VI. SCOTLAND AND IRELAND…

VI. SCOTLAND AND IRELAND

I. SCOTLAND.

The history of Scotland during this eventful year was even more interwoven than usual with that of Great Britain in general. The war and the land and suffragist agitation affected the whole country alike, though no general scheme of agrarian reform for Scotland was yet put forth by semi-official Liberalism. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, stimulated the controversy by his attacks on the Duke of Sutherland and others (p. 14), and drew from Mr. Munro Ferguson, M.P., the notable declaration (at Inverness, Jan. 3) that if the 250,000_l._ spent on reclamation by the third Duke of Sutherland had been devoted to afforestation, the land would now be worth millions. The Chancellor also managed to placate the "single taxers" (p. 13), who were strong north of the Tweed. As in England, it was complained that the creation of small holdings did not proceed with sufficient rapidity, and a Bill promoted by unofficial Liberals and designed to improve the machinery of the Act of 1911, which passed its second reading in the Commons on March 13 and got through a Standing Committee, was eventually dropped for want of time. The debate on the Government of Scotland Bill (May 15, p. 104) was notable for the marked difference of opinion among its supporters regarding women's suffrage. The serious deficiency of housing accommodation for the workmen employed by the Government at Rosyth excited severe comment in both Houses and was a factor in the introduction of the first Housing Bill (p. 209). Two minor legal reforms affecting land should perhaps be mentioned: the Entails (Scotland) Act and the Feudal Casualties (Scotland) Act, making highly technical, but important, changes in the Scottish law of real property.

The movement for reunion of the two great Presbyterian Churches made further progress. Early in May the Union Committee of the Established Church issued a draft constitution as a basis for discussion. It consisted of nine articles, and it specifically defined the creed of the Church of Scotland, and declared that that Church adhered to the principles of the Protestant Reformation and of the Westminster Confession of Faith, but reserved the right to modify the expression of the Confession and to interpret the constitution of the Church, subject always to agreement with the Word of God and the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. It claimed continuity with the historical Church of Scotland recognised in the Act of Union, and it explicitly declared that the Presbyterian form of Church government was the only form for that Church. It recognised that the nation as a body should render homage to God and promote His Kingdom; but it expressly claimed liberty for the Church in things spiritual. A minority Report, signed by sixteen members out of 100, proposed to define the doctrine of the Church finally and more precisely, and to insist on the principle of Establishment. In the General Assembly, however (May 26), only about half a dozen members opposed the acceptance of the Report of the majority. The United Free Church Assembly, on the other hand, authorised its Committee to continue conference with the Church of Scotland; and an amendment, in effect postulating Disestablishment as a necessary preliminary to the union of the two Churches, was supported by only fifty or sixty members in an assemblage numbering about a thousand. On both sides, therefore, the extremists were diminishing, and the old cries were losing their force.

In February a Report of the Departmental Committee on Sea Fisheries (Cd. 7221) recommended the abolition or modification of the existing Fishery Board, and the development of the fisheries by various means, including the organisation of a Statistical and Intelligence Department, the employment of a chemist to study fish curing and of representatives in foreign markets, instruction in the habits of fishes and the action of fishing gear, and in motor-boat engineering, with a nautical course for boys in elementary schools. It did not favour State loans for fishermen.

The war, as in England, considerably affected the east coast, partly through the apprehension of naval and air raids and the excitement caused by allegations of espionage and aid rendered by alien residents to the enemy (pp. 231, 239), and, more substantially, by the interference with coasting traffic, with the export of coal, with the fisheries, and, most of all, with the trade in cured herrings, through the total closing of the German market and the difficulties of access to those of the other countries of Northern Europe. The embarrassment of the traders was partly relieved by the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act (p. 196). On the moors shooting was all but suspended; and tourists were few. As in England, labour disputes were hastily composed; the coal-owners abandoned their demand for a reduction of 1_s._ daily in the miners' wages, and the threat of a general stoppage of work was withdrawn. A pending strike of marine engineers was given up, as were also a host of minor conflicts. "Business as usual" was the popular motto, as in England; and recruiting was active. No figures of its progress were available, but the controversy as to the propriety of a continuance of football--of which there were said to be about 10,000 professional players--arose much earlier than in England, and, under the advice of the War Office, the abandonment of matches was much more extensive (p. 247).

Trade and industry were variously affected by the war. On the Clyde a decline in the shipbuilding output was inevitable after the enormous production of 1913, but many orders were in hand, and though there was some slackening of work, there was no unemployment during the seven months of peace. On the outbreak of the war, three yards, those of Messrs. John Brown & Co., William Beardmore & Co., and the Fairfield Engineering & Shipbuilding Company, were entirely devoted to naval work, and several other firms were largely engaged in this likewise. Statistics of it were, of course, unattainable, but employment was abundant; and the output of mercantile shipping for the year was 307 vessels, aggregating 460,258 tons against 370, aggregating 756,975 tons in 1913. The most notable vessels were the geared turbine twin-screw Cunarder Transylvania, 14,300 tons, built by Scott's Shipbuilding & Engineering Company, Greenock; the Anchor liner Tuscania, of similar size and engine construction, built by Alex. Stephen & Son, Linthouse; and the P. and O. liner Kaisar-i-Hind, 11,430 tons, built by Laird & Co., Greenock. As soon as the war began to look more hopeful for the Allies, new orders came, the execution of which would only be delayed by want of men. The east coast yards produced about the same tonnage as in 1913.

Of other trades a brief mention must suffice. The export of coal decreased by about 15 per cent., chiefly through the closing of the German, Austrian and Russian markets by the war. The iron and steel trade, on the other hand, was stimulated through the removal of German competition. The mineral oil trade was greatly upset by loss of markets abroad and diminished consumption by reduction of lighting and interruption of fishing, which was largely carried on by motor boats. The jute trade declined from a height previously unattained to an unusually low level, owing to the war and to restrictions on the export of yarns. The linen trade also fell off greatly. The tweed trade found compensation for the loss of the German and Austrian markets in the demand for khaki cloth for the troops.

II. IRELAND.

The first few weeks of the year saw the decay of the Dublin strike, and the conclusion of the inquiries which were its outcome into the conduct of the police and the conditions of housing in the poorest quarters of the Irish capital. The strike itself practically collapsed on January 19, with the return to work of many dockers and the reopening of the works of the Dublin Tramways Company, which had remained closed for nearly five months. The Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of the police held its first sitting on January 5. As it consisted only of two King's Counsel, its composition was regarded as unsatisfactory by trade unionists alike in Ireland and in Great Britain; and there was an angry scene on January 8, when Mr. Handel Booth, M.P. (Pontefract), who had seen the riot in August, 1913, and was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses, withdrew altogether, after a dispute with the counsel for the police. But the evidence showed that the riots had been organised, and the Commission reported to that effect, exonerating the police force generally, while admitting that some few constables had been guilty of assault and unjustifiable violence. The subject was debated on the Address (p. 30), but the Labour party declined to risk defeating the Government.

The Report of the Housing Inquiry Committee (A.E., 1913, p. 268) proved to be a very severe condemnation of the condition of the Dublin slums and of the conduct of the Corporation, some of whose members owned tenement property. Existing legislation, it declared, was neglected or abused. It condemned both the actual tenement system and the condition of the small houses, and held that every working-class family should be provided with a self-contained dwelling admitting of the separation of the sexes. It estimated that at least 14,000 new houses or dwellings were required, and it recommended, inter alia, State aid for rebuilding.

Such questions had, of course, to be left to be dealt with by a Home Rule Parliament; and this, when the year closed, was practically assured at the termination of the war, though the position of the Ulster Unionist constituencies and the precise extent of the Home Rule area were still undetermined.

The conflict has been so fully described in previous chapters that only a summary of it is needed here. Though the Nationalists ignored Mr. O'Brien's challenge at Cork (p. 6), the tendency to compromise manifested in such suggestions as those of Mr. F. S. Oliver, Sir Horace Plunkett, and many other individual publicists (p. 18), was further emphasised by the King's Speech and the debate on the Address, and found practical expression in the promise of an Amending Bill (March 9). But the Unionist apprehensions aroused through the postponement of any statement of its details, and the expectation that force would ultimately be used to overcome the resistance of Ulster, combined with the misunderstanding of the military measures contemplated by the Government to set up a grave, though temporary, danger. The debate on the second reading of the Home Rule Bill, however, further exhibited the tendency to compromise and the acceptance by the Unionists of some form of Home Rule as inevitable. The fanatics among the Ulster Unionists, too, were warned against expecting aid from Germany (p. 75), a warning, however, afterwards discredited by the conduct of the war by the German Government. The effect of the allegations as to the plot against Ulster, which were renewed in April, was considerably weakened by the gun-running from the Fanny (p. 84), which was followed by further negotiations, or approaches to negotiations, between the Unionist leaders and the Ministry with a view to the partial or total exclusion of Ulster from the operation of the Bill. Agitation, meanwhile, was continued by the Unionists--- perhaps mainly as an element in driving the bargain--and roused a counter-agitation among the Liberal rank and file. Meanwhile the Irish Volunteer force had been growing, and the capture of the control of it by the Nationalist leaders converted it into a new and unexpected obstacle to the projected resistance of the Ulster Volunteers to the realisation of the Home Rule scheme. The Amending Bill (June 23, p. 135) provided for the optional and temporary exclusion of such Ulster counties as might desire to avail themselves of its provisions; but this measure was transformed by the House of Lords so as permanently to exclude the whole of Ulster from the operation of the Home Rule Bill--a solution which admittedly satisfied nobody, and which would certainly have been rejected by the House of Commons. Hence the Conference (p. 158) ascribed, rightly or wrongly, to the intervention of the King; but, after greatly narrowing (it was believed) the margin of difference, it reached a deadlock.

Just at this time Sir Horace Plunkett, well known for his promotion of co-operation in Ireland, and hitherto ranking as a moderate Unionist, published a pamphlet entitled "The Better Way; an Appeal to Ulster not to Desert Ireland," in which he declared that Home Rule was inevitable and even desirable, that it would not mean "Rome Rule," and that the exclusion of Ulster was bad in principle and might probably injure the industry and commerce of the province. Let Ulstermen, he urged, give Home Rule a chance. He restated his scheme for the inclusion of Ulster subject to an option of future withdrawal, and suggested a conference of Irishmen on the Home Rule Bill, and a scheme for combining the two sets of Volunteers in a Territorial Force.

Under other conditions, this plea from so high an authority might have proved very powerful; but its appearance was immediately followed by the failure of the Conference, and the situation was made much worse two days later by the Nationalist gun-running (July 26) and the affray in Dublin between the crowd and the police and troops (p. 162).

The situation was saved, however, by the European crisis. Doubtless the German Government counted on civil strife to paralyse British efforts at resistance to its schemes. But directly war became probable the Amending Bill was postponed; the Opposition leaders assured the Government of their support (p. 249); Mr. Redmond promised that the Nationalist Volunteers would co-operate with those of Ulster in defending Ireland, and assured the Government that it had the Nationalists' full confidence; and the contending political parties, with few exceptions, promptly rallied to the defence of the Kingdom and the Empire. The Nationalist and Unionist leaders alike used all their influence to persuade their followers to join the colours (pp. 216, 229). The Nationalist rank and file were conciliated by the prospect of Home Rule and strengthened in their allegiance by the circumstance that Great Britain was avowedly fighting to protect the small nations, as well as by their traditional sympathy with France; and they were further confirmed in their attitude by the conduct of the Germans in Belgium, especially by the destruction of the great Catholic University of Louvain, with the vast collection of priceless Celtic MSS., which were among the chief sources of early Irish history. The Arms Proclamation was allowed to lapse, and the election contest at Derry, due to the death of Mr. Hogg (L.), which had been regarded with considerable apprehension, was averted by general consent. As in England and Scotland all election contests were avoided, save in one instance, due to a local dispute; in Ulster, as in England, the flow of recruits outran the provision made for them by the War Office, and by about the middle of October the Protestant districts had furnished some 21,000, of which Belfast alone had contributed 7,581 or 305 per 10,000 of the population--the highest proportion of all the towns in the United Kingdom. An Ulster Division appeared in the list of the new Armies at the end of the year.

The vigorous and continued efforts of the Nationalist leaders to promote enlistment were unfortunately opposed by small and virulently hostile bodies of extremists--Sinn Fein (A.R., 1907, p. 266), the Irish Labour party, led by Mr. Larkin, and entirely separate from the Labour party in Great Britain, some of the original promoters of the Irish Volunteer movement (A.R., 1913, p. 267), and other small groups. These bodies published papers, among them Irish Freedom, Sinn Fein, the Irish Volunteer, and the Irish Worker, distributed them and quantities of leaflets gratuitously, posted up seditious placards, sent out emissaries to discourage recruiting, and started or spread a rumour that the Government intended to institute compulsory military service, which caused a considerable emigration of able-bodied men to America in the autumn from certain areas in the West. They attempted a counter-demonstration to the Premier's meeting in Dublin (p. 215); and Sir Roger Casement, an Antrim man and a Liberal Home Ruler, who had honourably served Great Britain as a Consul and had exposed the atrocities on the Putumayo (A.R., 1912, p. 489; 1913, p. 493), was reported in November to have gone to Berlin via the United States, and to have obtained satisfactory assurances from the German Government, particularly with regard to the conduct that might be expected from a German invading force in Ireland. A prominent Irish American even stated that the Kaiser had promised Sir Roger that he would free Ireland if Germany were victorious. Sir Roger had previously tried to dissuade Irishmen from enlisting in the British Army. It was charitably suggested that, if these reports were true, his mental balance had suffered from his arduous and perilous work on the Putumayo. The extremists generally argued that the war was England's affair, that Ireland should be neutral, and that its Nationalists should co-operate with those of India and Egypt to exact favourable terms for themselves from Great Britain after her defeat, and join the Irish Volunteers against the day of reckoning.

It was suspected that this propaganda was supported by German money through Irish-American channels, and its real effect was probably not great. In parts of Ireland the "Sinn Feiners" had to retire from the Volunteer corps; many of the rural labourers who enlisted were found to be physically unfit, and it was stated that the maintenance of the Volunteers was hampered through the enlistment of their drill instructors, and that enlistment was further discouraged by the refusal of the War Office to sanction the presentation of Colours to Irish regiments or to encourage the formation of an Irish Brigade. The Government for some months ignored the seditious papers, taking the view that suppression would only advertise their efforts; but at the end of November their publishers were warned, with satisfactory results. The Labour party, however, held a street demonstration of protest in Dublin (Dec. 6) which only numbered about 600. It was overlooked by a body of the "citizen army" equipped with rifles, and stationed in "Liberty Hall," Mr. Larkin's headquarters; and it was stated that these would have been used against police interference. But the Government wisely took no notice. Mr. Larkin himself was in the United States collecting arms and money for his followers; and Professor Kuno Meyer, the eminent Keltic scholar, who had lived much in Wales and Ireland, and whose former friendships with Keltic students in the United Kingdom were repudiated demonstratively on both sides after the outbreak of war, stated in an interview that an Irish (probably Irish-American) regiment was being formed in Germany. But the whole of this seditious movement was probably of slight significance.

It was suggested that Sir Roger Casement's attitude might partly be due to disappointment at the abandonment of the projected call at Queenstown of the Hamburg-American steamers from Hamburg to Boston, which had been arranged, partly at his instance, early in the year, and was alleged to have been discouraged, for political reasons, by the British Government. More probably the reasons were commercial. The Cunard calls were definitely abandoned on February 28. In November a partial resumption was announced, but it was not kept up.

Legislation for Ireland was scanty, and a Land Purchase Bill was introduced, but withdrawn. A Labourers Act, however, was passed increasing the amount which could be expended under the Act of 1906, and an Intermediate Education Act, improving the position of teachers in the statutory schools and securing them some degree of fixity of tenure. The statistics of crime showed a considerable decline; but there were some cases of cattle-driving during the year.

The Home Rule controversy and the tension in Ulster did not seem appreciably to interfere with Irish industry and trade. It was stated, indeed, in the spring that the banks were restricting their advances to traders in view of a crisis, and that securities were at one time being transferred to London. But pauperism in March was less than in 1913 and much less than in 1910. In Belfast the huge shipbuilding output of 1913 was actually surpassed. Twenty-three vessels were launched aggregating 246,370 tons, as against twenty-four vessels of 131,916 tons in 1913. Messrs. Harland & Wolff's output from their Belfast and Clyde yards together amounted to 182,759 tons, the largest yet achieved in one year by any firm in the world. The six ships they launched at Belfast comprised the White Star liner Britannic of 50,000 tons, and five others, respectively for the Holland-Amerika, Red Star (Belgian), Aberdeen, Pacific Mail, and Royal Mail lines. Messrs. Workman, Clark & Co. built three Ellerman, two Royal Mail, two Shire and two other liners--in all nine vessels of 75,188 tons. At Londonderry four vessels were launched aggregating 12,225 tons. Among other trades, linen, previously depressed by general and local causes, was gravely interfered with by the stoppage through the war of Russian and Belgian material, and, in the case of white linens, by the loss of the German and Austrian markets; but in this trade, as in rope and twine, Government war orders were some compensation for losses in other ways. The minor industries of Belfast were vigorous. Foot-and-mouth disease again interfered occasionally with the cattle traffic to Great Britain.

SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER.

FINANCE AND TRADE IN 1914.

From the observer's point of view the second half of 1914 was the most interesting period through which the City has passed. Other times had seemed difficult when the country was in the midst of labour crises, when foreign politics threatened, and when the prices of securities drifted steadily downwards; but the City has never before had to cope with so vast an upheaval as has been caused by the present conflagration in Europe. The City, at any rate, had not been organised to meet the consequences of the clash of arms, and when the blow fell not a market was unmoved. The machinery and functions of the money market and the banks, the Stock Exchange, Lloyd's and the insurance companies, the Baltic and the shipping lines, the Corn Exchange and the Commercial Sales Rooms had all to be adjusted to meet the unprecedented conditions. Just as the fighting forces had to be mobilised, so had the industrial organisations to be cleared for action, for finance and commerce have been and are destined to play a great part in the mighty struggle. All the British leaders of industry were animated by two objects only: how best to assist the nation to withstand the shock of war, and how to emerge victorious. It will be interesting to consider briefly how the different sections rose to the occasion.

The eventful year opened with money becoming easy and before the end of January the Bank of England minimum rate was 3 per cent. The decline in Bank rate was accompanied by a fall in the open discount market and early in February rates dropped to 1-11/16. Then began a renewal of a demand for gold from the Continent, and the discount rate rose to 2-15/16. In March the position was again easier and with the payments of the dividends in April the rate was as low as 1-3/4. In May the absorptions by Continental countries were on an abnormally large scale (though their significance was not fully appreciated) and the discount rate rose to 2-15/16 per cent. After the end of the half-year the rate was easier again, but it soon advanced steadily on the reports of strained relations between Austria and Serbia.

On July 28 the fear of war involving this country became definite, and on July 30 the Bank rate was raised from 3 to 4 per cent.; on July 31 it was advanced further to 8 per cent., and on the following day again to 10 per cent. The market discount rates were nominal at from 5-1/4 to 5-1/2 per cent.

Consultations took place between the Government and financial leaders, and on Sunday, August 2, a proclamation was issued providing that all bills accepted before August 4 should not be payable on their due date but should be deferred for one month. The next day an Act was passed prolonging the Bank Holiday for three more days, and on August 6 a general Moratorium was declared. This extension of the Bank Holiday was considered desirable in order to give the banks and discount houses time to consider their position and to discuss the question of currency. As an emergency measure an issue of Treasury notes in denominations of 1_l._ and 10_s._ was offered to the banks up to 20 per cent. of their deposit and current accounts. For these notes interest at Bank rate had to be paid. The first issue was made on August 7, when the banks reopened. On that day large deposits were made by the public and there was little sign of any nervousness. At first the banks took nearly 13,000,000_l._ in notes, but the bulk of these were soon returned, and by the end of the year the amount held by them had been reduced to only 169,000_l._ Postal orders, without poundage, were also made legal tender, but were soon withdrawn from circulation. [The arrangement was formally terminated on February 4, 1915.] On August 7 the Bank rate was reduced to 6 per cent. and on the next day to 5 per cent., at which it remained.

The Government announcement respecting the discounting of bills was made on August 13, and a very large business was transacted, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to announce later that of 120,000,000_l._ which was sent to the Bank of England less than half was likely to remain in "cold storage" at the end of the year. The case of merchants who had money owing to them abroad, all of which during the war would obviously not be paid, was hard, and, in order to avoid disaster, the Government announced a scheme early in November, providing that in approved cases advances not exceeding 50 per cent. of the amounts outstanding should be made to them by means of six months' bills; 75 per cent. of any loss was to be borne by the State and 25 per cent. by the Banks.

On December 4 the Moratorium came to an end.

At the end of the year the stock of gold shown in the Bank return showed a large increase at nearly 70,000,000_l._ (exclusive of 18,500,000_l._ earmarked for the Currency Note Reserve), as compared with 35,000,000_l._ at the end of 1913. A large proportion of the stock at the end of the year represented gold held in financial centres of Britain beyond the seas on account of the Bank, until arrangements could be made to ship it to this country.

A notable development during the peaceful period of the year was a further series of banking amalgamations, including a fusion between the famous houses of Messrs. Coutts & Co. and Messrs. Robarts, Lubbock & Co.

Immediately after the outbreak of war Parliament voted a credit of 100,000,000_l._ and between August and November 90,000,000_l._ in bills were issued. These were mostly in six months' bills, and were placed at average rates ranging from 2_l._ 18_s._ 6_d._ to 3_l._ 15_s._ 6_d._ In November the issue of the great War Loan for 350,000,000_l._ was successfully made, the issue taking the form of stock at 95 per cent., redeemable in 1925-8, and bearing interest at 3-1/2 per cent. The net yield was 323,000,000_l._, which sum was intended to include the repayment of the Treasury Bills issued. A notable feature of the terms of the War Loan was that the Bank of England undertook to make advances up to the amount of the issue price at 1 per cent. below the current Bank rate.

Early in January, the Stock Exchange indulged in a little "boom," but towards the end of February a reaction set in and from then until the outbreak of war markets were extremely dull. The Ulster crisis, severe depression in South America, and the failure of the Canadian Agency and the firm of Chaplin, Milne, Grenfell & Co. were depressing influences. Throughout July markets were under the cloud of foreign political complications, and on July 24 the Austrian Note to Serbia caused serious alarm and an immense number of selling orders. In the end of July the settlement was completed with no more serious consequences than the failure of nine firms, involving twenty members. On July 31 the Committee, in response to many representations, decided to close the House. Minimum prices for Trustee stocks were fixed by the Committee on September 14, based on the quotations current on July 30, the main object being to prevent undue depression. Arrangements were made in consultation with the Treasury for carrying out the mid-August settlement on November 18, special rules being issued. The Banks, in return for the assistance they had received from Government, undertook to continue loans during the war without extra margin, while other lenders were granted advances up to 60 per cent. from the Bank of England.

Consols, which were quoted at 71-5/8 at the end of 1913, were actually higher on July 27 at 72-1/4 and at the end of 1914 stood at 68-1/2, this, however, being the Stock Exchange minimum price, and nearly all representative securities showed substantial falls.

On December 23 the announcement was made that the Stock Exchange would reopen on January 4, with stringent provisions designed to prevent sales by the enemy.

One notable development following the outbreak of war was the breakdown of the foreign Exchanges. This meant that while it lasted oversea commerce was paralysed. In New York, owing to the large sales of American securities in Europe, sterling exchange rose at first to the extraordinarily high level of $6, and Sir George Paish was deputed to proceed to the United States to discuss measures to relieve the situation. Cargoes of grain and other produce were not bought, and consequently there was almost a complete cessation of chartering. Gradually the position was righted, and early in September business was being done in a quiet way. From then freights, which had been abnormally low during the summer, began to rise and continued to do so.

The rise was, in the main, due to a lack of tonnage in certain routes. The short supply was caused by the acquisition of many hundreds of vessels by the Government for various purposes; the inability of the German mercantile marine to take any share in the world's carrying trade; and the loss of a certain number of British ships sunk by the enemy's vessels or through striking mines. Towards the end of the year the position was very seriously aggravated by congestion at British and continental ports. The enlistment of large numbers of skilled dock labourers in the Army, the reservation of certain ports and docks for military requirements, and the accommodation necessary for the Government's large purchases of sugar, all combined to make the position difficult. Ships were kept for long periods waiting their turn to discharge, and it was not uncommon for vessels to be in port three or four times as long as usual. These delays undoubtedly detracted somewhat from the extraordinarily high rates which were being secured. The most striking rate was perhaps that of the carriage of grain from Argentina. As compared with a rate of 12_s._ 6_d._ per ton quoted just before the war, 50_s._ was paid by the end of the year, and this figure was far short of the prices that have since been paid. The rate for coal from Newcastle to London which had been as low as 2_s._ 6_d._ rose to about 13_s._ 6_d._ As some relief for the situation, the Admiralty made arrangements to put a considerable number of enemy steamers which had been detained in this country at the outbreak of war into the coal trade. These vessels, as soon as crews could be found for them, were placed on the market, and did not have any effect in reducing the high rates. A few enemy steamers which had been captured at sea by British warships were sold by auction as prizes. Sums which were considered abnormally high were bid for them, but it is reasoned that while freights continue on the level current at the beginning of this year they should prove satisfactory acquisitions to their owners.

The question of maintaining oversea commerce received the prompt attention of the Government. Many people connected with the shipping industry had fully expected that the outbreak of war would find a large number of fast German cruisers at large and ready to prey upon British commerce. Shipowners had themselves made certain provisions, but only of very limited scope. They had formed certain mutual clubs in which ships were to be insured against war risks only until their arrival in safety in British or neutral ports. This arrangement would obviously not have had the effect of keeping ships at sea and maintaining oversea commerce as in peace times, which, in the Chancellor's opinion, was a vital necessity. The recommendations of the sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence were therefore put into operation at once. The proposals dealt separately with hulls and with cargoes. The State undertook to accept re-insurances from the clubs on ships up to 80 per cent. of the values, receiving in exchange 80 per cent. of the premiums. At first rates of 1-1/4 and 2-1/2 per cent. were quoted for the single and double voyages respectively, but these after a few weeks were reduced to 1 and 2 per cent. Similarly a premium for a three months' time policy was reduced from 40_s._ to 30_s._ per cent.

The recommendation of the sub-committee respecting cargoes was, briefly, that the State should undertake to insure merchandise in British vessels at premiums which should not be below 1 guinea per cent. and should not rise above 5 guineas per cent. A special office was established at the Cannon Street Hotel and began to transact business on the afternoon of Wednesday, August 5. At first the maximum rate of 5 guineas per cent. was quoted; three days later the rate was reduced to 4 guineas per cent., and it was again reduced within short periods, until on September 1 it stood at 2 guineas per cent. At that level the rate remained until the last day of the year, when it was reduced to 1 guinea per cent.

All this time underwriters and insurance companies had been transacting a very large business at rates which were as a rule below the Government quotation. The Government scheme only applied to cargoes in British vessels, and then only to British vessels which were insured against war risks with associations approved by the Government. The State Office also would not insure vessels which had already left port. A large field was therefore left open to private enterprise, apart from the business which naturally flows to the cheapest market. For several months an enormous business was written on cargo across the Atlantic at only 5_s._ per cent., which compared with the Government quotation of 1 per cent. Coasting and other short voyages were also written at rates substantially below the Government quotation. It is understood that for the first six months, at any rate, underwriters had no reason to regret their operations in war insurance. Marine casualties were comparatively light and the year for marine underwriters may be regarded as an exceptionally good one.

The magnitude of oversea commerce may in the circumstances be regarded as highly satisfactory. For the twelve months imports showed a decline of 9.2 per cent.; exports of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom a fall of 18 per cent.; and re-exports of foreign and colonial merchandise a drop of 12.8 per cent. If the figures of the last five months alone be taken into account the imports declined by 20 per cent., the exports by 41 per cent., and the re-exports by 32.7 per cent. It should be remembered that the export trade was diminished by the embargo placed on many products, and also that the figures do not show the merchandise exported for the use of the Army and Navy. Taking the import and export trade the total values amounted to 1,223,000,000_l._, a decrease for the year of 180,000,000_l._

All the railways of the country were taken over by the Government on the outbreak of war under powers conferred by the Regulation of Forces Act of 1871, the administration being placed in the hands of an executive committee of railway managers with the President of the Board of Trade as chairman. In return for the immensely important services rendered by the companies in conveying troops and stores throughout the country the Government agreed, if the receipts for 1914 were less than those for 1913, to pay such sums as, together with the net receipts, should bring them up to the level of 1913. On the other hand, if the receipts for the first half of 1914 were below those for the corresponding period, the amount to be paid by the Government was to be reduced accordingly.

Prices of foodstuffs, including wheat, generally were advanced considerably at first, but declined when trade settled down into more normal conditions and on the regulation of retail prices by boards representative of the different trades which were appointed by the Government. Towards the end of the year prices again advanced, and in many cases closed at the highest points touched. One of the most interesting of the many measures taken by the Government in financial and commercial spheres was the purchase of sugar to replace the million tons of beet sugar which would normally have been imported from Germany and Austria. Roughly, about 900,000 tons were bought for refining and manufacturing purposes and for direct consumption, and, though the Government plan was criticised on the ground inter alia that high prices were paid, it has been widely recognised that but for the prompt action it would have been difficult to obtain adequate supplies, except from tainted sources. A Royal Commission was appointed to determine the selling prices, and a prohibition was placed on importation of all sugars, in order to prevent supplies reaching here from enemy countries through neutrals and indirect payments in return through similar channels. Evidence that Germany was receiving tea through neutral countries led in November to the prohibition of exports from this country, the action being similar to that previously taken in the case of rubber.

Life assurance companies were deeply affected by the war. As a result of joint deliberations they resolved to make no additional charge for war risks to all their policy-holders who had, as civilians, assured and have joined the Active Forces. For new policies it was at first decided to charge an additional rate of 7_l._ 7_s._ per cent. This rate was based on the experience of the South African War, but it proved inadequate for the risks of the Continental fighting. Gradually offices began to raise the extra rate, and by the end of the year some were quoting 12_l._ 12_s._ per cent. or even more, or were declining to write the business at all. A suggestion that the Government should assume the war risk did not meet with the approval of the Treasury, since it was considered that the Government was doing all that could be expected of it by increasing the payments to widows and other dependants of those who fell in the war.

The most urgent problem facing life offices was that of the heavy depreciation in their securities. This matter is being dealt with by the offices according to their individual views, but it is interesting to note that permission was given to them by the Board of Trade to show in their certificates the prices current as on December 31, 1913. Immense sums have been written off by the Banks for depreciation, and the policy of persistently feeding the reserves in past years will now stand all the great financial institutions in good stead.

CUTHBERT MAUGHAN.

FOREIGN AND COLONIAL HISTORY.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

I. FRANCE AND ITALY

I. FRANCE.

Gambetta was fond of expounding to his friends a theory which about the year 1875 appeared sufficiently paradoxical--viz. that of all the European nations, France was the one readiest to submit to discipline and authority. He used to add, however, that she would only do so on one condition--that the leader should inspire confidence among his following. This assertion was definitively and emphatically verified in France in 1914, not only from the military point of view, but from the political.

In the political life of the nation a persistent tendency, remarked in former volumes of this work, was noticeable both before and after the general election towards the organisation of parties in a definite framework and with specific aims. At the beginning of August the war instantly suspended everything not in perfect harmony with what was termed "the sacred union of all Frenchmen in the face of the enemy." The same ardour that had been displayed by all the citizens for the success of their respective sentiments and interests in the sphere of politics was directed to the performance of their duties as patriots. The state of siege, the censorship, and the military dictatorship, were accepted by the whole people without resistance.

At the opening of the year the Republicans of the Left, who did not accept the decisions of the Radical-Socialist Congress of Pau (A.R., 1913, p. 291), succeeded in establishing that Federation of the Left of which the formation had been announced after the advent of the Doumergue-Caillaux Ministry. M. Barthou, M. Briand, and M. Millerand were its principal leaders in the Chamber, M. Ribot and M. Jean Dupuy in the Senate. The most compact group, which formed as it were the centre of gravity in the new association, was the Democratic Alliance, led, for several years past, by M. Carnot, brother of the former President of the Republic. Its framework was sound; it remained to be seen whether it could raise a sufficiently solid body of adherents and candidates to deprive the Radical-Socialists of their majority. Just as the session began, M. Briand was elected President of the Federation. The election of the officers of the Chamber was awaited with some curiosity as to whether the Radical-Socialist party would claim the Presidency for one of its own members. But it did not do so. M. Paul Deschanel was elected unopposed, receiving 379 votes. For the Vice-Presidencies, M. Étienne, a former War Minister, and a member of the Democratic Left, and M. Dron, a Radical representative of the Department of the Nord, were the only members chosen at the first ballot. At the second the Abbé Lemire was returned, the majority desiring to afford him satisfaction for his persecution by the Clericals of his Department and the Bishop of Lille on the ground of his Republicanism. Finally M. Augagneur, a Republican Socialist, was elected, by a narrow majority, on the third ballot. Thus, in the secret voting, the Radical-Socialists were beaten (Jan. 13). In the Senate, the struggle was much less acute. M. Antonin Dubost was re-elected unopposed to the Presidency, and the posts of Vice-President, Secretaries, and Questors, were apportioned according to the traditions of courtesy customary in that Assembly.

The work of the Legislature was begun by the inconvenient method of breaking up the debates and alternating portions of them, on subjects of the most divergent natures, in the programme of the Chamber. The Bill providing for the defence of the secular character of the schools and the method of securing attendance was, however, passed, after the rejection of the amendments supported by the deputies of the Right; but one of its essential points, the transfer of the appointment of teachers from the Prefect to the school authorities, was separated and postponed to a future period. Another Bill, equally important for the future of the nation, that for the limitation of the number of public-houses, was repeatedly revised and mutilated; and the Friday lists of interpellations were overloaded, and the militant spirit of M. Jaurès aroused, by the ever-recurring topic of the Ouenza mines. The Senate had before it two great questions: the income-tax, and electoral reform. The ideas dominant at the Luxemburg were in explicit contradiction with the decisions taken at the Palais-Bourbon. The discussion of the income-tax ranged over a remarkably wide field. The majority of the members agreed in regretting that, at the very moment when the Government was urging the Upper House to begin discussing the question of an income-tax, it had laid before the Chamber a proposal for a levy on capital, the provisions of which must modify the measure which that House had already passed. This was playing into the hands of the opponents of the reform.

As regarded the Electoral Reform Bill, the antagonism between the two Houses was equally acute. The Senate Committee rejected the Government measure by a large majority, and the pending general election seemed likely to be still conducted under the system which so many competent observers had condemned, without, however, agreeing on a substitute. In view of this eventuality the parties were already defining their attitudes. At the end of January the Socialists met in Congress at Amiens. They declared themselves against the revival of the former Combist bloc (A.R., 1902, p. 264; 1904, p. 253) and decided that the Unified Socialists should put forward candidates in every constituency, in order to ascertain the numbers of their adherents. The programme to be laid before the electors was to contain in any case three essential articles: (1) "opposition to militarist and capitalist imperialism," i.e. immediate repeal of the law enacting three years' military service; (2) a Franco-German understanding; (3) the maintenance of the secular character of the schools. Should a second ballot be necessary, the Executive Committee of the party left the Departmental Federations to decide whether agreements should be entered into with the middle-class Republican parties, but these latter must be required to adopt the three obligatory articles stated above. The Committees of the Right, on their part, proposed to organise, under the name of a national inquiry, what really amounted to a plébiscite on the method of election to the Chamber. M. B. Pugliesi-Conti invited that House to do this (Jan. 30); M. Jaurès caused general surprise by supporting him. The motion was opposed by the Prime Minister and by M. Briand, and rejected by 389 to 164.

An incidental feature of the debates in this first period was the prominence of military and colonial questions. Thus on January 28 the Chamber had unanimously voted the loan of 230,000,000 francs for the Morocco Protectorate. Public opinion, again, was so strongly manifested against the intention ascribed to the Russian Putiloff Company of placing itself under the control of Krupps in order to increase its capital, that the French Government intervened to prevent the German firm from becoming concerned in the manufacture of artillery for Russia. Finally, throughout France the keenest attention was directed to the discussion in the Senate on the interpellation on military aeronautics supported by the Senator representing the Department of the Loire, Dr. Emile Reymond, an eminent surgeon and a noted airman (Jan. 23, 27, 30). The serious defects indicated by the various speakers were admitted by the War Minister, M. Noulens, who formally promised to remedy them. As a security that this should be done, the Senate passed a resolution regretting the faults of organisation existing in this service, and expressing confidence that the War Minister would effect the necessary reforms by giving it autonomy.

It was only on February 9 that the Chamber reached the discussion of the Budget of 1914. By 440 votes to 67 the general debate was omitted in the hope of gaining time. The Departmental Estimates and the Reports of the Committees upon them were successively brought before the House with unusual speed. But this commendable zeal did not last. On February 13, M. Lachaud addressed an interpellation to the Government on the sanitary condition of the Army, and adduced information on the housing of the troops, particularly in the Eastern departments, and on its consequences, of so grave a character that the Prime Minister was obliged to intervene in the debate. He asked the Chamber to suspend the discussion, and to vote the sums necessary to improve the clothing of the troops and their barracks. But all he could obtain was a postponement for eight days, during which most of the Votes were hastily passed. The revelations made when the debate was resumed (February 20-23) were so serious that the Government did not venture to ask for a vote of confidence. M. Augagneur then moved the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. M. Abel Ferry proposed that this Commission should merely inquire what improvements could be effected while the Government should take measures against the persons responsible for the state of things revealed. The Chamber agreed to this solution by 389 to 29. The Government had evaded the conflict. It did not venture further to risk its fortunes in the Senate on the income-tax question. The general debate on this had taken up almost all of the Friday sittings from January 20 to February 25. All the party leaders successively had spoken: M. Caillaux and M. Ribot had faced one another in a striking passage of arms: and the competence and talent of the Upper House had been proved once more. The general debate over, the Senate decided by show of hands to pass to the examination of the clauses of the Bill. M. Perchot, one of the Radical leaders, put forward an amendment establishing impersonal taxes (impôts réels) on incomes of every class and a complementary tax on the aggregate income of every head of a household. It was opposed by M. Aimond, Senator for the Seine-et-Oise, and Reporter-General of the Finance Commission, and by M. Ribot, and supported by the Ministry. The Prime Minister, M. Doumergue, read a declaration asking the Senate to pass it, inasmuch as it corresponded to the wishes repeatedly expressed by the other House, and urging them, besides, to pass the pending fiscal reforms before the general election. He studiously avoided raising the question of confidence, and the amendment was rejected by 140 to 134. Next day, February 26, the Senate, to prove that it was not opposed to all reform, whether just or otherwise, adopted the first and second articles of the Budget; the land tax was profoundly modified in a manner favourable to small proprietors; it had been assessed by the Departmental and local authorities so as to produce a total amount fixed by the Legislature: it was now imposed at a uniform rate throughout France. A reduction of one-ninth was accorded to all income from agriculture.

The same evening, in a banquet organised by the Democratic Republican party, M. Barthou set forth the electoral programme of the Federation of the Left--maintenance intact of the law reimposing three years' service in the Army; defence of the secular character of the schools, but without making education a State monopoly; representation of minorities. The Ministry in its turn scored a success in the Chamber (Feb. 27). M. Caillaux, replying to an interpellation on his financial policy, vindicated himself in one of his best speeches. He made a brilliant defence of his administration, boasted that he had restored order and abolished confusion in the revenue, and successfully met the attacks of M. Briand and M. Millerand; he was sustained by a majority of 329 to 214. Clearly the Radical-Socialist party and its Socialist allies were determined to maintain at all costs the Doumergue Ministry to conduct the elections; but it was equally clear that the real leader of the Ministry and its party was M. Caillaux, and it was against him that the Opposition concentrated their efforts, in the conviction that his overthrow would deprive the Government of its head. Full of confidence in his own talents and in his star, the Finance Minister exhibited a marvellous boldness in his manoeuvres; thus, on March 4, when invited by the Senate Committee on the Income-Tax Bill to appear before it, he declared that he agreed with it in favouring the exemption of French Rente from taxation; the 3 per cent. Rente immediately went up. But next day in the Chamber, replying to an interpellation by M. Jaurès, M. Caillaux declared that he had merely reserved this question, and that he was firmly resolved to put a tax on Rente, as on every other kind of income.[5] A fall in Rente followed, and rumours of a most unfavourable character were circulated, though it was impossible to prove that the successive interpellations on the financial policy of M. Caillaux had facilitated speculative manoeuvring on the Bourse. In any case it was regrettable that these charges had some verisimilitude, and the result was a marked revival of the Press campaign carried on for some months previously against him. The Figaro directed the attack; almost every day its political director, M. Gaston Calmette, produced documentary evidence of various alleged malpractices which M. Caillaux declared was not authentic, but it related to so many charges and was so precise that it greatly influenced public opinion, and weakened M. Caillaux's position. Finally, the conflict was concentrated on the part played by M. Caillaux in the Rochette case of 1911. It was whispered in well-informed circles that the Public Prosecutor in the Paris Court of Appeal had been requested by M. Monis, then Prime Minister, to grant M. Rochette, a company promoter, a delay in the prosecution for fraud instituted against him, and that, thanks to this, M. Rochette had been able to start various fresh enterprises which had brought disaster on small investors. In the sitting of March 13, M. Delahaye, a member of the Right, introduced a motion inviting M. Caillaux, whose intervention had determined M. Monis to take the step referred to, to take legal proceedings against his accuser. The motion was opposed by MM. Doumergue and Jaurès, who alleged that it was merely a political manoeuvre, and the Order of the Day, pure and simple, was voted by 360 to 135. But some days later (March 16) Madame Caillaux called at the office of the Figaro and shot M. Gaston Calmette dead with a revolver. This mad act necessarily entailed grave consequences. That evening M. Caillaux tendered his resignation, and M. Doumergue, after a hesitating resistance, was constrained to accept it. The Rochette affair was taken up again. In the Chamber, M. Delahaye formally demanded that the Government should either dismiss the Public Prosecutor, M. Fabre, or should compel him to take proceedings against the papers which accused him of showing undue favour to the accused. Seldom had sitting been more tumultuous or more passionate. M. Monis was questioned as to his attitude, and formally denied that he had intervened in the matter. Thereupon M. Barthou drew from his portfolio the letter drawn up by M. Fabre relating to the step in question and subsequently sent by him to the Minister of Justice. The Chamber then unanimously passed a motion reviving the powers of the Committee of Inquiry, but investing this body with judicial power, i.e., the right of administering an oath to the witnesses summoned before it, and, if necessary, of proceeding against them for giving false testimony. Naturally M. Monis was obliged to resign, and the Ministry was reconstructed. M. Renoult passed from the Department of the Interior to that of Finance, M. Malvy from that of Commerce to that of the Interior, M. Raoul Peret, Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of the Interior, became Minister of Commerce, and M. Gauthier, a Senator, succeeded M. Monis as Minister of Marine. Amid this whirlwind the work of the Legislature had not been suspended, and the Chamber had accomplished, after a fashion, the discussion of the Estimates of expenditure and had passed various social measures--a Bill organising a system of loans to small traders and manufacturers, the extension to women not paid by salary of the law providing a period of rest for women after their confinement, and the continuance to widows of the old-age pensions which had been allotted to their husbands. The Senate firmly maintained the positions it had taken up. On March 10 it voted the scheme of electoral reform elaborated by the Commission, which established scrutin de liste pure and simple; and on the 13th it rejected the tax on Rente by 146 to 126. Some days later it decided that the new tax on personal property, with the exception of Rente, should come into force on and after July 1, and that the reduction of taxation on properties not built upon, agreed on by the two Houses, should take effect from January 1, 1916. Similarly two reforms were at last disposed of which had been for years shuttlecocked to and fro between the Chamber and the Senate. One concerned the measures to be taken to secure the secrecy of the ballot; the other restrained the abuses of bill-posting in the elections. The rest of the debates in the Chamber were less interesting; members showed that they were preoccupied with the elections. Thus, in passing the Finance Bill the system of licences to publicans was abolished, increases in salary were accorded to teachers, and allowances to postal servants, in spite of the factious attitude adopted by the associations and unions of these servants of the State. Finally the income-tax, which the Senate had not finally voted, was incorporated in the Bill. As it was evident that the Senate would not even begin considering the Budget of 1914 till after the general election, it seemed good policy--as is usual at the expiry of a legislature--to give pledges of liberality on the part of the Chamber to the most influential elements in the electorate. While this periodical comedy was played in the Legislative Chamber, a drama of greater poignancy was bringing into conflict the most conspicuous personages in the political and judicial world. M. Jaurès presided over the Commission; before it there testified successively, and were confronted with one another, three former Prime Ministers, the Procureur-General of the Court of Appeal, the directors-in-chief of leading Paris papers; and the result of the proceedings was a general conviction that in March, 1911, the Monis Ministry really had intervened to save a company promoter of questionable character from prosecution. The scandal caused was immense. In its sitting of April 3, the Chamber, after a short discussion, passed the following Order of the Day: "The Chamber, taking note of the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry, condemns improper financial interference in politics and political interference in the administration of justice, affirms the necessity of a law making membership of the Legislature incompatible with other employments, and is resolutely determined to secure more efficaciously the separation of the powers of the State." The unanimity with which this formula was accepted deceived no one, for it was the Chamber that was responsible in the main for the encroachments of the legislative power on that of the Executive and the Judiciary, and it was known beforehand that no effective check could be applied.

The Legislature separated on the same day, after having voted supplies on account for May and June. To all the scandals of the session it added another by terminating its existence without having performed the elementary duty of passing the Budget for the current year. That circumstance alone was sufficient to deprive its censures of all authority.

The electoral period began, in accordance with the law, on Sunday, April 5. The outward aspect of the conflict was not without interest, though less picturesque than the Italian elections of the year before (A.R., 1913, p. 305). In the first place the law regulating bill-posting effected a real revolution in the mural propaganda. No longer did posters of many hues adorn the public monuments, the pedestals of statues, and sometimes the statues themselves: no longer did bills settle in the night like butterflies on houses up to their very tops, or fasten on the trees on the boulevards, one overlying another; there were no more battles between bill-posters; the municipal authorities allotted to each candidate an equal surface, measured out very sparingly, according to the number of the population. It was an egalitarian revolution in political manners, assuring that the poorer candidates and organisations should no longer have their views smothered. On the other hand, the campaign was much more severe than at the previous election both for the candidates and for their organised supporters. The political meetings at which speeches from opponents were invited were at least three times as numerous. The Unified Socialist party exhibited an activity which the other parties were forced to imitate. Three questions were prominent: the law re-establishing three years' military service, the income-tax with the declaration of the payer subject to official revision, and proportional representation. The result was that candidates' professions of faith did not generally possess the encyclopædic character or reach the extravagant dimensions exhibited in former contests--a proof that political education had progressed far enough to compel candidates to abstain from promises covering the possible, the impossible, and the purely Utopian.

The Ministerial programme was awaited with much curiosity. M. Doumergue was called upon by M. Millerand to declare definitely for or against the three years' service law and proportional representation. At first he observed a prudent silence, being, as a Senator, exempt from submission to the popular verdict at the polls. He declared that the Government ought to observe the neutrality which he had recommended to the prefects, but which they carried into practice hardly at all. M. Clemenceau, rather maliciously, added his entreaties to those with which the Prime Minister was persecuted, and on April 29, at a banquet at Souillac, M. Doumergue spoke for the benefit of the electorate. As every one expected, he attacked the Barthou Ministry, charging it with having obtained support among the enemies of the Republic: he boasted that he had himself secured the passing of a reduction of taxation on property not built on; he praised the fiscal reform effected, was very vague on the subject of the three years' service law, and declared himself distinctly adverse to electoral reform by proportional representation, even going so far as to eulogise the system of single-member districts which had been so universally attacked. This speech added nothing to the prestige of the Government, and contributed but slightly to the guidance of its supporters in the pending conflict. At the beginning of the electoral period the Radical-Socialists seemed in an awkward position; attacked mercilessly by the Socialists and the Conservatives, they were in danger of losing a portion of their habitual allies, i.e. the Republicans of the Left, through the coalition formed under the auspices of the triumvirate consisting of M. Briand, M. Barthou, and M. Millerand. But an evolution took place of which the effects were destined to make themselves felt more especially at the second ballot. Brilliant in oratory, active at the very first, possessing abundant resources generously supplied by the members of the new Republican aristocracy, controlling almost all the leading Parisian and provincial papers, the Federation of the Left rallied to its support very many discontented and restless middle-class voters. But dissensions arose between its leaders; M. Briand and M. Barthou did not entirely agree. The latter endorsed candidates whose past career did not entitle them to term themselves Republicans of the Left, and who were also patronised by allies of very questionable political hue. The instance which excited most comment was that of M. Jean Richepin, who carried on a campaign of a most romantic character against M. Caillaux's friend, M. Ceccaldi, in the Aisne. Moreover, on the first ballots only 349 members were elected out of 602. Every party hastened to claim a victory, for the most conspicuous of the outgoing deputies had been re-elected almost everywhere. All the members of the Cabinet had been successful. M. Caillaux, who at the outset had withdrawn from the contest, had altered his decision and, after a hard struggle, had beaten his adversary.

After this there was the question of the second ballots. The Radical Socialists offered the Executive Committee of the Unified Socialist party to support its candidates in all constituencies in which they had even a single vote more than those of the party whose headquarters were in the Rue de Valois, and M. Ferdinand Buisson, one of the most respected of the Radical leaders, set the example by issuing a notice, the very day after the first ballots, inviting all his supporters to concentrate their votes on M. Navarre, whose defeat on the second ballot would otherwise have been certain. The Socialists refused to go back on the decisions taken at the Amiens Congress; the departmental federations retained full power to determine their own attitudes, a position which gave full play to personal enmities, and in many constituencies favoured bargains of the strangest kind between Socialists and reactionaries. The number of Revolutionary Socialists who owed their success to these combinations was estimated at at least one-third of the whole (May 10). Whether "improperly elected," as those were termed in the language of the Chamber who owed their success to these dealings, or loyal representatives of sincere convictions, the Unified Socialists had none the less achieved a great success. They numbered 102 in the new Chamber; the Unified Radicals were 136; the Independent Radicals 102; the Democratic Alliance 100. The members of the various groups of the Right amounted altogether to no more than 132.

A Ministerial majority might, therefore, have been formed by combining all those deputies whose programme might be summed up in the formula, "Neither revolution nor reaction." The President of the Republic found himself faced by this problem when the summer session of the new Chamber opened. During the electoral contest M. Poincaré's authority had lost nothing. He had scrupulously kept to the part assigned him by the Constitution above party conflict. While it went on he had, as usual, proved on occasion a brilliant representative of the nation. At the end of April he had received the King and Queen of Great Britain, at the end of May the King and Queen of Denmark. The people of Paris had welcomed the British Sovereigns with enthusiasm, the Danish Sovereigns with cordiality. On May 24 the President had personally inaugurated the admirable Civic Exhibition of Lyons, and had delivered an impressive speech on the attributes and function of the head of the French Republic.

The correctness of his attitude had, moreover, found its reward in the fact that the question of the abolition of the Presidency of the Republic, which had formerly been prominent in the Radical and Socialist programmes, had now almost entirely disappeared. How, in the face of the new Legislature, would the essential prerogative of the Head of the State be exercised--the designation of the Prime Minister? In the first place, what would be the attitude of the Chamber? and what indication would it afford by the choice of its officers? While M. Poincaré went to Rennes to the meeting of the Federations of Gymnastic Societies, and defended the law reviving the three years' term of service, the Chamber began its session on Whit Monday (June 1) and, after an address from its oldest member, the Baron Mackau, it elected M. Deschanel, by 401 votes, Provisional President, and then proceeded hastily to the work of verifying the elections of its members. In two sittings, the Committees had examined a number of elections, and declared more than half its members to be duly elected. The regular officers of the Assembly were elected on June 4. The groups had agreed on the division of the appointments; the Right and the Extreme Left, i.e. the Unified Socialists, had no share in them. The strictest discipline was observed, and in a few hours the work was completed. M. Paul Deschanel was elected President by 411 votes, the largest number ever given for a President of the Chamber since the establishment of the Constitution.

The Ministry had already retired. Scarcely, indeed, had M. Poincaré returned from Brittany when M. Doumergue tendered its resignation, rather against his colleagues' will. After some hours of consultation with personages representative of public opinion, M. Poincaré entrusted the formation of a Cabinet in the first instance to M. Viviani; but the latter failed owing to a persistent refusal to co-operate on the part of two young Unified Radical deputies, M. Ponsot and M. Justin Godart, who demanded a promise that the two years' term of military service should be restored after certain measures for giving military training to the youth of the nation should have taken effect; and they refused to accept M. Viviani's reservation, "should the condition of foreign relations permit." M. Deschanel, M. Delcassé, and M. Jean Dupuy successively declined the task; ultimately M. Ribot agreed to attempt it, and on June 9 the Cabinet was formed. It contained no Radical-Socialist, the group having definitely refused to co-operate. M. Ribot took the Presidency and the Ministry of Justice; M. Leon Bourgeois had accepted the post of Foreign Minister, M. Jean Dupuy Public Works, M. Peytral the Interior, M. Delcassé War, M. Chautemps Marine, M. Clementel Finance. The other posts were assigned to deputies who had never previously held office. The new Cabinet was immediately repudiated by the Radical-Socialist group, which determined to address an interpellation to it at once, and gave all its own members imperative instructions to vote against the Ministry. M. Dalimier was charged with the task of setting forth the reasons for this opposition. On Friday, June 12, the Premier read the Ministerial declaration in the Chamber, while M. Peytral communicated it to the Senate, which received it with courtesy. Far different was its reception in the Chamber, and the sitting that day, at which the German and Italian ambassadors, M. von Schoen and Signor Tittoni, were present in the seats reserved for representatives of foreign States--a circumstance which attracted much attention--was among the most astonishing in Parliamentary history. The venerable M. Ribot, whose physical strength was not equal to his courage, and the senior member of the Radical party, M. Leon Bourgeois, were insulted, scoffed at, interrupted at every sentence. To secure a hearing amid this organised tumult would have required the powers of an O'Connoll, or at least of a Gambetta. The "grand old men" who had accepted the task of governing were physically incapable of compelling the assembly to hear them. However, though individual extravagances found full expression, when the vote came to be taken party discipline made itself felt. Two Orders of the Day were proposed; one, purely political, by M. Dalimier and M. Puech, declaring the Chamber resolved to give its confidence only to a Cabinet capable of uniting the forces of the Left; the other by M. Combrouze and M. Pierre Berger, affirming the necessity of maintaining the three years' service law and pursuing a policy of fiscal and social justice and of defence of the secular character of the schools. M. Ribot demanded priority for the second; the Radicals claimed it for their own resolution, and it was on this question of procedure that the conflict took place. By 306 to 262 the Cabinet was defeated. Amid indescribable disorder the Ministers left their seats. In other days, as an example of the instability of Ministries under Louis Philippe, it had been usual to cite the Duke de Bassano's Cabinet (Nov., 1834) which had lasted three days. M. Ribot's Cabinet, in spite of the talent of its Premier and his chief colleagues, had not endured even as long as that.

Its place was soon filled. The day following, M. Poincaré summoned M. Viviani, who at once accepted the task. His first step was one of pure courtesy; he offered a place to M. Combes, who refused, stating that he remained absolutely opposed to the three years' service law. The other political personages applied to by M. Viviani were less uncompromising. M. Messimy and M. Augagneur, who had taken a leading place among the opponents of the law in 1913, now agreed to carry it out loyally. On June 14 the Journal Officiel published the names of the new Cabinet. M. Viviani took the Presidency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; M. Bienvenu-Martin, Justice; M. Malvy, Interior; M. Noulens, Finance; M. Augagneur, Public Instruction; M. Renoult, Public Works; M. Thomson, Commerce; M. Fernand David, Agriculture; M. Couyba, Labour; the three departments of national defence were entrusted respectively, War to M. Messimy, Marine to M. Gauthier, the Colonies to M. Raynaud. There were five Under-Secretaries of State--M. Abel Ferry, Foreign Affairs; M. Jacquier, Interior; M. Lauraine, War; M. Ajam, Mercantile Marine; M. Dalimier, Fine Arts. Two days later (June 16) the Ministry presented itself in the Chamber with a declaration on the military law which left no room for uncertainty; it also affirmed the necessity of an immediate loan, and announced its intention of pursuing the policy of social and political reforms which had been victorious at the polls. An interpellation was at once addressed to the Prime Minister; in replying, M. Viviani, who manifestly had the wind in his favour, took the offensive, and declared emphatically that, if he should be still in office in October, 1915, he would not release the class which would then be completing its second year of military service. Heckled by M. Jaurès and M. Vaillant, both Socialists, and by M. Franklin Bouillon (Left) and M. Paul Beauregard (Right), he in no way modified his attitude. An Order of the Day presented by M. J. L. Breton, Socialist Republican, was accorded priority by 362 to 139. At the end of the sitting, M. Noulens introduced a Bill sanctioning a 3½ per cent. terminable loan of 800,000,000 francs. The Ministry was successful; the Socialists then proceeded to obstruct. At the sitting of June 18, during the discussion on the date of an interpellation dealing with the sinking of the soil in several quarters in Paris owing to the work on the Metropolitan Railway, the disorder and noise were so great that M. Deschanel was obliged to suspend the sitting. Some days later a modification was adopted in the rules of the Chamber which gave ocular demonstration of the tendency of parties to impose a stricter discipline on their members. The Journal Officiel, by an innovation which attracted some notice, had given the list of the eleven groups composing the Chamber. It was decided that, instead of members seating themselves wherever they individually pleased, they must sit in the sections assigned to their respective groups. This was a return to the old tradition of the Revolution, which had given the terms Right, Left, and Centre their current political significance. It might be hoped that the change would facilitate the work of the President of the Chamber.

Meanwhile the Senate had worked hard at the Budget, which had been so unfortunately delayed; and the Government speedily obtained the vote of the loan of 805,000,000 francs (including expenses of issue) designed to enable it to pay off the Treasury Bonds. The various sections of the Estimates of Expenditure were adopted almost without alteration. On the subject of the Estimates of Revenue the discussion was more active. The Finance Committee, supported on this occasion by M. Ribot, asked the Senate to follow the Chamber in including in the Budget a clause involving the application of the income-tax (Art. 7-27), the declaration made by the taxpayer to be subject to official revision. In spite of the opposition of M. Touron, M. Lhopiteau, and M. de Selves, the Senate passed this important innovation, though without fully accepting the text bequeathed to it by the defunct Chamber. On July 8 it finished the discussion of the Budget; and for a whole week the two Reporters-General of the Budget Commissions, M. Clementel in the Chamber and M. Aimond in the Senate, had to use all their diplomacy to induce the two Houses to agree. In these laborious sittings M. Noulens, who was making his first appearances as Finance Minister, strove to obtain concessions from all quarters and to discredit the unfavourable forecasts of the Opposition. He confidently affirmed that the deficit of 1914 would not exceed 207,000,000 francs, which would be covered by short-term obligations; that the reception of the loan had been wonderful, and that it had been subscribed forty times over. The credit of the French State had thus shown no decline.

While the Chamber was revising the Finance Bill, the Senate had to deal with a question of no less importance. M. Charles Humbert, a Senator from Lorraine, addressed an interpellation to the War Minister dealing with the bad state of the matériel of the artillery, and the grave revelations he made caused M. Clemenceau to sum up the impression made on his mind in the severe comment, "We are neither defended nor governed." M. Messimy, the War Minister, and after him the Premier, vainly attempted to modify the impression produced by the debates on this subject, and found themselves obliged to agree to an inquiry by the Senate Commission on the Army, which was requested to report when the Chambers reassembled in October. The impression made by these debates was considerable, both in France and abroad. Finally, on July 15, after a few meagre concessions accorded by the Chamber, and a much greater number extorted through the weariness of the Senate--notably in regard to increased salaries and allowances for teachers and postal employees--the Budget of 1914 was passed. It reached the formidable amount of 5,191,861,991 francs (about 207,674,479_l._). But it is useless to give details of it, for it had almost at once to be completely set aside in consequence of the war. Its great innovation, the first application of the tax on income from movable property (valeurs mobilières), was also destined to be shelved, for the financial Administration eventually found itself unable to set up the system of assessing the new tax in time.

The Chambers broke up on July 15. Immediately President Poincaré, accompanied by M. Viviani, left on his important journey to Russia and the Scandinavian countries which had been postponed owing to the length of the Parliamentary Session, and which the force of circumstances was destined considerably to abridge. M. Bienvenu-Martin, who as Minister of Justice was Vice-President of the Cabinet, also took the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ad interim. It was a heavy task, complicated by serious incidents at home. The very day the battleship France arrived at Cronstadt (July 20) the jury of the Seine assembled to try Mme. Caillaux. During eight sittings, the dramatic and romantic circumstances of the affair, the revelations as to the political and private life of M. Caillaux himself, made by the testimony given and the documents read in court or passed round in the lobbies, made the Palais de Justice, at first at any rate, the centre of keen and impassioned attention. But all these scandals were pushed into a secondary place, and the acquittal of the accused woman aroused but few protests, in view of the anxiety caused by the enigmatic attitude of Germany in the Austro-Serbian dispute. On arriving in Sweden M. Poincaré was obliged to break off his intended journey to Norway and Denmark, and he reached France on July 29. His return was impatiently awaited; but unfortunately the evil was now past remedy. All the efforts of the French Government and its diplomatic representatives, in concert with the British and Russian Foreign Offices, failed to induce Austria-Hungary, in her demand for satisfaction for the murder of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, to respect the sovereignty of Serbia, or to induce Germany to influence her ally towards peace. M. Dumaine, the French Ambassador at Vienna, had vainly called the attention of Baron Macchio, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs at Vienna, to the anxieties aroused in Europe by the concentration of eight army corps along the Danube and Drina, and by the information circulated regarding the Note prepared by the Austro-Hungarian Chancellery. The answer given him was that the demands formulated, and their tone, would admit of the expectation of a pacific solution, and M. Jagow had told M. Jules Cambon, the French Ambassador at Berlin, that he did not know its wording. While the authorised representatives of the Triple Entente were concerting their measures, Austria-Hungary was acting; and on Thursday, July 23, it sent a Note to Belgrade, inviting the Serbian Government to agree to its demands within forty-eight hours. France made efforts to gain more time, but M. Jules Cambon informed the French Foreign Office that Germany was mobilising secretly, and M. Paléologue, the French Ambassador at St. Petersburg, gave his opinion that the only means of preventing the Germanic Powers from emphasising their provocative attitude lay in the demonstration of the solidity of the Triple Entente. In the result France associated herself fully and loyally with the efforts of Russia and Great Britain to avert the conflict and obtain an extension of the period accorded to Serbia for her reply, and also to persuade Germany to exercise a conciliatory influence at Vienna. All these overtures encountered manifest ill-will and the utmost coldness. The diplomatic breach between Austria-Hungary and Serbia took place on July 29 at the appointed hour; France at once gave her adherence to the steps suggested by Sir Edward Grey to prevent hostilities and to secure by the intervention at St. Petersburg and Vienna of the four disinterested Powers, that the Russian and Austrian Armies should not advance beyond their own respective frontiers. These efforts were paralysed by the hostility of Germany; Herr von Schoen, while declaring that his Government did not know the intentions of Austria-Hungary, gave it to be understood that Germany would not try to influence her ally. This attitude, and the information received from London, Berlin, and Rome, made France understand that the situation was hourly getting worse. Thus matters stood when M. Viviani resumed the direction of foreign affairs (July 30). While expressing the hope that peace might still be preserved, he declared clearly that, if Russia were attacked by Germany, France was resolved to fulfil all her obligations as Russia's ally. In response to the military measures taken in Germany, the Government hastened its preparations; but several days had been lost, and already the covering troops of the German Army were massed all along the frontier between Luxemburg and Alsace. To avoid any frontier incident, the French troops were ordered to leave a zone of ten kilometres between their outposts and the boundary line. But all the conciliatory proposals were rejected either at Vienna or at Berlin. Telegrams exchanged between the Tsar and the German Emperor merely convinced Russia that Germany had made her decision. On the morning of July 31, a general mobilisation was decreed at Vienna; for a few hours it was nevertheless hoped that Germany and Austria-Hungary would nevertheless draw back before the consequences of a declaration of war against Russia: Vienna hesitated, Berlin decided; and on Saturday, August 1, at the moment when Austria consented to enter into a discussion with the Powers regarding the basis of the ultimatum addressed to Serbia, Germany required Russia to countermand within twelve hours all the measures of mobilisation already taken. M. von Schoen invited France to state if she would support Russia.

Germany, which had already prepared for her general mobilisation by announcing the condition of "danger of war" (Kriegsgefahrzustand), decided on August 1 to proceed to this mobilisation, and at the same time her troops entered Luxemburg under the pretext of protecting its railways against occupation by French troops; and the German Ambassador at St. Petersburg delivered the declaration of war with Russia, thus rendering useless the negotiations between Vienna and the Powers of the Triple Entente. France then ordered a general mobilisation of her own forces, and applied to Great Britain, who undertook to protect the coasts of the Channel and the Atlantic against attack by the German Fleet (p. 171), The day following, German troops entered the territory of Belfort, and Germany required the Belgian Government to declare, within seven hours, whether it was disposed to facilitate German military operations against France. Finally, on August 3, at 6 P.M., Herr von Schoen delivered a letter to M. Viviani, notifying him that a state of war existed between Germany and France. M. Cambon was then instructed by the French Government to demand his passports and leave Berlin. To the last, and even in the practical details relating to international courtesies, the methods of Germany and of France were conspicuously different; M. Schoen was taken to the frontier by a special train--of which the Germans kept possession for several weeks; M. Cambon was subjected to treatment unworthy of a country with knowledge of the practices customary between civilised States.

France was faced by the most formidable war in her history. She courageously prepared to carry it on. The Government summoned the Chambers for Tuesday, August 4. The sitting was destined to have a decisive influence on the whole subsequent course of events; it showed how profoundly the German aggression had altered the opinion of the whole of France. All the disquieting forecasts which seemed to be supported by the debates in the Chambers and the party conflicts were found to be wholly falsified. M. Raymond Poincaré, who some days earlier made a personal appeal to King George V. to use his great influence in favour of peace, the French Ministry now asked for the armed intervention of Great Britain in the interest of the future equilibrium of Europe. The German entry into Belgium compelled Great Britain to declare herself. The Triple Entente was transformed into an alliance, while the Triple Alliance broke up, inasmuch as Italy refused to be drawn into a war declared without consulting her. At this momentous juncture the attitude of France upset the calculations of her enemies. They had counted on two great causes of her inferiority, want of artillery and internal disturbance. As to the first, it was true that the German heavy artillery was greatly superior in the early days of the war, but, to compensate for this, the French troops, brought into the field a light artillery weapon, the 75-millimetres cannon, of which the manufacture had been hurried on in the utmost secrecy, thanks to an understanding between the Government and the Parliamentary Committees on the Army and the Budget, and of which the mobility, precision, and rapid fire contributed in no small degree to sustain the moral of the troops. Moreover, a vigorous impulse was given to the production of howitzers and long-range cannon which in a few months made up for the initial inferiority of France in these weapons. The dangers arising from internal disturbance and unrest were obviated very soon. The attitude of the trade unionists, and even of the Socialists, caused some anxiety to the Government. Towards the end of July the Executive Committee of the International had met at Brussels and had declared against the war. It had decided to hold a kind of congress at Paris on August 9; but the declaration of war caused this to be given up. An attempt at a trade-unionist demonstration in the streets of Paris had been forcibly suppressed by the police, with the entire approval of the public. Other attempts at disorder were made under the guise of patriotism, and a number of shops and stores were plundered; some arrests were made, and it was found that the nationality of some of the agitators was questionable. The murder of M. Jaurès by a wretched youth whose mental balance had been upset, had not the terrible consequences that there had been reason to apprehend. On the contrary, the horror manifested by the entire Press, the full justice done to the victim in impressive fashion by the Prime Minister, the loyal attitude taken up by the Socialist party, converted this great disaster into an opportunity for an imposing exhibition of the unity of the nation. But legislative sanction was required for the measures of public safety that the war compelled the Government to take. The Chambers met on August 4. On the previous day there had been some changes in the Ministry. M. Viviani, thinking--and quite rightly--that he would be fully occupied in the general superintendence of affairs, turned over the Foreign Ministry to M. Doumergue. M. Gauthier, for reasons of health, left the Ministry of Marine, which was taken by M. Augagneur. M. Sarraut, a deputy and Governor-General of Indo-China, became Minister of Public Instruction. This rearrangement was not altogether happy. It left the Cabinet distinctively Radical at a moment when it would have been desirable to summon the two men whose return to office was hoped for by the public--M. Delcassé and M. Millerand. For a few days longer personal and party animosities kept them out.

The sitting held on the historic date of August 4 was profoundly impressive. President Poincaré's message and M. Viviani's address were received with enthusiastic acclamations; and the Bills necessary for national defence were passed unanimously without debate. There were eighteen in all; mention may be made of the following. One authorised the Government to issue decrees in Council of State opening the supplementary and extraordinary credits required by the needs of national defence, subject, however, to approval by the Chambers within the fifteen days next after their reassembling. Another provided for the grant of allowances to necessitous families of mobilised soldiers. A third authorised the extension of the note issue of the Bank of France from its actual figure of 6,800,000,000 francs (272,000,000_l._) to 12,000,000,000 francs (480,000,000_l._); another prolonged the period at the termination of which commercial bills would fall due. Another established the state of siege in France and the colonies. Another, again, permitted the incorporation either of commissioned officers or of privates of the Territorial Army into the Field Army, or conversely. Finally, there was a Bill to put a stop to indiscreet revelations on the part of the Press. When the Government had been invested with these very extensive powers, the Chambers were prorogued sine die, and the whole strength of the country rallied to meet the crisis, unprecedented in history, which had imposed this sudden strain. In the very first days of the war reassuring symptoms appeared. The Press resigned itself to strict censorship; the preparations for mobilisation were soon seen to have been skilfully co-ordinated; within a few days the regiments of the second line were ready to leave to rejoin the covering troops already stationed along the frontier. The great work of concentration was carried out with a marvellous punctuality and precision which aroused general admiration. The Northern and Eastern Railway companies adapted themselves most skilfully and readily to a task which was made even more complicated in that the German violation of the neutrality of Belgium compelled the French General Staff to make its principal effort in a different direction from that contemplated beforehand. The King of the Belgians on August 4 had appealed to France, Great Britain, and Russia to co-operate for the defence of Belgium as guarantors of its neutrality, and had declared that the defence of the Belgian fortresses would be undertaken by Belgium herself. There was, therefore, reason to expect that the abrupt German attack in the north would be so retarded by the resistance of Liège and Namur as to permit the British and French forces to come to the assistance of the Belgians. Consequently it was decided that the French Armies should take the offensive in Alsace and Lorraine in such a way as to attract to this region the greatest possible number of the invaders. As it was stated that Austria-Hungary had sent Slav regiments to the Rhine, France recalled her Ambassador, M. Dumaine, from Vienna, and gave the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador in Paris, Count Széczen, his passports on August 10. By prolonging the ambiguity of her attitude for nearly a week, Austria-Hungary had hoped to compel France to declare war on her, and thereby to enable her to call on Italy to fulfil her treaty obligations. This measure, however, proved futile; for, by her despatch of troops, and especially of howitzers, Austria-Hungary had manifestly taken the initiative in making war.

While Belgium was holding back the invasion by the north, the French Army on the extreme right made its way into Alsace by the Gap of Belfort and the passes of the Vosges. It was commanded by General d'Amade, who had previously been in command of the Corps of Observation in the Alps, and who was available for other service owing to the certainty that Italy would remain neutral. The first conflicts were favourable to the French. Altkirch and Munster were carried, and on August 6 the French outposts were enthusiastically welcomed at Mulhouse. But the forest of the Hardt and the heights situated beyond the town had been protected by a very strong system of defences. While General Joffre, the French Commander-in-Chief, issued a proclamation promising the Alsatians that they should be restored to France, the German Commander, General von Demling, was strongly reinforcing his defensive positions, and the French were overwhelmed by a heavy artillery surpassing their own field guns in number and range. They fell back; the people of Mulhouse, who had openly welcomed them, were shot by the Germans without mercy. General d'Amade was superseded by General Pau; but it was recognised that it was through inadequate information that his advance had failed; and some days later he was sent to Arras. General Pau made great efforts to resume the attack, he was supported by part of the troops from Algeria, who had crossed the Mediterranean without incident, and had been brought to the front with praiseworthy speed by the Paris, Lyons and Mediterranean Railway; and also by the Chasseurs Alpins, for whom on the South-Eastern frontier there was nothing now to do. By three weeks' desperate fighting the French recovered the plain of Alsace up to the gates of Colmar, and obtained control of the high valleys of the Vosges. But meanwhile the armies of the Ardennes and Lorraine were attacked by forces so greatly superior that the continuance of the work of liberating Alsace had to be given up. General Pau was ordered to retire. He contested every step of his retreat; created positions defending the passes through the Vosges, furnished General Thévenet, the Governor of Belfort, with the troops necessary to hold the enemy in check between the Ballons and the Swiss frontier, and emerged from the struggle with his prestige increased. On August 26 the French offensive in Alsace was suspended; and up to the close of the year this region took a secondary place. Strongly defended by the 21st Corps, whose officers had previously familiarised themselves thoroughly with the country, and by the Alpine troops, it became as it were the bastion on which the extreme right of the French Army might safely rest.

More serious consequences resulted from the miscalculation made by the French Government on the front towards Lorraine and Belgium. As it had expected a sudden attack directed on the right bank of the Meuse and along the Moselle, the bulk of the French forces had been divided between the Vosges and the Meuse. French Flanders was, at the very first, left undefended. The town of Lille was protected only by forts of which the construction dated as far back as the first conceptions formulated in 1875; not one was constructed of concrete or provided with cupolas. The heavy guns had been partly sent to the fortresses of the North-East or to the sea front. Maubeuge was better off, though its defences were not equal to those of Verdun, Toul, or Épinal, which were fairly good. Now, if the invasion came--as it actually did--by the left bank of the Meuse and the Gap of the Oise, the defensive position of the North would serve as a point of support to an army threatening the flank of the invader. Were this point of support lacking, the French would be in great danger of having their left flank turned. This danger was destined to influence the whole of the first part of the campaign, after the repulse of the French attempts to advance. In fact, contrary to the expectations entertained at the outset, the Army of Lorraine, under General de Castelnau, had not been attacked since hostilities began. Holding back the army of the Crown Prince of Bavaria, which had crossed the Schirmeck and Donon passes in the Middle Vosges, and was advancing on Lunéville, it had succeeded in forming before Nancy a very strongly entrenched front, which became famous as the Grand Couronné of Nancy, and then had moved forward in the direction of Metz. On August 12 it attacked the Germans at Pont-à-Mousson and Pagny, and drove them back on its left, while on the right it retook Blamont and Cirey, and then advanced rapidly on August 16 and the days following, retook the passes of St. Marie-aux-Mines and Bonhomme, occupied Sarrebourg, and pushed its cavalry forward as far as Château-Salins. But on August 20 it found itself confronted with the entrenched camp at Morhange, and met with a serious check. Its attack was stopped short by forces superior in number, and some of its units were seized with panic. The energy of the commanding officers coped successfully with these weaknesses, and the retreat on Nancy was carried out in good order. By successive stages, General Castelnau retired on the defensive positions of the Grand Couronné of Nancy, and held it with vigour. For three days (Aug. 22-24) his position was most critical, and his army suffered heavy losses. On the 25th reinforcements arrived under the command of General Dubail. The environs of Nancy were freed of the enemy by a decisive counter-attack; and when, a fortnight later, the German Emperor himself came to preside over a series of desperate efforts to capture the capital of Lorraine, it was too late. The Grand Couronné held out; and the Germans were compelled to evacuate Lunéville, which for several days they had occupied. Nancy, Toul, and Verdun thus formed as it were a barrier serving as a support for the victorious right wing of the French Army while holding back the tide of invaders pouring in from Luxemburg and Belgium.

On the west centre General Joffre, the Commander-in-Chief, had, as it proved, to face terribly severe ordeals. On August 10 the Crown Prince William's army had entered France by the Gap of Tiercelet; it had invested Longwy, carried Spincourt, and encroached on the fortified area of Verdun; but the unexpected resistance of Longwy and the invincible strength of the advanced works of Verdun delayed its march, and thus permitted the armies of Generals Bülow and Von Kluck to play the leading part during this period of the war. These two generals had made their way into Belgium, and found themselves faced by the two armies of General Ruffey and General de Langle de Carry, which had the British Expeditionary Force on their right, supported by General Lanrezac. On August 15 Dinant was occupied by the French wing, which General Joffre had been compelled to push forward beyond the lines of defence he had chosen. It took more than a week for the two armies of Generals Ruffey and de Langle de Carry to reach the front. The great conflict took place on August 22, on the wooded plateau extending along the right of the Meuse. The Germans had had time to entrench and to bring up heavy artillery, the effects of which for a time upset the French resistance. The French losses were immense; some army corps, the 11th among others, lost almost all their officers, and were compelled to retreat. The Germans advanced rapidly by both banks of the Meuse. The fall of Namur (Aug. 25) and the sanguinary conflict at Charleroi enabled them to enter France. Their daring tactics, their use of armoured motor-cars, their superiority in machine-guns, above all the overwhelmingly large proportion of their effectives, allowed their opponents to do no more than honourably contest the ground, retreating all the time. On August 24 General Lanrezac retired on Givet; on the 25th the British Army took up a position of resistance to the invaders on the line Cambrai-Le Câteau-Landrecies; but the day following it was attacked by five German army corps, and, in spite of the admirable behaviour of General Smith-Dorrien's division, it was compelled to continue its retreat. The situation of the Anglo-French Army then became extremely critical. It was threatened with envelopment on its left flank by a great turning movement of the enemy, who had masked Maubeuge and were pouring in by the North. Contrary to the views of General Percin and General d'Amade, and at the request of the civilian authority the fortified town of Lille had been declared an open town on August 24 and hastily evacuated. Flanders and Artois were swept by the cavalry and the advanced guard of the German Army; the bulk of the troops were advancing by stages of forty to forty-five kilometres daily (twenty-five to twenty-eight miles). All seemed lost.

This news produced an immense effect in Paris and throughout France, although the official bulletins were sparing of information, curt, and ambiguous, and no other source of intelligence was permitted by the censorship. General Joffre complained that he was thwarted in his plans by the War Minister; the Ministry seemed too exclusive in its composition at a time when mere politics were out of season. M. Viviani recognised the need and rapidly took his decision. On August 26 he announced to his colleagues that he proposed to resign, a step which entailed their doing likewise; but in his case it was a mere feint, for he was at once charged to reconstruct the Government, and on August 27 the Journal Officiel published the list of the new Ministry of National Defence. M. Viviani remained Prime Minister; M. Briand became Minister of Justice and Vice-President; M. Delcassé triumphantly returned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in place of M. Doumergue, who became Colonial Minister; M. Ribot became Minister of Finance, M. Millerand Minister of War, M. Sembat took the Ministry of Public Works, succeeding M. R. Renoult, M. Bienvenu-Martin was given the Ministry of Labour in exchange for that of Justice; the five remaining posts were retained by their previous holders. To emphasise the wide range of the new combination, M. Jules Guesde, a Unified Socialist, was made a Minister without portfolio. As the Chambers were not sitting, the new Government published a manifesto to the French people. "A conflict is in progress which, though of supreme importance, is not decisive. Whatever the issue, the struggle will continue. France is not the easy prey imagined by the insolence of the enemy." The Ministry was well received. M. Clemenceau himself gave M. Delcassé some degree of welcome. The "sacred union" came to find a more sure foundation in the common danger. General Joffre grew even greater amid his trials. The energy he exhibited was beyond belief; and, what was perhaps a phenomenon without precedent in France, he remained popular although he required his armies to undertake the thankless task of retiring while fighting, and of abandoning the richest and most populous regions of the country to the German invasion and German atrocities. Admirably supported by his subordinates and by General French, he superintended, without an instant of weakness, the strict execution of his programme. It consisted in holding on and lasting out; avoiding any decisive battle until the moment when the elements needed for success should all be present together, but giving ground without a real combat, so that the retreat should present the appearance of a calculated manoeuvre, and not of a compulsory flight. Thus General Lanrezac and the British troops gave battle and fought hard at Guise and St. Quentin, while, on the extreme left, the army which General d'Amade had begun to reorganise passed under the command of General Maunoury, disputed inch by inch Picardy and the Beauvais region, and retired on Paris, while the troops of the 1st and 2nd military depots were gradually removed towards Brittany. Similar measures were taken in Champagne. General Langle de Carry and General Ruffey gave battle, and suffered heavy losses, respectively near Chateau-Porcien and Bazeilles; and the splendid behaviour of their troops retarded the progress of the enemy, and enabled almost all the rolling stock of the railways to be saved, with important results for the subsequent operations of the war. Finally General Dubail, firmly based on the fortresses of Lorraine, harassed the left flank of the Crown Prince's army, and the delay he caused to it proved to be an important factor when the decisive encounter took place before Paris.

In spite of their efforts, the French Generals did not succeed in stopping the furious inrush of the invaders. Paris was threatened, and, what mattered even more, the railways were choked. The great railway stations from which the traffic was regulated, and whose working in August had exhibited a marvellous activity and power of adaptation to new conditions, began to be overwhelmed with traffic. The provisioning of Paris and its suburbs was endangered. The civil and military authorities were overwhelmed by the influx of fugitives from Belgium and the invaded French districts, who fled in terror before the German atrocities. In these critical circumstances great energy was displayed by General Gallieni, the Governor of Paris, and by M. Delanney, the Prefect of the Seine. For a moment the idea had been entertained of declaring Paris an open town and making a stand farther back. This idea the new Ministry abandoned, and formidable outworks were improvised in advance of the forts of the first line of defence. Steps were taken systematically to clear the city of non-combatants; the numerous departmental associations in Paris undertook to despatch to the remoter provinces all the families who had originally come from them, while the roads radiating from the capital swarmed with motor-cars carrying wealthy families to the seaside resorts on the Channel or the Atlantic. These families had been unobtrusively encouraged to leave by the municipal authorities, or had fled before the rumours spread by unknown means. On September 2 the Government left for Bordeaux, and the people of Paris learnt next day from a proclamation by General Gallieni, as laconic as it was emphatic, that he would do his duty to the end. But there was no need: for meanwhile the great Battle of the Marne had begun, and it was destined to relieve him from the necessity of imitating Palafox at Saragossa or Rostopchin at Moscow.

General Joffre had decided to retire, if necessary, as far as the Seine to check the invader, but a series of favourable circumstances enabled him to give battle before Paris on the North, and along the Marne and the Grand Morin on the South. At the moment when people were expecting to see the German masses press on the northern front of the entrenched camp of Paris and attack it by the space intervening between the forest of Montmorency and the Marne, they were seen to be turning abruptly to the South-East and transferring their efforts to the line of the Ourcq, Meaux, and Coulommiers. All was ready for its reception. On the left General Maunoury, reinforced by the troops of the Army of Paris and having on his right the British forces and those of General Lanrezac, now under the command of General Franchey d'Esperey, was about to hurl himself on the German right. At the centre was a new army formed since August 20 and placed under the command of General Foch, charged to hold the line between the Marne and the tertiary cliffs; it was faced by General Bülow's army. Finally on the right General Langle de Carry's and General Ruffey's armies, the latter now commanded by General Sarrail, were ready to receive the Crown Prince, who slackened his pace in his devastating march through Champagne. On the evening of September 5 General Joffre issued his famous Order of the Day: "A body of troops which cannot advance must at all costs keep the ground it has acquired, and be shot down where it stands rather than retreat. Under present circumstances there must be no giving way." On September 6 the fight began all along the line from Nanteuil-le-Haudouin at one end to Vitry-le-François on the other. The Germans advanced as far as Coulommiers and La Ferté-Gaucher, but, while the British stopped them at the crossing of the Grand-Morin, General Maunoury forced them back all along the Ourcq, and the Prussian Guard lost very heavily in the marshes of St. Gond. After five days of furious attacks the Crown Prince's army gave way, and, on the morning of September 11, General Foch re-entered Châlons-sur-Marne in triumph. Bülow and Kluck had been drawn farther back, and the French Commander-in-Chief was able to announce to the Army and to France that the battle was won. Paris was saved.

Meanwhile the Government had established itself at Bordeaux, and had invited the members of the two Chambers to go there also, to keep in touch with it. Most of the deputies for Paris had preferred to remain among their constituents, and, as the session had been closed by decree, the presence of deputies or senators on the banks of the Garonne involved more inconvenience than advantage. There was some idea of sending the best speakers among them about the country to explain the origins of the war and the vicissitudes of the campaign; but the Press, in spite of censorship, was amply sufficient for this work; and the Ministry, though it prepared the two chief theatres of Bordeaux to receive the Chambers, if needful, abstained from subjecting itself to their control. This course, however, was approved by the great majority of the nation, which evinced a praiseworthy spirit of resignation amid the varied trials imposed on it by the war. Gradually France became accustomed to the idea that the conflict would last much longer than that of 1870, and that firmness and endurance were needed in the spheres of economics and diplomacy as well as in the actual warfare. The hardest task fell to M. Ribot, the Finance Minister. Means had to be found of supporting not only the Army and Navy, but the civil population, in order to protect from need those families whose bread-winner had been mobilised, and even those impoverished through unemployment. In the first days of the war committees had been formed to provide allowances for women deprived of a husband or son, and for their young children. These committees had adopted different rules in different places, and their proceedings gave rise to acute complaints. It was determined that the State should make itself responsible for the support of the families of the men mobilised, that the municipalities, aided eventually by the State and the departmental authorities, should provide subsidies in aid of the unemployed, whether by gifts in money or aid in kind--food, fuel and clothing. Great service in these circumstances was rendered by the Bank of France, whose aid was the more appreciated inasmuch as the issue of National Defence Bonds which the Treasury had striven to arrange on the first days of the war had not found entirely adequate response. The Ministers of War and of Public Works, M. Millerand and M. Sembat, were harassed by complaints on the subject of transport; the victualling of the Army and the provisioning of the towns seemed likely to be paralysed by the overcrowded condition of the railways and the ports. In defiance of the censorship, M. Clemenceau actively attacked the abuses set up by political or social favouritism, through which a considerable number of young men evaded their duty as patriots, and remained ensconced in the public offices, or were rejected on medical examination through favouritism. Provision had also to be made to replace the immense quantity of ammunition and war material consumed on the battlefields. The indefatigable War Minister grappled with the difficulties, the manufacture of heavy guns was pushed on with amazing energy, and ample amends were made for the inferiority from which the French troops had suffered so severely in the first days of the war. General praise was expressed, too, for the skilful management of the supply services; the Army, well fed and largely strengthened by new levies, was enabled confidently to continue its work. It knew that the conflict would go on until exemplary chastisement had been administered to the aggressor. Far from keeping "the nation in arms" in ignorance of the causes and vicissitudes of the gigantic struggle in which it was engaged, the Government established and issued an "Army Bulletin," in the preparation of which the most eminent writers held it an honour to take part, and which gave the troops the most essential items of news and kept up their hope and emulation.

This, indeed, was eminently needed, for the warfare was just about to take on a new character little in accordance with the instincts of the French soldier. After the victory of the Marne, the Germans had at first been pursued vigorously, in spite of the fatigue and the losses suffered by the Allied troops. The Crown Prince's army had been thrust back into the forest of Argonne and was with difficulty holding its ground before Varennes; it held in great strength the commanding mass of hills known as Montfaucon, and was being considerably reinforced; but, in the centre, the French on September 13 hurled themselves against a formidable line of entrenchments, of which the eastern pivot was formed by the forts of Reims, while its right was supported by the quarries of the Soissons district. The forts of Reims had been precipitately dismantled by the French in the early days of August, and subsequently restored by the Germans; the quarries had been minutely explored for a long time before the war by German spies, and recently furnished with powerful guns. A new battle now began, termed the Battle of the Aisne. It was destined to last till the end of September; and it comprised two series of operations. One set was tactical; the armies whose alignment has been described above--General Dubail's in Lorraine, General Sarrail's in the Woevre region, General Langle de Carry's in the Argonne, and General Franchey d'Esperey's in the Reims district, forced back the troops opposed to them step by step, and fought battles in which the chief part was played by artillery, and which consisted in attacks and counter-attacks designed to carry fortified positions. General Maunoury and Sir John French held the Soissons district and made their way slowly along the Aisne and the Oise. But the Germans put new troops in the fighting line, and brought back from the Eastern front part of the forces taken from the Western front in August to clear East Prussia of the enemy. Further, they withdrew troops in considerable numbers from the northern Vosges, and sent the army of the Crown Prince of Bavaria to the north-west. All this caused strategic movements, responded to by similar manoeuvres on the side of the French. The Germans took the initiative as occupying a central position, while the French line overlapped theirs. They strove, therefore, to turn it, and to envelope the Allies' left. General Joffre replied by a rapid change in the position of his effectives. Reinforcing General Dubail's army by new regiments formed in the West and centre of France, and filling in full measure the gaps left in his former units by drafts from the depots, he despatched General Castelnau's army to the right of the Oise, where it took the place vacated by the British troops. These latter proceeded to cover Artois and Western Flanders, together with General Brugères' Territorials and the rest of the troops that could be spared from Lorraine, under the command of General de Maud'huy. These movements were carried out with great precision; and, by a curious coincidence, the French regiments from Lorraine found themselves faced by the same Bavarian troops that they had fought between Épinal and Nancy some weeks before. Thus was accomplished what has been termed the race to the sea, and a definitive check was given to the plan of the German General Staff for enveloping the French left.

While these immense movements of troops were being effected, the conflict raged, more especially at the centre, where General von Kluck was striving to break the junction in the square marked out by the French lines. Firmly established in the forts at the north of Reims, he had revenged himself for his inability to capture the town by bombarding the cathedral, on which, from September 13 to the end of the year, the work of destruction was to be persistently directed every time that a German attack was repulsed. In the Soissons district furious attacks were sustained by the British troops. The Battle of the Aisne, taken as a whole, ended in a success for the Allies, for the discomfiture of the Germans was such that the Emperor deprived General von Moltke of his post as Chief of the General Staff, replacing him first by General Voigts-Retz, then by the Minister of War. The Crown Prince, who had not been very successful in the conduct of the operations on the left, was replaced by General von Einem, and, after a mysterious eclipse, was sent to the Eastern front. The weakness of the German Army lay in the inadequacy of the chief command.

During October the chief interest of the struggle centred in the northern area of the war. The Belgian Army had evacuated Antwerp on October 9, and, with the aid of a landing force of British marines and bluejackets, and a British squadron lying off the coast, it had escaped the German grasp and retired, first on Ostend, then on the coast district of West Flanders. The Belgian Government established itself at Havre, while King Albert encouraged by his presence the remains of the organised forces of the Kingdom. The modest nucleus was destined to be increased rapidly by the reinforcements provided by the enrolment of all Belgians of military age who had fled before the invasion. To these General Joffre added a new army under the command of General d'Urbal; and, as this vast distribution of forces required that the command should be strongly organised, he took two coadjutors; and one of these, General Foch, was charged with the direction of the operations of the armies of the North, the other, General Pau, was concerned primarily with the armies of the East, and might, if necessary, take his own place as Commander-in-Chief. Thus the French armies were satisfactorily co-ordinated and combined; and all was ready to receive the new attack about to be made, under the personal supervision of the German Emperor, against the extreme left of the French Army. Twelve Army Corps and four Cavalry Corps were charged to break its resistance at all costs, and to reach Dunkirk and Calais, which were to serve as bases for the invasion of England. Under the pressure of this mass, sent to attack in deep columns regardless of the losses thereby imposed on the assailants, the Allies' troops were at first obliged to fall back to the Yser, and for three weeks, up to November 12, the result remained doubtful. But already the method of attrition employed by General Joffre and Sir John French was having its effect. The Prussian, Bavarian, and Würtemberg regiments had not the dash or the homogeneity of the troops that had invaded Belgium and France in August. The officers, commissioned and non-commissioned, were of very inferior quality; the greater part of the effectives consisted of soldiers who were either too young or too old, and were badly led; the superiority in artillery had passed to the defenders. The Emperor had to leave this theatre of war after the same lack of success as had marked his previous appearances on the front in Lorraine and Champagne. The German losses in the encounters collectively named the Battle of the Yser were estimated at 120,000. In accordance with the custom set up by the Germans, their long-range guns requited the humiliation inflicted on their troops by firing on the monuments of antiquity, and bombarded and completely destroyed the Cloth Hall of Ypres, a masterpiece of the Flemish architecture of the fourteenth century.

On the remainder of the front the struggle continued, and took on more and more the character of a war of siege. Instead of operations in the open field, both sides dug themselves into interminable trenches connected by tunnels through earth or rock, and strongly protected. In the aerial warfare the French and British airmen encountered the German Taubes and Aviatiks; fighting went on for weeks to capture or recover a wrecked and miserable village or a ragged clump of trees. In spite of all their efforts the Germans were unable either to recover Soissons or to capture Reims, or completely to invest Verdun. In the last-named quarter, after capturing St. Mihiel at the end of September, they had been compelled to confine themselves within the high ground along the Meuse, and to retire beyond Nancy, without, however, giving up all hope of returning to the attack. The winter campaign opened with the armies in this position of reciprocal defence. The war seemed likely to last much longer than had been expected at first, and to be a real war of exhaustion, in which the advantage would remain with whichever of the combatants displayed most obstinacy and tenacity.

However, it seemed improbable that the Germans would be in a position to resume their march on Paris; and the question arose whether the French Government should remain at Bordeaux. Indeed, in proportion as the war took on more and more the character of a chronic malady from which recovery would be lengthy, and as a renewal of the German advance against Paris became increasingly improbable, the inconveniences involved in the continued stay of the Government at Bordeaux were more keenly realised. In spite of the reticence imposed on the Press by the censorship, the bitter criticisms suggested to the people of the great south-western city by the influx of the strange crowd that swarmed round the public offices were echoed throughout France. Unpleasant comments were aroused by the contrast between the casual methods displayed in the fashionable restaurants of Bordeaux and the almost ascetic and Puritanical attitude of the people of Paris. The difficulties of communication hampered not only business, but even the action of the authorities. The deputies of Paris formed themselves into a group presided over by M. Denys Cochin, a Conservative member for the Department of the Seine; but it included also Socialists as well as Moderates. Without actually forming a State within a State, this body, unknown to the Constitution, speedily showed an activity with which the Government was compelled to reckon. It became the mouthpiece for all the complaints set up by the economic crisis with which Paris was struggling. Another group arose, that of the Senators and Deputies of the invaded districts. It made M. Leon Bourgeois its spokesman, and took up the defence of the interests, whether material or moral, of the populations of the North-East. The Ministry was quite aware of the hindrance to the war of which these particularist tendencies contained the germs; but they thought it more prudent to make terms. Various missions were entrusted to members of the Ministry; M. Briand, M. Sembat, M. Millerand, and even M. Viviani himself, repeatedly came to parley with representatives of Paris and the North-East. M. Poincaré twice left Bordeaux to visit the armies, and made one of his visits coincide with that paid by King George V. at the beginning of December to the British Expeditionary Force (p. 246). This conciliatory policy bore satisfactory fruit. The feeling of the public generally remained excellent. A generous rivalry was exhibited by the different Departments. Many Departmental Councils, whose session had been delayed in view of the war, voted aid in money or in kind to the war victims and the refugees. The towns, the Chambers of Commerce, and associations of all kinds vied with one another in generosity, and, as the winter became more rigorous, paid ample contribution to the National Relief Committee, enabling M. Appel, its President, and his fellow-workers to meet all demands. In spite of the unemployment and the rise in the cost of living, the necessitous classes passed through this difficult time without great suffering.

Little by little, business began to recover. Great improvements had been effected in the management of the railways; from October onwards, the express services had been to some extent re-established on all the lines. In November the continued depression in the foreign exchanges had been stopped, the imports and exports were increasing again; so was the revenue from taxation, direct and indirect. On December 7 the Paris Bourse, which had been closed since September 3, resumed its operation for cash transactions. True the 3 per cent. Rente opened at 72.50, while before the closing it had remained firm at 75, but this latter price was due to the fact that the syndicate of agents de change had forbidden dealings at a lower figure. The market was not swamped, as had been feared, by the offer of enormous masses of securities; the provincial Exchanges, at Lyons, Bordeaux, Marseilles and other great towns, which had continued open while the Paris Bourse was closed, had quietly absorbed a great part of the stocks offered. The political situation cleared up likewise. On December 8 the Government returned to Paris. M. Millerand alone of all the Ministers remained behind for a few days, his department requiring rather more time for its transference. The Chambers were summoned for December 22, to give legal sanction to the measures taken since August 4 by the Government. Their Committees had never had so much work, for it was really on them that the control given by the Constitution to the two Chambers had of necessity devolved. Though certain persons were impatient and some ambitions were disappointed, the truce of parties was maintained. If the Ministers favoured the Committees on the war, on foreign affairs, and on finance, with certain confidential statements not quite in harmony with the occasionally ambiguous optimism of the daily official war bulletins in the Press, the secrecy of these statements was well kept; the measures taken by the Ministry during the Parliamentary interregnum were collectively judged worthy of approval, and the innovations proposed were accepted. Among the measures taken mention must be made of the decree signed by M. Ribot on December 11, restoring to the paying Treasurers-General the prerogatives and advantages lost some years earlier; they recovered the right of obtaining on their personal credit the capital advanced by them to the State to give steadiness during the first months of the financial year. Among the innovations we must note the abolition in the Budget of 1915 of all the special accounts which had gradually grown up beside the account of current expenditure; repair of war material, naval construction, Morocco, reduction of succession duties in the case of direct heirs or of wives of soldiers killed on active service, and, finally, the suspension for 1915 of the complementary income-tax (p. 271), in view of the impossibility of completing, while the war lasted, the formalities prescribed by the Finance Act of 1914. On December 22 and 23 the Chambers unanimously adopted the proposals of the Government. They had received with acclamation the dignified declaration of M. Viviani on behalf of the Ministry and the entire nation, that France, together with her Allies, would carry on the war to the end, and would not lay down her arms until the provinces torn from her by force were for ever welded to their French fatherland. A like greeting had been given to the fine Presidential address of M. Paul Deschanel in the Chamber, and to that of M. Antonin Dubost in the Senate. It was under this reassuring impression of unity and concord that the year came to its end. For the first six months of 1915 the Chambers voted credits of 8,525,000,000 francs (341,000,000_l._). They also postponed till the end of the war all the elections, including the partial renewal of the Senate, due at the beginning of January, 1915. Everything was made subordinate to national defence, by the entire nation as by its representatives. Meanwhile the allied armies, firmly fixed in their trenches as if in winter quarters, continued, without much progress but also without retirement, the war of attrition which was gradually thinning the forces of the invader and drawing away their strength.

II. ITALY.

At the beginning of the autumn of 1911, and at the calmly calculated instigation of Signor Giolitti, Italy undertook to conquer Tripoli; and thereby she obliged herself to choose between two courses: either that of frankly denouncing, sooner or later, the treaty forming the basis of the Triple Alliance, or that of extricating herself from it with dexterity. Never, perhaps, had Italian diplomatic talent found itself confronted with problems of such complexity; unquestionably, on many occasions during 1914, it showed itself surpassingly skilful. The situation was dominated by three great facts: (1) the eclipse of Signor Giolitti, and the resultant developments of the parties in Parliament; (2) the declaration of neutrality with the skilful manoeuvres which led up to the Italian landing at Valona; (3) the death of Pope Pius X. and the efforts of his successor, Benedict XV., to guard the prestige of the Church between Austria and Prussia on one side and France and Belgium on the other.

Signor Giolitti had repeatedly expressed a desire to quit public life; at the age of seventy he began to feel the weariness entailed on him by the difficulties of Parliamentary work. His determination was strengthened during the January recess. The Radicals were showing indications of independence. The Nationalists were agitating; their organs in the Press claimed that Turkey should indemnify Italy for the supplementary expenses entailed by the attacks of the Arabs in the Cyrenaica, who had been formed into military units by the officers and privates of the Ottoman Army who, despite the Treaty of Ouchy, had remained in Libya. They demanded railway concessions in Asia Minor, and M. Venizelos, the Greek Premier, came to Rome to confer with the Italian Foreign Minister, the Marchese di San Giuliano, on the subject of Epirus and the islands. The Socialists were making progress. On February 9 they secured the election to the Chamber by an immense majority of Amilcare Cipriani, who, by reason of the numerous convictions he had undergone, was ineligible. New votes of credit were necessary, and the day before the Chambers reassembled, the Ministry decided to ask the Chamber for new taxation, estimated to produce 47,000,000 lire (1,880,000_l._), to be levied on buildings in construction, prices of admission to cinema shows, public carriages, furniture removers, and mineral waters, and also from Customs. On February 10 the debate began on the extraordinary expenditure entailed by the expedition to Libya. It was destined to last more than three weeks, and it would have dragged on longer, had not the Socialists decided to give up obstructing in return for an engagement by the Minister of Public Worship to introduce a Bill providing that civil marriage should invariably precede the religious ceremony. The debate was marked (Feb. 27) by a spirited encounter between Signor Giolitti and Signor Luzzatti. At last (March 4) the Premier summed up his African policy, and declared that he would not ask for a vote of confidence, but would merely request the House to pass to the consideration of the clauses of the Bill. His demand was granted by 361 to 83, with three abstentions. But some days later (March 7) the Radical group in Parliament adopted a resolution expressing the opinion that the time had come to lay stress on its distinctive differences. Two Ministers belonged to it; they resigned. The Socialists organised a one-day general strike in sympathy with the hospital attendants, a number of whom had been discharged; and at Rome this manoeuvre had some success. On March 10 Signor Giolitti announced to the Chamber that he had resigned, and that the King had accepted his resignation. The Chamber adjourned.

The situation presented great difficulties, for the retiring Ministry retained its influence to the full, and its members continued personally to act on every branch of the Administration. A new Ministry had to be found pliant enough to accept its patronage, and with sufficient dignity to retain a certain degree of independence and maintain the prestige of office. Signor Salandra proved to be the right man for the occasion. His financial ability gave him almost the authority of a Luzzatti; his reputation for enlightened Conservatism enabled him to obtain sufficient help among the members of the Right to make up for the hostility of the Radical irreconcilables. He accepted the task imposed on him by the King at Signor Giolitti's suggestion; and on March 20 the new Cabinet presented itself to the Chamber. It was a Cabinet of concentration, containing no representative of the Extreme Right or Extreme Left, and consisting for the most part of the late Ministers. At the Ministry of War, General Spingardi was succeeded by General Grandi, who had declared that he would be satisfied with an extraordinary expenditure of 200,000,000 francs (8,000,000_l._) spread over five years, while General Porro, whose appointment was favoured by the Chief of the General Staff, General Tassoni, demanded 325,000,000 lire (13,000,000_l._). The Finance Bills had still to be examined again; some days were required for their further discussion, and it was only on April 5 that Signor Salandra was able to state his general policy. Before a crowded Chamber, he expressed himself with a firmness and geniality which assured him goodwill; he promised a policy which would maintain the dignity of the nation abroad and secure progress at home; wise reforms, educational, economic, and social, an honest Administration, and strict management of finance. With some modification, the Civil Marriage Bill would be carried through. The Chamber approved this programme by 303 to 122, with nine abstentions, and adjourned (May 6). The Senate adjourned the next day, after approving the Foreign Minister's declaration regarding the expenditure on Libya and the expected renewal of the Triple Alliance, and applauding his statement that the interview between the King and the German Emperor at Venice (March 29) had shown that the period of effacement was over for Italy, and that her friendship with Great Britain and France was firmly established.

The Easter recess had been marked by an agitation among the railway men, which was successfully allayed by Signor Ciufelli, the Minister of Public Works; by an interview between the Foreign Ministers of Italy and of the Dual Monarchy, the Marchese de San Giuliano and Count Berchtold, at Abbazia; and by an Irredentist demonstration of students at Rome, Genoa, Florence, Naples, and other towns. Signor Salandra closed the University of Rome (May 6). The Budget debate began on May 7, with the Estimates for the Ministry of the Interior; on the same day the Bill was introduced imposing the new taxation amounting to 90,000,000 lire (3,600,000_l._). Replying on May 12 to a violent attack on the subject of the disturbances at the University, Signor Salandra defended himself with energy, and the Chamber gave him its support. On May 19, on the other hand, he took a conciliatory tone, promising that in the impending elections of Provincial Councils the Government would allow all possible latitude; but, some days later, in reply to questions put by Signor Colajanni, Signor Barzilai, and Signor de Felice, on the removal of the Prefect of Naples, he replied that the official in question had shown a lack of energy in the disturbances. This encounter was a mere skirmish; at the beginning of June the Socialists returned to the charge. Disturbances of a wholly exceptional kind swept like a cyclone over the essentially revolutionary areas of the Marches and the Aemilia. On Constitution Day, June 7, the Socialists organised demonstrations at Florence, Turin, Imola, and elsewhere; the army was insulted, the red flag hoisted, the troops fired on the crowd. The funerals of the victims intensified the disturbances; a general strike was called at Rome, but this was only the revolutionists' usual move; but what happened in Romagna was without precedent altogether. The State seemed to be collapsing all at once. Such towns as Ancona, and all the villages, declared themselves free communes; the authorities went into hiding, and, for some days, the excited insurgents were convinced that their example had been followed all over Italy, and that the Federal Republic had been proclaimed at Rome. The rising was promptly and severely repressed; the agitators who were most deeply implicated took to flight. At Rome the middle classes organised counter-demonstrations, and the Secretary of the General Confederation of Labour hurriedly sent out (June 10) a circular ordering the strike to be stopped. When the matter came before the Chamber, the Prime Minister demanded that its decision should be explicit and positive; a Socialist resolution regretting the attitude of the Government was rejected, on a vote by roll-call, by 254 to 112.

Amid the impression left by these events, the provincial and municipal elections were held, in batches, as is the rule in Italy, on the Sundays from June 14 to July 16. At Rome the Constitutional ticket was successful, as also at Brescia, Modena, Siena, and Reggio. At Rome, Don Prospero Colonna was elected Syndic; at Milan and Naples the Socialists won. The Parliamentary sittings became stormy; for the rest of June the Socialists persistently obstructed the financial proposals of the Government. Signor Chiesa (Socialist) even overturned the voting-urn; he was severely assaulted by other members and suspended for some days (June 25). Finally on July 3, Signor Carcano, leader of the Giolittian group, interposed, and induced the Socialists to give up obstructing. The vote of 90,000,000 francs was passed by 224 to 34; the minority consisted of Socialists, and 72 Radicals abstained. Two days later the Chamber adjourned sine die.

The Government remained master of the situation. Domestic policy lost all interest in view of the complications set up by the Austro-Serbian conflict. Italian diplomacy strove to secure that counsels of moderation should prevail; but it was obstinately set aside by the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Office, and naturally resented this treatment. Public opinion was indignant at the violence displayed by Austria towards Serbia, and clearly perceived that the interests of Italy were gravely menaced by a complete break-up of the Balkan equilibrium. The Government refused to comply with the demand of the Socialists, assembled at Milan, to call the Chamber together, but on July 30 it mobilised the Fleet and concentrated it not at Brindisi, but at Gaëta. This was at once a warning and a concession as a matter of form. On July 31 the Austrian Ambassador, Herr von Flotow, notified the Italian Foreign Minister of the delivery of the ultimatum to Russia and France, and demanded information as to the attitude which Italy proposed to adopt. The Minister replied that Austria-Hungary had not consulted her ally, and that he could not answer before consulting the Prime Minister. The decisive hour had come. Two days later, on August 2, Italy signified her neutrality, her reason being that the casus foederis had not arisen, inasmuch as Austria-Hungary and Germany had brought the situation to the point where it then stood by their initiative alone. The day following Major Kleist brought King Victor Emmanuel an autograph letter from the German Emperor. The King confined himself to declaring that his Constitutional duty was to support his responsible Ministry. Thus Italy took up officially an attitude of expectant and vigilant neutrality. She was destined to observe it till the end of the year, in spite of the pressure exercised by the advocates of intervention--Radicals, Liberals and Nationalists--who demanded an invasion of the Trentino and Istria. The Socialists, on the contrary, delivered impassioned speeches in favour of systematic and absolute neutrality. The armed peace and the economic disturbance required expenditure and special precautions. On August 4 a moratorium was established by decree; repayments of deposits and on current account were limited to fifty lire, and the maximum of currency issue permitted to the banks was increased. The resentment caused by this "betrayal" on the part of Italy was very acute in Germany, and still more in Austria; it showed itself by outrages on the numerous Italians employed in the mines and quarries of the basin of the Moselle, outrages in sharp contrast with the consideration and generosity of the French authorities, for which the Italian Ambassador at Paris, Signor Tittoni, tendered the cordial thanks of his Government.

The death of Pope Pius X., on August 20, gave the Ministry the opportunity of exhibiting an entirely correct attitude towards the Holy See. The Conclave opened on August 31. There were three parties in it; The Right, Conservative, directed by Cardinals Merry del Val and Billot, and inclined to vote for Cardinal de La[~i]; the Centre, led by Cardinals Pompili, Serafini, and Gatti, and putting forward Cardinal Ferrata; the Left, headed by Cardinals Agliardi, della Chiesa, and Amette, hesitated between Cardinals Gaspari and Maffi. But the Italian proverb, "He who enters the Conclave as Pope leaves it as Cardinal," was verified once more. After sixteen ballots Cardinal Agliardi pronounced the name of Cardinal Della Chiesa, who was elected on September 3 and took the name of Benedict XV. He was a professed diplomatist, and had been a collaborator of the late Cardinal Rampolla. He had only been a Cardinal for three months, and was Archbishop of Bologna. He had to define his course of conduct in the European struggle almost at once. The Belgian Cardinal Mercier, Archbishop of Malines, was destined, in returning from the Conclave, to come into conflict with the Germans, who had destroyed Louvain and Malines, and who prevented him from communicating with his suffragans and his flock. Contrary to general expectation, the new Pope did not take up with sufficient energy these encroachments on ecclesiastical prerogatives. His policy appeared to be timorous and the result was a revival of Gallicanism among the French clergy. Thus, when at the end of the year the Holy See enjoined all the Episcopal authorities to cause prayers to be offered for the restoration of peace, it met in France with an almost universal resistance. The Bishops refused to allow the Pope's words to be read without qualification; they were communicated subject to the reserve that there could be no question of any peace which did not safeguard the rights of the French nation. It was a bad beginning for the new Pope.

In contrast with this weakness on the part of the Roman Curia, the Government of the Italian kingdom adopted an attitude which was at once pliant and firm. Germany had been unable to resign herself to the neutrality of Italy; she resorted to every possible means of reviving the Gallophobia prevalent in the country under the rule of Crispi. A leading German Social Democrat, Herr Sudeküm, was sent to the Italian Socialists on a mission of instruction; they protested against the destruction of Louvain, and affirmed their sympathy for France, the "defender of civilisation"; they declared that they supported neutrality, but that, if the Italian Army attacked the Allies, they would rise in insurrection. This clumsy move on the part of Germany seemed at the moment to produce no effect on the Italian Government, but some days later (Sept. 3) the Fleet left Gaëta for Taranto, and troops were concentrated in the neighbourhood of Verona and Brescia. As it was rumoured that, in the event of a breach with Austria-Hungary, Italy would be attacked by a German Army coming from the St. Gothard, Signor Salandra notified the Swiss Government (Sept. 24) that Italy, which did not exist as a State in 1815, would formally adhere to the recognition then entered into of Swiss neutrality. Three days later the classes of 1884 to 1888 were mobilised, thereby raising the total of the effectives in the Italian peninsula to thirty army corps. At the same time an important change was made in the Ministry, General Grandi, who had not been able to come to an understanding with the Chief of the General Staff, resigned, and was succeeded by General Zupelli (Oct. 11), but, as the Marchese di San Giuliano died on October 16, a general reconstruction of the Ministry became inevitable. Signor Salandra resigned on November 2, and was again made Premier by the King. He made Signor Carcano, Signor Giolitti's second in command, Minister of Finance, and Signor Orlando Minister of Justice; and, some days later, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was accepted by Signor Sonnino. This latter greatly increased the activity of his Department; he summoned to Rome successively all the diplomatic representatives of the King at foreign Courts, and thoroughly convinced himself of the necessity of remaining for some time longer in an attitude of expectancy. The Chambers were summoned to sanction the financial measures taken by Royal decree, and to approve the international policy of the Government. The session was short, but productive. On December 4 the Ministry made a statement which was well received, and the question of neutrality was closely debated. The greatest sensation of the debate was the disclosure made by Signor Giolitti (Dec. 5) who read a despatch received by him as Prime Minister in August, 1913, and proving that at that time Austria-Hungary desired to attack Serbia and appealed to the Triple Alliance, but that Italy had refused her aid. Signor Giolitti concluded his speech by assuring the Government of his support, and thenceforward all its difficulties were solved. By 413 to 49 the Chamber accorded the Salandra Ministry a vote of confidence (Dec. 8), and thus it was understood that Italy was to preserve her attributes as a Great Power and to be ready at any moment to intervene if necessary. The Triple Alliance, which had not been actively denounced, was thus virtually dissolved.

To prevent Italy from turning against the Germanic Powers, the German ex-Chancellor, Prince Bülow, whose personal connexions at Rome were very extensive, was sent there as Ambassador Extraordinary, taking the place of Herr von Flotow. This mission, which was announced very loudly, was coldly received from the first by the Liberal party and the Italian Press. He waited to present the letters accrediting him as Ambassador till the Chambers had adjourned for the recess. The Senate adjourned on December 18, the Chamber on the 19th, after having accorded the Ministry the votes of credit which it demanded, passed the military Bills, and sanctioned a loan of 1,000,000,000 lire (40,000,000_l._). Before the week was over, the Italian Fleet, under the command of Admiral Patris, effected without incident a landing at Valona. Italy did not yet side definitely with either set of combatants, but she took possession of an important pledge, thus signifying her firm intention not to allow herself to be neglected when the time came for a final settlement in the Balkans. This was a first step; Austria-Hungary, which had so categorically opposed an operation of the same sort in 1911, on this occasion made no objection. Times were changed.

FOOTNOTES:

[5] The interest would be paid without deduction, but the holders of Rente would have to pay the tax subsequently.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

II. GERMANY AND AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

I. GERMANY.

Germany, the protagonist of the great European War, though she professed to pursue the same policy this year with regard to the quarrel between Austria-Hungary and Serbia as she did in 1908 and 1913 (A.R., 1908, p. 311; 1913, p. 321), now found herself in a position where mere threats, even if expressed "in shining armour," would not have sufficed, for her ally was entering upon a struggle on which she believed her very existence depended, and Russia had nearly completed the reorganisation of her Army, while Germany had made hers ready to strike at any moment. The Militarische Rundschau declared in July that "if we do not decide for war, that war in which we shall have to engage at the latest in two or three years will be begun in far less propitious circumstances. At this moment the initiative rests with us: Russia is not ready, moral factors and right are on our side, as well as might. Since we shall have to accept the contest some day, let us provoke it at once. Our prestige, our position as a great Power, our honour, are in question; and yet more, for it would seem that our very existence is concerned." This, however, was only the view of the military party and the Pan-German professors. The mass of the people did not want war, and it was only when they were deluded into the belief that the war had been engineered by the British Government, with France and Russia as its tools, that they were filled with a bitter hatred of England and determined to fight to the last in defence, as they thought, of their country. One of the most popular books in Germany during the autumn was one entitled "Edward VII., the Greatest Criminal of the Nineteenth Century," and all foreign newspapers and books on the war were rigidly excluded, while the fanatical outburst known as "the Hymn of Hate for England" was distributed among the troops in the field. Its author received a decoration, and its sentiments were held to be justified by the supposed criminal plot of Great Britain and her allies against the existence of Germany. The German Government of course knew better; Herr Maximilian Harden described in his usual downright way its real motives as follows: "We are fighting not to punish criminals or free oppressed nationalities, but to get more room in the world for ourselves. Other nations, Spain, the Netherlands, Rome, Austria, France, England, have been at the helm, it is now our turn. It is folly to try to justify our encroachment on Belgian neutrality by saying that France and England would otherwise have done so."

The earlier part of the year was almost entirely occupied in Germany with the Zabern incidents (A.R., 1913, pp. 318-21), and the discontent in Alsace-Lorraine. Colonel Reuter and Lieutenant Schad were tried by a military court at Strasburg and fully acquitted (Jan. 5-11). The Military Court of Appeal at the same time reversed the sentence of forty-three days' imprisonment passed upon Lieutenant Forstner for striking a lame cobbler over the head with his sword, on the plea that it was only an ordinary military sword and had not been specially ground for the occasion. Colonel Reuter in his defence claimed entire responsibility for the acts of his subordinates, as he was "a Prussian officer and executed the orders of his King." He referred, apparently, to a Cabinet Order cited by the King of Prussia in 1820, when Prussia had no jurisdiction in South Germany; and the court held that this order fully justified his action, as it was applicable in every country where a Prussian officer happens to be. In Bavaria and Würtemberg, however, it was officially stated that in those countries there was not the slightest authorisation for independent military action in such cases (Jan. 14, 28). In the Prussian Upper House Count Yorck von Wartenburg complained that the representatives of the people had not displayed the national sentiment to be expected in the centenary year of the War of Liberation, as they were trying to strengthen the Reichstag at the cost of the Emperor, the Federal Council, and the separate States. The Reichstag was interfering in all directions, and had presumed to censure the Prussian Premier. Imperial laws were being passed by which "the King of Prussia lost more than the Emperor gained," and the Army must not be exposed to democratic impulses, lest Germany should become like England, which had "a life President at the head of a Republic." The Chancellor stated in reply that Prussia had never overstepped the restrictions she had placed upon herself in founding the German Empire, and that she was always supported in the Federal Council as the German dynasties were strong believers in unity. As to the new power of members of the Reichstag to put short questions to Ministers (A.R., 1913, p. 321), he promised to do everything he could to prevent the answering of questions from causing encroachments upon the Executive, adding that "votes of censure merely established the fact of a difference of opinion in a particular case between the Reichstag and the Imperial Chancellor." The Armament Inquiry Committee had "no right of control whatever," and it had been a great satisfaction to him during the past few weeks to see "how the heart of the whole Prussian nation is stirred as soon as the honour of the Army is affected. To preserve this Army, led by its King, against all attacks, and to prevent it from becoming the Parliamentary Army of which Count Yorck has spoken, is the passionate desire of every Prussian who is true to the Constitution."

On January 20 the Upper Chamber of the Diet of Alsace-Lorraine, consisting almost entirely of nominated and official members, carried a resolution expressing the opinion that the trouble at Zabern could have been prevented "if the military authorities had dealt promptly and adequately with the unworthy, insulting, and provocative behaviour of Lieutenant Forstner"; also that Colonel Reuter went far beyond his rights, and that guarantees must be given that such things should not occur again, and especially that the law should be respected absolutely by the military authorities. In the Reichstag (Jan. 24) the Chancellor, in reply to Social-Democratic and Radical interpellations, said that in civil disturbances the military could, as a rule, intervene only on the demand of the civil authorities, but that "the Prussian Constitution recognised expressly and in principle that in exceptional cases a demand from the civil authorities was not necessary," and that it reserved the subject for special legislation which, however, had never taken place. The Cabinet Order of 1820, which was embedded in the Service Orders of 1899, was undoubtedly binding on Colonel Reuter, but in view of the doubt whether it was in accordance with the Constitution and the general principles of law, the Emperor had ordered an inquiry, and the Service Orders would be brought into harmony with the result. It was not true that Germany was under sabre rule, for the Zabern case was the only one in which the provisions of the Order had been applied. Alsace-Lorraine could not flourish except under a calm, uniform, and just, but at the same time firm, policy. The attempts to create differences between North and South must be nipped in the bud. Not one of the Federal States could exist without the united Empire, for which their fathers had shed their blood in loyal comradeship, all with the same enthusiasm, the same devotion, and the same courage. The debate was now mainly carried on by the Social Democrats, who indulged in the usual invectives against monarchy and especially against the Crown Prince, and the House finally carried by a large majority a motion of the Centre party asking the Federal Council to see that the conditions of military intervention in police matters should be determined with uniformity and in a way securing the independence of the civil authority. A National Liberal motion was also carried, asking the Imperial Chancellor to inform the Reichstag of the result of the promised inquiry, and referring to a Committee of twenty-one members Bills proposed by the Socialists, the Alsatians, and the Radicals in regard to military powers and jurisdiction. The Government answered these motions the same day by an official communiqué, stating that it was not the practice of the Federal Council to discuss motions so introduced, and that "the Constitution excluded the Legislature from all share in any alteration of the military Service Orders." As regards the attacks of the Socialists on the Crown Prince, a journalist named Leuss was sentenced on March 5, to six months' imprisonment for an article entitled "Wilhelm der Letzte" in the Welt am Montag, in which he spoke of telegrams said to have been sent by the Crown Prince to General Deimling and Colonel Reuter as an unwarrantable interference with the course of justice in the Zabern affair, and described a farewell order issued by the Crown Prince to his regiment, in which he said that the highest joy of the soldier is to ride against the foe, as an outburst of bellicose feeling calculated to revive Republican ideas and to raise doubts whether the hereditary principle should not be abolished and Princes be pensioned off. The editor of the Socialist Vorwärts was also sentenced on March 6 to three months' imprisonment for a parody of the Crown Prince's farewell to his regiment. Another of the Prince's indiscretions was the sending of telegrams in July to the authors of Chauvinistic pamphlets which he described as "excellent"--one entitled "the Hour of Destiny," by Herr Frobenius, which called upon Germany to be prepared for a war in 1915 or 1916 against France, Russia and England, "who will not miss a favourable opportunity of attacking Germany," and the other by Professor Buchholz, inveighing against the "weak Governments" which had directed Germany since Bismarck and allowed democracy to make "frightful progress."

The decision of the military courts at Strasburg on the Zabern affair and the Chancellor's speech on the subject were followed by the resignation on January 29 of the Statthalter or Governor of Alsace-Lorraine, Count Wedel, and all the principal members of his Ministry. Count Wedel was succeeded on May 1 by the Prussian Minister of the Interior, Herr von Dallwitz, whose place in the Ministry was taken by a retired official, Herr von Löbell, formerly head of the office of the Imperial Chancellor and Prince Bülow's political manager. A new Army Order was also issued in April suppressing the ancient privileges under which Colonel Reuter had acted, but the new Statthalter refused in July to confirm in office the Burgomaster of Zabern, who had been re-elected by a large majority of the Town Council, and had defended the rights of civilians in the Strasburg trial. An agitation was now started by the Conservatives in Prussia for stronger action against all the border races. As regards the Danes the Minister of the Interior stated in the Budget Committee of the Prussian Diet on February 1 that the Law Officers had been instructed to keep a sharp control over the Danish Press in Schleswig-Holstein, and Danes from across the frontier were forbidden to go to the Danish club-houses on Prussian territory, even when not used for political agitation. Everything possible was being done to strengthen the German element in Schleswig-Holstein. German proprietors were assisted by the State, German libraries had been established, and German elementary high schools on the Danish model were started in order to check the emigration of young people across the border. Further, on May 26, the Chancellor, in reply to an interpellation signed by more than sixty members of the Upper House of the Prussian Diet accusing Denmark of undermining Prussian authority in Schleswig-Holstein, said he must admit that as a consequence of the excessive agitation against Germanism the situation in the north was unsatisfactory. Prussia was negotiating with Denmark on the question of the people who have no definite nationality, but would cling to the determination not to accept them as Prussian subjects (A.R., 1907, p. 294). The dreams of an incorporation with Denmark would never be realised. Among the Poles in Prussia, too, it was a bitter grievance that though sermons might be preached in the Polish language, the Communion might not be administered in Polish, and in a Roman Catholic Church in the suburb of Moabit in Berlin about seventy Polish children entered in procession after the Polish sermon and sang Polish hymns, upon which the police entered and with considerable effort cleared the church. Another Polish grievance was that the German Eastern Colonisation Society (Ostmarkenverein) whose object was to strengthen the German element in Posen and Silesia, had been trying to carry the war against the Poles into Austrian territory in Galicia by inciting the Ruthenian against the Polish workmen, and on February 25 the police raided the two chief Polish newspapers in Posen in order to discover evidence of the theft of documents quoted by them in proof of the charge against the Ostmarkenverein. Heated debates took place on the subject in the Prussian Diet, but no evidence of the alleged theft was discovered.

Important statements on Anglo-German relations were made to the Budget Committee of the Reichstag on February 4 by Grand-Admiral von Tirpitz and Herr von Jagow, the Foreign Secretary. The former said that from the technical point of view he had nothing to add to or subtract from his statement of 1913. The ratio of 16 to 10 offered by Great Britain was still acceptable to Germany if it referred to battleships only; but the idea of "a holiday year" could not be realised. Positive proposals had not yet reached Germany; if they did, they would certainly be carefully examined. The naval estimates of foreign Powers had grown much more rapidly than those of Germany. During the last five years her naval expenditure had increased by 2,750,000_l._, that of Great Britain by 10,800,000_l._, apart from the expected supplementary estimate of 3,000,000_l._, that of France by 6,700,000_l._, and that of Russia by 15,100,000_l._ Herr von Jagow next stated that the present German relationship with England was one of thorough mutual confidence. In both countries there had been an increasing feeling that they could work side by side on many points and that their interests met in many respects. The events in the Balkans and the negotiations in London had contributed much to this result, and people in Great Britain had been able to convince themselves that Germany was not pursuing any aggressive policy. On February 20, however, Grand-Admiral von Tirpitz stated during the debate on the Navy Estimates that it was "not only an economic and political necessity for Germany to have her ships of war abroad as well as at home, but a military necessity also." If in recent years the German Fleet had been concentrated in home waters, this was due "to circumstances which need not be discussed more closely," but he trusted they would be "more active," with their Navy abroad, and he reminded the House that the contemplated number of German ships abroad, i.e. eight large cruisers, had not yet been reached. On June 25, during the British Naval visit to Kiel, the German Emperor, after inaugurating two new locks for the Kiel Canal, which had been made two metres deeper and doubled in breadth, and had reduced the distance between Kiel and Wilhelmshafen from 500 nautical miles to eighty, went for the first time on board a British Dreadnought, the King George V., and hoisted his flag as a British Admiral; enthusiastic speeches were delivered in the Town Hall by Vice-Admiral Sir George Warrender and the President of the German Navy League, and the bluejackets of both nations made merry together ashore.

On the second reading of the Army Estimates a remarkable statement was made by the Prussian War Minister as to the manner in which the Army Law (A.R., 1913, p. 307) had been carried out. Between July and October they had to arrange for the accommodation of 60,000 more men and 21,000 more horses. There had been no difficulty whatever about the recruits. On the contrary, there were 38,000 men perfectly fit for service whom they could not take.... There were now only about 3,000 vacancies among some 30,000 officers, and he thought that all the vacancies would be filled within two years--or at the existing rate of competition much sooner. The Army Bill had created 10,000 new posts for non-commissioned officers. Six weeks after the Bill came into force there were only 4,000 vacancies left, and these would probably be filled within the year. There had been no difficulty about the purchase of remounts. The money voted for frontier fortifications had been duly spent, and there had been very little trouble about the supply of new accommodation for the troops. The health of the Army had been splendid during the past year. Although orders to manufacturers, etc., could not be given until July, everything had been ready so quickly that on October 6, 1913, five days after the new Law had come into force, all the new units were ready and perfectly equipped for war.

On January 13 the Reichstag discussed a petition of the German League for Women's Suffrage demanding that women should have the equal suffrage with men in the Reichstag elections and should be eligible for election themselves. In former years such petitions had been ignored, but this time the House decided to bring the petition to the cognisance of the Government as a compromise between a Social Democratic proposal that it should be submitted for consideration and a Conservative one that it should be ignored as heretofore, the Centre desiring to show sympathy with the movement without pledging themselves to radical changes. On January 15 the Budget Committee of the Reichstag rejected a Government proposal to grant an Imperial subsidy in aid of the preparations for the Olympic games.

The Reichstag was closed on May 20, the Socialists remaining silent in their seats, instead of leaving the House, as they had hitherto, while the other parties responded to the President's call for three cheers for the Emperor.

In February a private company composed of members of the leading industrial concerns of the Empire was formed at the instigation of the head of the Press Bureau of the German Foreign Office to "further German industrial prestige abroad," i.e. to supply the foreign Press with information favourable to Germany and German industrial enterprise. The sum of 12,500_l._ a year, the whole Secret Service Fund at the disposal of the Imperial Foreign Office for subsidising foreign papers, was added by the Government to the funds of the company.

In March, the Emperor William visited the Emperor Francis Joseph at Vienna, and afterwards the King of Italy at Venice. The chief feature of these meetings was the special favour shown by the German Emperor to Count Tisza, the Hungarian Prime Minister, with whom he had long conversations on Eastern affairs.

A discussion on Colonial reforms took place on February 18 in the Budget Committee of the Reichstag. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, Dr. Solf, said that after comparing the colonial administrations of the world he had found the British system the best suited to be a model for Germany, and he accordingly intended to strengthen the powers of the Colonial Governors and correspondingly to lighten the burden of the Colonial Office. Replying to a member who complained of the ill-treatment of the natives and the existence of forced labour, the Minister said that the Government was endeavouring to protect the natives, and had instructed the Colonial governors to abolish forced labour. The question was raised again in a full House shortly afterwards, when the Reichstag passed a resolution desiring the abolition of serfdom in German East Africa by January 1, 1920. The Government, on the other hand, issued a White Paper in March, saying that it would be a highly dangerous experiment to fix a date for the abolition. According to the German law every native born after December, 1905, is free, and those who are still serfs can purchase their freedom for a small sum, usually between thirty and forty rupees, which their masters are not allowed to prevent them from earning; more than 2,000 purchase their freedom every year. The number of serfs now in East Africa was estimated to be about 85,000, but it was believed that in fifteen years' time serfdom would be extinct. To abolish it at the date stated in the Reichstag resolution would cost 4,200,000 rupees (about 280,000_l._) in compensation to the owners, and leave many serfs without the means of existence. These arguments apparently satisfied the Centre and the National Liberals, but the Social Democrats urged that the Colonies were merely a burden, and that the sooner they could be got rid of the better, as they were useless as homes for white men and contained hardly 25,000 whites altogether. The increase of their trade was only 3-1/2 per cent. of the total of that of German trade, and was less than Germany's trade with Cape Colony and with England's Crown Colonies; most of their needs were supplied from England, and they were not wanted for emigration, for Germany had no surplus population and was always importing foreign workmen. Finally, the Colonies were administered in the interests of unscrupulous companies which were exterminating the natives.

The usual crop of espionage cases came up in the first half of the year. In July a German sergeant was sentenced to fifteen years' penal servitude and expulsion from the Army for corruption and betrayal of military secrets to the Russian military Attaché Colonel Bazaroff, who suddenly left Berlin when the sergeant was arrested. He was clerk in the Engineer Inspection Office, and had sold plans of the fortifications of Königsberg and other places in East Prussia to the Attaché.

Herr von Jagow, the Foreign Secretary, in the usual statement of German foreign policy in the Reichstag, on May 14, referred especially to the violent attacks made upon Germany in the Russian Press, which had naturally led the German Press to retaliate, but for this the German Government was not responsible. He knew of no real Russo-German antagonisms and "had reason to suppose" that the Russian Government was determined to maintain friendly relations. As to England the negotiations "were being conducted on both sides in the most friendly spirit, a spirit which in other matters also prevailed in Anglo-German relations." "An understanding which removed possibilities of friction" was also being arrived at with France.

When Austria-Hungary sent her ultimatum to Serbia the German Emperor was on his usual holiday trip in Norway. He was informed of the text of the ultimatum by the German Ambassador at Vienna, but did not think it necessary to return at once to Berlin, as both he and his Ministers and Ambassadors believed that Russia would not actively interfere and that England in any case would be neutral. He shared the indignation of the Austrians and Hungarians at the murder of their Crown Prince, and fully approved of the text of the ultimatum;[6] it was probably intended as a preliminary to war, but he thought the war would be localised, and if successful would remove from Austria-Hungary the danger of a "Slavonia Irredenta" (A.R., 1912, p. 338), which threatened her existence as a great European Power. It was not believed at St. Petersburg that he really wanted war,[7] and in the opinion of his Ministers at Berlin, the declaration of Austria-Hungary that she had no intention of seizing Serbian territory "would have a calming influence at St. Petersburg."[8] As, however, the situation became more threatening, the Emperor suddenly returned to Berlin on July 26, the day before the Serbian reply to the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum was delivered. On July 27, when Germany declined to accept the British proposal for a Conference on the ground that it would practically amount to a Court of Arbitration, she stated that "if Russia mobilised only in the South, Germany would not mobilise, but if she mobilised in the North, Germany would have to do so too."[9] As Russia would evidently have to mobilise in the North for a war against Austria-Hungary as well as against Germany, this showed that the Emperor William had now decided for war, and his subsequent acceptance of the principle of mediation between Austria and Russia by the four Powers,[10] and his assertion that he was "doing his very best both at Vienna and St. Petersburg to get the two Governments to discuss the situation directly with each other and in a friendly way"[11] were merely concessions to the British Government in the hope that it would be neutral. His bid for British neutrality (p. 177) was made two days after, and when it was refused Germany prepared at once to mobilise both against Russia and France, although negotiations were still going on between the Powers for a pacific issue, and Austria-Hungary had agreed to discuss with them even the basis of the conflict with Serbia.[12] On July 31 the German Chancellor informed the British Ambassador at Berlin that as the whole Russian Army and Fleet were being mobilised, Kriegsgefahr (danger of war) would be proclaimed by Germany at once, and mobilisation follow almost immediately.[13] When on the same day Russia issued orders for a general mobilisation, Germany addressed an ultimatum to the Russian Government demanding that the Russian forces should be demobilised, and that a reply should be given within twelve hours. This, of course, meant war, which was declared against Russia on August 1, and a last effort to secure British neutrality was made by Germany on the same day. The German Ambassador in London asked Sir E. Grey whether, if Germany gave a promise not to violate Belgian neutrality, England would engage to remain neutral, and he even suggested that the integrity of France and her Colonies might be guaranteed, to which Sir E. Grey replied that he "felt obliged to refuse definitely any promise on similar terms."[14] Germany then declared war against France (Aug. 3). The day before her armies, which had for some time been ready on the frontier, had marched into Luxemburg, the Chancellor declaring that this was not a hostile act, but was merely intended to insure against a possible attack of the French Army, and promising full compensation for any damage done.[15] Luxemburg protested against this violation of her neutrality, but, of course, without effect. On August 2 Germany invited Belgium to allow German troops to pass through her territory, in which case Germany would guarantee the possessions and independence of Belgium on the conclusion of peace, and pay an indemnity for any damage done by German troops. Belgium rejected this proposal on August 3. And while Germany, on August 4, "repeated most positively the formal assurance that even in the case of armed conflict with Belgium, Germany will, under no pretence whatever, annex Belgian territory," German troops entered Belgium and summoned Liège to surrender.[16] The German excuse for this violation of Belgian neutrality was that Germany had to advance into France "by the quickest and easiest way," and that "it was a matter of life and death for them, as if they had gone by the more southern route they could not have hoped, in view of the paucity of roads and the strength of the fortresses, to have got, through without formidable opposition, entailing great loss of time, which would have meant time gained by the Russians for bringing up their troops to the German frontier; rapidity of action was the great German asset, while that of Russia was an inexhaustible supply of troops." The British Ambassador having, in accordance with instructions from his Government, then demanded his passports, the German Secretary of State expressed "his poignant regret at the crumbling of his entire policy and that of the Chancellor, which had been to make friends with Great Britain and then, through Great Britain, to get closer to France." The Chancellor, on receiving the British Ambassador's farewell visit, complained that Great Britain was going to war "just for a word, neutrality, which in war time had so often been disregarded, just for a scrap of paper, on a kindred nation which desired nothing better than to be friends with her." All his efforts, he added, had now been rendered useless, and "the policy to which he had devoted himself since his accession to office had tumbled down like a house of cards." What Great Britain had done was "like striking a man from behind while he was fighting against two assailants," and he held her responsible for all the terrible events that might happen. When the news was circulated that England had declared war against Germany, the Berlin mob broke the windows of the British Embassy. On the following morning, August 5, the following message was delivered to the British Ambassador by one of the Emperor's aides-de-camp:--

The Emperor has charged me to express to your Excellency his regret for the occurrences of last night, but to tell you at the same time that you will gather from those occurrences an idea of the feelings of his people respecting the action of Great Britain in joining with other nations against her old allies of Waterloo. His Majesty also begs that you will tell the King that he has been proud of the titles of British Field-Marshal and British Admiral, but that in consequence of what has occurred he must now at once divest himself of those titles.

A second attempt was made by Germany on August 10, after the capture of Liège, to obtain the consent of Belgium to the German armies passing through Belgian territory on the understanding that "Germany would evacuate Belgium as soon as the state of war will allow her to do so," but this proposal was also rejected by the Belgian Government (Belgian Grey Book, Nos. 62 to 65).

A German "White Paper" was issued in August under the title "How the Franco-German Conflict could have been Avoided," which contained the telegrams exchanged between Prince Henry of Prussia, the King of England, and the German Emperor before the outbreak of the war. It was issued from the Government printing office in Berlin in English, not in German. Prince Henry's telegram to the King, dated Berlin, July 30, stated that the Emperor his brother "is much preoccupied" and "is trying his utmost" to fulfil the Tsar's appeal to him to "work for the maintenance of peace," adding that Germany has "taken no measures, but may be forced to do so any moment should our neighbours [France and Russia] continue," and urging the King to use his influence on France and Russia "to keep neutral." The Emperor, he concluded, "is most sincere in his endeavours to maintain peace," but "the military preparations of his two neighbours may at last force him to follow their example for the safety of his own country, which would otherwise remain defenceless." A telegram from the German Emperor to the King, dated July 31, stated that the proposals of the British Government (that Russia and France should suspend further military preparations if Austria will consent to be satisfied with the occupation of Belgrade and the neighbouring Serbian territory as a hostage for the satisfactory settlement of her demands, other countries meanwhile suspending their military operations) "coincide" with his ideas and the statements he had got that night from Vienna and forwarded to London, but that the German Chancellor had just informed him that an official notification had arrived that the Tsar had "ordered the mobilisation of his whole Army and Fleet, not even awaiting the results of the mediation he" (the German Emperor) "was working at," and leaving him without any news. He had accordingly left for Berlin to take measures for insuring the safety of his Eastern frontiers, "where strong Russian forces were already posted." Finally, on August 1, the German Emperor telegraphed to the King, with reference to a suggestion by the German Ambassador in London that Germany might refrain from attacking France in a war between Germany and Russia if France remained neutral, that "on technical grounds" this suggestion could not be accepted, as the German mobilisation, which had been proclaimed that afternoon, "must proceed against two fronts, East and West, as prepared, and cannot be countermanded," but that if France should offer her neutrality, "which must be guaranteed by the British Fleet and Army," he would "refrain from attacking France and employ his troops elsewhere." He added that the troops on his frontier were "in the act of being stopped by telegraph and telephone from crossing into France." It was afterwards explained that the suggestion had created a misunderstanding, as it would probably have been incompatible with the terms of the Franco-Russian alliance.

In another German White Paper, entitled "Memorandum and Documents with Regard to the Outbreak of War," the "Memorandum" stated that the Balkan League against Turkey had been organised under the patronage of Russia, and that when the League was successful in the Turkish Campaign and had been broken up in consequence of the dissensions of its members, Russia desired a new Balkan League "whose activities should be directed this time not against Turkey ... but against the existence of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy." Serbia was under this plan to "cede to Bulgaria the section of Macedonia that she had won in the last Balkan War and compensate herself by the acquisition of Bosnia and Herzegovina." Austria-Hungary, in view of this scheme, considered that "it was not consistent with the dignity or self-preservation of the monarchy to look on longer at the operations on the other side of the border without taking action," and asked Germany's opinion in the matter. Germany assured her ally "most heartily" of her agreement with the Austro-Hungarian view, while fully aware "that warlike moves on the part of Austria-Hungary against Serbia would bring Russia into the question" and might draw Germany into war "in accordance with her duties as an ally." Recognising, however, that "the vital interests of Austria-Hungary were at stake, Germany could neither advise her ally" to a compliance that would have been inconsistent with her dignity "nor deny her Germany's support," especially as "her interests were also seriously threatened," for "if Serbia with the assistance of Russia and France, had been allowed to imperil the existence of Austria-Hungary any longer, this would lead to the gradual downfall of the monarchy and her submission to Slavonic sway under the Russian sceptre, thus making the position of the Germanic race in Central Europe untenable. A morally weakened Austria-Hungary, breaking down under the advance of Russian Panslavism, would no longer be an ally on whom Germany could count such as she needs in view of the attitude of her Eastern and Western neighbours.... Austria was therefore given a free hand in her action against Serbia, in the preparation of which Germany took no part." This was "Austria's affair; she alone would have to settle it with Serbia, and Germany therefore devoted her entire efforts to localising the war," holding that "no civilised nation had the right in this struggle against barbarism and criminal political morality to prevent Austria from inflicting a just punishment on Serbia." Although the Austrian Government had declared through its Ambassador at St. Petersburg that it had no plans of conquest, the first reports of Russian mobilisation had reached Berlin on the same day, and in the evening the German Ambassadors in London, Paris, and St. Petersburg were directed to call the attention of the English, French, and Russian Governments energetically to the danger of this measure, "for the decision as to the peace of the world lay entirely in St. Petersburg." The Ambassador at St. Petersburg especially was directed to inform the Russian Government that if it mobilised Germany would also have to mobilise, "both against Russia and France." On the following day (July 27) the "Russian Minister of War, M. Sukhomlinoff, gave the German Military Attaché his word of honour that no mobilisation order had yet been issued; for the present only preparatory measures had been taken, but if Austria crossed the Serbian boundary the military districts facing Austria would be mobilised."

Meanwhile Germany "continued her mediatory efforts to the utmost and advised Vienna to make any possible compromise consistent with the dignity of the monarchy," but "unluckily all these mediatory acts were soon overtaken by the military preparations of Russia and France. On July 29 the Russian Government officially announced in Berlin that it had mobilised four Army districts, and reports arrived of rapidly progressing military preparations by France on land and sea." Yet on the same day the Chief of the Russian Staff had informed the German Military Attaché at St. Petersburg "that everything had remained the same as had been explained by the Minister of War two days before, and gave his word of honour in the most formal manner that mobilisation had begun nowhere up to three o'clock that afternoon; though he could not answer for the future." At the same time he declared most emphatically that no mobilisation was desired by His Majesty in the districts touching on the German boundary. As numerous and positive reports of the levying of reservists in these districts had reached St. Petersburg, Warsaw and Vilna, the Attaché expressed the opinion to his Government that the statement of the Chief of the Russian General Staff "was an attempt to mislead Germany with regard to the extent of the measures that had already been taken." The assembling, the Memorandum proceeds, "of troops on the East Prussian border and the declaration of a state of war in all important places on the Russian Western boundary no longer left any doubt that Russian mobilisation was actively going on against Germany," notwithstanding the denials "on his word of honour" of the Russian Minister of War. The Memorandum further publishes the text of telegrams exchanged between the Emperor William and the Tsar. On July 28 the former expressed "the greatest disquietude" at the impression which he heard Austro-Hungary's action against Serbia was making in the Russian Empire. "The unscrupulous agitation," he said, "which has gone on for years in Serbia has led to the revolting crime of which the Archduke Ferdinand was the victim. The spirit which allowed the Serbians to murder their own King and his wife still rules in that land. Undoubtedly you will agree with me that you and I, as well as all Sovereigns, have a common interest in insisting that all those morally responsible for this terrible murder shall suffer deserved punishment." He knew how difficult it was for the Tsar and his Government to resist the pressure of public opinion, and remembering "the heartfelt friendship which had bound him and the Tsar closely for a long time," he was exerting "all his influence to endeavour to make Austria-Hungary come to an open and satisfactory understanding with Russia." He "earnestly hoped, therefore, that the Tsar would help him in his efforts to set aside all obstacles that may yet arise." To this the Tsar replied on July 29 with an urgent appeal that "in this serious moment" the Emperor would help him. A disgraceful war, he said, had been declared on a weak nation; the indignation at this, which he fully shared, was immense in Russia, and he foresaw that soon he would not be able longer to withstand the pressure that was being brought to bear upon him, and that he would be "forced to adopt measures which will lead to war." In order to prevent such a calamity he asked the Emperor, in the name of their old friendship, to do all that is possible to prevent his ally from going too far. The Emperor replied that he shared the Tsar's wish for the maintenance of peace, but that he cannot consider Austria-Hungary's action "a disgraceful war." Austria-Hungary knows by experience that Serbia's promises, when they are only on paper, are quite unreliable, and full guarantees must be secured that Serbia's promises shall be turned into deeds. Russia might, he thought, remain in the rôle of a spectator towards the Austro-Serbian War without dragging Europe "into the most terrible war that it has ever seen." He therefore suggested a direct understanding between St. Petersburg and Vienna as "possible and desirable"--an understanding which his Government was endeavouring to help with all its power. He added, however, that military measures by Russia would hasten a calamity which they both wished to avoid, and would undermine his position as mediator. On July 30 the Emperor repeated that if Russia mobilised against Austria-Hungary, his position as mediator, which he had accepted at the Tsar's urgent request, would be jeopardised, if not rendered untenable. The whole weight of the decision now rested on the Tsar's shoulders; they must bear the responsibility for war or peace. To this the Tsar replied that the military measures now being taken "were decided upon five days ago for defensive purposes against Austria's preparations," and that he hoped "with all his heart" that these measures would not influence in any way his (the German Emperor's) position as mediator. On July 31 the Tsar again expressed his thanks to the Emperor for his mediation, "which permits a gleam of hope that everything can yet be settled peaceably," but added that "it is a technical impossibility" for Russia to halt her military preparations "which became necessary through Austria's mobilisation," though "we are far from being desirous of war." So long as the negotiations continue with Austria regarding Serbia "my troops will not undertake any challenging action, I solemnly pledge my word as to that. I am trusting in the grace of God with all my might, and hope for the success of your mediation at Vienna, for the welfare of our countries and for the peace of Europe--Your sincerely devoted Nicholas." The Emperor replied that upon the Tsar's appeal to his friendship and plea for his help he had undertaken a mediatory action between the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Governments, but that while this negotiation was under way the Tsar's troops were mobilised against Austria-Hungary, and that his mediation was thereby rendered almost illusory. Notwithstanding this, he had continued it; but now he was in receipt of reliable reports of serious preparations for war on his Eastern boundary also, and responsibility for the safety of his Empire compelled him to take defensive measures. He had carried his efforts for the maintenance of the world's peace to the utmost limit, and it was not he that bore the responsibility for the calamity that now threatened the entire civilised world. Yet at this moment it lay in the Tsar's power to stave it off. No one threatened the honour and might of Russia, which might have awaited the result of his mediation. "The friendship," the Emperor concluded, "for you and your Empire which was bequeathed to me by my grandfather on his death-bed, has always been sacred to me, and I have been faithful to Russia when she was hard pressed, especially in her last war. It is still possible for you to maintain the peace of Europe if Russia will decide to put a stop to the military measures that threaten Germany and Austria-Hungary."

The mobilisation of the entire fighting force of Russia, the Memorandum adds, which had been ordered in the forenoon of the day when these telegrams were despatched, was in full swing--"the Tsar's telegram was sent at two o'clock in the afternoon"; and this "shows clearly that Russia desired the war," and "in the afternoon of August 1 Russian troops crossed our border and advanced on German territory. By this move Russia began the war." To the question put to the French Cabinet as to what steps it would take "the reply given on the afternoon of August 1 was that France would do what her interests seemed to warrant. A few hours later, at five in the afternoon, the complete mobilisation of the French Army and Navy was ordered, and on the morning of the following day France opened hostilities." A long reply to the French Yellow Book published by the North German Gazette on December 21 further states, with regard to the argument that Austria and Russia were on the point of coming to an understanding respecting the Note to Serbia, when Germany suddenly destroyed all chances of peace by declaring war, that the general mobilisation ordered by Russia brought to naught the entire mediatory work of Germany, so that nothing can get rid of the fact "that Russia bears the responsibility for unchaining a European war."

Germany was badly served by her diplomatists and Ministers, and also by her generals, though she had perhaps the most efficient, and certainly the best organised, army in the world. She believed up to the last moment that neither Russia nor England would fight, being completely ignorant of the relative strength of the cross-currents of influence at the Russian Court and of the determination of all parties in England to resist the violation of the neutrality of Belgium--a step which only turned against her all the civilised nations of Europe, and probably did not bring her much nearer or more quickly to Paris than if she had invaded France from the South, which was the reason given for Germany's action (no doubt based on the opinion of the German General Staff) by the German Secretary of State (p. 314). Another reason, or rather pretext alleged by the German Government was that it was necessary to anticipate a hostile attack of France through Belgium, and that it had received reliable information to the effect that French forces "intended" to march on the line of the Meuse by Givet and Namur; but as a matter of fact there were no French forces in that direction; the attack was made from the Vosges and the subsequent alleged discovery of documents proving that France and England had for some time been preparing together with the Belgian Staff for an attack upon Germany through Belgium only showed that these preparations were made in view of the defence of that country against a possible violation by Germany of Belgian neutrality; besides which both France and England had, in response to an appeal from Belgium to defend her neutrality, replied that they would do so (p. 365).

The German armies forced their way through Belgium with the precision and pitilessness of a machine, but the victories of the Marne and the Aisne in September arrested their progress, and from then until the end of the year they practically remained stationary. In Russian Poland and Galicia, too, although there they had a leader, Field-Marshal Hindenburg, who gained some brilliant victories, they did not succeed in freeing Prussia from the danger of a Russian invasion.[17]

The Germans and Austrians had at the end of the year occupied, besides nearly all Belgium, one twenty-seventh of French territory and one-third of the Kingdom of Poland, while the French and the Russians held respectively about 200 square miles in Alsace, nearly half of Galicia, and some frontier districts of East Prussia; but neither of the great Austrian fortresses, Cracow and Przemysl. Of the important towns in Poland Russia had Lemberg, the capital of Galicia, while Germany held the equally large, though politically not so important, town of Lodz, "the Polish Manchester." The troops engaged on both sides amounted to about 2,000,000 with upwards of 20,000 guns; the Russian artillery, mostly manufactured in the Creuzot works in France, were only surpassed by the German when the latter brought into action their 42 centimetre and 30-1/2 centimetre mortars, the former manufactured at the Krupp works and the latter at Pilsen, in Austria. The last four months of the year were spent in a series of gigantic but inconclusive struggles, accompanied by hideous carnage of hundreds of thousands of men and in which often each side claimed the victory, but whose only appreciable result was the stemming by Marshal Hindenburg of the advance on Silesia by the Russians and by Generals Joffre and French of the advance on Paris by the Germans. In Poland the Germans had the advantage of internal lines and numerous railways by which they could rapidly bring up abundant supplies of men and material, while the Russians were hampered by a lack of railways, by bad roads, and long distances to their base; in France, on the other hand, the Germans had to go long distances for their reserves, and their difficulties were greatly increased by their occupation of Belgium, the cardinal blunder of the war. The losses of the Germans financially were enormous. Professor Julius Wolf, Professor of Political Economy at Berlin, estimated the damage done in East Prussia and in Alsace at about 50,000,000_l._, and computed that Germany must reckon upon a total waste in three months of 350,000,000_l._

The German Navy[18] did not venture to leave its secure harbours in the Baltic except in the battle off Heligoland in August, the two cruiser raids on the East coast of England in November and December, and some attacks on the Russian port of Libau, where the cruisers Magdeburg and Friedrich Karl were destroyed. When the war broke out the battle cruiser Goeben and the light cruiser Breslau were in the Mediterranean, and after bombarding Bona and Philippeville made their way to Messina, whence they escaped to the Bosphorus and were renamed as Turkish ships (p. 183). The armed merchant cruiser Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, which endeavoured to arrest traffic between England and the Cape, and the Cap Trafalgar were sunk before they could do much damage (Aug. 27 and Sept. 14), but the light cruiser Emden, which escaped from Kiaochau, and the Karlsruhe captured about thirty-three British merchant ships, and the armoured cruisers Gneisenau and Scharnhorst, which had also escaped from Kiaochau, after being engaged by the British unsuccessfully off Coronel, on the Chilian coast, were caught on December 8 off the Falkland Islands and sunk (pp. 226, 247). By the end of the year the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the Indian Ocean were nearly free of German cruisers. The submarines of the Germans were equally active and enterprising, but beyond sinking the Cressy, Aboukir, and Hogue in the North Sea in September and the cruiser Hermes in the Straits of Dover in November (pp. 212, 225) they were not very effective in their attacks either upon the Navy or on merchant ships; more were lost by striking the German mines which were laid at the mouth of the Thames and off Ireland. The German airships, too, did not prove very effective.

In the Pacific Ocean Germany lost all her Colonies. On August 18 Japan demanded of Germany the delivery of the entire leased territory of Kiaochau with a view to its restoration to China, and no reply having been given, besieged its fortified port, Tsing-Tao, from October 31 to November 7, when its garrison surrendered. This was by far the most valuable of the German colonies. The Marianne, Caroline, and Marshall Islands were also taken from Germany by the Japanese. German New Guinea and New Britain were captured by an expedition from Australia, and Samoa by one from New Zealand. In Africa Togoland was occupied by the British and French on August 7. In September some raids were made by the Germans on British East Africa, Nyasaland, and British South Africa which were repelled after heavy fighting. On September 19 Lüderitzbucht, in German South-West Africa, was occupied by the Union Defence Force.

On September 27 the British and French invaded the German Colony of Cameroon, whose capital, Duala, surrendered to them, but an attack by British and Indian troops from Bombay on Tanga, in German East Africa, on November 4, was repelled, and the troops then embarked, as it was considered inadvisable to attempt a second attack without adequate reinforcements. In November the Germans made a raid on the Portuguese Colony of Angola, which was repeated in December, although the German Consul had presented a formal apology to the Portuguese Government for the first raid. Finally, on December 30 an Australian force occupied Bougainville, the largest of the Solomon Islands, and hoisted the British flag, and on the following day the British Colony of Walfish Bay, which had been raided by the Germans, was reoccupied by the British.

The horrible atrocities committed by the Germans in Belgium and Poland--the massacres, rapes, and acts of mutilation of unarmed and inoffensive members of the civil population, the placing in front of the troops of male and female civilians to shield them from the fire of the Allies, the taking of hostages to be made responsible for the conduct of the population, the burning of villages and churches and the execution of parish priests, the killing of wounded soldiers and the disregard of the Red Cross--which far exceeded the devastation wrought by the Cossacks in East Prussia and by the Austrians in Serbia--aroused the reprobation of the whole civilised world, and Germany, by way of making some compensation to the Poles, and in contrast to the policy of Russia in forcing her language and religion upon the Ruthenians of Galicia, sanctioned the appointment of a Pole, Dr. Likowski, as Archbishop of Posen, dissolved the anti-Polish Ostmarkenverein (Eastern Colonisation Society) in that province, and in the districts of Russian Poland which were occupied by the German troops, announced that Polish and German would be recognised as the official languages instead of Russian. The German Humanity League issued on September 20 from Rotterdam an appeal "to the civilised world" concluding as follows:--

No matter how long the campaign and the sacrifices it may entail, we know that the true and lasting interests of the toilers and wage-earners in Germany can only be served by the victory of the Allied Armies. The Kaiser, having ruined innocent and deceived Belgium, is now despoiling and drenching France with the blood of his victims. It must, therefore, be plain to all honest men, without distinction of race, or creed, or party, that there can be no settlement of the existing disruptions, no lasting peace or security for the rights of man, no protection of democracy from brigandage and death until the Imperial domination of Prussia within Germany is crushed, disarmed, and swept away for ever. Then, and then only, will Bavaria, Würtemberg, Saxony, and Hanover be rescued, and Poland liberated from the grip of a monarch who, by his conduct, has forfeited the allegiance of his subjects; and, by his boasted defiance of all international treaties and conventions, has embarked upon a career of crime unparalleled in ancient or modern history.

On August 19 the Emperor issued an Army order to his troops urging them to use all their skill and valour "to exterminate first the treacherous English and walk over General French's contemptible little army," and on December 3, in reply to a deputation from the Army in Poland, he said: "We shall continue to fight successfully as hitherto, for Heaven is on our side. With God's help we shall win a long peace, for our nerves are stronger than those of the enemy."

In both the Prussian and German Parliaments all parties united in declaring that the war should be pursued to a successful end. In the German Parliament on December 2 the Imperial Chancellor, dressed in the grey service uniform of a general, declared that the German nation was fighting "a defensive war for right and freedom," and that "though the apparent responsibility for the war fell on Russia, the real responsibility fell on the British Government," as the latter "would have made the war impossible if it had without ambiguity declared at Petrograd that Great Britain would not allow a Continental war to develop from the Austro-Serbian conflict; such a declaration would have obliged France to take energetic measures to restrain Russia from undertaking warlike operations," and the German "action as mediators between Petrograd and Vienna would have been successful." "But Great Britain did not act thus. Great Britain was aware of the bellicose machinations of the partly irresponsible but powerful group around the Tsar. She saw how the ball was rolling, but placed no obstacle in its path. In spite of all its assurances of peace, London informed Petrograd that Great Britain was on the side of France, and consequently on the side of Russia. The Cabinet of London allowed this monstrous world-wide war to come about, hoping, with the help of the Entente, to destroy the vitality of England's greatest European competitor on the markets of the world. Therefore, England and Russia have before God and men the responsibility for the catastrophe which has fallen upon Europe. Belgian neutrality, which England pretended to defend, was nothing but a disguise. On the evening of August 2 we informed Brussels that we were obliged in the interests of self-defence and in consequence of the war plans of France, which were known to us, to march through Belgium, but already on the afternoon of the same day, August 2, before anything of our démarche in Brussels could have been known in London, the British Government promised France unconditional assistance in case the German fleet should attack the French coast. Nothing was said about Belgian neutrality. How can England maintain that she drew the sword because we violated Belgian neutrality? How could the British statesman, whose past is well known, speak at all of Belgian neutrality? When on August 4 I spoke of the wrong which we were committing with our march into Belgium, it was not yet established whether the Belgian Government at the last hour would not desire to spare the country and retire under protest to Antwerp."

In September, in reply to an informal inquiry made of the Imperial Chancellor by the American Ambassador at Berlin as to whether the German Emperor would be willing to discuss terms of peace, the Chancellor replied that as the Allies had formed a compact under which none of them would cease hostilities except by common agreement, the inquiry should be addressed to them, but that there were three pre-requisites to Germany's consideration of peace negotiations: first, that England should forego her demands for a war to a finish and the complete crushing of Germany; second, that while negotiations might be considered with regard to the German Colonies the German Empire in Europe must remain intact; and third, that Germany should be secured against interference by the other Powers around her in future. These conditions were considerably enlarged in a statement made at New York by Herr Dernburg, the Emperor's financial agent in America, in December. He said that Germany "would not consider it wise" to take any European territory, but would make "minor corrections of frontiers" by occupying such frontier territory as has proved a weak spot in the German armour. Belgium, which belonged geographically to the German Empire, would be incorporated in the German Customs Union like Luxemburg; but her neutrality, "having been proved an impossibility," would be abolished, and her harbours secured for all time against British or French invasion. Great Britain having "bottled up" the North Sea, a mare liberum must be established, and the Channel coasts of England, Holland, Belgium and France must be neutralised even in time of war, and the doctrine that private property should enjoy the same freedom of seizure on the high seas as it does on land must be guaranteed by all nations. All cables must be neutralised, and all Germany's Colonies returned, and in view of Germany's growing population she must take Morocco "if it is really fit for the purpose." There must be a recognised sphere of German influence for commercial and industrial purposes from the Persian Gulf to the Dardanelles, and no further development of Japanese influence in Manchuria. Finally, all small nations, such as Finland, Poland, and the Boers of South Africa, must have the right to frame their own destinies, while Egypt is to be returned, if she desires it, to Turkey.

On December 10 the British Government proposed to Germany through the American Government that arrangements should be made for the exchange of British and German officers and men, prisoners of war, who were physically incapacitated for further military service, and this offer was accepted by the German Government on December 31.

The Government was authorised by the German Parliament at the beginning of the war to borrow 200,000,000_l._, and a War Loan was accordingly started in. September bearing interest at 5 per cent., the issue price being 97-1/2. Extraordinary efforts were made to insure the success of the loan, and the Government sought to raise a minimum sum of 50,000,000_l._ by offering Treasury bills to that amount. The total subscribed amounted to 223,000,000_l._, but only 188,000,000_l._ of this sum was paid up at the end of November. The enormous increase of the expenditure in armaments was shown by the announcement of the firm of Krupp that its share capital would be increased from 9,000,000_l._ to 12,000,000_l._ and that of the new amount 1,750,000_l._ would be paid up at the end of the year. All the deposits of Russia, France, Belgium, and England in the German financial institutions were declared at the beginning of the year to be confiscated, and any repayment of such deposits was to be punished as an act of high treason.

In December General von Moltke, who had not displayed any of the military qualities which had made his uncle famous, was dismissed from the post of Chief of the General Staff, and succeeded by Lieutenant-General von Falkenhayn, Minister of War. His dismissal was ascribed to a difference of opinion between the Kaiser and himself. General Moltke desired a plan of campaign which would concentrate the German efforts on breaking through the Allies' line at Verdun and forcing the British Army to retire in a northerly direction. The Kaiser, however, preferred the plan of breaking through to Calais, and his favourite, General von Falkenhayn, worked out the plan, with the well-known results at Dixmude and Ypres and on the Yser (pp. 222, 369).

II. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.

The result of the second Balkan War was so far favourable to Austria-Hungary that it broke up the Balkan League, but it left as the predominant State in the peninsula Serbia, which aspired to be the Piedmont of the Southern Slavs, and had long pursued a pan-Serbian agitation in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia and Dalmatia, which had become very formidable with the prestige gained by the Serbian victories. The danger to the very existence of the Empire, seeing that Serbia was secretly encouraged and supported by Russia, was patent, and there was a general feeling in Austria-Hungary that the only way to avert it was to compel Serbia by force of arms, if necessary, to cease her agitation in the Austrian provinces on her border. The Austrian and German Emperors had combined in the previous year to prevent what might have become a European war (A.R., 1913, p. 34), but the assassination of the Austrian heir to the throne by a Serbian, with arms furnished by a Serbian officer, precipitated a crisis which was bound to come sooner or later. One of the outcomes of the pan-Serbian agitation was the attempt on May 20 on the life of Baron Sterletz, Ban of Croatia, by two Serbian students, who were sentenced on October 8 to five and eight years' penal servitude respectively.

The trial of the persons accused of promoting an agitation among the Ruthenians of Eastern Galicia and Hungary with the object of their conversion to the Russian Church as a first step towards the annexation of their country by Russia, which had been begun in the previous year (A.R., 1913, p. 329), was concluded on March 3, and thirty-two of the accused were sentenced to various periods of imprisonment, combined with fines, varying from six months to four and a half years. A similar trial began at Lemberg on March 9. The accused, who were all Ruthenians, were a journalist, two "Orthodox" priests, and a law student, and they were also charged with espionage in favour of Russia. The jury before whom they were tried was composed entirely of Poles, who acquitted them because, it was said, they wished to avoid interference with the internal affairs of the Ruthenians.

The racial struggle in Bohemia (A.R., 1913, p. 328) continued to make the assembling of the Diet impossible, and the Czech members of the Reichsrath retaliated by obstruction in the Reichsrath, which was consequently adjourned sine die early in March. It was not summoned again even after the outbreak of the war.

The Austro-Hungarian Delegations were opened by the heir to the throne, the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, on April 29, after a meeting, described as "very cordial," between Count Berchtold and the Marquis of San Giuliano, accompanied by their diplomatic staffs, at Abbazia. The estimates for the financial year from July 1, 1914, showed that the naval expenditure for the year would amount to 7,386,083_l._, of which 2,000,000_l._ was set down as a first instalment of a new naval programme to be completed in five years at a total estimated cost of 17,781,830_l._ An explanatory note attached to the Estimates stated that the object of this programme was "to make provision against the marked shifting of naval power in the Mediterranean which recent changes in the Near East may be expected to bring about." Four battleships, each of 24,500 tons displacement, were to be substituted for the three old vessels of the Monarch class and the Hapsburg, and were to form the second Dreadnought division of the Austro-Hungarian Navy, besides which three fast cruisers were to be built of 4,800 tons each, to take the place of the three cruisers of the Zenta class built in 1897, and six torpedo gun-boats of 800 tons each and two new gun-boats for service on the Danube. Provision was also made for the extension of the arsenal at Pola and the naval base at Sebenico, about half-way down the Dalmatian coast, which has a good natural harbour, is the headquarters of a rear-admiral with a command extending from Zara to Cattaro, and possesses a torpedo station, though it is not, like Pola, a naval base in which the ordinary necessaries for a modern fleet are to be found, and it was proposed to make it such a base in order to provide for a partial decentralisation of the Fleet, the necessity for which was alleged to have been shown by the recent crisis in the Balkans. Baron Engel, the Assistant Finance Minister, succeeded the late Minister, Count Zaleski, on October 21.

Among the prosecutions for espionage, which were frequent this year in Austria-Hungary, as in other countries, were those of three former officers of the Austrian Army on February 24 and March 6 and 10, who were sentenced to three, nineteen, and seventeen and a half years' penal servitude respectively for espionage in favour of Russia.

An important statement as to the foreign policy of Austria-Hungary was made by Count Berchtold to the Delegations after the President of the Austrian Delegation had expressed the hope that "while preserving the non-aggressive policy of the monarchy, steps might be taken to put a decisive check upon the anti-Austrian propaganda carried on in the frontier districts." Count Berchtold, speaking of the mutual relations of the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente, noted "a certain slackening of the tension" between them, which he attributed to the policy of Great Britain. "In the attitude adopted by England at the decisive moments of the Balkan crisis," he said, "and more recently, we can perceive efforts to prevent in the future dangers to European peace similar to those threatened in the events of the most recent past. Such a policy is capable of removing misunderstandings which may arise between the two groups of Powers, and thereby to compensate in some measure for the defects which attach to the practical translation into activity of a rigid system of equilibrium"--a hint that such a system is only too likely to produce a European war. The Count also spoke in friendly terms of the relations between the Dual Monarchy and Russia, which he hoped would develop still further in the direction of mutual confidence. Turning to the Balkan States, he referred especially to the desire for closer commercial relations between the monarchy and Bulgaria, the negotiations as to the section of the Orient railways in the new Serbian territories (A. R., 1913, p. 359), the visit to Vienna of the Greek Premier, M. Venizelos, "which showed that the friendly feeling of Austria-Hungary towards Greece was reciprocated at Athens," and to the political and economic interests of the monarchy in the Ottoman Empire, which "could be best served by the continued development of friendly relations with the Porte." As to Roumania, he said that "no serious Roumanian politician could think of risking the loss of the great advantages which the hitherto close and friendly relations with the monarchy had brought to the country."

Francis Kossuth, the head of the Hungarian Independence party, died on May 25. Brought up as an engineer, he had none of the qualities of a great political leader, and he owed his position mainly to his name; he did not inherit even the oratorical gifts of his celebrated father.

The murder of the heir to the Austrian throne, the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, and his wife, which was the immediate cause of the war, took place at Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, on June 28. The Archduke, who was Inspector-General of the Army, was on a tour of inspection, and as his car was driving to the town hall a bomb was thrown at him, but without effect. Half an hour later, as the Archduke was returning from the town hall, another bomb was thrown which did not explode, and the man who threw it, a Serbian student of the high school, then fired three shots with a pistol, two of which hit the Archduke and the third his wife. Both expired shortly after. It was stated that this was not the act of isolated assassins, but of a Serbian conspiracy, as widespread as that which had brought about the murder of King Alexander of Serbia and his Queen (A.R., 1902, pp. 322-3), and an outburst of horror and indignation followed all over the Empire. At Sarajevo the Croats, who, though of the same race as the Serbians, are Roman Catholics while the Serbians are "Orthodox" Greeks, and are consequently separated by deep religious as well as political differences, marched through the streets together with a large contingent of Moslems who are Serbian by race but Mohammedan by religion, and broke the windows of houses belonged to "Orthodox" Serbians; and at Agram, the capital of Croatia, large crowds of Croats marched in procession crying, "Down with the Serbian murderers." The general belief was that the conspiracy had its source in Belgrade, and the chief of the police at Sarajevo was said to have arrived at the same conclusion from the examination of the men who had taken part in the murder. According to the evidence taken at the trial of these men, which took place in October, they were the paid agents of a conspiracy whose leaders were Ministers and other functionaries of the Serbian Government, officers of the Serbian Army, and even, as was suggested by one of the witnesses, possibly the Crown Prince of Serbia himself, whose father was alleged to have been in correspondence with the assassins of King Alexander and Queen Draga, and had loaded them with honours on his accession to the throne. Five of the accused, said to have been furnished with arms and bombs by the Serbian Government for the express purpose of the murder, were condemned to death, one to imprisonment for life, and ten others to various periods of imprisonment, from three to twenty years. A dramatic incident in this connexion was the sudden death of M. Hartwig, the Russian Minister at Belgrade, while on a visit to Baron Giers, the Austro-Hungarian Minister, for the purpose, it was said, of defending himself against the charge which was freely made at the time, of his having been an accomplice in the murder. The funeral of the late Archduke took place on July 8, and on the same day the aged Emperor issued a patriotic message to his people, expressing his profound affliction at a crime which "had taken from him a dear relative and faithful helper and robbed his children, still of tender age and still in need of protection, of all that was dear to them on earth," and declaring that as through sixty-five years he had shared joy and sorrow with his people, remembering even in the hours of deepest gloom his high duties and responsibility for their destinies, he was only strengthened by this fresh painful trial in the resolve to follow to his last breath the way he knew to be right for their welfare.

The new heir-presumptive, the Archduke Charles Francis Joseph, was the late Archduke Francis Ferdinand's nephew, a young man twenty-seven years of age, very popular, especially with the Poles and Ruthenians, among whom he served for some years with his cavalry regiment, but more through his pleasant manners and those of his wife, the Archduchess Zita of Bourbon-Parma, than by any special qualities of character or ability, while his uncle was impetuous and quick-tempered, with very strong opinions, chiefly in an Ultramontane direction; and an enthusiastic champion of the idea of a politico-religious conquest of the Western Balkans by Hapsburg influence, if not by Hapsburg arms, and by the propagation of Roman Catholicism among the Southern Slavs--an idea which was of course abhorrent to the Pan-Serbians, and was probably the cause of the conspiracy to which he fell a victim. The murder of the heir-presumptive of a great European State by the members of a conspiracy in a neighbouring country called for immediate and vigorous action. Accordingly, on July 23, the Austrian Minister at Belgrade presented a peremptory note to the Serbian Government, demanding a reply before 6 o'clock on July 25. The Note began by recalling the statement made by the Serbian Government on March 31, 1909, and drawn up by Great Britain (A.R., 1909, p. 346), to the effect that it would alter its policy with regard to Austria-Hungary, and live in future on good neighbourly terms with her. So far from fulfilling the engagement thus contracted, the Note proceeded, "the history of recent years has shown the existence in Serbia of a subversive movement with the object of detaching a part of Austria-Hungary from the monarchy--a movement which had its birth under the eyes of the Serbian Government, and was carried out by a series of acts of terrorism, outrages, and murders." The Serbian Government had "done nothing to repress this movement"; it had permitted "the criminal machinations of various societies and associations," had "tolerated apologies for the perpetrators of outrages and the participation of Serbian officers and civil officials in the movement," and had "permitted all the manifestations which have incited the Serbian people to hatred of the monarchy and contempt of its institutions." Passing to the murder of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the Note stated that the depositions and confessions of perpetrators of the outrage had shown that it was "hatched in Belgrade, that the arms and explosives with which they were provided had been given to them by Serbian officers and civil officials belonging to the society Narodna Oprava, and that their passage into Bosnia was organised and effected by the chiefs of the Serbian frontier service." It was therefore impossible for the Austro-Hungarian Government "to pursue any longer the attitude of expectant forbearance which it had maintained for years in face of the machinations started in Belgrade and thence propagated to the territories of the monarchy"; and in order to put an end to these machinations, "which form a perpetual menace to its tranquillity, it demands from the Serbian Government a declaration, to be published on the front page of the Official Journal for July 26, and communicated to the Serbian Army as an Order of the Day by the King, stating that it condemns the movement whose final aim is to detach from the Austro-Hungarian monarchy territories belonging to it," that it "regrets that Serbian officers and civil functionaries have participated in the movement and thereby compromised the neighbourly relations to which Serbia was solemnly pledged by its declaration of March 31, 1909," and that "henceforward it will proceed with the utmost rigour against persons who may be guilty of such machinations, which it will use all its efforts to anticipate and suppress." The Note also made the following demands of the Serbian Government: 1. The suppression of all publications inciting to hatred and contempt of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy or whose tendency is directed against its territorial integrity. 2. Immediate dissolution of the Narodna Obrana and confiscation of all its means of propaganda, also of all other societies with the same objects. 3. Elimination from public instruction in Serbia of everything serving to foment the propaganda against Austria-Hungary. 4. Removal from the service of all officers and civil functionaries guilty of such propaganda whose names and acts shall be communicated by the Austro-Hungarian Government to that of Serbia. 5. Representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Government to be accepted by Serbia for the purpose of collaborating in the suppression of the above propaganda. 6. Judicial proceedings to be taken against accessories to the plot of June 28 who are on Serbian territory, and delegates of the Austro-Hungarian Government to take part in the investigation relating thereto. 7. The immediate arrest of Major Jankasitch and the Serbian State functionary, Ciganovitch, who were found to be implicated in the plot at the official inquiry at Sarajevo. 8. The prevention by effective measures of the co-operation of the Serbian authorities in the illicit traffic in arms and explosives across the frontier, and the dismissal and severe punishment of the officials of the frontier service who had facilitated the passage of the frontier for the perpetrators of the outrage of June 28. 9. Explanation of the utterances of high Serbian officials, both in Serbia and abroad, who notwithstanding their official position did not hesitate after the crime of June 28 to express themselves in terms of hostility to the Austro-Hungarian Government. 10. Notification to the Austro-Hungarian Government without delay of the execution of the measures comprised under the preceding heads.

The general feeling at Vienna was that notwithstanding the hard and uncompromising tone of the above Note, Serbia would yield as she did in 1909 and 1913. Everything depended, now as then, on Russia, and the Tsar was known to be strongly opposed to a European war. The Serbian reply, however, which was delivered by M. Pashitch, the Premier, to the Austro-Hungarian Minister within the time stipulated, after a busy exchange of telegrams between Belgrade and St. Petersburg, though it accepted "in principle," but with reservations, nearly all the Austrian demands, protested against the claim that Austro-Hungarian officials shall take part in the judicial inquiry into the complicity of persons on Serbian territory in the murder and in the suppression of the propaganda against Austria-Hungary, and suggested that the matter should be settled by arbitration. At Vienna the Serbian reply was regarded as merely a device to gain time for Russian and Serbian mobilisation, and a request on the part of Russia that the period in which the reply was to be given might be extended was similarly interpreted. Diplomatic relations between Austria-Hungary and Serbia were at once broken off, orders were given for a mobilisation of the Austro-Hungarian Army, part of the Landsturm was called up for service, and all ordinary traffic on the railways was stopped. In reply to Sir Edward Grey's proposal for the mediation of the four Powers, the Austro-Hungarian Government, while expressing entire agreement with him as to the desirability of localising the war, stated that "things had proceeded much too far" to allow anything to be done for the suspension of military operations; both Russia and Serbia had been mobilising for some time, and Austria-Hungary could not risk being behindhand, especially if the outcome should be a European war.

On July 28 war was declared against Serbia, and the Emperor Francis Joseph addressed a manifesto to his people, stating that it had been his fervent wish to consecrate the years still remaining to him to the works of peace, and to protect them from the heavy sacrifices and burdens of war. "The intrigues of a màlevolent opponent," however, had compelled him, in the defence of the honour and dignity of the monarchy, of its position as a Power, and of the security of its possessions to grasp the sword after long years of peace. When, "after three decades of fruitful work for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina," the Emperor extended his sovereign rights to those lands, Serbia, whose rights were in no wise injured, had assumed an attitude of "bitterest hate" to the monarchy, notwithstanding which it had only required her to reduce her Army to a peace footing and to promise that in future "she would tread the path of peace and friendship." Again, when Serbia was embroiled two years ago in a struggle with the Turkish Empire, it was to Austria-Hungary, which had "restricted its action to the defence of the vital interests of the monarchy," that Serbia "primarily owed the attainment of the objects of the war." But "the hope that Serbia would appreciate the patience and love of peace of the Austro-Hungarian Government, and would keep its word," had not been fulfilled. "The flame of its hatred" for the Emperor and his House had "blazed always higher," and the design to tear from it by force inseparable portions of Austria-Hungary "had been made manifest." "A criminal propaganda extended over the frontier with the object of destroying the foundations of State order," of making the people "waver in their loyalty to the ruling House and the Fatherland," and of inciting their youth "to mischievous deeds of madness and high treason." A series of murderous attacks, an organised, carefully prepared, and well carried out conspiracy, "whose process had wounded him and his people to the heart," had marked with its bloody track the secret machinations which were operated and directed in Serbia with this object. In vain did his Government make a last attempt to preserve the honour, dignity and interests of the monarchy from these criminal shocks, "and to induce Serbia, by means of a serious warning, to desist." Serbia had rejected "the just and moderate demands" of his Government; he must, therefore, proceed by force of arms to secure "those indispensable pledges which alone can ensure tranquillity to the monarchy at home and lasting peace abroad." Finally, the Emperor declared that "in this solemn hour he was fully conscious of the whole significance of his resolve and his responsibility before the Almighty"; that he had "examined and weighed everything," and with a serene conscience would "set out on the path to which duty points," trusting in his people "who throughout every storm always rallied in unity and loyalty round the throne, and were always prepared for the severest sacrifices for the honour, the prestige, and the might of the Fatherland," in his "brave and devoted forces," and "in the Almighty to give the victory to his arms."

The ultimatum to Serbia was, as Sir Edward Grey described it, unprecedented in the harshness of its demands of an independent State, and its style was so different from that of Count Berchtold that it was believed at Vienna to have been drafted at the Emperor Francis Joseph's request by Baron Burian, the Hungarian Minister a latere of the Emperor, an expert in South Slavonic affairs and himself of Slovak origin. The German Chancellor and his Secretary of State professed a total ignorance of the text of the ultimatum, but there seems to be no doubt that it was sent to the German Emperor in Norway and met with his complete approval, as it was more in accordance with the policy of "the mailed fist" than the polished and conciliatory despatches of Count Berchtold. The latter repeatedly asked the Emperor Francis Joseph to be relieved of his post, and only remained to carry out a policy distasteful to him out of loyalty to his Imperial master. He strove up to the last for a pacific issue, and he announced in London and Paris on July 31 that he would consent to submit to mediation the points in the Note to Serbia which seemed incompatible with the maintenance of Serbian independence,[19] but the matter had by that time passed into the hands of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian military leaders and could not be pursued diplomatically any further. The policy initiated by the late Count Aehrenthal in 1908, the disastrous consequences of which Count Berchtold had done his best to minimise, was now again predominant at the Hofburg, and threatened to lead Austria-Hungary to her ruin.

War was declared against Russia, France, and England, on August 6, and the Austrian troops marched across the Russian frontier, which had been left unguarded, on August 7. The Austro-Hungarian Army was well organised and equipped, and though composed of men of several different nationalities, showed a unity of action and a rigid discipline not surpassed by that of its German ally. The Polish legion, numbering 20,000 men, many from Russian Poland, and equipped out of a fund raised by private subscription among the Poles of Galicia, greatly distinguished itself by its headlong valour and the high military qualities of its officers. Austria-Hungary was a most efficient ally for Germany, but the task assigned to her of invading Serbia, defending her own territories against the overwhelming forces of Russia, and at the same time assisting the Germans in their defence of East Prussia, was beyond her strength. This was the cause of her failures in Serbia; she crossed the frontier at Shabatz on August 13, after having bombarded Belgrade, but the necessity of massing her troops in Galicia to resist the Russian invasion prevented her from sending sufficient reinforcements to the army of 15,000 men with which she had occupied Shabatz, and she announced on August 23 that as she was "obliged to gather all her forces for the principal struggle in the north-east," her attack upon Serbia was to be regarded "as a punitive expedition and not as a definite war." The campaign which followed (p. 360) was disastrous to the Austro-Hungarian arms; three attempts were made to invade Serbian territory, and in the third, further troops having been brought up from Hungary, they succeeded in capturing Belgrade, but a fortnight after the Serbians recaptured their capital and drove the Austro-Hungarians in disorder from the country (p. 361). Montenegro having joined Serbia in declaring war upon Austria her coasts were blockaded on August 12 by the Austro-Hungarian Fleet and the Montenegrin fortress of Lowczen, opposite Cattaro, was bombarded with little effect. The Montenegrins and Serbians repeatedly attempted to invade Bosnia, but did not succeed in reaching Sarajevo, the capital, being on each occasion beaten back by the Austrians.

The capture of Lemberg by the Russians and the Austro-Hungarian disasters in Serbia were a great blow to Austrian prestige, and much discontent was expressed at Vienna because Germany had apparently neglected the interests of her ally in her anxiety to protect Prussian territory against Russia. Repeated negotiations took place on the subject between the two Governments, and Count Tisza, the Hungarian Premier, was sent on a mission to the German headquarters, the result of which was that numerous German troops were sent to assist in a fresh expedition against Serbia.

War was declared against Belgium on August 27, and a treaty of arbitration with Switzerland was concluded on September 2.

FOOTNOTES:

[6] The French Ambassador at Berlin stated on July 24 that great weight must be attached to the Emperor's feeling that monarchies must stand together, and that his impressionable nature must have been affected by the assassination of a Prince whose guest he had been a few days previously (French White Book, No. 30).

[7] British Blue Book, No. 17.

[8] Ibid., Nos. 18, 32.

[9] Ibid., No. 46.

[10] Ibid., No. 46.

[11] Ibid., No. 71.

[12] Ibid., No. 98.

[13] Ibid., Nos. 112, 113.

[14] British Blue Book, No. 123.

[15] Ibid., No. 129.

[16] Nos. 157, 158 Belgian Grey Book, Nos. 20 and 22 Austrian Red Book.

[17] The campaigns in Belgium, France, and Russian Poland are described in the chapters relating to those countries.

[18] The naval operations of the war are dealt with in English History, Chapter V.

[19] Blue Book, No. 161.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us