been in this House more than 40 years, I owe everything to its
indulgence, and I say from the depth of my heart that it is my
desire to do nothing unworthy of your high reputation or your
great place in the Constitution of this country. But I believe
that the worst and most damaging thing that you could do would
be that you should fail those who look to you as the guardians
of their greatest constitutional right, the right to be
consulted when fundamental political changes are demanded by
the Government of the day; and, my lords, depend upon it that
by rejecting this Bill you will, on the one hand, insist that
that right shall be respected; you will not usurp the function
of granting aid and supplies to the Crown; you will not
pronounce a final verdict upon this Bill, bad though you may
believe it to be; but you will say that it is a Bill to which
you have no right to give your indispensable consent until you
are assured by the people of the country that they desire it
to pass into law."
In the week of debate which followed many speeches of notable
force and impressiveness were made on both sides; but,
unquestionably, the weightiest, in reasoning and feeling, were
those which came from opponents of the Budget who would not
join their associates in the step proposed, but warned them of
dangers involved, to the existence of their House and to the
future of parliamentary government, from constitutional
changes which no man could forecalculate. On the latter point,
Lord Rosebery begged his fellows of the peerage to "remember
this: The menaces which were addressed to this House in old
days were addressed by statesmen of a different school and
under a different balance of constitutional forces in this
country. The menaces addressed to you now come from a wholly
different school of opinion, who wish for a single Chamber and
who set no value on the controlling and revising forces of a
second Chamber—a school of opinion which, if you like it and
do not dread the word, is eminently revolutionary in essence,
if not in fact. I ask you to bear in mind that fact when you
weigh the consequences of the vote which you are to give
to-morrow night. ‘Hang the consequences,’ said my noble friend
Lord Camperdown last night. That is a noble sentiment and a
noble utterance. It is a kind of Balaklava charge, and nothing
more intrepid could be said by any of us if we had not to
weigh the consequences, not to the individual, but to the
State; and you should think once, you should think twice, and
thrice, before you give a vote which may involve such enormous
constitutional consequences."
Lord Balfour, while condemning the Bill, condemned still more
the proposition that the House of Lords would do its duty in
compelling a referendum to the people on the measure. A
question in finance, he said, differs from all others in its
unfitness for this treatment in Great Britain. "If you are to
establish a system whereby this House or any other authority
had the right of establishing a referendum as it is called—a
reference to the people in matters of finance—you would spoil
and destroy the control of the other House of Parliament over
the Government, and you would make, I venture to say, perhaps
the most momentous change in the Constitution, as it has grown
up, which has been made in the whole history of that
Constitution. Take it how you like, if you pass this
resolution, if you make it a precedent—I care not with what
safeguards you accompany it, whether you say it is only to be
done on extreme occasions or by any other safeguard—you have
made a change in the practice and in the Constitution which
will prevent things going on as they have gone on up to the
present time. My lords, if you win, the victory can at most be
a temporary one. If you lose you have altered and prejudiced
the position, the power, the prestige, the usefulness of this
House, which I believe every one of you honours and desires to
serve as heartily and as thoroughly as I do myself. If you win
you are but beginning a conflict."
Lord James, one of the ablest of the Law Lords, and Lord
Cromer, were other opponents of the Budget who earnestly
counselled the Upper House not to interfere with the action of
the Commons on this measure of finance. From the side of the
few Liberals among the peers came other weighty words of
admonition, spoken especially by the calm and thoughtful Lord
Morley and by the Lord Chancellor, the presiding officer of
their House. "No one," said the latter, "will be so simple as
to believe that the only question which the country will
consider will be the question whether this Bill ought to pass
into law. Other and graver questions will be raised. We have
been in office for four years. In 1906 our whole time in the
House of Commons was taken up by passing an Education Bill. It
came to this House. It was wrecked, and the whole labour of
that Session was thrown away. The following year, 1907, was
not a year of very great enterprise of a legislative
character. In 1908 the whole time of the House of Commons was
spent in passing the Licensing Bill, a measure the loss of
which I regret more than I regret the loss of any other. It
came up to this House. It was not alive when it came here. It
had perished by the stiletto in Berkeley-square before it ever
saw this House. Now, again in 1909, after a Session of
unexampled labour, the House of Commons has presented to your
lordships the proof of many, many months of arduous work in a
domain entirely their own; and this House is going to destroy
the Finance Bill of 1909 and to refuse supplies. It is, in my
opinion, impossible that any Liberal Government should ever
again bear the heavy burden of office unless it is secured
against a repetition of treatment such as our measures have
had to undergo for the last four years. If we fail in the
coming general election, assuming that his Majesty is pleased
to dissolve Parliament, it will only be the beginning of a
conflict which can end only in one way. If we succeed, I hope
we shall not flinch from that which will have to follow."
The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Spiritual Lords generally
refrained from taking sides on what they regarded as a
political question; but the Archbishop of York construed his
duty differently, and added his voice to the remonstrance
against Lord Landsdowne’s motion. Close upon midnight,
November 30, the House divided on that motion and it was
carried, rejecting the Finance Bill, by a vote of 350 to 75.
So big a vote—such a swarming of titled legislators to record
it—had not been known within the memory of living men.
{245}
Three days later, on the 3d of December, the Premier, Mr.
Asquith, rose in the House of Commons and moved the adoption
of the following declaration:
"That the action of the House of Lords in refusing to pass
into law the financial provision made by this House for the
service of the year is a breach of the Constitution and a
usurpation of the rights of the Commons."
Speaking to this motion, he said, in part:
"When, a short time ago, the Finance Bill received its third
reading, as it left this House it represented, I believe, in a
greater degree than can be said of any measure of our time,
the mature, the well-sifted, the deliberate work of an
overwhelming majority of the representatives of the people
upon a matter which, by the custom of generations and by the
course of a practically unbroken authority, is the province of
this House, and of this House alone. In the course of a week,
or a little more than a week, the whole of this fabric has
been thrown to the ground. For the first time in English
history the grant of the whole of the Ways and Means for the
Supply and the Services of the year, the grant made at the
request of the Crown to the Crown by the Commons, has been
intercepted and nullified by a body which admittedly has not
the power to increase or to diminish one single tax or to
propose any substitute or alternative for any one of the
taxes. The House of Commons would, in the judgment of his
Majesty’s Government, be unworthy of its past and of the
traditions of which it is the custodian and the trustee if it
allowed another day to pass without making it clear that it
does not mean to brook the greatest indignity, and, I will
add, the most arrogant usurpation (loud cheers), to which for
more than two centuries it has been asked to submit."
After a short debate, the House divided on the motion, and it
was adopted by 349 against 134.
On the afternoon of the same day the King prorogued Parliament
to the 15th of January, 1910, this being preparatory to the
dissolution and appeal to the people which the action of the
Lords had made necessary.
See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1910 (January-March).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (May).
A Majority Vote in the Commons for removing Disabilities
from Roman Catholics.
A bill for the removal of remaining disabilities from Roman
Catholics passed its second reading in the House of Commons on
the 14th of May, by a vote of 133 to 123. Not being a
Government measure, the crowded programme of business for the
session gave no hope that it could be carried into law; but
the vote was an encouragement.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (May).
Resolution of the House of Commons in favor of the Payment
of Members and the public payment of election expenses.
The following resolution was introduced in the House of
Commons on the 12th of May, 1909, by Mr. Higham, of York:
"That in the opinion of this House the non-payment of members
and the liability of candidates for the returning officers’
expenses render it impossible for many constituencies to
exercise a free choice in their selection of candidates and
election of members of Parliament; and this House is of
opinion that any measure of general electoral reform passed
before the dissolution of this Parliament, and coming into
force upon or after the dissolution, should be accompanied by
arrangements for the payment of members elected to serve in
Parliament and for the transfer to the Imperial Exchequer of
the financial responsibility for the returning officers’
expenses incurred in the conduct of such elections."
Mr. Harcourt, for the Government, accepted the motion at once.
He pointed out that the expenditure entailed, if members were
paid £300 a year, would be £200,000 annually; but this was not
a valid argument against the change. For his part, he could
not see why politics should be the only profession "run by
amateurs." He was, therefore, not frightened by the prospect
of an Assembly of professional politicians. The time had gone
by when the country could select its legislators solely from
the leisured class; public servants deserved to be paid.
Most of the speakers in a debate of three hours favored the
resolution, and it was then adopted, by 242 votes against 92.
No legislation in accordance with it has yet been undertaken.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (May).
Reorganization of Passive Resistance to the Education Act
of 1902.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND; A. D. 1909 (MAY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (May-October).
Consumption of whiskey diminished by increase of tax.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM: ENGLAND.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (June).
The Imperial Press Conference.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1909 (JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (July).
Assassination of Sir W. Curzon-Wyllie by an Indian Anarchist.
See (in this Volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1909 (JULY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (July-August).
Imperial Defence Conference.
Its conclusions and agreements.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY AND NAVAL.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (July-December).
Decision against the right of Trade Unions to pay Salaries
to Members of Parliament.
On the 23d of July, 1909, an appeal from an order of the Court
of Appeal was argued before five legal members of the House of
Lords, on the question whether the payment of members of
Parliament chosen to represent the interests of a trade union
was a lawful application of the funds of such union. The
complainant in the case had sued the Amalgamated Society of
Railway Servants, of which he had been a member since 1892, to
have it declared that one of the rules of the society, which
provides, amongst other things, for Parliamentary
representation and the enforced levy of contributions from the
plaintiff and other members of the society, towards the
payment of salaries, or maintenance allowance, to members of
Parliament pledged to observe and fulfil the conditions
imposed by the constitution of the Labour Party therein
referred to, is _ultra vires_ and void, and that the
society may be restrained from enforcing it. And in the
alternative that it may be declared that a certain amendment
or addition made to the rules in 1906 be declared to be
illegal and void. The added rule, thus complained of, was as
follows; "All candidates shall sign and accept the conditions
of the Labour Party and be subject to their Whip."
{246}
The judgment of the Lords, rendered on the 21st of December,
sustained the order from the court below, dismissing the
appeal. Their decision rested mainly on considerations
relating to the rule quoted above, and stated briefly by one
of their bench, Lord James, as follows:
"The effect of this rule and others that exist is that a
member of the trade union is compelled to contribute to the
support of a member of Parliament, who is compelled ‘to answer
the Whip of the Labour Party.’ I construe this condition as
meaning that the member undertakes to forego his own judgment,
and to vote in Parliament in accordance with the opinions of
some person or persons acting on behalf of the Labour Party.
And such vote would have to be given in respect of all
matters, including those of a most general character—such as
confidence in a Ministry or the policy of a Budget—matters
unconnected directly at least with the interests of labour.
Therefore I am of opinion that the application of money to the
maintenance of a member whose action is so regulated is not
within the powers of a trade union. If your Lordships decide
on this branch of the case that the respondent is entitled to
judgment, it is unnecessary that any opinion should be
expressed upon the very broad constitutional question raised
for the first time in the Court of Appeal affecting the
general support of members."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (August).
The Prevention of Crimes Act brought into force.
The Borstal System.
See (in this Volume)
CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY, PROBLEMS OF.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (August).
The Trade Boards Bill, to suppress "Sweating."
See (in this Volume)
LABOR REMUNERATION: WAGES REGULATION.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (September).
Imperial Congress of Chambers of Commerce.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1909 (SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (September).
Marconi Wireless Telegraph Stations taken over
by the Post Office.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION: ELECTRICAL.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (October).
Organization of a Navy War Council.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1910 (January-March).
Dissolution of Parliament.
An indecisive Election.
No majority in the House of Commons for any single party.
Precarious support for the Liberal Ministry.
Uncertainties of the Situation.
As expected, Parliament was dissolved by royal proclamation
early in January, and new elections commanded, the first of
which took place on the 15th of that month and the last on the
14th of February. The result was generally disappointing,
because wholly indecisive. The new House of Commons was found
to be made up of 275 Liberals, 273 Unionists, 71 Nationalists
(Irish), 11 Independent Nationalists, and 40 Labor members.
Neither of the political parties arrayed on the main issues
involved had won a majority. The people had rendered no
recognizable verdict on the Budget, or on the tariff question,
or on the abolition of the veto power claimed by the House of
Lords.
Even with the support of the Labor members the Asquith
Ministry was in a minority. The balance was held by the Irish
members, and it was only by compromise with them that either
Liberals or Unionists could do anything. Had the Ministry been
able to choose its own course it might have preferred,
perhaps, to push the Budget question to a settlement before
attempting to determine the future of the House of Lords; but
the leader of the Nationalists, Mr. Redmond, gave prompt
notice that they would allow no such second rating of the
Lords’ veto question to go into the programme of legislation.
Probably, therefore, there were negotiations between Liberals
and Nationalists before Mr. Asquith announced the intentions
of the Government, which he did on the 28th of
February,—Parliament having been formally opened on the 15th.
Up to the 24th of March, he claimed all the time of the House
of Commons for immediate measures which must be adopted before
the close of the financial year, to provide immediately
necessary means for maintaining the national credit. Then,
"when the House reassembled after Easter, on March 29, the
Government would present their proposals on the relations
between the two Houses. They would be presented, in the first
instance, in the form of resolutions affirming the necessity
for excluding the House of Lords altogether from the domain of
finance, and inviting the House to declare that, in the sphere
of legislation, the power of the veto now possessed by the
Lords should be so limited as to secure the predominance of
the deliberate and considered will of the Commons within the
lifetime of a single Parliament. Further, it would be made
plain that these constitutional changes were without prejudice
to and contemplated in a subsequent year the substitution in
our Second Chamber, of a democratic for an hereditary basis.
When these resolutions had been agreed to, they would be
submitted to the House of Lords, so as to bring the main issue
to a trial at the earliest possible moment."
This programme of procedure appears to have been hastened
slightly; for despatches from London on the 21st of March
announced that Mr. Asquith had brought forward his
resolutions, and that their purport was as follows:
"The first resolution provides for complete control of money
bills by the House of Commons, thus unmistakably disposing of
the question that was precipitated by the Lords’ rejection of
the budget; the second precludes the Lords from rejecting any
bill that, has been passed by the Commons at three successive
sessions, provided the entire time the bill has been before
the House is not less than two years; and in the same case the
bill becomes a law without the royal assent."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1910 (May).
Death of King Edward VII.
Accession of King George V.
The political situation in England, which had become
problematical, was probably changed with suddenness, on the
night of May 6, by the death of King Edward, after a brief
illness, consequent on chronic bronchial disorders. His son
was proclaimed as King George V. Settlement of the pending
political questions seems likely to be postponed for some
time.
----------ENGLAND: End--------
ENJUMEN.
See (in this Volume)
ANJUMAN.
ENVER BEY.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER).
EQUADOR.
See (in this Volume)
ECUADOR.
EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY.
See (in this Volume)
INSURANCE, LIFE.
ERDMAN LAW.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907 (APRIL).
ERICHSEN, DR. MYLIUS:
Tragically ended survey of Greenland coast.
See (in this Volume)
POLAR EXPLORATION.
{247}
ERICSSON, JOHN:
Unveiling of a monument to his memory at Stockholm,
September 14, 1901.
See (in this Volume)
SWEDEN: A. D. 1901.
ERIE CANAL:
Popular vote for its enlargement to a capacity
for boats of 1000 tons.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YOKE STATE: A. D. 1903.
ERITREA:
Its habitability by whites.
See (in this Volume)
AFRICA.
ESHER ARMY COMMISSION, The.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.
ESNEH BARRAGE, Opening of the.
See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
ESPERANTO.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: ESPERANTO.
ESTOURNELLES DE CONSTANT D', BARON.
See (in this Volume)
Nobel Prizes.
ESTRADA, GENERAL JUAN:
Revolutionary leader in Nicaragua.
See (in this Volume)
CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1909.
ESTUPINIAN, DON BALTASER:
Vice-President of Second International Conference of
American Republics.
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
ETHER OF SPACE, NEW CONCEPTION OF THE.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: PHYSICAL.
ETHIOPIA.
See (in this Volume)
ABYSSINIA.
EUCKEN, Rudolf.
See (in this Volume)
NOBEL PRIZES.
EUDISTES, THE CONGREGATION OF THE.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.
EUGENICS.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: EUGENICS.
EULENBURG, PRINCE,
The charges against.
See (in this Volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1907-1908.
EUPHRATES VALLEY:
Railway building.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: TURKEY: A. D. 1899-1909.
EUPHRATES VALLEY:
Irrigation projects.
See in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (OCTOBER).
----------EUROPE: Start--------
EUROPE: A. D. 1850-1907.
Growth and changes in population.
The shifting of numerical weight among nations and peoples.
Some statistical statements of surprising interest were set
forth in an article published by Professor Sombart, of Berlin,
in 1907. German statisticians have a reputation for accuracy,
and we have no ground for questioning the figures submitted by
this professor, which show that, notwithstanding the great
flow of emigration from Europe within the last 60 years, its
population has increased from about 250,000,000 to 400,000,000
since the middle of the nineteenth century. The main growth,
however, has been in Russia, from which the emigration has
been slight.
The exhibit of relative increase in the several countries and
among the several races of Europe is more interesting and more
important than the total growth. This comparison gives a heavy
gain of weight to Russia since 1850, a considerable gain to
Germany, slight gains to Austria-Hungary, Great Britain and
Ireland (wholly on the British side of the United Kingdom),
Belgium, and the Netherlands, with comparative losses in all
the rest. The drop made by France in the scale of population
is distressingly great. Out of every 1,000 inhabitants of
Europe in 1850, 137 were in France; but out of the same number
of Europeans in 1905 she counted but 94. Russia, in the same
period, raised her share of the population of Europe from 215
per 1,000 to 285; Germany from 138 to 145; Austria-Hungary
from 114 to 117; Great Britain and Ireland from 104 to 105;
Belgium from sixteen to seventeen; the Netherlands from twelve
to thirteen. On the other hand, Italy dropped from 95 to 80;
Spain and Portugal from 71 to 58; Sweden, Norway, and Denmark
from 29 to 25; the Balkan States from 60 to 53; Switzerland
from nine to eight.
Carrying the comparisons of relative population back to the
beginning of the last century, Professor Sombart finds that
Germany, which gained ground in the last half of the period,
had lost more in the first half than that gain made good. In
1801 the Germans furnished 160 to each 1,000 of the population
of Europe, against their present count of 145. But Great
Britain and Ireland gave but 93 to that 1,000 in 1801 against
the 105 of the present time. The gains of Russia and the
losses of France, Italy, and Spain were alike continuous from
the first to the latest date.
As the result of these differences of advance in population,
the Slavic peoples have been raised from the lowest to the
highest weight in numbers; the Germanic have dropped just
enough in the scale to take second place; while the Latinized
folk of Southwestern Europe, or Latins as we call them, have
fallen far from the share they had in the peopling of the
continent 100 years ago. Of each 1,000 Europeans in 1801 the
Slavs numbered 268, the Latins 355, the Germanics 375. In
1850 the count was 310 for the Slav, 321 for the Latin, 369
for the Germanic. The next 55 years brought the Slav to the
front, with a great bound, and the figures in the column for
1905 are 375 Slav, 373 Germanic, 251 Latin.
These statistics hold a number of deep meanings; but they are
especially eloquent in their showing of the deadly effects of
the Napoleonic wars. For France there has been no recovery
since those horrible years when the Corsican vampire sucked at
her veins; and Spain and Italy are still sicklied from the
same cause. But Germany’s languishing ended when the long
peace of the last 36 years began. Her vitality had never been
spent, even in the Thirty Years’ War and by the belligerency
of Frederick, "called the Great," before Napoleon came to
trample upon her, as that of France had been exhausted by her
Bourbon and Corsican masters.
{248}
EUROPE: A. D. 1870-1905.
Rate of Increase of Population in other countries
compared with Germany.
"During the last few decades, the population of Germany has
been increasing with marvellous and unprecedented rapidity.
From 1870 to the present time it has grown from 40,818,000
people to more than 60,000,000 people, and has therefore
increased by 50 per cent. During the same period, our own
[British] population has increased from 31,817,000 people to
43,000,000 people, or by but 32 per cent. No nation in the
world excepting those oversea which yearly receive a huge
number of immigrants from abroad multiplies more rapidly than
does the German nation, as may be seen from the following
figures:
"Average Yearly Increase of Population
between the Last and the Previous Census.
Germany, 15,000 people per million of inhabitants.
Russia, 13,600 people per million of inhabitants.
Holland, 12,300 people per million of inhabitants.
Switzerland, 10,400 people per million of inhabitants.
Belgium, 10,100 people per million of inhabitants.
Great Britain, 9,400 people per million of inhabitants.
Austria-Hungary, 9,300 people per million of inhabitants.
Spain, 8,800 people per million of inhabitants.
Italy, 6,900 people per million of inhabitants.
France, 1,700 people per million of inhabitants.
"From the foregoing table it appears that not only the
population of Germany, but that of all the chiefly Germanic
nations, increases very much faster than that of all other
nations, Russia excepted. However, Russia cannot fairly be
compared with Germany, partly because her population
statistics are not reliable, partly because the growth of her
population is to some extent due to conquest. …
"The proud boast of the Pan-Germans that it is the destiny of
the German race to rule the world would appear to be correct,
were it not for a singular phenomenon which, so far, has
remained almost unobserved. Whilst the 60,000,000 Germans in
Germany are increasing with astonishing celerity, the
30,000,000 Germans who live in Austria-Hungary and in other
countries are so rapidly losing all German characteristics and
even the German language, that it seems possible that, forty
or fifty years hence, the number of Germans outside Germany
proper will be almost nil. …
"The 90,000,000 Germans who live in Germany and in Greater
Germany are distributed over the globe as follows:
Germany 60,000,000
Austria-Hungary 11,550,000
Switzerland 2,320,000
Russia 2,000,000
Various European countries 1,130,000
----------
Total in Europe 77,000,000
United States and Canada 11,500,000
Central and South America 600,000
Asia, Africa, Australia 400,000
Grand total 89,500,000"
_O. Eltzbacher,
Germany and Greater Germany
(Contemporary Review, August, 1905)._
Later figures, relative to France, on this subject, were given
by the Paris correspondent of the New York Evening Post,
writing June 12th, 1909, when he said: "From 1901 to 1905 the
birthrate was high enough to increase the population of France
18 for every 10,000 yearly. During the same period the
relative increase per 10,000 was 106 in Italy, 113 in Austria,
121 in England, 149 in Germany, and 155 in Holland. … Coming
back to single years, the birth rate of 1906 only increased
the French population 7 per 10,000; that is, among every
10,000 inhabitants there were as many births of living
children as there were deaths taken altogether, plus seven
births more. In 1907 there were five fewer births than deaths
per 10,000 inhabitants. And now here comes 1908 jumping back
to an excess of twelve births over deaths per 10,000. Such
sudden fluctuations can be seized on by no theory; 1907 had
its deficit because it had 19,892 more deaths than the
average; 1908 recovers lost ground because it had 48,266 fewer
deaths than 1907, or 28,374 fewer than the average of the
preceding period of five years. Along with this slow but sure
decrease in the absolute birth rate of France goes the happier
decrease of deaths, owing to greater well-being in general and
better popular hygiene in particular.
"Statistics have something better than this to show. The
steady increase in marriages, which I noted last year, has
gone on. For 1908 it is the heaviest since 1873; the total
number was 315,928—which is 1,172 more than in 1907 and 9441
more than in 1906. Divorces, for all France, were 10,573 in
1906 and 11,515 in 1908.
"Why do Frenchmen have few children? Because they deliberately
will not to have them. That is the answer which every
intelligent observer who passes his life among Frenchmen—as
one of themselves, not as an outsider—will give spontaneously;
and it is the answer to which all statistics and all verified
social facts lead up."
EUROPE: A. D. 1878-1909.
Thirty-one Years of Peace, broken only by
Thirty-one Days of War.
In the spring of 1897 there were thirty-one days of war
between Turkey and Greece. With that exception there have been
no hostilities on the European continent since Russia fought
the Turks in 1877-1878, a period of thirty-one years. In the
preceding thirty years there had been nearly a score of
serious insurrections and wars: the widespread revolutionary
conflicts of 1848-1849, in France, Italy, Austria, Hungary,
Germany, and Denmark; the coup d’etat of 1851 in France; the
Crimean War of 1854-1856; the war of France and Sardinia with
Austria in 1859; Garibaldi’s liberation of Sicily and Naples
in 1861, and his attempt on Rome the next year; the Greek
revolution of 1862; Polish revolts of 1861 and 1863; the
Schleswig-Holstein war of 1864; the Austro-Prussian "Seven
Weeks War" and the Austro-Italian war, in 1866; Garibaldi’s
renewed attack on the Papal government at Rome in 1867;
revolution in Spain in 1868; the Franco-German War and the
insurrection of the Communists at Paris in 1870-1871; the
revolts of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1875 and of Bulgaria in
1876.
There is no mistaking the hopeful significance of so striking
a contrast as this; and if we look back through two more
similar periods, each of which represents the average term
reckoned for a generation, we find the key to a better
understanding of its hopefulness. Behind the turbulent thirty
years from 1847 to 1877 are thirty years during most of which
Europe lay bleeding, panting, exhausted by thirty other years
of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars; exhausted
physically but stirred deeply in brain and heart, and
gathering strength for the efforts toward freer and better
institutions of government and more homogeneous organizations
of nationality which most of the conflicts between 1847 and
1877 represent.
{249}
It is because those conflicts resulted in far better political
conditions, and in much of satisfaction to racial affinities
and national aspirations long resisted, that the people of
Europe, in these last thirty years, have enjoyed the longest
exemption from war on their own soil that their history
records.
EUROPE: A. D. 1902-1907.
Renewal and maintenance of the Triple Alliance.
Its value to Italy.
The Triple Alliance or Dreibund of Germany, Austria-Hungary
and Italy, formed in 1882 and renewed in 1887 and 1891, was
renewed for the third time in 1902, a year before the end of
its term, by the Zanardelli Government. "The term of this
renewal was for six or 12 years; that is to say, if the treaty
were not denounced in 1907, five years after its actual
renewal, it should be considered as holding good for the full
term of 12 years. The treaty was not denounced by the Giolitti
Ministry, with Signor Tittoni Minister of Foreign Affairs, and
therefore is in force until 1914, 12 years after its third
renewal by Prinetti. Except in the case of a very marked
alteration in the friendly relations between the three
contracting Powers there can be no question of its renewal or
non-renewal at this date. That case has not arrived; the
cordial relations between Italy and her allies, in spite of
conjectured though unacknowledged differences of opinion,
remain ostensibly unaltered, and may still be considered as
correctly described in the words used in their speeches in
Vienna by the Emperor of Austria and the German Emperor, and
in the telegrams which they afterwards exchanged with the King
of Italy.
"Some Italian politicians, however, seem disposed to question
the utility of an alliance which does not relieve Italy from
the necessity of spending more money on her national defence.
What, they ask, is the use of the alliance if we have to make
these heavy sacrifices in order to increase our army and navy
and put our frontier fortifications in order? The answer is
more simple than agreeable. It is precisely the existence of
the Triple Alliance that has permitted Italy to leave her
Austrian frontier absolutely open to invasion, and to allow
both her army and navy to fall below the standard which she
had proposed to keep up. The alliance has secured her immunity
for her neglect. But she has naturally paid for that combined
neglect and immunity by accepting a subordinate role by the
side of her allies."
_Rome Correspondence,
London Times, May 15, 1909._
EUROPE: A. D. 1904 (April).
The Entente Cordiale of England and France.
In his interesting work on "France and the Alliances," founded
on a course of lectures delivered at Harvard University in
1908, M. André Tardieu reviews the long antagonism between
England and France, which ran through their history, from
early in the Fourteenth Century to the last year but one of
the Nineteenth, when, in March, 1899, France, by treaty with
the British Government, gave up her strong desire to extend
her North African dominion eastward to the Nile. Then he asks:
"How came it that within five years a sincere understanding
was established between the two hereditary enemies?" He
answers the question by saying: "Neither in England nor in
France is the principle of the understanding to be sought.
Rather was it the fear of Germany which determined England—not
only her King and Government, but the whole of her people—to
draw near to France." This, without doubt, is substantially
the true explanation of the friendly agreements, forming what
is known as the Entente Cordiale between England and France,
which were signed on the 8th of April, 1904. They involved
nothing in the nature of a defensive alliance against Germany,
and they had been prepared for by a rapid growth of natural
and real good feeling between English and French folk; but it
is certain that they received their immediate prompting from
the common recognition, in England and France, that Germany
had become a rival in political and economic ambitions to both
of them, more formidable than either could be to the other.
This gave them a common reason for obliterating all their old
differences and causes of difference, and exhibiting
themselves to the world as friends.
M. Tardieu credits the English King with the initiation of
this most important rapprochement. "He it was," says the
French writer, "who both conceived and facilitated it, while
still many believed that the moment was premature. Edward VII.
has been both praised and attacked without stint. Perhaps he
deserves neither the ‘excess of honor nor yet the excess of
abuse.’ Among present sovereigns, he has one superiority, that
of having gained experience in life before reigning. … He is
not afraid of taking the initiative; and so far his initiative
has been a success. The boldest example of it was his visit to
Paris in 1903. Putting aside all objections, and being
convinced of his success, he arrived in France amidst an
atmosphere of uncertainty. When the first platoons of
cuirassiers rode down the Champs Elysées, embarrassment and
anxiety weighed on the public. The Nationalists had declared
their intention of hissing. What would be the result of a
hostile manifestation? The King, as far as he was concerned,
did not believe in the danger, and he was right. The Parisians
accorded him, not an enthusiastic, but, from the first, a
respectful, and soon a genial, reception. The road was clear.
Two months later, Mr. Loubet paid King Edward a return visit.
And, on welcoming his colleague, Mr. Delcassé, to London, Lord
Lansdowne said to him: ‘Now we are going to have some
conversation.’ As a matter of fact, there was conversation
both in Paris and in London. … On the 8th of April, 1904, the
agreement was signed, and its immediate publication produced a
deep impression in Europe."
Strictly speaking, there were three Agreements, or two
Declarations and one formal Convention, signed on the 8th of
April, 1904, constituting, together, the Anglo-French
_Entente_. The first, a "Declaration respecting Egypt and
Morocco," ran as follows:
"Article I.
His Britannic Majesty’s Government declare that they have no
intention of altering the political status of Egypt. The
Government of the French Republic, for their part, declare
that they will not obstruct the action of Great Britain in
that country by asking that a limit of time be fixed for the
British occupation or in any other manner, and that they give
their assent to the draft Khedivial Decree annexed to the
present Arrangement, containing the guarantees considered
necessary for the protection of the interests of the Egyptian
bondholders, on the condition that, after its promulgation, it
cannot be modified in any way without the consent of the
Powers Signatory of the Convention of London of 1885. It is
agreed that the post of Director-General of Antiquities in
Egypt shall continue, as in the past, to be entrusted to a
French _savant_. The French schools in Egypt shall
continue to enjoy the same liberty as in the past.
{250}
"Article II.
The Government of the French Republic declare that they have
no intention of altering the political status of Morocco. His
Britannic Majesty’s Government, for their part, recognize that
it appertains to France, more particularly as a Power whose
dominions are conterminous for a great distance with those of
Morocco, to preserve order in that country, and to provide
assistance for the purpose of all administrative, economic,
financial, and military reforms which it may require. They
declare that they will not obstruct the action taken by France
for this purpose, provided that such action shall leave intact
the rights which Great Britain, in virtue of Treaties,
Conventions, and usage, enjoys in Morocco, including the right
of coasting trade between the ports of Morocco, enjoyed by
British vessels since 1901.
"Article III.
His Britannic Majesty’s Government, for their part, will
respect the rights which France, in virtue of Treaties,
Conventions, and usage, enjoys in Egypt, including the right
of coasting trade between Egyptian ports accorded to French
vessels.
"Article IV.
The two Governments, being equally attached to the principle
of commercial liberty both in Egypt and Morocco, declare that
they will not, in those countries, countenance any inequality
either in the imposition of customs duties or other taxes, or
of railway transport charges. The trade of both nations with
Morocco and with Egypt shall enjoy the same treatment in
transit through the French and British possessions in Africa.
An Agreement between the two Governments shall settle the
conditions of such transit and shall determine the points of
entry. This mutual engagement shall be binding for a period of
thirty years. Unless this stipulation is expressly denounced
at least one year in advance, the period shall be extended for
five years at a time. Nevertheless, the Government of the
French Republic reserve to themselves in Morocco, and His
Britannic Majesty’s Government reserve to themselves in Egypt,
the right to see that the concessions for roads, railways,
ports, &c., are only granted on such conditions as will
maintain intact the authority of the State over these great
undertakings of public interest.
"Article V.
His Britannic Majesty’s Government declare that they will use
their influence in order that the French officials now in the
Egyptian service may not be placed under conditions less
advantageous than those applying to the British officials in
the same service. The Government of the French Republic, for
their part, would make no objection to the application of
analogous conditions to British officials now in the Moorish
service.
"Article VI.
In order to insure the free passage of the Suez Canal, His
Britannic Majesty’s Government declare that they adhere to the
stipulations of the Treaty of the 29th October, 1888, and that
they agree to their being put in force. The free passage of
the Canal being thus guaranteed, the execution of the last
sentence of paragraph 1 as well as of paragraph 2 of Article
VIII of that Treaty will remain in abeyance.
"Article VII.
In order to secure the free passage of the Straits of
Gibraltar, the two Governments agree not to permit the
erection of any fortifications or strategic works on that
portion of the coast of Morocco comprised between, but not
including, Melilla and the heights which command the right
bank of the River Sebou. This condition does not, however,
apply to the places at present in the occupation of Spain on
the Moorish coast of the Mediterranean.
"Article VIII.
The two Governments, inspired by their feeling of sincere
friendship for Spain, take into special consideration the
interests which that country derives from her geographical
position and from her territorial possessions on the Moorish
coast of the Mediterranean. In regard to these interests the
French Government will come to an understanding with the
Spanish Government. The agreement which may be come to on the
subject between France and Spain shall be communicated to His
Britannic Majesty’s Government.
"Article IX.
The two Governments agree to afford to one another their
diplomatic support, in order to obtain the execution of the
clauses of the present Declaration regarding Egypt and
Morocco."
The more formally designated Convention relates to questions
concerning the Newfoundland fisheries and certain boundaries
between French and English possessions in Africa. The articles
respecting Newfoundland and the fisheries are as follows:
"Article I.
France renounces the privileges established to her advantage
by Article XIII of the Treaty of Utrecht, and confirmed or
modified by subsequent provisions.
"Article II.
France retains for her citizens, on a footing of equality with
British subjects, the right of fishing in the territorial
waters on that portion of the coast of Newfoundland comprised
between Cape St. John and Cape Ray, passing by the north; this
right shall be exercised during the usual fishing season
closing for all persons on the 20th October of each year. The
French may therefore fish there for every kind of fish,
including bait and also shell fish. They may enter any port or
harbour on the said coast and may there obtain supplies or
bait and shelter on the same conditions as the inhabitants of
Newfoundland, but they will remain subject to the local
Regulations in force; they may also fish at the mouths of the
rivers, but without going beyond a straight line drawn between
the two extremities of the banks, where the river enters the
sea. They shall not make use of stake-nets or fixed engines
without permission of the local authorities. On the
above-mentioned portion of the coast, British subjects and
French citizens shall be subject alike to the laws and
Regulations now in force, or which may hereafter be passed for
the establishment of a close time in regard to any particular
kind of fish, or for the improvement of the fisheries. Notice
of any fresh laws or Regulations shall be given to the
Government of the French Republic three months before they
come into operation. The policing of the fishing on the
above-mentioned portion of the coast, and for prevention of
illicit liquor traffic and smuggling of spirits, shall form
the subject of Regulations drawn up in agreement by the two
Governments.
{251}
"Article III.
A pecuniary indemnity shall be awarded by His Britannic
Majesty’s Government to the French citizens engaged in fishing
or the preparation of fish on the ‘Treaty Shore,’ who are
obliged, either to abandon the establishments they possess
there, or to give up their occupation, in consequence of the
modification introduced by the present Convention into the
existing state of affairs. This indemnity cannot be claimed by
the parties interested unless they have been engaged in their
business prior to the closing of the fishing season of 1903.
Claims for indemnity shall be submitted to an Arbitral
Tribunal, composed of an officer of each nation, and, in the
event of disagreement, of an Umpire appointed in accordance
with the procedure laid down by Article XXXII of The Hague
Convention. The details regulating the constitution of the
Tribunal, and the conditions of the inquiries to be instituted
for the purpose of substantiating the claims, shall form the
subject of a special Agreement between the two Governments.
"Article IV.
His Britannic Majesty’s Government, recognizing that, in
addition to the indemnity referred to in the preceding
Article, some territorial compensation is due to France in
return for the surrender of her privilege in that part of the
Island of Newfoundland referred to in Article II, agree with
the Government of the French Republic to the provisions
embodied in the following Articles:"
The provisions here referred to, contained in the subsequent
articles, modify the former frontier between Senegambia and
the English colony of the Gambia, "so as to give to France
Yarbutenda and the lands and landing places belonging to that
locality"; cede to France "the group known as the Isles de
Los, and situated opposite Konakry"; and substitute a new
boundary, to the east of the Niger, for that which was fixed
between the French and British possessions by the Convention
of 1898.
The Declaration which concludes the series of Agreements has
to do with matters in Siam, Madagascar, and New Hebrides. As
to Siam, the two Governments "declare by mutual agreement that
the influence of Great Britain shall be recognized by France
in the territories situated to the west of the basin of the
River Menam, and that the influence of France shall be
recognized by Great Britain in the territories situated to the
east of the same region, all the Siamese possessions on the
east and southeast of the zone above described and the
adjacent islands coming thus henceforth under French
influence, and, on the other hand, all Siamese possessions on
the west of this zone and of the Gulf of Siam, including the
Malay Peninsula and the adjacent islands, coming under English
influence. The two Contracting Parties, disclaiming all idea
of annexing any Siamese territory, and determined to abstain
from any act which might contravene the provisions of existing
Treaties, agree that, with this reservation, and so far as either
of them is concerned, the two Governments shall each have
respectively liberty of action in their spheres of influence
as above defined."
The further agreements were, on the part of the British
Government, to withdraw a protest it had raised against the
customs tariff established in Madagascar, and, on the part of
the two Governments, "to draw up in concert an arrangement
which, without involving any modification of the political
status quo, shall put an end to the difficulties arising from
the absence of jurisdiction over the natives of the New
Hebrides."
In the British Parliamentary Paper (Cd. 1952, April, 1904)
which gave official publication to these Agreements, they are
accompanied by an explanatory despatch from the Marquess of
Lansdowne, British Foreign Secretary, to Sir E. Monson,
Ambassador at Paris, which affirms distinctly that "if any
European Power is to have a predominant influence in Morocco,
that Power is France." The language of the despatch on this
subject is as follows:
"The condition of that country [Morocco] has for a long time
been unsatisfactory and fraught with danger. The authority of
the Sultan over a large portion of his dominions is that of a
titular Chief rather than of a Ruler. Life and property are
unsafe, the natural resources of the country are undeveloped,
and trade, though increasing, is hampered by the political
situation. In these respects the contrast between Morocco and
Egypt is marked. In spite of well-meant efforts to assist the
Sultan, but little progress has been effected, and at this
moment the prospect is probably as little hopeful as it ever
has been. Without the intervention of a strong and civilized
Power there appears to be no probability of a real improvement
in the condition of the country.
"It seems not unnatural that, in these circumstances, France
should regard it as falling to her lot to assume the task of
attempting the regeneration of the country. Her Algerian
possessions adjoin those of the Sultan throughout the length
of a frontier of several hundred miles. She has been compelled
from time to time to undertake military operations of
considerable difficulty, and at much cost, in order to put an
end to the disturbances which continually arise amongst tribes
adjoining the Algerian frontier—tribes which, although
nominally the subjects of the Sultan, are, in fact, almost
entirely beyond his control. The trade of France with Morocco
is again—if that across the Algerian frontier be included—of
considerable importance, and compares not unfavourably with
our own. In these circumstances, France, although in no wise
desiring to annex the Sultan’s dominions or to subvert his
authority, seeks to extend her influence in Morocco, and is
ready to submit to sacrifices and to incur responsibilities
with the object of putting an end to the condition of anarchy
which prevails upon the borders of Algeria. His Majesty’s
Government are not prepared to assume such responsibilities,
or to make such sacrifices, and they have therefore readily
admitted that if any European Power is to have a predominant
influence in Morocco, that Power is France."
{252}
Of the reciprocal and equally important recognition by France
of the paramount influence of Great Britain in Egypt, Lord
Lansdowne wrote:
"From the point of view of Great Britain the most important
part of the Agreement which has been concluded in respect of
Egypt is the recognition by the French Government of the
predominant position of Great Britain in that country. They
fully admit that the fulfilment of the task upon which we
entered in 1883 must not be impeded by any suggestion on their
part that our interest in Egypt is of a temporary character,
and they undertake that, so far as they are concerned, we
shall not be impeded in the performance of that task. This
undertaking will enable us to pursue our work in Egypt
without, so far as France is concerned, arousing international
susceptibilities. It is true that the other Great Powers of
Europe also enjoy, in virtue of existing arrangements, a
privileged position in Egypt; but the interests of
France—historical, political, and financial—so far outweigh
those of the other Powers, with the exception of Great
Britain, that so long as we work in harmony with France, there
seems no reason to anticipate difficulty at the hands of the
other powers."
EUROPE: A. D. 1904-1909.
General Consequences in Europe of the Russo-Japanese War and
the Weakening of Russia in Prestige and Actual Power.
"Europe is apparently on the eve of such a new combination of
the Great Powers as was caused by the Franco-German War of
1870, and just as after that fateful event Berlin became the
centre of the continental political system, so Paris bids fair
to play this part in the near future. For France has never
been so powerful a factor in politics since the fall of the
Empire as to-day. Everyone recognises that her alliance with
Russia was the first step from the isolation which followed
her military reverses towards her reinstatement in the
political hierarchy, and some of the most popular and
statesmanlike politicians of the Republic hold that the
dissolution of that partnership will be the second. For the
good which it achieved, they allege, was largely accidental,
while the cost it entailed was proportionately great. …
"The chief aim of the French statesman who struck up an
alliance with the Government of Alexander III. was to
neutralise Teutonic aggressiveness, and if possible to recover
the lost provinces as well. The latter part of this programme
has turned out to be a will-o’-the-wisp, while the first item
can now be realised independently of the Russian alliance.
Moreover, France, far from being isolated to-day, counts among
her friends and natural allies not only the Latin peoples but
the smaller States of the Continent, to say nothing of Great
Britain. …
"The motives which induced Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy
to enter into partnership have lost their force; the Triple
Alliance has ceased to exist in aught but the name. Italy was
the first of the three States to break away. And her adherence
to the league was so obviously opposed to the sentiments of
her people and the real interests of the nation, that only the
strongest conceivable motive could keep her in the uncongenial
society of her former oppressor. That motive had been supplied
by Bismarck, who persuaded Crispi that clerical France was at
the beck and call of the Vatican, and only awaited a
prosperous moment to disunite Italy and restore Rome to the
Pope. But to-day Germany herself has become the most trusty
and perhaps the most helpful friend of the Holy See, while
France has struck a vigorous blow on the line of cleavage
between the political and ecclesiastical institutions which
constitute the Catholic Church. The ruling body in
Parliamentary Germany is the Ultramontane centre, and if any
State in Europe could be conceived to be capable of breaking a
lance for the temporal power of his Holiness, it would
certainly be one of the two Teutonic Empires of Central
Europe."
_E. J. Dillon,
Foreign Affairs
(Contemporary Review, August, 1904)._
The following is from a special correspondent of the New York
_Evening Post_, who wrote from St. Petersburg on the 5th
of March, 1909:
"The international position of Russia has weakened greatly
during the last five years. Before the Japanese war and the
revolution her strength was enormous, and a Japanese officer
who visited St. Petersburg in 1903 wrote in a Japanese paper
that, judging by the attention which was paid to the Czar by
every court in Europe and by the respect, almost awe even,
with which he was regarded, that monarch might almost be
styled the king of kings. The war and the revolution made
short work, however, of this respect and awe. The Emperor
William first took advantage of Russia’s weakness by springing
the Morocco surprise on Europe; then Baron von Aerenthal
annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, which he would never, of
course, have dared to do six years ago; while recently in the
Duma Mr. Iswolsky frankly confessed that Russia can do
absolutely nothing; that the war and the revolution have bled
her white, and that no assistance or hope of assistance can be
given to the Serbs and the Montenegrins."
EUROPE: A. D. 1905.
Joint action of Powers in forcing Financial Reforms in
Macedonia on Turkey.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.
Sudden hostility of Germany to the Anglo-French Agreement
concerning Morocco.
The Kaiser’s speech at Tangier.
Threatening pressure on France.
Demand for International Conference.
Results at Algeciras.
What use the French Government wished to make of the free
exercise of influence in Morocco which Great Britain consented
to, in the agreements of April 8, 1904, is stated by M. Tardieu
in his "France and the Alliances," with more than probable
truth, as follows:
"There was no design of conquest, or of protectorate, or of
monopoly. Conquest would have cost too dear. A protectorate
would have served no purpose in face of the exclusiveness of
the tribes. Monopolization would have been contrary to
international treaties. To create police forces with Moroccan
natives and Algerian instructors in all the principal towns;
to restore finances by means of a more honest collection of
taxes, a genuine checking of expenses, and the repression of
smuggling; to increase the carrying trade by public works
wisely planned and the construction of ports, bridges and
roads—all this by contract law; to multiply hospitals,
schools, educational and charitable institutions,—such was
the tenor of the programme. … As Mr. Delcassé wrote: ‘Far from
diminishing the Sultan’s authority, we were peculiarly anxious
to enhance his prestige.’"
{253}
For almost a year after the signing of the Anglo-French
agreements of April, 1904, no objection was raised in Europe
to the undertaking by France of such regenerative work in
Morocco as they contemplated. Italy had assented to it before
England did. Spain did the same a few months later. These were
the Powers most concerned. The German Ambassador to France had
been informed of the tenor of the agreement with England a
fortnight before it was signed, and no criticism came from his
Government. After the text of it had been published,
Chancellor von Bülow said in the Reichstag: "We know of
nothing that should lead us to think that this agreement is
directed against any Power whatsoever. … From the point of
view of German interests, we have no objection to make against
it." During the eleven months that followed this utterance
nothing appears to have been done by France in Morocco that
changed the situation; but something changed the official
attitude of Germany towards what it had found acceptable
before, and changed it very suddenly. On the 31st of March,
1905, the German Emperor, on a yachting cruise to the
Mediterranean, disembarked at Tangier, and found occasion to
address these remarks to a representative of the Sultan:
"To-day, I pay my visit to the Sultan in his character of
independent sovereign. I hope that, under the Sultan’s
sovereignty, a free Morocco will remain open to the pacific
competition of all nations without monopoly and without
annexation, on a footing of absolute equality. My visit to
Tangier is intended to make known the fact that I am resolved
to do all that is in my power properly to safeguard the
interests of Germany, since I consider the Sultan as being an
absolutely free sovereign. It is with him that I mean to come
to an understanding respecting the best way of safeguarding
such interests. As regards the reforms which the Sultan is
intending to make, it seems to me that any action in this
direction should be taken with great precaution, respect being
had for the religious sentiments of the population in order
that there may be no disturbance of public tranquillity."
All Europe read an emphasized threat in these words, and felt
instantly that they meant hostile intentions towards France.
That they came so quickly after the crushing defeat of Russia
at Mukden; that Russia, ally of France in European politics,
would need no longer to be counted, for some indefinite future
time, as a military Power; that the Dual Alliance, which had
been the prop of France in the recovery of her standing among
the Powers, was thus suddenly a broken reed, and that
circumstances were propitious, therefore, for humiliating her
again,—here were facts for a bit of reasoning which suggested
itself quickly to a multitude of minds.
Twelve days after the speech of William II. at Tangier
Chancellor Bülow addressed a circular to the Ambassadors of
Germany at various capitals, directing them to demand an
International Conference for the settlement of matters
concerning Morocco. A little later the Moorish Sultan, Abd el
Aziz, endorsed the demand, in the following missive, addressed
to the several legations of foreign governments at Tangier:
"We have been ordered by our master the Sultan (God strengthen
him) to request all the great powers to hold a conference at
Tangier, composed by its honorable representatives and those
appointed by the Maghzen [the royal council or Cabinet] to
discuss the manner for suitable reforms which His Shcreefian
Majesty has determined to introduce into his Empire, and the
expenses to carry out the same. We therefore beg to inform
your excellency of this, so that you may notify your
government and request them to permit your excellency to
attend said conference for the above-mentioned purpose and let
us know of its answer, and remain in peace and with joy.
Written at the Holy Court at Fez on the 25th day of Rabe 1st,
1905; corresponding to May 29, 1905.
MOHAMMED BEN ARBY TORRES."
Meantime, Germany was bringing pressure at Paris to force the
resignation or removal of M. Delcassé, the Foreign Minister,
whose policy was now said to be "A threat to Germany," and the
French Government, unprepared for war, submitted to
concessions which involved that result. It entered on
preliminary pourparlers concerning the demand for an
international conference, and allowed Minister Delcassé to
resign.
A fair-minded German’s view of the proceedings of the German
Government in this matter was expressed by Mr. W. C. Dreher in
his next annual review of "The Year in Germany" for _The
Atlantic Monthly_. Frankly acknowledging that the Morocco
controversy had "left with most other nations a distinctly
disagreeable impression of the disturbing tendencies of German
policy," and that the Kaiser’s famous speech at Tangier had
"astonished the German people not less than other nations," he
remarks: "For the Germans had learned to acquiesce in the
Anglo-French settlement, under which France was to have a free
hand for its scheme of _pénétration pacifique_ in
Morocco. The utterances of the Imperial Chancellor in the
Reichstag clearly indicated that the Government accepted with
good grace the general terms of that settlement. The people,
too, had been schooled by the inspired press in the theory
that Germany’s commercial interests in Morocco were so
insignificant as not to warrant the inauguration of a large
and energetic action to assert them; and this view had been
generally accepted by them, barring the noisy little faction
of Pan Germans.
"The chief fault of Germany’s Morocco policy was, accordingly,
that it was sprung upon the German people themselves without
warning, without any preparation of their minds for it; hence
they imperfectly comprehended it and never had any great
interest in it. They did not feel that it was a matter
intimately affecting the nation’s interests; and while the
German Ambassador at Paris was asserting Germany’s solidarity
with Morocco, the press at home was diligently occupied in
convincing the outside world that Germany would never go to
war on account of that remote and insignificant state.
"Despite the abruptness and lack of skill in launching its new
policy, however, the government’s position was logical and,
within certain limits, reasonable. France and England had
assumed to decide the fate of Morocco between themselves,
whereas the Madrid Treaty of 1880, to which Germany was
signatory, had explicitly given an international character to
the Moroccan question. This was clearly an affront to
Germany’s dignity and an attempt to isolate her, which ought
to have been objected to at once."
_W. C. Dreher,
The Year in Germany
(Atlantic Monthly, November, 1906)_.
{254}
On the 28th of September M. Rouvier, the French Premier, and
Prince de Radolin, the German Ambassador at Paris, arrived at
an agreement concerning the matters to be settled at the
demanded Conference, and it was announced to other governments
in the following Memorandum;
The two Governments have agreed to submit to the Sultan the
draft of the following programme elaborated in conformity to
principles adopted by exchange of notes on July 8:
"_First_.
1. Organization, by way of international agreement, of the
police outside the border region.
"2. Regulations organizing the surveillance and suppression of
the smuggling of arms. In the border region the enforcement of
these regulations will exclusively concern France and Morocco.
"_Second_.
Financial reform.
"Financial support given to the Maghzen through the
establishment of a state bank with the privilege of issue,
taking charge of treasury operations and acting as a medium
for the coinage of money, the profits of which would belong to
the Maghzen.
"The said state bank would undertake to bring about a sounder
monetary condition.
"The credits opened to the Maghzen would be applied to the
equipment and salaries of the public forces and to urgent
public works, especially the improvement of the harbors and
their facilities.
"_Third_.
Study of better proceeds from imposts and of new sources of
revenue.
"_Fourth_.
Undertaking on the part of the Maghzen that no public service
will be disposed of for the benefit of private interests.
"Principle of letting contracts for public works to the lowest
bidder, without preference for any nationality."
In due time the further details were arranged, and
representatives of thirteen governments, namely, of
Austria-Hungary, Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain,
Italy, Morocco, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia,
Sweden, and the United States, were assembled in Conference on
the 15th of January, 1906, not at Tangier, but at the Spanish
city of Algeciras, on the coast of the Straits of Gibraltar.
The United States were represented by the American Ambassador
to the French Republic, Henry White, and by the American
Minister to Morocco, S. R. Gummeré. The instructions addressed
to them from Washington by the Secretary of State, Mr. Root,
were partly in these words:
"The United States is a participant in the discussions of the
conference solely by reason of being a treaty power, having
conventional engagements with Morocco dating back to 1836, by
which this country not only enjoys special privileges, but is
entitled to the most-favored-nation treatment for the time
being. This government also shares in the right of protection
of certain native Moors as defined in the multipartite
convention of July 3, 1880. Our interest and right comprise
and are limited to an equal share in whatever privileges of
residence, trade, and protection are enjoyed by, or may be
hereafter conceded by, the Shereefian Government to aliens and
their local agencies, and it follows that we have a like
concern in the enlargement of those privileges in all
appropriate ways. With the special political problems of
influence and association affecting the relations of the
Moroccan Empire, as a Mediterranean state, to the powers
having interests in that great sea and whose concern lies
naturally in the conservation and extension of its commerce
for the common benefit of all, the United States have little
to do beyond expression of its wish that equality and
stability be secured. …
"It is expected that your attitude in the proceedings of the
conference will display the impartial benevolence which the
United States feels toward Morocco and the cordial and
unbiased friendship we have for all the treaty powers. Fair
play is what the United States asks—for Morocco and for all
the interested nations—and it confidently expects that
outcome. The complete dissociation of the United States from
all motives or influences which might tend to thwart a perfect
agreement of the powers should, in case of need, lend weight
to your impartial counsels in endeavoring to compose any
dissidence of aims which may possibly develop in the course of
the conference."
Algeciras, the chosen seat of the Conference, had been three
times a landing place of the Moors in their invasions of
Spain. "The modern town," says one who wrote an account of the
Conference, "dating only from 1760, has but one attraction, a
magnificent English hotel, built by the owners of the
picturesque railway which connects it with the rest of Europe,
and of the corresponding steamer service across the bay to
Gibraltar, placing it in touch with all the world. But this
attraction sufficed, and the Reina Cristina Hotel was engaged
for the delegates, while the town-hall was cleared and
refitted for their deliberations. …
"The meetings were held at irregular intervals, about three
times a week, being summoned whenever the President was
advised that sufficient instructions had been received, or
that the drafting committee had some document to present for
consideration. Formal sessions were held from ten to twelve in
the morning, the Conference meeting in committee from three to
five in the afternoon, the drafting and translating committees
assembling when and where convenient to their members."
_Budgett Meakin,
The Algeciras Conference
(Fortnightly Review, May, 1906)._
The General Act of the Conference, finished and signed on the
7th of April, 1906, is in 123 Articles, divided into 6
Chapters, as follows:
I. A Declaration relative to the Organization of the Police;
II. Regulations concerning the detection and suppression of
the Illicit Trade in Arms;
III. An Act of Concession for a Moorish State Bank;
IV. A Declaration concerning an Improved Yield of the Taxes,
and the creation of New Sources of Revenue;
V. Regulations respecting the Customs of the Empire and the
suppression of Fraud and Smuggling;
VI. A Declaration relative to the Public Services and Public
Works.
The first chapter provides for the organization of a police
force, not less than 2000 nor more than 2500 in number,
recruited from among Moorish Mussulmans and commanded by
Kaids, but having Spanish and French officers and
non-commissioned officers for instructors, nominated to the
Sultan by their respective Governments, and their services
given for five years.
{255}
This police force, moreover, is subject to general inspection
by a superior officer of the Swiss army. The regulations of
the second chapter are minute and precise for their stated
purpose. The Morocco State Bank, provided for in the third, is
made subject to the law of France, and is to "discharge the
duties of disbursing Treasurer of the Empire" and "financial
agent of the Government." The Directors of the Bank are
chosen, of course, by the shareholders; but one article
stipulates that "the Shereefian Government shall exercise its
high control over the Bank through a Moorish High
Commissioner, whom it shall appoint after previous agreement
with the board of directors," while another requires that
"each of the following institutions, viz., the German Imperial
Bank, the Bank of England, the Bank of Spain and the Bank of
France, shall, with the approval of its Government, appoint a
Censor to the State Bank of Morocco." The prescriptions in the
fourth and fifth chapters of the act are not of general
significance or interest. In the sixth, relating to "public
services and public works," it is set forth that, "should the
Shereefian Government consider it necessary to have recourse
to foreign capital or to foreign industries for the working of
public services or for the execution of public works, roads,
railways, ports, telegraphs, or other, the Signatory Powers
reserve to themselves the right to see that the control of the
State over such large undertakings of public interest remain
intact." On the signing of the Act Mr. Henry White, the chief
delegate from the United States to the Conference, made the
following Declaration on behalf of his Government:
"The Government of the United States of America, having no
political interests in Morocco, and having taken part in the
present Conference with no other desires or intentions than to
assist in assuring to all the nations in Morocco the most
complete equality in matters of commerce, treatment, and
privileges, and in facilitating the introduction into that
Empire of reforms which should bring about a general state of
well-being founded on the perfect cordiality of her foreign
relations, and on a stable internal administration, declares:
that in subscribing to the Regulations and Declarations of the
Conference by the act of signing the General Act, subject to
ratification according to constitutional procedure, and the
Additional Protocol, and in consenting to their application to
American citizens and interests in Morocco, it assumes no
obligation or responsibility as to the measures which may be
necessary for the enforcement of the said Regulations and
Declarations."
EUROPE: A. D. 1907 (AUGUST).
Convention between Great Britain and Russia, containing
arrangements on the subject of Persia, Afghanistan, and Tibet.
Parallel with the Agreements—the "_Entente Cordiale_"—of
1904 between England and France, in its purpose and in its
importance to Europe, was the Convention between England and
Russia in 1907, which harmonized the interests and the policy
of the two nations in matters relating to Persia, Afghanistan,
and Tibet. In each case the dictating motive looked not so
much to a settlement of the particular questions involved, as
to a general extinguishment of possible causes of contention
which might at some time disturb the peaceful or friendly
relations of the peoples concerned. Taken together, the two
formally expressed understandings, Anglo-French and
Anglo-Russian, added to the Franco-Russian Alliance of 1895
(see, in Volume VI. of this work, FRANCE: A. D. 1895)
constituted, not a new Triple Alliance, set over against that
of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, but an amicable
conjunction which bore suggestions of alliance, and which
introduced a counterweight in European politics that makes
undoubtedly for peace.
The Anglo-Russian Convention, signed August 31, 1907,
contained three distinct "Arrangements," under a common
preamble, as follows:
"His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas,
Emperor of India, and His Majesty the Emperor of All the
Russias, animated by the sincere desire to settle by mutual
agreement different questions concerning the interests of
their States on the Continent of Asia, have determined to
conclude Agreements destined to prevent all cause of
misunderstanding between Great Britain and Russia in regard to
the questions referred to, and have nominated for this purpose
their respective Plenipotentiaries. … Who, having communicated
to each other their full powers, found in good and due form, have
agreed on the following:
Arrangement concerning Persia.
"The Governments of Great Britain and Russia having mutually
engaged to respect the integrity and independence of Persia,
and sincerely desiring the preservation of order throughout
that country and its peaceful development, as well as the
permanent establishment of equal advantages for the trade and
industry of all other nations;
"Considering that each of them has, for geographical and
economic reasons, a special interest in the maintenance of
peace and order in certain provinces of Persia adjoining, or
in the neighbourhood of, the Russian frontier on the one hand,
and the frontiers of Afghanistan and Baluchistan on the other
hand; and being desirous of avoiding all cause of conflict
between their respective interests in the above-mentioned
Provinces of Persia;
"Have agreed on the following terms:
"I. Great Britain engages not to seek for herself, and not to
support in favour of British subjects, or in favour of the
subjects of third Powers, any Concessions of a political or
commercial nature—such as Concessions for railways, banks,
telegraphs, roads, transport, insurance, &c.—beyond a line
starting from Kasr-i-Shirin, passing through Isfahan, Yezd,
Kakhk and ending at a point on the Persian frontier at the
intersection of the Russian and Afghan frontiers, and not to
oppose, directly or indirectly, demands for similar
Concessions in this region which are supported by the Russian
Government. It is understood that the above-mentioned places
are included in the region in which Great Britain engages not
to seek the Concessions referred to.
"II. Russia, on her part, engages not to seek for herself, and
not to support in favour of Russian subjects, or in favour of
the subjects of third Powers, any Concessions of a political
or commercial nature—such as Concessions for railways, banks,
telegraphs, roads, transport, insurance, &c.—beyond a line
going from the Afghan frontier by way of Gazik, Birjand,
Kerman, and ending at Bunder Abbas, and not to oppose,
directly or indirectly, demands for similar Concessions in
this region which are supported by the British Government. It
is understood that the above-mentioned places are included in
the region in which Russia engages not to seek the Concessions
referred to.
{256}
"III. Russia, on her part, engages not to oppose, without
previous arrangement with Great Britain, the grant of any
Concessions whatever to British subjects in the regions of
Persia situated between the lines mentioned in Articles I and
II. Great Britain undertakes a similar engagement as regards
the grant of Concessions to Russian subjects in the same
regions of Persia. All Concessions existing at present in the
regions indicated in Articles I and II are maintained.
"IV. It is understood that the revenues of all the Persian
customs, with the exception of those of Farsistan and of the
Persian Gulf, revenues guaranteeing the amortization and the
interest of the loans concluded by the Government of the Shah
with the ‘Banque d’Escompte et des Prêts de Perse ’ up to the
date of the signature of the present Arrangement, shall be
devoted to the same purpose as in the past. It is equally
understood that the revenues of the Persian customs of
Farsistan and of the Persian Gulf, as well as those of the
fisheries on the Persian shore of the Caspian Sea and those of
the Posts and Telegraphs, shall be devoted, as in the past, to
the service of the loans concluded by the Government of the
Shah with the Imperial Bank of Persia up to the date of the
signature of the present Arrangement.
"V. In the event of irregularities occurring in the
amortization or the payment of the interest of the Persian
loans concluded with the ‘Banque d’Escompte et des Prêts de
Perse’ and with the Imperial Bank of Persia up to the date of
the signature of the present Arrangement, and in the event of
the necessity arising for Russia to establish control over the
sources of revenue guaranteeing the regular service of the
loans concluded with the first-named bank, and situated in the
region mentioned in Article II of the present Arrangement, or
for Great Britain to establish control over the sources of
revenue guaranteeing the regular service of the loans
concluded with the second-named bank, and situated in the
region mentioned in Article I of the present Arrangement, the
British and Russian Governments undertake to enter beforehand
into a friendly exchange of ideas with a view to determine, in
agreement with each other, the measures of control in question
and to avoid all interference which would not be in conformity
with the principles governing the present Arrangement.
Convention concerning Afghanistan.
"The High Contracting Parties, in order to ensure perfect
security on their respective frontiers in Central Asia and to
maintain in these regions a solid and lasting peace, have
concluded the following Convention:
"Article I.
His Britannic Majesty’s Government declare that they have no
intention of changing the political status of Afghanistan. His
Britannic Majesty’s Government further engage to exercise
their influence in Afghanistan only in a pacific sense, and
they will not themselves take, nor encourage Afghanistan to
take, any measures threatening Russia. The Russian Government,
on their part, declare that they recognize Afghanistan as
outside the sphere of Russian influence, and they engage that
all their political relations with Afghanistan shall be
conducted through the intermediary of His Britannic Majesty’s
Government; they further engage not to send any Agents into
Afghanistan.
"Article II.
The Government of His Britannic Majesty having declared in the
Treaty signed at Kabul on the 21st March, 1905, that they
recognize the Agreement and the engagements concluded with the
late Ameer Abdur Rahman, and that they have no intention of
interfering in the internal government of Afghan territory,
Great Britain engages neither to annex nor to occupy in
contravention of that Treaty any portion of Afghanistan or to
interfere in the internal administration of the country,
provided that the Ameer fulfils the engagements already
contracted by him towards His Britannic Majesty’s Government
under the above-mentioned Treaty.
"Article III.
The Russian and Afghan authorities, specially designated for
the purpose on the frontier or in the frontier provinces, may
establish direct relations with each other for the settlement
of local questions of a non-political character.
"Article IV.
His Britannic Majesty’s Government and the Russian Government
affirm their adherence to the principle of equality of
commercial opportunity in Afghanistan, and they agree that any
facilities which may have been, or shall be hereafter obtained
for British and British-Indian trade and traders, shall be
equally enjoyed by Russian trade and traders. Should the
progress of trade establish the necessity for Commercial
Agents, the two Governments will agree as to what measures
shall be taken, due regard, of course, being had to the
Ameer’s sovereign rights.
"Article V.
The present Arrangements will only come into force when His
Britannic Majesty’s Government shall have notified to the
Russian Government the consent of the Ameer to the terms
stipulated above.
Arrangement concerning Thibet.
"The Governments of Great Britain and Russia recognizing the
suzerain rights of China in Thibet, and considering the fact
that Great Britain, by reason of her geographical position,
has a special interest in the maintenance of the status quo in
the external relations of Thibet, have made the following
Arrangement:—
"Article I.
The two High Contracting Parties engage to respect the
territorial integrity of Thibet and to abstain from all
interference in its internal administration.
"Article II.
In conformity with the admitted principle of the suzerainty of
China over Thibet, Great Britain and Russia engage not to
enter into negotiations with Thibet except through the
intermediary of the Chinese Government. This engagement does
not exclude the direct relations between British Commercial
Agents and the Thibetan authorities provided for in Article V
of the Convention between Great Britain and Thibet of the 7th
September, 1904, and confirmed by the Convention between Great
Britain and China of the 27th April, 1906; nor does it modify
the engagements entered into by Great Britain and China in
Article I of the said Convention of 1906.
{257}
"It is clearly understood that Buddhists, subjects of Great
Britain or of Russia, may enter into direct relations on
strictly religious matters with the Dalai Lama and the other
representatives of Buddhism in Thibet; the Governments of
Great Britain and Russia engage, as far as they are concerned,
not to allow those relations to infringe the stipulations of
the present Arrangement.
"Article III.
The British and Russian Governments respectively engage not to
send Representatives to Lhassa.
"Article IV.
The two High Contracting Parties engage neither to seek nor to
obtain, whether for themselves or their subjects, any
Concessions for railways, roads, telegraphs, and mines, or
other rights in Thibet.
"Article V.
The two Governments agree that no part of the revenues of
Thibet, whether in kind or in cash, shall be pledged or
assigned to Great Britain or Russia or to any of their
subjects.
Annex to the Arrangement between Great Britain and Russia
concerning Thibet.
"Great Britain reaffirms the Declaration, signed by his
Excellency the Viceroy and Governor-General of India and
appended to the ratification of the Convention of the 7th
September, 1904, to the effect that the occupation of the
Chumbi Valley by British forces shall cease after the payment
of three annual instalments of the indemnity of 25,000,000
rupees, provided that the trade marts mentioned in Article II
of that Convention have been effectively opened for three
years, and that in the meantime the Thibetan authorities have
faithfully complied in all respects with the terms of the said
Convention of 1904. It is clearly understood that if the
occupation of the Chumbi Valley by the British forces has, for
any reason, not been terminated at the time anticipated in the
above Declaration, the British and Russian Governments will
enter upon a friendly exchange of views on this subject."
As an Inclosure with the Convention, Notes were exchanged by
the Plenipotentiaries, of which that from Mr. Nicolson was in
the following words, M. Iswolsky replying to the same effect.
"ST. PETERSBURG, AUGUST 18 (31), 1907.
"M. LE MINISTRE,
"With reference to the Arrangement regarding Thibet, signed
to-day, I have the honour to make the following Declaration to
your Excellency:
"'His Britannic Majesty’s Government think it desirable, so
far as they are concerned, not to allow, unless by a previous
agreement with the Russian Government, for a period of three
years from the date of the present communication, the entry
into Thibet of any scientific mission whatever, on condition
that a like assurance is given on the part of the Imperial
Russian Government.
"‘His Britannic Majesty’s Government propose, moreover, to
approach the Chinese Government with a view to induce them to
accept a similar obligation for a corresponding period; the
Russian Government will as a matter of course take similar
action.
"‘At the expiration of the term of three years above mentioned
His Britannic Majesty’s Government will, if necessary, consult
with the Russian government as to the desirability of any
ulterior measures with regard to scientific expeditions to
Thibet.’ I avail, &c.
(Signed) A. NICOLSON."
In authorizing Sir A. Nicolson to sign the preceding
Convention, Sir Edward Grey, the British Secretary for Foreign
Affairs, wrote, on the 29th of August, as follows:
"I have to-day authorized your Excellency by telegraph to sign
a Convention with the Russian Government containing
Arrangements on the subject of Persia, Afghanistan, and
Thibet.
"The Arrangement respecting Persia is limited to the regions
of that country touching the respective frontiers of Great
Britain and Russia in Asia, and the Persian Gulf is not part
of those regions, and is only partly in Persian territory. It
has not therefore been considered appropriate to introduce
into the Convention a positive declaration respecting special
interests possessed by Great Britain in the Gulf, the result
of British action in those waters for more than a hundred
years.
"His Majesty’s Government have reason to believe that this
question will not give rise to difficulties between the two
Governments, should developments arise which make further
discussion affecting British interests in the Gulf necessary.
For the Russian Government have in the course of the
negotiations leading up to the conclusion of this Arrangement
explicitly stated that they do not deny the special interests
of Great Britain in the Persian Gulf—a statement of which His
Majesty’s Government have formally taken note.
"In order to make it quite clear that the present Arrangement
is not intended to affect the position in the Gulf, and does
not imply any change of policy respecting it on the part of
Great Britain, His Majesty’s Government think it desirable to
draw attention to previous declarations of British policy, and
to reaffirm generally previous statements as to British
interests in the Persian Gulf and the importance of
maintaining them.
"His Majesty’s Government will continue to direct all their
efforts to the preservation of the _status quo_ in the
Gulf and the maintenance of British trade; in doing so, they
have no desire to exclude the legitimate trade of any other
Power."
_Parliamentary Papers by Command.
Russia. Number 1. 1907 (Cd. 3750)._
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
Treaties respecting the Independence and Territorial Integrity
of Norway, and concerning the Maintenance of the Status Quo
in the territories bordering upon the North Sea.
Two Treaties of great importance to the security of peace in
Europe, having for object a joint protection by several Powers
of existing conditions on the North Sea and the Baltic exit to
it, were concluded and signed on the 2d of November, 1907, and
the 23d of April, 1908, respectively. The parties to the first
of these Treaties were Great Britain, France, Germany, Norway,
and Russia, and its purpose was "to secure to Norway, within
her present frontiers and with her neutral zone, her
independence and territorial integrity, as also the benefits
of peace." It was signed at Christiania, where ratifications
were deposited on the 6th of February following: The following
is the text of the Treaty;
{258}
"Article I.
The Norwegian Government undertake not to cede any portion of
the territory of Norway to any Power to hold on a title
founded either on occupation, or on any other ground
whatsoever.
"Article II.
The German, French, British, and Russian Governments recognize
and undertake to respect the integrity of Norway. If the
integrity of Norway is threatened or impaired by any Power
whatsoever, the German, French, British, and Russian
Governments undertake, on the receipt of a previous
communication to this effect from the Norwegian Government, to
afford to that Government their support, by such means as may
be deemed the most appropriate, with a view to safeguarding
the integrity of Norway.
"Article III.
The present Treaty is concluded for a period of ten years from
the day of the exchange of ratifications. If the Treaty is not
denounced by any of the parties at least two years before the
expiration of the said period, it will remain in force, in the
same manner as before, for a further period of ten years and
so on accordingly.
"In the event of the Treaty being denounced by one of the
Powers who have participated with Norway in the conclusion of
the present Treaty, such denunciation shall have effect only
as far as that Power is concerned.
"Article IV.
The present Treaty shall be ratified and the ratifications
shall be exchanged at Christiania as soon as possible."
The second of the two Treaties was in two documents, styled
"Declaration and Memorandum between the United Kingdom,
Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden,
concerning the maintenance of the _Status Quo_ in the
territories bordering upon the North Sea." They were signed at
Berlin, where ratifications were deposited on the 2d of July,
1908, and were in the following terms:
"Declaration.
The British, Danish, French, German, Netherland, and Swedish
Governments,
"Animated by the desire to strengthen the ties of neighbourly
friendship existing between their respective countries, and to
contribute thereby to the preservation of universal peace, and
recognizing that their policy with respect to the regions
bordering on the North Sea is directed to the maintenance of
the existing territorial _status quo_,
"Declare that they are firmly resolved to preserve intact, and
mutually to respect, the sovereign rights which their
countries at present enjoy over their respective territories
in those regions.
"Should any events occur which, in the opinion of any of the
above-mentioned Governments, threaten the existing territorial
_status quo_ in the regions bordering upon the North Sea,
the Powers Signatory of the present Declaration will
communicate with each other in order to concert, by an
agreement to be arrived at between them, such measures as they
may consider it useful to take in the interest of the
maintenance of the _status quo_ as regards their
possessions.
"The present Declaration shall be ratified with the least
possible delay. The ratifications shall be deposited at Berlin
as soon as may be, and, at the latest, on the 31st December,
1908. The deposit of each ratification shall be recorded in a
Protocol, of which a certified copy shall be forwarded through
the diplomatic channel to the Signatory Powers.
"Memorandum.
At the moment of signing the Declaration of this day’s date,
the Under signed, by order of their respective Governments,
consider it necessary to state—
"1. That the principle of the maintenance of the _status
quo_, as laid down by the said Declaration, applies solely
to the territorial integrity of all the existing possessions
of the High Contracting Parties in the regions bordering upon
the North Sea, and that consequently the Declaration can in no
case be invoked where the free exercise of the sovereign
rights of the High Contracting Parties over their
above-mentioned respective possessions is in question;
"2. That, for the purposes of the said Declaration, the North
Sea shall be considered to extend eastwards as far as its
junction with the waters of the Baltic."
_British Parliamentary Papers by Command,
Treaty Series No. 35, 1907, and 23, 1908
(Cd. 3754 and 4248)._
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1909.
The Situation in Crete as controlled by the Four Protecting
Powers.
See (in this Volume)
CRETE: A. D. 1907-1909.
EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (October-March).
Declaration of Bulgarian Independence.
Austrian Annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Excitement of Servia.
The menace to European peace.
The question of a Conference.
Attitude of Germany.
Was Russia coerced to assent?
Violation of the Public Law of Europe.
On the 5th of October, 1908, the independence of Bulgaria as a
Kingdom was formally proclaimed, the suzerainty of the Sultan
of Turkey renounced, and Prince Ferdinand invested with the
title of Tzar, or King. This proceeding was consequent on the
revolution in Turkey, which had resurrected the suspended
Constitution of 1876, broken the despotism of the Sultanate
and subjected it to a Parliamentary system of government.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1908, JULY-DECEMBER.
Never having accepted the arrangements of 1878, made by the
Congress of Berlin, which gave them self-government but kept
them tributary and nominally subject to the over lordship of
the Sultan, the Bulgarians had but waited for the opportunity
which now seemed to invite this act.
See, in Volume V. of this work,
TURKS: A. D. 1878;
and in Volume I.,
BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1878, and 1878-1886)
An immediate provocation to their declaration of independence
was supplied by a thoughtless offence to them given by the new
Ministry at Constantinople. To celebrate the triumph of the
revolution a state dinner was given, the Sultan presiding, and
all the diplomats at the Turkish capital were invited to it
excepting the representative of Bulgaria. When he asked for an
explanation of this exception he was told that he could not be
recognized as an ambassador or envoy, but only as the agent of
a subject province. This was enough to set Bulgaria aflame.
Her affronted Minister at Constantinople was withdrawn and
diplomatic intercourse with the Turkish Government dropped.
The breach was accentuated further by the recent occurrence of
a strike on the railway, owned by the Turkish Government,
which traverses both Turkish and Bulgarian territory. The
Bulgarians had taken possession of and were operating the
section within their own domain, and when the strike was
called off the Government announced its intention to retain
that portion of the line, with due compensation to the company
which leased it. This proceeding intensified and doubled the
ferments produced by the proclamation of independence.
Statesmen were disturbed by the violation of the Treaty of
Berlin and capitalists by the danger which menaced their
Turkish railway securities.
{259}
But this tells of only half the threatening incidents of the
time. Simultaneously with the Bulgarian defiance of the Treaty
of Berlin and its signatory sponsors, the Government of
Austria-Hungary broke away from its obligations, by a formal
announcement that the simple occupation and administration of
Bosnia, and Herzegovina, which that treaty had permitted the
Dual Empire to undertake, was now to be complete annexation,
by no other authority than the Imperial will to have it so.
Many interests and ambitions, many jealousies and distrusts
among the Powers, were disturbed and excited by this sudden
disordering of the political geography of Southeastern Europe.
Pan-Slavic feelings and hopes were profoundly antagonistic to
the Austrian absorption of more Slavic populations and lands.
Servia was alarmed to desperation by the aggrandizement of her
dangerous great neighbor, and Russia was more than sympathetic
with her alarm. What Turkey could or would do in vindication
of her treaty rights over Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Herzegovina,
was a question of little gravity compared with that which
asked what Servia might attempt in resistance to the Austrian
scheme, and what Russia would venture if an Austro-Servian war
should break out. The situation very soon became one in which
any act of hostility on any side could hardly fail to
precipitate a great tempest of war; and thus the peace of
Europe was held in a trembling balance for months. The state
of affairs was described clearly and with ample knowledge at
the time by Mr. Archibald R. Colquhoun, in a paper which he
read in London, at a meeting of the Royal Society of Arts.
"The more hot-headed Servians," he said, "undoubtedly felt
that their whole future was imperilled, and that they might as
well risk all on a desperate hazard, in the belief that
intervention would come to their assistance should their
independence be threatened. The close racial ties between the
Bosnians, Servians, and Montenegrins made it impossible to say
how far an armed movement might spread if it once broke out.
While Turkey and Bulgaria might come to terms, and while
Austria might effect an amicable arrangement with Turkey, it
was difficult to see how the question of the Southern Slavs
was to be finally adjusted unless Austria could placate them
in sections, and so perhaps divide them. Concessions of a
comparatively unimportant nature might induce Montenegro to
keep quiet, and a liberal policy, with a promise of autonomy
in the near future, would discount a good deal of the
agitation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The more far-sighted
Bosnians appreciated the fact that their shortest cut to
comparative freedom lay through that local autonomy which they
could legitimately demand from Austria. …
"The spectacle of these Southern Slave countries, whose
peoples exhibited so many splendid qualities, but yet did not
have that instinct for government which characterized some far
less gifted races, was rather a melancholy one. In the tangle
of mountains, races, and religions which made up the Balkans
the people needed peace above every other thing—a breathing
space in which to develop themselves and their resources, and
to get a truer perspective on their position in Europe. To the
Great Powers who controlled the destinies of these small ones
peace was no less essential, but it was not quite clear that
Austria-Hungary, with the great military power of Germany
behind her, realized this or was prepared to ‘seek peace and
ensue it.’ It was this uncertainty which made many await with
anxiety the melting of the Balkan snows, which put an end to
enforced inactivity in those regions."
Great Britain, France, Russia, and Italy were agreed in
desiring a Conference of the Powers which had been parties to
the Berlin Treaty of thirty years before, to adjudicate all
the questions raised by the acts of Austria and Bulgaria, in
contravention of that treaty. Austria was supported by Germany
in holding back from such a conference, and nothing definite
in that direction was done. Meantime Turkey was brought to
negotiations with both of the trespassers on her ancient
sovereignty, and within a few months she came to terms with
both. The arrangement with Austria, determining an indemnity
to be paid for the surrender of Turkish claims to Bosnia and
Herzegovina, was quickened by a boycott of Austrian
merchandise in Turkey, so extensive as to be felt very
seriously in Austrian and Hungarian trade. By the terms of a
protocol, which was signed on the 26th of February, 1909,
Austria-Hungary paid £T2,500,000 ($10,800,000) of indemnity to
the Ottoman Government; assured religious freedom and
political equality to Mussulman Bosniaks who should choose to
remain in the province, with liberty of emigration during
three years to all who might choose to depart, and promised a
commercial treaty on lines which the Turks desired. This
cleared the situation as between Austria and Turkey, but
intensified the Servian and Montenegrin bitterness of anger
and dread, which menaced the peace of the continent for
another month.
Meantime the terms of a Turkish adjustment with Bulgaria had
been practically settled, on the basis of a helpful suggestion
from St. Petersburg. Bulgaria offered $16,400,000 of
indemnity; Turkey claimed $24,000,000. The bargaining was at a
standstill until Russia offered to remit a yearly
war-indemnity of $1,600,000 which Russia owed her under the
Berlin Treaty, until the Turkish claim on Bulgaria should be
satisfied, while she would collect from Bulgaria in similar
instalments until the offer of the latter had been made good.
Inasmuch as the Turkish debt to Russia bore no interest, while
Bulgaria would pay interest on the deferred payments to
Russia, the Muscovite treasury would suffer no loss. The
matter was so arranged, and the interests of peace were served
by a most ingenious and happy device.
{260}
But peace was made more than insecure for some weeks yet by
the irreconcilability of Servia to the Austrian annexation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina. Of course that small State could not
hope to resist it successfully alone, or with Montenegrin aid;
but a desperate venture of war, into which Russia might be
dragged, and if Russia, then Germany,—and who could tell what
other powers!—and out of the wreckage of which something
better for Southeastern Europe than an Austro-Hungarian
domination might be drawn,—this appeal to the lottery of
battle seemed a dangerous temptation to the Servian mind. It
was extinguished as such in the end by the decision of Russia
to drop the project of a Conference of Powers, accept the
action of Austria, and recognize, unreservedly, on her own
part, the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an
accomplished fact. This was announced on the 15th of March,
and with the announcement came excited and exciting reports
that Germany had extorted the concession from the Russian
Government, by pressures that were humiliating, but which the
Empire, in its present circumstances, was powerless to resist.
Germany denied having exercised an illegitimate pressure in
the matter, but made no concealment of the fact that she stood
by Austria-Hungary with approval of what the Imperial
Government at Vienna had done. In a speech on the 29th of
March Chancellor Bülow was reported as saying:
"In her quarrel with Servia Austria indisputably had right on
her side. The annexation was no cynical act of robbery, but
the last step on the road of the political work of
civilization which had been followed for 30 years with the
recognition of the Powers. Any offence against the form of the
law had been disposed of by the negotiations with Turkey, and
after this agreement between the parties most nearly
interested the formal recognition of the other Powers
signatory of the Berlin Treaty could not be withheld. The
controllers of Russian policy, and especially the Emperor
Nicholas, had earned the gratitude of all friends of peace in
Europe. Concerning the Conference question, Germany still had
no objection in principle to a Conference in which all the
Powers took part and of which the programme was established in
advance. They had been charged with inactivity, but they had
no reason for special activity. They had done what they could
and used influence, not without success, between Vienna and
Constantinople, and also between Vienna and St. Petersburg.
They had, however, carefully observed the limits prescribed by
their interests and their loyalty. They had done nothing, and
they would do nothing, which could afford the smallest doubt
of their determination to sacrifice no vital interest of
Austria-Hungary, and they would have nothing to do with
suggestions to Austria which were incompatible with the
dignity of the Hapsburg Monarchy. They had experiences of
their own to inspire caution with regard to playing the part
of the broker, even in the most honourable way. … To sum up,
by loyalty to her ally Germany best secured her own interests
and contributed most to the maintenance of the peace of
Europe."
On the day of this speech at Berlin the London _Times_
expressed, in an editorial article, what was then and what
continues to be the prevailing belief and judgment of the best
informed political circles throughout Europe, when it said:
"The decision of the Russian Government to recognize the
annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was, of course, an
admission of their inability, in present circumstances, to
countenance the aspirations of the Southern Slavs. The intense
and general indignation which it has excited in Russia is
natural, and indeed, in the known state of public feeling,
inevitable. We trust, however, that it may be kept within
bounds, and that it will not find expression in useless and
vehement invective. Those who are tempted to indulge in it
without restraint should reflect upon the difficulties which
confront the responsible rulers of the State, and should
consider whether, as Statesmen answerable for the future, as
well as for the immediate present, of the Empire and of the
Slav race, those rulers could wisely have rejected the
proposal peremptorily made to them by the German Ambassador.
The cardinal fact in the situation—the fact upon which
Austria-Hungary and Germany have based their calculations and
determined their action throughout—is that Russia could not
for some time to come engage in a great war without incurring
unjustified risks. Nothing, we may be sure, but the
overwhelming consciousness of this fact could have induced the
Emperor and his advisers to adopt the decision to which they
came a few days ago. They must have been well aware of the
painful effect which it was certain to produce, in the first
instance, abroad as well as at home. None can have realized
more acutely than they that the presentation of the demand was
humiliating, and that the circumstances attending it were
eminently calculated to make that humiliation bitter. But they
held, and rightly held, that it was their duty to accept
humiliation rather than to jeopardize the great permanent
interests which are committed to their keeping. They might,
indeed, have been somewhat less precipitate. They might
reasonably have asked for time for consulting the Powers with
whom they have acted, and who have consistently supported
them, upon the proposals which Germany sprang upon them. The
fact that they did not do so is a significant indication that
the pressure which Count Pourtalès was instructed to put upon
them must have been of the most imperious and dictatorial
kind.
"As to the precise form of the intimation conveyed to M.
Isvolsky by the German Ambassador no definite information is
yet forthcoming, but of its nature there can be no possible
doubt. Our Paris Correspondent learns that, immediately after
his interview with Count Pourtalès, the Russian Minister
summoned a Council, and, after a hasty audience with the Tsar,
communicated to the German Ambassador Russia’s acquiescence in
the demands of his Government. There was no alternative to
this course, as we are told from St. Petersburg, unless Russia
was prepared to face the consequences of the mobilization of
the German Army. The matter, our Correspondent adds, was
treated as of ‘supreme urgency,’ from which it may be inferred
that a reply was required without delay. The Council of
Ministers knew what ‘German mobilization’ in the circumstances
would mean."
{261}
In appearance, if not in reality, Germany or Germany’s Kaiser
had again, as in the Morocco affair of 1905, taken advantage
of the weakened circumstances of Russia to play a dictatorial
part in European politics. The distrust and apprehension kept
alive by such repeated performances of the military big stick
at Berlin seem infinitely more dangerous to Europe than any
possible explosion of the unstable compounds of race,
religion, and lawless politics that are mixed in the Balkan
magazine. For the time being, however, the sparks that
sputtered alarmingly in the latter, throughout the winter of
1908-1909, were easily extinguished by the sudden dash of cold
water upon them from St. Petersburg. Great Britain, France,
and Italy, accepting the situation, joined Germany and Russia
in persuading the Government at Belgrade to be equally
submissive to events. Their persuasions were effective, and a
note to the following purpose, which the Powers in question
had formulated, was signed by the Servian Ministry and
presented to the Government at Vienna on the 31st of March:
"(1.) Servia declares that her rights have not been violated
by the annexation by Austria-Hungary of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, and accepts the Powers’ decision to annul
paragraph 25 of the Treaty of Berlin.
(2.) Servia will not protest against the annexation of Bosnia
and Herzegovina.
(3.) Servia will maintain peaceful relations with
Austria-Hungary.
(4.) Servia will return her military forces to normal
conditions, and will discharge the reservists and volunteers;
she will not permit the formation of irregular troops or
bands."
The arbitrary annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was now
legitimated; the Treaty of Berlin was revised by violations
condoned; a serious precedent had been injected into European
public law. What was said on the subject by the London
_Times_ on the morning after the delivery of the Servian
note is hardly open to the least dispute. "The danger of war,"
said the Times, "has thus, we may confidently hope, been
averted. But the sense of immediate relief with which this
deliverance may well be greeted cannot blind us to the cost at
which it has been achieved. The first great international
compact to which the new German Empire of the Hohenzollerns
subscribed within a few months of its proclamation at
Versailles was that which embodied the resolutions of the
London Conference of 1871. The European Powers, rightly
disputing Russia’s claim to denounce motu proprio the Black
Sea Clauses of the Treaty of Paris, maintained that no
revision of an international treaty could take place without
‘impartial examination’ and ‘free discussion.’ None upheld
that principle more stoutly than Austria-Hungary. Russia
herself finally accepted it, and it was solemnly placed on
record by Lord Granville in his opening speech as President of
the London Conference. It was embodied in a Protocol, signed
by all the Plenipotentiaries of the Powers, laying down as ‘an
essential principle of the law of nations that no Power can
repudiate treaty engagements or modify treaty provisions,
except with the consent of the contracting parties by mutual
agreement.’ That instrument has, until recently, governed the
public law of Europe. In conformity with its provisions,
Russia, after her war with Turkey in 1877-1878, was fain to
submit the Treaty of San Stefano to the Congress of Berlin;
and again in 1885 a Conference was held at Constantinople to
settle the question of the union of Eastern Rumelia with
Bulgaria which had been effected in violation of the Treaty of
Berlin. Five months ago, immediately after the annexation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary and the proclamation
of Bulgarian independence, Great Britain, France, and Russia
were agreed, after M. Isvolsky’s conversations with M.
Clemenceau and Sir Edward Grey, that the same 'essential
principle of the law of nations’ was once more at stake and
must be upheld. Italy adhered subsequently to that agreement,
which took shape in the suggestion for a conference, and
neither Germany nor Austria-Hungary openly rejected it at the
time. …
"The terms of the submission now made by Servia at the
instance of the Powers show how far we have travelled away
from that ‘essential principle of the law of nations’ since
October last. … Whether the formal ratification of the
breaches of international law which were committed last autumn
takes place now at a Conference, or by an exchange of Notes,
is a matter of small moment. In substance the Powers have
already conveyed their acquiescence in the abrogation of
Article XXV. of the Berlin Treaty concerning Bosnia and
Herzegovina, without the slightest show even of that
‘impartial examination’ and ‘perfectly free discussion’ which
the London Conference of 1871 laid down as an essential
preliminary to the revision of treaty engagements."
There was an illuminating sequel to this transaction near the
end of the year, in the trial of a libel suit, known as the
Friedjung case, which uncovered many hidden circumstances of
the annexation. One of the arguments by which the annexation
of Bosnia-Herzegovina was defended at the time was the
necessity of putting an end to an alleged conspiracy of the
Southern Slavs against the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.
See (in this Volume),
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1908-1909.
"Agram Trials", page 40.)
At the trial it was proved that the "documents" which had been
accepted as proving the existence of this conspiracy were
forgeries of the clumsiest description.
EUROPE: A. D. 1909.
Changed conditions making for peace.
Three striking examples.
Speaking at Sheffield, England, on the occasion of "the
Cutlers’ Feast," October 21, Sir Edward Grey, the British
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, called to mind, in a few
admirable sentences, three illustrations in the past year of
wonderfully changed conditions in Europe, making for peace. He
said:
"In the world at large to-day—if I may say a few words about
the business of my own department—there is no doubt plenty of
trouble, as there always is, but if you take the true measure
of the situation by comparing it with what it was a short time
ago, the outlook is distinctly favourable. I will give you
three points which are, I think, subjects of congratulation.
"It is only a year ago to this very month that we were at the
beginning of what was called the Balkan crisis. I do not know
whether the Budget has driven all recollection of it from your
minds, but it did occupy a good deal of attention a year ago
and for some months afterwards. For a long time it had been
almost an axiom of the diplomacy of Europe that some day or
other there would be trouble in the Balkans, and that, when
that trouble came, there would be danger of a European war.
The trouble came a year ago; it caused anxiety; there was a
storm; and for some months some anxiety as to whether one or
other of the Great European Powers might not drift from their
moorings.
{262}
But the anchors held, and now the swell has subsided, and
though there may be trouble again in the future, the fact that
the Great Powers of Europe have passed through the Balkan
troubles of the last year and yet maintained their peace is a
good augury that in future troubles the same may be done.
"Then I will take the question of Persia. A few years ago, had
any one foretold exactly what has happened in Persia in the
last year—that there would be a revolution, that there would
be great outbreaks of disorder throughout the country, and
that the Shah would be deposed—he would certainly have said
that it would be a time of considerable anxiety both for
Russia and for ourselves. A few years ago the representatives
of those two countries were watching each other in Persia with
jealousy, suspicion, and distrust. Had what has happened in
Persia in the last year happened a few years ago when those
were the relations between the two countries, I do not say
that there would actually have been war, but there would
certainly have been considerable anxiety and considerable
scares in the public opinion of both countries as to the
effect upon their relations with each other. Now we have
passed through the troubles of the last year in Persia, and in
no section of the Press of either country, in no section of
public opinion of either country, has there been a fear that
relations between ourselves and Russia would be impaired by
what was happening in Persia.
"The third subject to which I would refer is that of Morocco.
Morocco is to-day very full of trouble, and the trouble is a
matter of concern and worry to those Powers who have
conterminous frontiers in Morocco. That of course is so, but
look back over the last few years and survey. The matter which
occupied men’s minds in regard to Morocco was not the troubles
in Morocco itself but the possible effect which events in
Morocco might have upon the relations of the European Powers
to each other. To-day the trouble continues in Morocco, but
during the last year the anxiety that what was happening in
Morocco might cause serious difficulties between European
Powers themselves has greatly diminished if it has not
entirely disappeared. That, again, is a satisfactory
retrospect."
EUROPE: A. D. 1909.
Contradictory feeling and action concerning War.
Its causes.
International Barbarism with Inter-personal Civilization.
The two main knots of difficulty in the situation.
Great Britain and Germany.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR.
EUROPE: A. D. 1909.
Size and cost of its armies.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.
----------EUROPE: End--------
EVANS, Rear-Admiral Robley D.:
Commanding the American Battleship Fleet.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
EVICTED TENANTS ACT.
See (in this Volume)
IRELAND: A. D. 1907.
EXCLUSION OF ALIENS.
See (in this Volume)
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION, AND RACE PROBLEMS.
EXPATRIATION:
Its Rights.
Principles maintained by the United States.
See (in this Volume)
NATURALIZATION.
EXPLORATION, Polar.
See (in this Volume)
POLAR EXPLORATION.
EXPOSITIONS, Industrial.
See (in this Volume)
BUFFALO; ST. LOUIS; CHARLESTON;
JAMESTOWN; PORTLAND, OREGON; SEATTLE.
EZCURRA, COLONEL:
Deposed President of Paraguay.
See (in this Volume)
PARAGUAY: A. D. 1904.
F.
FABIAN SOCIETY.
See (in this Volume)
SOCIALISM: ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
FAIRBANKS, Charles W.:
Elected Vice-President of the United States.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904 (MARCH-NOVEMBER).
FAKUMENN RAILWAY QUESTION, between Japan and China.
See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1905-1909.
FALLIÈRES, ARMAND:
President of the French Senate.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1903.
FALLIÈRES, ARMAND:
President of the French Republic.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
FALL RIVER STRIKE, in the Cotton Mills.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904-1905.
FAMINES:
In China.
See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1906-1907.
FAMINES:
In India: The poverty they signify.
See (in this Volume)
INDIA; A. D. 1905-1908.
FAMINES:
In Russia.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1901-1904.
FARADAY, MICHAEL:
His Prophetic Conception of Radiant Matter.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: RADIUM.
FARM COLONY, Cleveland, Ohio.
See (in this Volume)
CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY, PROBLEMS OF.
FARMAN, Henri.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION: AERONAUTICS.
FARMERS’ ORGANIZATIONS.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1909; and
LABOR REMUNERATION: COÖPERATIVE ORGANIZATION.
FEDAKIARANS, The.