England; its political organization and development and the war against Germany

Front matter

• ENGLAND

ITS POLITICAL ORGANIZATION and DEVELOPMENT and

THE WAR AGAINST GERMANY

Introduction

In offering this book to an English speaking public we feel assured that its contents will prove of value to the open-minded reader who desires an all round knowledge of the absorbing topic of the day, — the great war and the causes that led up to it. The author is a highly distinguished historian who, in undertaking this work, departs from his previous and chosen field of ancient history to discuss his present subject with engaging frankness. Concisely and clearly he places before the reader the part that England has played in history, especially in regard to the relations that the English have borne to the other nations of the world. The ripe judgment and keen insight of the thorough student of history and of world politics gives the book the claim to be the most reasonable, accurate and far seeing work that has as yet been offered to the public with regard to the development and character of the English people, as viewed from the German standpoint.

In the concluding chapter the newly created conditions and problems of world-wide concern are presented with prophetic insight and eloquent earnestness, and this in itself should make the book worth while, even if that which precedes it were of less high merit than it is.

v vi Introduction

While we fully realize that English history is a familiar subject to most American readers, we are equally convinced that there are many among them who will follow with interest a portrayal of England's development as a state, as it appears to a German historian, an outsider of marked ability, who judges it from the German standpoint, whereas the Americans, who, as a whole, are readers of English literature only, have practically received their impressions of England and the English people exclusively from English sources — the insider's favorable view of his own state and his own people.

Although the subject is treated with critical keenness in this volume, and the opinions expressed in it are based on professional knowledge of the highest order, and although the conclusions reached are a stern arraignment of the course pursued by modern England, nevertheless the restraint of the professional judgment, and the conclusions at which the searching analysis of the historian arrives, appear all too mild to the average German who, in defending his fatherland and its traditions, is fighting for his most sacred possessions, and to whom England's part in the present war seems to be that of the unrighteous money changers whom Christ cast out of the temple.

In placing this translation of Professor Meyer's " England " at this time before the American people, who are neither English nor German, we believe that it is the only book which sets forth clearly the fundamental differences between the English and German state organizations, as well as between the aspirations and views of life entertained by the two nations

Introduction vii

as a whole. In no sense is it to be classed with the propaganda literature of the day, as it was written by the ablest living German historian, for perusal by his own people, in exposition of English conditions, past and present, and of the English national character.

The Publishers.

September, 191 6.

Foreword

This work was finished about the middle of January of the present year; the comments on subsequent events were added while the book was in the printer's hands. Now, however, still further comments seem absolutely necessary with regard to the events of the past few days.

That I did not make a mistake in my judgment of the American attitude has been clearly shown by the contrast between the two notes just sent by the American government, one to Germany and one to England, — the occasion for the former being the announcement of Germany's policy of attack by undersea craft upon the English coast and commerce; the latter, called forth by the consequent misuse of neutral flags by English ships.

The note to England is expressed in most friendly terms, and asks that some regard be shown for the welfare of American commerce, saying that although " the occasional use of a neutral flag under stress of immediate pursuit " may seem justifiable, nevertheless the systematic misuse of the American flag should be discontinued, since " such a policy of general misuse of a neutral's flag jeopardizes the vessels of the neutral visiting British waters," and " would even seem to impose on Great Britain a measure of responsibility for the loss of American lives and

ix x Foreword

vessels in case of an attack by hostile naval vessels." The note to Germany, on the other hand, utters a distinct threat in spite of the courteous terms in which it is expressed. It flatly denies that the American attitude has been anything but one of sincere neutrality, and then, with regard to Germany's announced policy, it goes on to say that, if in pursuance of it, " an American vessel should be destroyed or the life of an American citizen be lost, the government of the United States would be constrained to regard it as an indefensible violation of neutral rights, which would be very hard to reconcile with the friendly relations existing between the two countries " ; should such a regrettable event really result " the government of the United States would be constrained to hold the German government to a strict accountability for such acts of their naval authority, and to take any steps which might be necessary to secure to American citizens the full enjoyment of their acknowledged rights on the high seas."

To England and her allies all things are to be permitted, — by them international law may be trampled under foot with impunity; but, when Germany will not meekly suffer this, and, in self-defense, retaliates by measures made necessary by the policy of her enemy, these are at once decried as inexcusable violations of international law, with entire forgetfulness of the fact that England had been the first to repudiate it.

The proud reply which the German government made to this note received hearty endorsement

Foreword xi

throughout the country. In calm and dignified terms it sets forth that Germany is justified in adopting the proposed measures, and then, in friendly terms but very pointedly, it calls the attention of the Americans to their own shortcomings. If they would have their ships out of peril, they must be kept out of the danger zone, or else England must be induced to change her methods ; not Germany, but England is at fault.

We are not to be intimidated by America, but on the contrary, we will persist in the measures which this struggle for existence, together with England's policy, has forced us to adopt. If America is offended at this, it can be of no great moment to us, since the attitude of the United States has been such that in the future it can hardly do us greater injury than it has in the past.

Meanwhile Japan also has laid aside the mask, and is openly stretching out a greedy hand toward China, while neither the nominal allies of the one country or the other can do aught to interfere. The Japanese policy is well defined and purposeful, and quite as unscrupulous as that of England. Japan found England useful to aid her in driving the Germans out of China and the islands of the Pacific; now it is England's turn to be dispossessed. But she is reaping only what she has sowed, and it remains now to be seen what Australia and America will say to it. But the great question confronting the future is not only whether at the end of another century there will still be any European possessions in eastern China, in the islands of the Pacific, or even in Australia, but xii Foreword

whether one person of European extraction may then be found within these regions.

There is yet one last comment necessary. On page 302 I had said that " English gentlemen do not shrink from any crime, not even from that of assassination, if only appearances can be preserved." When I wrote this, I was fully informed with regard to a plot made to assassinate the Irish patriot, Sir Roger Casement, a plot devised by Findlay, the British Minister at Christiania, and to be carried out by a young Norwegian, Adler Christensen, then in the service of Sir Roger. However, since at that time I lacked documentary evidence, it seemed advisable not to refer to the matter prematurely, and so the words " not even from that of assassination " were erased in the proof. Since then the whole affair has been made public through the note addressed by Sir Roger Casement to Sir Edward Grey, the instigator of the plot, and at whose behest Findlay devised it.

On the voyage from America to Norway, Sir Roger fortunately eluded his English pursuers; hardly, however, had he arrived in Christiania, on October 29, 19 14, when Christensen was summoned to the British legation and questioned with regard to his employer. On the following day Christensen was closeted for two hours with the British Minister, Findlay, himself, a man who had gained an unenviable notoriety through the brutality of his conduct in Egypt. Christensen was given to understand that it would be an easy matter for him to secure for himself a comfortable and care-free future if he would undertake to make Sir Roger " disappear."

Foreword xiii

" The man who would deal him a mortal blow would never have to work again." Findlay promised " on his word of honor " to pay Christensen five thousand pounds sterling for the delivery of Sir Roger Casement alive into the hands of the English.

But Christensen remained loyal. He made a pretence of accepting the proposition, whereupon he was given a secret address, together with a code to be used in future correspondence. From Berlin, whither he accompanied Sir Roger, he forwarded to the British Minister a number of letters that he was supposed to have filched from his employer, but which in reality Sir Roger had written for this express purpose. Later, Christensen returned to Christiania where he carried out this game of deception with great skill. On December 7th he was given the key to a rear door of the British legation, and on the 3rd of January he induced Findlay, after considerable urging, to give him the following document in Findlay's own handwriting, a facsimile of which has been made public, and which must be quoted here as indisputable proof of English corruption.

" British Legation,

" Christiania, Norway.

" On behalf of the British Government I promise that if, through information given by Adler Christensen, Sir Roger Casement be captured either with or without his companions, the said Adler Christensen is to receive from the British Government the sum of £5000 to be paid as he may desire.

Adler Christensen is also to enjoy personal imxiv Foreword

munity and to be given a passage to the United States should he desire it.

" M. DE C. FlNDLAY,

To the Norwegian newspapers Findlay declared that he could make no statement with regard to the matter; perhaps Sir Edward Grey would explain. If ever Sir Edward does so, it will be interesting to learn to what subterfuges he will resort to clear himself.

This incident shows conclusively how great are the anxieties that Ireland is causing the British government, despite all the official assurances of the island's loyalty. Moreover, six Nationalist Irish newspapers have been suppressed, no Irish- American papers are permitted, and the importation and sale of arms has been forbidden by proclamation; but recruiting is as unpopular in Ireland now as heretofore, and the opposition of the political parties is as violent as ever.

At the same time the incident serves to illustrate in a most startling manner the moral depth to which the ruling classes in England have fallen. If the evidence were not indisputable, we would not believe it possible, even after all we have recently experienced at the hands of England.

Because of the loyalty of a young Norwegian sailor, Sir Roger Casement escaped the fate that was intended for him, but the Boer, General Delareij, was not so fortunate. While riding through the streets in an automobile with General Beyers, in September 191 4, he was shot and killed by an Eng-

Foreword xv

lish policeman. It was, of course, an " unfortunate accident." Surely, in this " war of humanitarian culture against German barbarism," the English are not unworthily associated with the Serb assassins and with the Russians whose diplomacy has ever resorted to means such as these.

" Tis evident, the ' gentleman ' is no Sumarai " are the words with which the Japanese admiral closes his report of the naval battle among the Falkland Islands.

Eduard Meyer.

Berlin-Lichterfelde,

February 18, 191 5.

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

Introduction v

Foreword ix

Part II — England's Policy And England As A World Power Chapter P Age

IX The Beginning of England's Power at Sea — Wars with Spain and Holland 127

X England's Wars with France — The Beginning of English Supremacy at Sea 134

XI English World Supremacy, 1814-1863 151

XII New Dangers — France — Russia —

America and Germany .... 166

XIII The Crisis and English Retrogres-

XIV Suspension of Colonial Aggression

— Tension Between England and Russia, 1865-1881 184

XV The Period from 1881-1901 — Relations with France — America — Russia and Turkey 189

XVI Germany's Prosperity and Her Colonial Policy — The English in Africa — Japan and China . . . 203

XVII Edward VII and the Hatred of Germany 214

XVIII The Triple Entente and the Alliance with Japan — Morocco . . 242

XIX The Encircling of Germany — Belgium — Agadir — The Balkan War 251

CONTENTS xix

CHAPTER PAGE

XX Preliminary Arrangements for War — The Beginning of the World War 270

XXI England's Conduct of the War — The Moral Decadence of the English 296

CHAPTER I The Development and Fundamental Features of the English Constitution

It is impossible to form a correct estimate of England's part in the history of the world, or of the motives that led her into the present war, unless we call to mind the fact that English political development has proceeded in an exactly contrary course to that followed by the continental countries.

The common foundation upon which the political structure of all modern states rests is the dual organization of the Middle Ages, in which the overlord and the Estates sought their own ends along divergent paths which frequently led to bitter antagonism. Rarely indeed were they brought into harmonious co-operation through the pursuit of a common advantage, and then only after long and wearisome negotiations and intricate compromises.

Such a political organization is as far removed from the idea of centralized government as the ancients knew it, as it is from that which is finding ever-increasing development in modern times. When it could no longer adequately meet the growing demands of more highly civilized conditions, it gradually disappeared from the continent, while the functions of government were more and more combined in the hand of the overlord. In France and Spain, as well as in the Scandinavian countries, this process brought about the monarchy, under the influence of which the national state was achieved and the foundation for the development of the modern national spirit laid. In Germany and Italy a like course of development was rendered impossible by the dominance and invulnerability of the Empire, — within its sphere of influence only local and territorial sovereignties could exist.

But everywhere the process was the same, — through a firm and enduring hold upon the finances, through the control of the administration and of the men-at-arms, the Kingship grew more and more independent of the co-operation of the Estates, which was always difficult to obtain and never to be relied upon. And so the Estates gradually lost every vestige of their former power, either as the result of defeat in a bitter struggle for supremacy, 1 or else through neglect; their consent being no longer needed, they were no longer summoned, and in time came to be a forgotten institution. Thus state sovereignty was evolved, and with it the conception of the modern monarchical form of government. Its claim and justification are based upon the fact that it not only gave the people a single centralized

1 Only in one instance did the reverse of this process take place, and that is in the Netherlands where the Estates triumphed over the monarchical tendencies of the Spanish dominion. The dualistic organization of the Middle Ages is still to be found in the Duchy of Mecklenburg.

English State in Sixteenth Century 5

administration at the head of affairs, but out of the chaos of mediaeval anarchy it brought law and order together with prosperity and a sence of security. As opposed to the particular interests of the Estates, the monarchy advanced and shielded the interests that promoted the common welfare of all the different classes of the population, and it is because of this, the beneficent exercise of its authority in the interest of all as against class interest, that the monarchy derived its high claim to authority by right divine. That it may be free ever to uphold the right, its power must be unlimited, and it cannot therefore be responsible to man, but to God alone.

In England also the political development seemed at first to be following the common course when the power of the feudal lords was broken in the Wars of the Roses, and the Tudor, Henry VII, seized the crown by the victor's right of battle, and set up a vigorous regime. Apparently England under the Tudors made as close an approach to the ideal of an absolute monarchy as did France under the later kings of the house of Valois (with the exception of the time of greatest disruption during the religious wars), or as did Spain under the Hapsburgs. There was, however, always this marked difference, that the English Estates in the Parliament had gained for themselves a position of greater authority than had the Estates in any of the continental countries. Although the higher nobles, together with the magnates of the Church, had isolated themselves in the exclusive Upper House, they had found an active ally in the Lower House in a popular element that had derived its privileges from the Crown, and therefore was always eager to uphold the monarchical order of things, but nevertheless, and indeed for that very reason, strongly upheld the principle that taxes could not be levied without the consent of the taxed. Under these circumstances a standing army under the control of the Crown was not possible in England, and, because of the sense of security from foreign attack that the insular position of the kingdom afforded, the need of an army of defence was less imperatively felt there than in the states of the continent. Even the despotic Tudor s could not ride rough shod over the inalienable rights of the English people, although they summoned Parliament as seldom as possible, and made more than a few of its recalcitrant members feel the heavy hand of their royal displeasure. Moreover, parliamentary authority made a great stride forward when Henry VIII undertook to free his country from the yoke of Rome; it made another when, after a first and abortive attempt on the part of Edward VI, — which was followed by the temporary triumph of Spanish Catholicism under Queen Mary, — Elizabeth, constrained by the exigencies of her position, established the Anglican Church as the national church polity, and compelled all resisting elements to yield to its authority; it made yet another when, in the bitter struggle with Spain, she appealed to the national spirit and rallied the nation to her side.

Indeed it was by these highly autocratic acts

Beginning of Parliamentary Control y

themselves, carried out, as they were, with utmost relentlessness, that the authority of Parliament and the rights of the people it represented were strengthened. Without the firm hold upon the nation which the monarchy had obtained for itself, the English Reformation could hardly have been achieved, nor England's independence maintained against the attacks of Spain.

How the Stuarts attempted to force upon the United Kingdom of Great Britain (united under their dynasty) a despotic government patterned after the monarchies of the continent, and so provoked the people to civil war, — how this war resulted in the defeat of the Crown because the King did not have a military force under his control strong enough to defeat the national army organized by the radical elements of the country, — how the fall of the military despotism that followed, together with the dispersion of the Puritan army, was followed in turn by the restoration of the monarchy, which could not, however, shake itself free of the restraining hand of Parliament, — how, on the contrary, the attempt of Charles II to regain independence for the Crown by a closer approach between the two kingdoms of Great Britain and France brought about the very reverse of the desired object in that the dependence upon Parliament grew greater instead of less, — how James II, by his endeavor to wreck the Anglican Church, precipitated a crisis that resulted in the invasion of England by the army of William of Orange, and this gave the Opposition its opportunity to break the power of James, whose army, on which he had relied, forsook him and went over to the enemy, — all these are familiar facts of history and need no enlargement here.

Although the crown could be conferred upon William and Mary, as it was upon their sister, Anne, also, only by overriding the rights of their father and brother, it was nevertheless formally conferred upon them by Act of Parliament, and was accepted by these sovereigns, together with stated conditions (the Bill of Rights), to which they pledged themselves in solemn ceremony. They therefore became the legally acknowledged rulers of the English people, whose loyalty they consequently had a right to claim. That these sovereigns left no heir to the throne was the final disaster in the struggle to maintain the supremacy of the Crown, for it now passed to a foreign prince. The first two sovereigns of the house of Hanover remained strangers in the land they ruled, for they had little or no understanding of its people, or of the political conditions which prevailed, and found it possible to maintain themselves upon the throne only because their presence there was a distinct advantage to certain interests for which the men at the head of affairs, and who had derived their power from Parliament, were contending.

Thus it was that in England, in contrast to political development on the continent, the sovereignty in the later political structure devolved not upon the Crown, but upon the organized Estates as represented in Parliament. Since George I understood no English and had to resort to the Latin language

Parliamentary Control in Eighteenth Century 9

when in consultation with his ministers, it was not possible for him to take part in the deliberations of the Cabinet, a circumstance through which this body grew more and more independent, until finally it emancipated itself entirely from royal control. Whereas in the reign of William III, and in that of Queen Anne also, the Cabinet had been the King's Council, it now became the executive committee of the Parliament. To be sure in all important matters, especially in those that concerned England's foreign policy, the first two Georges, who were men of energy and by no means lacking in ability, endeavored to make the royal will felt, in which they were oftentimes successful, or at least partially so.

But, in strong contrast to the policy followed by both William III and Queen Anne, the two succeeding sovereigns added to the dependence of their position by refusing every concession to the Tories, and by surrendering themselves entirely into the hands of the Whigs, the party that had set them on the throne. When at last, with the accession of George III, a king with truly national sympathies came to the throne, it was too late to stem the tide. It is true, he brought the Tories back into power, yet his attempt to realize Bolingbroke's ideal of a " Patriot King " failed utterly in spite of the honest efforts of the King, and served only to increase the confusion and add to the entanglements of odious personal intrigue by which English politics were controlled throughout the eighteenth century.

For this is what parliamentary government degenerated into from the outset. In theory, no doubt, it fulfills the ideal of a perfect form of government, and has been lauded as such ever since the days of Montesquieu. Even yet the glamour which surrounds it dazzles not only the masses of European populations, but also those many well-intentioned men who believe that in it they behold the realization of their ideal, — the government of the people by representatives that are chosen by a majority to give expression to the public mind, — yet fail to look beyond the mere form, and so recognize the true conditions. But it has ever been thus; mere form, well-phrased, convinces the majority of men everywhere, and they are ready to swear by it.

The fact is that the English Parliament in its formative period and up to the enactment of the reforms of 1832 never was representative of the people, but was rather the organization by which a powerful aristocracy ruled. To be sure, by the enactment of the Bill of Rights parliamentary ascendency was swung round to the Lower House, since this body was thereby invested with the sole right to levy taxes; no money bills, could even be amended in the Upper House, which was limited to either accepting or rejecting them. But the right to elect the members of the Lower House rested upon privileges granted by the Crown, by virtue of which certain villages, towns and counties received representation, while many others were either not represented at all, or were inadequately represented. Moreover, the right of suffrage was exercised by free landholders only, and was therefore restricted to a small minority of the population. By such means as

Control by the Upper House II

these it was possible for the higher nobles, of whom, together with the Episcopal prelacy, the House of Lords was constituted, to control the Lower House, not legally but effectually; and in the widest range of its activities, and so to maintain their ascendency, both social and political. Many of the seats in the Lower House were in the direct gift of the titled members of the Upper House, since these had entire control of the rotten boroughs — those small represented districts in which there were only very few voters, in some cases not half a dozen. It has been estimated that at one time not less than 306 members of the Lower House owed their election to the votes of only 160 persons. Moreover, the nobles knew full well how to use this privilege to bring into' the Lower House able men, to attach these to themselves and their class interests, and finally, by elevation to the peerage, to draw them within their own circle.

In the other boroughs the election contests were a wild farce in which any means of corruption, bribery, deception, and even open violence were resorted to without scruple, — scenes which have often been pictured in drastic colors by English writers, conspicuously so by the brilliant pen of Charles Dickens.

In the Lower House itself, ever since the days of William III, the most shameful corruption flourished, — an indirect barter of votes for the numerous government offices and for the very lucrative sinecures in the gift of the government was carried on side by side with open bribery on a vast scale.

On the other hand the sovereignty that the revolution of 1688 had transferred to the Lower House was exercised in a manner that would have done credit to the most vigorous of absolute monarchies. Leze majesty was in England made to apply to the Parliament, whereas it is notoriously the privilege of every Englishman to speak as slightingly or as offensively as he pleases about the nominal bearer of the sovereignty — the King. Every offender against the " privileges " of Parliament, every person who dared attack the Parliament itself or its Acts, was and is still rigorously prosecuted, and is liable to severe and humiliating penalties. A free criticism of all action by the legislative body, such as is taken for granted in the countries of the continent, is not allowed even yet in England, and it behooves him who ventures to step on this forbidden ground to choose his words carefully and to weigh them well before he does so.

That its sittings were held in secret insured Parliament against control by public opinion. It is a well known fact that even to-day visitors and reporters are admitted by courtesy only, the legal restrictions being officially ignored, and that all such persons can be ejected at any moment if a member announces that he sees " a stranger " present. Moreover, to make a report of the proceedings of Parliament was not only forbidden, but was a punishable offense.

Under conditions such as these the irresponsibility of the Crown was assured; while, since the days of William III, Parliament itself has shown

Struggle for Supremacy Among Leaders 13

so little sense of responsibility, and, by its erratic enactments, its subservience to momentary currents of opinion, as well as to caprice and personal influence, has so often embarrassed a capable administration, and prevented it from carrying out its well-planned policies, that we can but wonder that England has come forth so successfully from the foreign conflicts in which she has been obliged to engage. And, indeed, this would hardly have been possible except for her insular position, which shielded England against many a vital danger and prevented the states of the continent, with the means then at their command, from endangering her existence by attacks such as they themselves had frequently to face. It is in these conditions that we find a reason for the dangerous vacillations that mark England's policy during the reign of William III, in the war of the Spanish Succession, in the Seven Years' war, and in the Napoleonic wars, as well as for the serious blunders that were made in the early conduct of the Seven Years' war, the revolutionary wars, and at other times. Certainly in the American war of independence England suffered the full consequences of these internal conditions.