international quarrels may result, and this would
certainly not be in the interest of humanity as a whole. I hope that
the governments of none of the countries will lose sight of the
opportunity of putting an end to this state of things.
The first cause that prepared and brought about the present conflict
is due to the sworn hatred of the people against the Christians.
Assuredly the end pursued by the missionaries, of doing good to
others, is very praiseworthy. But, as a general thing, right-thinking
Chinese would not for anything in the world abandon the religion that
comes down to them from their ancestors, for the sake of embracing one
that is wholly foreign to them; the result is that the new converts
are unfortunately in large measure dishonest people who hide behind
the shelter of the Church to give themselves up to their evil
passions, such as bringing lawsuits with impunity, and molesting and
robbing their fellow-countrymen. The feelings of the people, which
were at first merely wrath and indignation, and do not date from
yesterday, have been changed into an implacable hatred, the fury of
which it is impossible any longer to restrain. The Chinese no more
desire to be converted to Christianity than the Europeans would wish
to embrace the maxims of Confucius.
My personal opinion is that commercial relations between China and the
foreign powers may be developed to any desired extent; but as for the
question of religion, it would be more prudent to allow each to
respect his own as he understands it; this would be calculated to
preserve the future from all conflict. I do not know whether the
foreign governments will at last recognize the whole importance of the
question and renounce it definitely.
In the belief that I have answered all your questions, I beg leave to
assure you that I shall always be charmed to be useful and agreeable
to you.
Yours with most sincere esteem
Yang-Yü, Chinese Minister
And a little later a second letter came from the same source:
Imperial Chinese Embassy
St. Petersburg, September 10 (23), 1900
My dear Baron:
Sincere thanks for your kind letter, as well as for the newspaper
clippings, which have greatly interested me.
I hasten to send you and the Baroness my best wishes for a good
journey and a happy sojourn in Paris. I likewise hope that you will
have a brilliant success in the noble assembly of the ninth Peace
Congress. Once again you are going to spread the light and to plead
for that peace cause which ought to be dear to every human heart.
Therefore I should be greatly delighted to learn that all your
endeavors toward this end have fully succeeded.
Yours with most sincere esteem
Yang-Yü, Chinese Minister
In the late summer we went to Paris to attend the Peace Congress that
was to be held there, and to see the Exposition.
Johann von Bloch, who was living with his family at the Hotel
Westminster, had invited us to stay at the same hotel as his guests. Now
I made the acquaintance of our friend’s wife and daughters. Frau von
Bloch looked like her eldest daughter’s sister, so similar and so young.
This daughter is the wife of Herr von Koszielski, formerly so well liked
at the Berlin court. He was known popularly as “Admiralski.” Bloch had
good reason to be proud of his family. It would be difficult to imagine
a bouquet of prettier, wittier, or more elegant women than the four that
formed his _entourage_.
The Congress was opened by Minister Millerand. Frédéric Passy was
honorary president; Professor Charles Richet presided.
Madame Séverine was a new apparition. I had often read, in the French
papers, articles by this talented woman, and had admired the brilliancy
of her style, and especially the greatness of her heart; for almost
always, when she wrote her chronicles, there was some distress to reveal
and to alleviate, some past wrong to right, ideas of freedom and
gentleness to defend. Now I made her personal acquaintance and heard her
speak. One who has never listened to Madame Séverine’s extempore
speeches has no notion to what a height of passion and poetry eloquence
can rise. Madame Séverine is also interesting outwardly. She was then
forty-three years old, but her hair was already perfectly white—the
result of the tragedies of life which she had passed through. She had
dark, flashing eyes, vivacious play of expression, and a neat figure.
Toward the close of her fascinating speech she greeted me as _notre sœur
d’Autriche_, and when she finished,—both of us standing on the
platform,—in my emotion I threw my arms around her, and that elicited a
storm of jubilation in the hall.
We made a flying visit to the Exposition under the guidance of Charles
Richet. All expositions are alike. The things that especially remained
in my memory were the Eiffel Tower, the _trottoir roulant_, the tiny
corner in the pavilion in which our Bern Bureau and its literature were
displayed, and the gigantic hall in which army and navy had heaped up
their latest appliances for destruction.
Richet invited us also to a small dinner given for a few friends.
D’Estournelles sat next me. We talked about the general lack of
information on the part of the public regarding the Hague Conference,
and he told me that he had delivered explanatory lectures on this
subject in various cities in France.
“Oh, if you could only come to Vienna and give such a lecture!”
“You need only to invite me,” he replied; “I will render you any service
that you may require of me.”
I made him shake hands on it.
At Paris during that time I formed a new bond of friendship which has
proved very valuable to me. An English lady, the daughter of a sea
captain, earning her living in Paris by giving English lessons, had
asked to be presented to me in the Congress hall. I exchanged a few
pleasant words with her and then turned to others. The following day she
wrote me a letter. This was filled with such enthusiasm, with such
devotion to my cause and my person, that I was captivated and asked the
writer to come to see me. Miss Alice Williams—for that was her name—came
immediately and brought me a bunch of roses. But more than flowers, she
brought me a soul—a soul overflowing with the ideals that are precious
to me. As the daughter of an English “sea-bear,” and rather
chauvinistically educated and inclined, she had been, so she told me,
converted by reading _Die Waffen nieder_, and from that time forth had
been a devoted adherent. In the course of years she has proved that such
was the case. I am deeply indebted to her for her friendship, her wise
suggestions, her energy, and her activity.
After our return to Harmannsdorf I devoted myself once more to literary
occupations. I wrote the novel _Marthas Kinder_, the sequel to _Die
Waffen nieder_. My Own also again resumed his labors and wrote on his
novel _Im Zeichen des Trusts_. But in spite of this we did not neglect
our work for the Unions and our journalistic writing. I took especial
pains to make the newspaper public acquainted with the Hague business,
which now threatened to be entirely forgotten in the excitement of
Chinese and South African events.
But, in the meantime, the various conventions were ratified and the
judges of the permanent tribunal were nominated. In accordance with the
agreement, each country was to nominate four judges from among its most
influential and distinguished men. The number of names thus selected
furnishes a list from which, in case of a controversy which is referred
to the Hague tribunal, the contending parties may each select two
judges, not belonging to their own land; and these in their turn will
choose a fifth to serve as president of the court.
The newspapers brought us the names of the nominees. Among those from
Austria were Count Schönborn, and Lammasch; from Hungary, Count Apponyi;
from France, Bourgeois and D’Estournelles. Of the Russian judges I found
only the name of Professor von Martens. So I wrote to him both to
congratulate him and also to ask him who were the three others named by
the Russian government. I received the following letter in reply:
St. Petersburg, November 1 (14), 1900
My dear Baroness:
I hasten to offer you my sincere thanks for your congratulations on my
nomination as a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The
Hague. The honor which you have been good enough to speak of so warmly
is indeed the greatest that I have ever received, and I am proud of
it; it is a genuine pleasure to receive your felicitations. Your
eminent merits in the defense of the interests of peace and
arbitration have given you, madam, an exceptional place among the
partisans of this great idea. I thank you again from the bottom of my
heart.
You ask me, madam, who are my Russian colleagues in the Permanent
Court. I am happy to be able to tell you that they are the leading
jurists and statesmen of Russia. Here are their names:
1. His Excellency, the Secretary of State, Pobyedonostsef, Procurator
of the Holy Synod. M. Pobyedonostsef’s religious ideas and his great
influence in the most exalted governmental spheres are known
throughout Europe; but he is at the same time a great lawyer, an
accomplished scientist, and a sincere friend of international
arbitration.
2. His Excellency, the Secretary of State, De Frisch, who holds in the
Council of the Russian Empire the office of president of the “Section
of Laws.” He is a Russian statesman of very great influence in all
legislative questions, and is one of the highest dignitaries of the
empire. He has been president of the Grand Commission to elaborate the
new criminal code of Russia.
3. His Excellency, the Secretary of State, Muravieff, present Minister
of Justice for the Russian Empire. He is a statesman endowed with the
greatest talents, and a very eminent lawyer. The late Count Muravieff
was his cousin.