Site hosted by Build your free website today!



Wir liegen mitten in Europa. Wir haben mindestens drei Angriffsfronten . . . Gott hat uns in eine Situation gesetzt, in welcher wir durch unsere Nachbarn daran verhindert werden, irgendwie in Trägheit oder Versumpfung zu gerathen. Er hat uns die kriegerischste und unruhigste Nation, die Franzosen, an die Seite gesetzt, under er hat in Russland kriegerische Neigungen gross werden lassen . . . Wir Deutschen fürchten Gott, aber sonst nichts in der Welt. BISMARCK in the Reichstag, February 6, 1888: Stenographische Berichte, 1887-1888, pp. 729, 728, 733.

AFTER 1871 Bismarck's greater tasks were still with foreign affairs. The new German Empire was a powerful state of 41,000,000 people; it was larger than France, in strong military position, flushed with victory and the prestige of enormous success. But it was, indeed, a new state, a newcomer among old neighbors, apt to be regarded as intruder and upstart. It had completely upset the old balance of power, and there was bound to be difficulty in adjusting equilibrium again. The German Empire had risen on the downfall of Austria and of France. The Austrians might try to regain the position they had lost, and the French proclaimed, what some Germans now declare, that in the future they would have their revenge. The position of Germany was very strong, for in between other great powers she could strike out at one or the other; but the converse of this was that a hostile alliance of surrounding powers might be able to crush her completely. Position of the new empire

It was the task of Bismarck now to keep what had been gained, to prevent the formation of an unfriendly alliance, to isolate Germany's foes, to make new friends and keep the old ones. He succeeded magnificently in all this. Great as had been his success in the unifying of Germany, his success in keeping the unity, prosperity, and commanding position of the German Empire was still more striking. When he retired in 1890, the foundations of the empire seemed impregnable; Germany was the center of a powerful alliance, and on friendly terms with the other great powers; while France continued in the lonely isolation in which her disaster had left her. Bismarck's work

The friendship of Italy and Russia had already been obtained. At once Bismarck proceeded to grander designs. He desired to draw together in close friendship and alliance the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, and Russia. He had had something of this in mind in 1866, when terms were made with Austria defeated. By the Peace of Prague Austria lost no territory, except Venetia to Italy, and paid almost no indemnity, while everything possible was done to soothe the feelings of the vanquished. Accordingly, it was not difficult to bring about good understanding again. In 1872, after skilful arranging, the emperors of Russia, Austria, and the German Empire met in Berlin, where they arrived at a cordial agreement. No alliance was concluded, but this League of Three Emperors (Dreikaiserbund) effected Bismarck's plan of a new group of powers which would include the new German Empire. The Dreikaiserbund

For six years this continued, and Bismarck had little to fear, with Italy friendly, and England holding aloof. But it was soon evident that intiminate connection with AustriaHungary and Russia at the same time was impossible. They were rivals for the same thing, and by 1878 could no longer be good friends, since they could not each have what both of them wanted. AustriaHungary and Russia

The Russian people had long been extending westward and southward. From the Turk they had already taken much land north of the Black Sea, and now it seemed to them that ambition and destiny both called them forward down the western shore, to free the Christian Slavic peoples in the Balkan peninsula, and drive the Turk out of Constantinople. But meanwhile Austria was reviving her ambitions to take Balkan territory. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when Ottoman power in Europe was at its zenith, Austria had been the bulwark of Christian Europe against the Turk; it was to her that the submerged Christian peoples to the south looked for their future deliverance; and she did enlarge her dominions by southward expansion when the power of the Turk began to wane. After a while her ambitions were turned in this direction more than ever before. Once she had had great influence in northern Europe. But the wars of the French Revolution took away her Austrian Netherlands, and in 1866 she was thrust out of the community of the German peoples. At the same time she had just lost her hold on the Italian peninsula. Her ambitions, however, quickly rose again. As soon as the Austrians and the Hungarians reached agreement, and good relations began with the new German Empire, her hopes turned to new expansion, and it seemed now that the best chance for this was down the Adriatic, perhaps, through the Balkan peninsula to the Ægean. So it happened that in this period the ambitions of Russia and Austria-Hungary thwarted each other. In 1877 a great crisis came, when Russia began the RussoTurkish War, and after a hard and fierce struggle shattered the enemy and forced the signing of a treaty which destroyed the power of Turkey in Europe. Turkey's subject peoples were set free; and most of the Ottoman territory in Europe was given to a new large Bulgarian state. Rivalry in the Balkans

But this treaty was not allowed to stand. Great Britain and also Austria-Hungary let it be known that such a settlement was not satisfactory. Therefore Russia consented The Congress of Berlin, 1878 to submit the treaty to a congress of the powers. June 13, 1878, a congress met in Berlin. Bismarck, who declared that Germany had no territorial claims in the Balkans, and that he would be glad to act as an "honest broker" between the others, was elected president the first day. By the Treaty of Berlin which followed, Russia suffered a great diplomatic defeat. What she had done in the Balkans was largely undone; for the Bulgaria she proposed to establish was greatly reduced, while Austria-Hungary, who had taken no part in defeating the Turks, got the right to administer the two Turkish provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which lay contiguous to her and now extended her dominion far southward.

The Congress and the Treaty of Berlin marked a new epoch in the diplomacy of Europe. Many great consequences were to follow from the work of the diplomats who went there, but one of the first important results was the ending of the close friendship which had existed between Russia and Prussia since Prussia's friendly attitude to Russia during the Polish rebellion of 1863. Gortchakov, the Russian chancellor, who already disliked Bismarck, believed such humiliation would not have come to his country if he had received German support. In 1866 Russia had been friendly to Prussia, and in 1870 she had even done something to keep Austria from assisting France. Now in her time of need the German Empire had done nothing for her. Russia had desired an offensive and defensive alliance with Germany, but Bismarck had refused; and forced at last to make his choice, he now chose Austria rather than Russia. Perhaps he feared that since Russia was opposing most of the principal European powers Germany in alliance with Russia would have to oppose them also, and would thence be made too dependent on Russia's good will in the future. At all events, cordial friendship between them now came to an end for the time. Consequences: Russia and Prussia drift apart

Indignation in Russia

For the moment Germany was isolated, and there was danger that Russia might seek alliance with either Austria or France. But the danger soon passed. In October, 1879, after brief negotiations, an alliance was concluded between the German Empire and Austria-Hungary. By the terms of this agreement, kept secret then but afterward published, "the two High Contracting Parties" were bound to stand by each other with all their armed forces if either one were attacked by Russia; in case either were attacked by some other power than Russia "the other High Contracting Party" would observe "at least an attitude of benevolent neutrality" toward the partner in the treaty; but if the power attacking were supported by Russia, then the two parties to the treaty in question would wage war jointly until peace was concluded by them together. Alliance between the German Empire and AustriaHungary, 1879

Scarcely had this Dual Alliance given the security Bismarck desired when lie extended it to make the wellknown Triple Alliance, which endured until the time of the Great. War. This was done by drawing Italy to the two Central Powers. The general interests of Italy did not seem to lie in such company, since she must have as one of her partners Austria-Hungary, long Italy's master and oppressor, who only a few years before had been expelled from the peninsula, who still held many Italians as unwilling subjects, and against whom Italians cherished bitter hatred from recollection of a thousand acts of tyranny and evil. Moreover, the spirit of the Italian people and the ties of language, law, and custom, bound them rather to France than the German Empire. But there were then, as there were later on, reasons why the Italians should feel hostile to France. Italy joins the Central Powers

Italy and Austria-Hungary

In 1915 Italy joined the Allies against Austria-Hungary and Germany, and after valiant and exhausting endeavors contributed to the victory which followed. During the course of the struggle it seemed to observers that Italy and France were drawn together by common sufferings Italy and France and efforts as never before. But scarcely was the struggle at an end when bitter causes of difference arose almost at once. Italy wished to have the opposite coast of the Adriatic and be the controlling influence in what had been the southern Slavic dominions of the former AustroHungarian state. France hoped that upon the ruins of the fallen Dual Monarchy would rise new Slavic commonwealths partly dependent on herself. Accordingly, there was such immediate conflict of ambition and desires between Italy and France that already in 1919 predictions were being made that Italy would renew her connection with Germany as soon as she could.

So it was when Bismarck sought to draw Italy into his schemes. Only a few years before the Austrian armies had been overthrown and Italy's unity forwarded through the powerful assistance of France. But since 1859 several things had occurred to alienate the Italian people. Napoleon III had supported the pope in maintaining his temporal power, and this was overthrown and unification of Italy completed only in 1870, when France could no longer interfere. Even after the Franco-German War there was some fear that French intervention might restore to the pope what he had lost. Furthermore, Italy was a young and ambitious state, and wished ardently to appear as one of the greater powers. Actually this was beyond her resources, but it seemed then more possible if she were closely associated with great companions. Finally the direct motive was craftily supplied by Bismarck himself. In Algeria France had long before begun the foundations of her north African empire. It was evident that she would be glad to expand into the neighboring country of Tunisia, but it was also apparent that Italy had high hopes of getting Tunisia for herself. At the Congress of Berlin Bismarck had secretly encouraged France to take Tunisia, hoping that if she were engrossed in distant enterprises she would think less of a war of revenge, and Rivalry and ambition

Rivalry about Tunisia

probably foreseeing that such seizure would enrage the Italians and drive them into Germany's arms.

So it came about. In 1881 France established a protectorate over Tunisia. There was an outburst of indignation in Italy, and next year the statesmen of Rome, readily hearkening to Bismarck, joined Germany and AustriaHungary in alliance. Thus did Italy ally herself with an old enemy and a recent friend. No little gain came to her. When in 1866 she had obtained Venetia from Austria, the strong places on the border all remained in Austria's hands, and Italy with weak and exposed frontier was always at the mercy of an Austrian attack. From this danger she was now freed by being associated with Austria-Hungary, and by being in some sort under German protection. More and more did she come under German influence; and in the following years German merchants and financiers almost won economic control of the country. In course of time, however, as Italy grew stronger and less afraid of Austria-Hungary, she grew more ambitious and hoped to secure larger control of the Adriatic for herself. Thus she came into conflict with Austria, and in the end it was almost as difficult for Germany to reconcile her partners in the Triple Alliance as once it had been for Bismarck to hold Austria and Russia together. The alliance was renewed again and again, and it lasted long beyond Bismarck's time. But before the Great War began Italy was an unwilling member; during that struggle she withdrew; and the war broke the alliance to pieces. Italy added to the germanic alliance

German influence in Italy

The history, the development, the character of the engagements binding Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy were long enveloped in secrecy, to be guessed at by outsiders and ill understood. It was assumed that, roughly, their general character was known, but when, after the downfall of Austria-Hungary in 1918, the archives of Vienna were examined and the secret treaties of the alliance made known, it was evident that much had The AustroGerman Treaty of 1879 the principal link between the Central Powers remained concealed. It was then apparent that always the basis and strongest part of the arrangement was the Austro-German Treaty, the treaty of alliance concluded between the German Empire and Austria-Hungary in 1879. The duration of this treaty had been fixed at five years, but in accordance with its third article, which had remained undivulged, provision had been made for the automatic continuance of the arrangement for periods of three years, in case neither partner desired otherwise. In 1902, after a conference concerning the continuance of the treaty, it was specifically agreed that the treaty should be automatically renewed each three years. Meanwhile, in 1883, it had been renewed for a five-year period, to end in 1889. It was this treaty, and this one only, which obligated the German Empire to assist the Dual Monarchy if it were attacked by Russia. Provisions For renewal

Supplementary to this agreement and less important, but parallel to it, was the Triple Alliance proper. The treaty of this alliance was added in 1882. It was renewed in 1887, at which time were added a separate treaty between Austria-Hungary and Italy concerning the Balkans and another treaty between the German Empire and Italy directed against France. In 1891 these three treaties were consolidated in the Third Treaty of the Triple Alliance. Von Bülow, the German statesman, afterward declared that the Triple Alliance was "an insurance company" and not a "company for profit." It had, indeed, been purely defensive at first, but after 1891 it contained provisions which contemplated the possibility of aggression against France. The treaty was to continue for six years, and for an additional six thereafter if not denounced. In 1902 it was specifically renewed unchanged, as it was again in 1912. It is now known that the Triple Alliance did not provide any definite military stipulations, though a convention between Germany and Italy in 1988 provided for the employment of Italian troops against France. Naval The treaties of the Triple Alliance

Character of the Triple Alliance

agreements, on the other hand, were made: in 1900 for independent naval operations by the partners; in 1913 for joint naval action, the scheme being drawn up in detail.

From the first the friendship or benevolent attitude of Great Britain was desired. In the First Treaty of the Triple Alliance in 1882. protocols attached declared that the contracting parties had no hostile intentions toward England. Five years later Great Britain, AustriaHungary, and Italy came to an agreement concerning the Mediterranean. In the same year such an agreement was made between Italy and Spain, to which AustriaHungary acceded; and this was prolonged in 1891. Knowledge of these arrangements makes clear now what was only feared or suspected then, how complete was the isolation of France, and how dangerous, indeed, was her position. In the Third Treaty of the Triple Alliance in 1891 a protocol asserted the adherence in principle of England to certain stipulations of the arrangement, and declared that the contracting parties should exert themselves to obtain her adherence respecting other matters also. In 1898 Great Britain began to seek alliance with the German Empire. This period marked the culmination of the power of the Triple Alliance. After 1901 Germany and Great Britain drifted apart, and as this took place Italy partly fell away. From the start it had been evident that Italy, entirely at the mercy of the principal sea power, would not be willing to oppose England. In 1896 she formally notified the Central Powers that she could not fight against France together with England. A few years later Italy came to a separate understanding with France concerning Tripoli, thus making a "re-insurance treaty," since her former engagements in the Triple Alliance were renewed, with their stipulations directed against France. Great Britain, Italy, Triple Alliance

Great Britain draws away

But while Italy was getting from the Triple Alliance all she could, and yet gradually coming to be less dependable in it, the two principal partners, Austria-Hungary Rumania attached to the Alliance and the German Empire, came more closely together and tried to strengthen their position by additional arrangements. Not only Italy but Rumania was added. In 1883 a treaty of alliance was concluded between AustriaHungary and Rumania. On the same Germany was added, and Italy five years later. This adding of Rumania as an appendage to the Triple Alliance was renewed in 1892, 1902, and 1913. With respect to the Balkans, Austria strove to strengthen her position by making an arrangement with Russia in 1897 and with Italy in 1901 and 1909.

The Triple Alliance was to a considerable extent defensive, but by means of it Bismarck had none the less raised the German Empire to be the controlling power in Europe, and to a marvellous pitch of greatness. It was clearly realized by contemporary statesmen that the alliance controlled all the central part of the Continent, extending from the northern waters to the Mediterranean, separating eastern Europe completely from the west, and thus occupying an impregnable position. Within this territory were more than 100,000,000 people and armies of 2,000,000 well-trained soldiers. It would have been the sheerest madness for any other single state to come into conflict with it. In this combination the German Empire was the most powerful member and the controlling force. Accordingly, after 1889., Germany had a manifest superiority, indeed an overlordship or hegemony in Europe, and Bismarck was the most powerful man in the world. Hegemony of the German Empire

But high as was now the position of Germany, Bismarck enhanced it still further. During all the remaining years of his power he succeeded in keeping the other great European states from forming a counter alliance, and thus kept France in the lonely isolation in which he had placed her; at the same time he tried to avoid misunderstanding with Great Britain, and renewed the connection with Russia. Further ambitions of Bismarck

Scarcely had the Alliance of 1879 been made between Austria-Hungary and Germany when Bismarck tried to draw Russia into another understanding. It was with great reluctance that be had seen himself driven by the course of events which he could not control to take steps that had alienated the friendship of Russia. He and others of his school were filled with tradition of the greatness of Muscovite power, of the importance of Russian good will toward Prussia, and of the dangers that might come if that friendship were gone. Germans remembered how when Frederick the Great was struggling against his enemies in the Seven Years' War Russian armies occupied Poland and presently captured Berlin, and how only the unexpected withdrawal of Russia from the war saved Prussia from total destruction. They remembered how Napoleon's power had finally been shattered by the Slavs, and how then the tsar had advanced to liberate peoples to the west. The Crimean War had lowered the prestige of Russia, but when the Triple Alliance was begun Russian greatness was still regarded with awe and dread. The ambitions and purposes of the governments of Russia and of Prussia were alike in many respects. Together Bismarck thought they could defy any attack from other enemies. He always declared that the German Empire did not fear attack from France, but he dreaded an attack made by Russia and France together. Moreover, as he afterward recorded in his Reminiscences (Gedanken und Erinnerungen), he had little confidence at first in the statbility of the alliance with Austria: "No one can reckon upon the future of Austria with the certainty that important and lasting treaties require." Renewed Understanding with Russia, 1881-7

Prestige of Russia

In 1881, despite recent difficulties, Bismarck succeeded in bringing about an agreement between the three emperors of Russia, Austria, and the German Empire, that if one of these three powers was at war with a fourth, the two other parties would preserve a "benevolent neu- Russia, Austria, the German Empire trality." This stipulation was also to apply in case of a war between one of the three parties and Turkey, in case an understanding about such a war had already been reached between the parties. The agreement, made special allowance for the alliance between Austria-Hungary and Germany, and was thus more advantageous to Germany than to Russia. None the less in 1884 it was renewed with slight modification. Three years later, however, this was not done, for Austria had been steadily acquiring a more dominating influence in the Balkans. Therefore, Russia was not willing to renew the agreement of 1881, but sought instead an alliance or agreement with Germany alone. Bismarck let it be understood that the alliance with Austria must stand. But the two signed an agreement nevertheless. It provided that if one of the two contracting parties was at war with a third power, the other contracting party should maintain benevolent neutrality, though this provision was not to apply in case of an attack made by one of the contracting powers on Austria or France, thus preserving the alliance with Austria, and safeguarding Russia's relations with France. Other articles provided that Germany should recognize Russia's rights in the Balkan peninsula and assist her in maintaining them there. This agreement has been known as the "Reinsurance Treaty." In 1879 Bismarck had insured Germany against attack by Russia. Now he got, as it were, insurance from the other side, for by this very secret "agreement" he provided that France would not be supported by Russia if she attacked the German Empire. The "Reinsurance Treaty," 1887

Seldom has there been diplomacy more astute. Bismarck succeeded in keeping all he had won. Since 1871 not once had France been able to make alliance with some other European power so as to dare to begin war on her foe; while Germany was seldom without close friends, and usually the center of a powerful alliance. But in spite Bismarck's great success of his vast success the time of the chancellor was nearing its end. His era was passing; other men and other measures were appearing. By 1887 he was still a mighty figure, but a new generation was coming forward with ideals which he had never cherished, which, indeed, he could scarce understand.

It had been his purpose to unite the German states, then make Germany the greatest European power. These tasks filled his mind and the world of diplomacy which he knew. But meanwhile Great Britain had been acquiring an ever larger colonial empire, and France had gone beyond the seas and won for herself new possessions. None of this had appealed to Bismarck. But all around him were growing up young Germans who saw a new world which could not be clear to his eyes. They would try to make Germany a great naval power, which would bring her into conflict with Britain, have Germany get colonies and markets all over the world, and join Austria in pushing forward in the Balkans. The new generation

During the lifetime of his master, the emperor whom he had made, his power continued unshaken, but after 1888 came marked change. The new ruler embodied new ideas and the new ambitions which were to carry Germany on so much further and at last bring her down to destruction. He regarded Bismarck with respect, but gave him none of the affectionate confidence so long bestowed by William I. Bismarck soon found the management of affairs no longer entirely in his hands, while the young emperor, himself full of vigor and spirit, grew more and more impatient at the domination of one who had so long been first in Europe that he was unable to take second place. For more than a year relations between the two grew more strained. The actual government of the empire was in the hands of Bismarck, who had under him, in important places, members of his own family or friends he had raised up to obey him. But the new emperor pres- The passing Of Bismarck ently insisted that his ideas be followed. In 1890, Bismarck resigned after being told he was in the way. It seemed strange to the older generation that this could take place; as a famous cartoon in Punch declared, to them it was "Dropping the Pilot."

Of Bismarck's work it was long difficult to give proper estimate. So gigantic had been his success that for some time it seemed he was the greatest statesman for generations. His accomplishment had been vast, and his success seemed so complete as to justify almost all he had done. He found Prussia second among the German states, and the German people divided. In a brief span of years he had made Prussia the greatest state on the continent, defeated every one of her rivals, achieved the unification of Germany, and made his country the center and foundation thereof. Then he had kept the new empire safe in its exalted position, surrounded by friends, head and leader of the strongest alliance in the world. Justly he was regarded as the father and founder of his country. Greatness of Bismarck's work

And yet, there was another side of it all, which would be more apparent in the future. The unification of Germany had not been brought about through liberal development and respect for the rights of others, but partly by force, chicane, and fraud, by contempt for the rights of people, and cynical disregard of obligations and honor. All of this seemed good to Germans who saw it through the glamor of success, and a generation of Germans was about to grow up which would admire above all things the force and the lack of scruple which Bismarck had employed and so brilliantly taught. The leaders of Germany in the early part of the twentieth century, who had learned in the school of Bismarck as he had learned from that of Frederick the Great, would worship force and strength, just as he had once discarded all policy but the rule of "blood and iron;" and as he had altered the Ems Dispatch, so would they tear up the treaty about Belgian Evil consequences thereof neutrality as a mere worthless "scrap of paper." This would array the world against them, and the empire, overwhelmed in defeat, would at last lie prostrate and (dismembered.

Since his work was effected and maintained by military power, in another generation all the great states of Europe had striven to make themselves strong military powers on the Prussian model; by the end of the century Europe was groaning under intolerable military burdens; and a few years after was divided into two great military camps. His treatment of France the French never forgave, and thereafter the empire was encumbered with the mortgage of the hatred of the French, who might despair of being able to take vengeance, but whose hatred nevertheless lived on. Bismarck does not seem to have looked into the future, beyond his own age. He scarcely realized the importance of a colonial empire, nor did he conceive how soon a great deal of German ambition would go beyond Europe, to the oceans and to lands far away. It would have been better in all respects, some have thought, had he not taken from France territory in Europe, but taken of her colonies instead. So it was that some years before the Great War an author wrote, without being much heeded, that it was still too soon to know whether the chancellor's policy was successful. Militarism And French Resentment

With the passing of Bismarck began the second stage in the development of the new German nation. Between 1864 and 1888 the empire had been created and made the greatest of the European powers. From about 1890 on to 1914 it went forward to greater things; and at last its leaders strove to make it beyond doubt the greatest power in the world. The outlook of German leaders became wider, their ambition vaster and grander, they played for great stakes higher and more boldly, until in the end, as one of them said, they sought "World Dominion or Downfall." The new Era

It was feared at first that the young emperor was rash and might easily plunge into a war, for he spoke with stern pride of his army. But for more than a quarter of a century in his reign there was no great conflict in Europe, and often he boasted that he had striven to keep peace. Doubtless he had. This desire for peace, however, seems always to have been on condition that Germany keep her superiority in Europe, and that her policy should not be thwarted. When there rose up against the alliance headed by Germany another great group of powers and it was no longer so easy for Germany's word to be law, one great crisis followed another in Europe for the space of ten years, after which time the nations were plunged into the greatest of all their wars. Policy of William II

When in 1890 William II took control of the government and its foreign policy, there followed at once a great altering of political relations. Bismarck had kept France isolated; she now became partner in a great alliance. He had tried by all means to retain Russia's friendship, and he had succeeded almost all of the time. But Russia was allowed to draw away now, and she became the ally of France. Bismarck had desired not to antagonize Great Britain, and during his time no dangerous misunderstanding had arisen, but in less than ten years Germany entered upon a policy which profoundly alarmed England, and shortly caused her to stand beside Russia and France. Diplomatic revolution

The secret agreement between Russia and Germany in 1887 had been made for three years. In 1890, the tsar tried to have it renewed, but Germany would not consent. A great deal relating to all this is not known yet, but it has been conjectured that one of the important causes of disagreement between Bismarck and William II concerned the relations with Russia: that Bismarck would have had the understanding renewed; that the young emperor now had other plans which ran counter to continuing this friendship; that this was the time when the German gov- End of The "Reinsurance" gernment began to cherish ambitions in the Balkans and Turkey. "My foreign policy remains and will remain the same as it was in the time of my grandfather," was the message William sent to the tsar. But the Russian ambassador believed that Germany in the future would have still greater regard for the alliance with Austria-Hungary. Austria's ambitions in the Balkans were increasing.

It also seemed to the Russian ambassador, who wrote of these changes, that Germany now counted on getting the friendship of Great Britain to replace that of Russia, and even that Great Britain might be added to the Triple Alliance. Friendly relations with England were a tradition; the mother of the German Emperor was a daughter of Queen Victoria, whose husband, Albert, had been a German; there were many people in England at this time who learned from the school of Freeman and Carlyle how excellent were German things, and how much that was good in England had been inherited from Germany of old. Lord Salisbury, prime minister, believed strongly in best possible relations with the German Empire. It is now known that between 1898 and 1901 the British government repeatedly sought an alliance. Good relations with Britain were, accordingly, easy to maintain for the present. Germany and England

The attention of men was still fastened mostly on older issues, the feeling between France and Germany, the rivalry between England and France, and between England and Russia. But a very significant event occurred the year before Bismarck retired. In 1889 William II went to Constantinople and visited Abdul Hamid, the sultan of Turkey. As men afterward saw this event it seemed the beginning of an epoch in the politics of Europe. Germany and Turkey

In the Middle Ages the German people had fought against the Slavs to the east, subduing or pressing them back, extending their German dominion. In the course of this movement to the east and the south some Germans had pushed beyond the ass of their fellows and made Extension to the east and the south isolated settlements, which in the nineteenth century were still flourishing in Hungary, and in Poland, in the western and southern parts of Russia, and even as far off as the Balkans. For a long while some Germans had dreamed of a day when these detached groups, and the aliens surrounding, might be incorporated in a greater German Empire. Heinrich Heine prophesied that Germans would some day possess lands as far off as the Ukraine; and in the earlier half of the nineteenth century other Germans advised colonization in the valley of the Danube and beyond, saying that here was the best of fields for German expansion. After the Franco-German War colonization of Asia Minor and Mesopotamia was suggested, in the dominions of the Sultan of Turkey. About 1880 a certain one urged his fellows not to emigrate to America: "We must create a Central Europe by conquering for German colonization large spaces to the east of our frontiers."

Now in the generation which followed that of Bismarck such thoughts constantly gained greater importance, until gradually the idea of Drang nach Osten or pressure by Germans to the east, came to be the underlying motive in German foreign affairs, and at last principal among the causes leading to the Great European War. William II was now seeking the friendship of Turkey. England had previously been friend and protector of the Turks, but events like the British occupation of Egypt had caused her influence to wane. In 1898 William went to Constantinople again, and, going on to Jerusalem and Damascus, proclaimed himself the protector of Turkey and announced that he was the friend of Mohammedans all over the world. Year after year German representatives established the influence of their country more strongly. Most people had no conception how far they were succeeding, but in 1914 it was suddenly found that Turkey was more closely bound to Germany and Austria than was Drang nach Osten Italy, and that she was actually a vassal of the German Empire.

As early as 1875 German engineers had built for the Turkish government a railway across Anatolia, connecting Konia with Skutari, opposite Constantinople. Thirteen years later this railway was transferred to a German company. In 1899, the year after the emperor's second visit, the sultan granted him a concession to extend this railroad across Asiatic turkey down to the Persian Gulf. At the head of the Gulf, and controlling the outlet to its waters, was the district of Koweit, ruled by a sheik who gave little obedience to the sultan. With this sheik the British made a treaty, so as to block the future completion of the railroad, which they conceived might be dangerous to them. None the less, work was taken up and continued at intervals until, just before 1914, the road had been taken almost completely through to Bagdad and the control and development of Asiatic Turkey had been put into German hands. The Bagdad Railway

If the road were ever completed Germany got control of the intervening territory in Europe, she would be mistress of the most important line of communication in the world. It was in Europe and in Asia that most of the world's inhabitants lived. Communication between them had hitherto been mostly water. Of the water routes there were two. The long one ran down to the south of Africa then up toward India and China; for some time it had been dominated by the British, who held India and South Africa, and numerous stations on the way. The better and the shorter route was through the Mediterranean Sea; and this, also was even more securely in the hands of the British, who held Gibraltar and the Suez Canal. But the end of the nineteenth century was an era of railroad development, which furnished transportation swifter and easier than any by water. If the German controlled railroad lines leading down from their own northern ports Importance of the Bagdad Railway across Austria-Hungary and the Balkans to Constantinople, and connected them with the Bagdad Railway having a terminus on the Persian Gulf, then Germany would control the shortest and the best route between Europe and Asia, and might in time get control of a great part of all the world's trade. Even more important were the strategic advantages involved. Not only would the Germans and their friends, lying between their possible enemies, separate them and have them at a disadvantage, but they would have incomparably the best line of interior communications for moving troops swiftly, a route moreover capable of being rendered invulnerable to attacks by sea-power. Some Germans boasted that a branch of this railway system would lead down near to Egypt and always be a great to British power there, while on the Persian Gulf they could at any time put masses of troops, to strike over at India, more quickly than the British could ever bring reinforcements. In short they would have an instrument for making Germany the greatest power in the world.

Because of this policy the politics of Continental Europe were altered completely. Russia, first dropped from close friendship by Germany, then antagonized by German policy in Turkey and in the Balkans, had entered into the Dual Alliance with France, opposing not only AustriaHungary but Germany as well. And gradually the Triple Alliance changed. So far as Italy was concerned it was evident that no strong tie remained. Very different was it with Austria-Hungary. When the alliance with Germany was made in 1879 Bismarck believed that the connection might not endure. Nevertheless, during his time it grew stronger; and now, with the development of the new German policy, connection with Austria became firmer each year, since that connection was indispensable to the success of the German schemes. The empire planned in Middle Europe and nearer Asia had at one of its ends Asiatic Turkey and at the other the great German state; AustriaHungary and the German Empire but the scheme could never be fulfilled unless AustriaHungary and the Balkans, which lay in between, were kept. in close alliance or controlled. Therefore, firm alliance with the Dual Monarchy came to be the very corner-stone of German foreign policy. It was more and more evident that Germany would never fail to give Austria support. And the attachment of Austria-Hungary to the German Empire became equally strong. Not only did she require the support of her powerful neighbor against Russia, but the ambitions of Austria coincided largely with German plans, for she wished to be the greatest power in the western Balkans, rule all the eastern shore of the Adriatic, and, perhaps, extend her control down to the Mediterranean at Salonica.

Meanwhile another change in international affairs brought another vast alteration. So immense was the development of the German Empire, so colossal her strength as she grew, that her ambitions developed in every direction--not only in eastern and central Europe. in sharper rivalry with Russia, but also on the seas and in distant places, with England and the British Empire. As this came about, it was very evident that two of Bismarck's axioms had been discarded. He had always striven to keep Russia as a friend and avoid any estrangement with Britain; But the Germany of William II hesitated not to challenge and contend with them both. Rivalry of Germany and England

Between Englishmen and Germans there had long been friendship with little memory of wars or old wrong, and there was often a certain feeling of kinship because of blood and common inheritance and speech. Spain, France, and Russia had been the rivals of England, not the Germans. Englishmen viewed the establishment of German unity with sympathy and admiration. For some time after 1871 the interests of Britain and the German Empire did not conflict. Great Britain was a sea power and her chief interest were outside of Europe; germany Earlier relations was not a naval power during Bismarck's time, and her interest was altogether in keeping what she had just achieved: first place in Continental affairs. Presently, the immense maritime and industrial development of Germany brought keen competition and aroused some unpleasant feeling. But all this awakened no hostility in Britain, and as time went on it was seen that England could well hold her own.

The great change came with the new school of German statesmen, who looked beyond Europe and would make Germany the greatest of the great. The German army was incomparably the strongest in the world, but they began to cherish the plan of making Germany a great naval power and a seeker for colonies also. Hitherto Britain had been on her guard against France and Russia, both of them strong naval powers and active rivals in Africa or Asia. For some years it had been her purpose to maintain the "two-power standard," or keep her fleet stronger than the two next greatest navies combined, and in 1889 she had undertaken a comprehensive scheme of naval increase. Britain had no large army, and so could not defend herself against the great standing armies of European states if ever they could invade her. Her sole reliance was on command of the sea, and it was justly felt that if this were ever lost, then all would be gone beyond hope. The British people accordingly were resolved at all costs to maintain their superiority on the ocean, and would probably come to regard with much dread any nation which challenged their sea power. Rivalry on the sea

Suddenly and in dramatic way the German government did do this. Germans were building up a great commerce, which was not interfered with by Britain, but which they knew could be stopped or destroyed by British sea-power. They desired colonies and markets abroad, and they felt that they had better chance of being considered in distant places if they had a great war fleet of their own. They German ambition on the sea considered that the British Empire, as well as the new French colonial empire, had been made possible by naval power, and the leaders felt that Germany was incomplete so long as she had no strong navy.

The lead was taken by Admiral von Tirpitz and the emperor himself. There was opposition among the older school of thinkers in Germany, but after much effort a law was passed by the reichstag in 1898 providing for a great naval increase. This law provided for expending, during a course of years, 1,000,000,000 marks, and was considered to be the most ambitious naval program undertaken by any state in the memory of man. That same year the Flottenverein ( Navy League) was established. A vast amount of education work and propaganda was done by this organization, and it was most successful in arousing the German people. In 1900 a vaster sum was appropriated, an(] plans made for a navy twice as powerful as that provided two years before. The Naval Laws of 1898 and 1900

Such startling naval increase affected other powers at once and profoundly. But of all Germany's neighbors none saw herself threatened so greatly as England. As this new German navy was built up Great Britain would be threatened, perhaps, by the German Empire more than by France. The very preamble of the law of 1900 seemed directed against England. " Germany must have a battle fleet so strong that even for an adversary with the greatest sea power a war against her would . . . imperil his own position in the world""The ocean is indispensable to the greatness of Germany," said the emperor about this time. And in 1901: "Our future lies upon the water." Effects of German naval increase

There was indeed a great turning point about 1901. In 1898 had occurred the Fashoda crisis between Britain and France, in which the French yielded, but remained filled with anger. On the other hand Germany was still well liked in Great Britain. But during the Boer War, which began in 1899. Germans gave to the Boers such England seeks new friends sympathy and encouragement as they could, and might perhaps have intervened if England had not controlled the sea. Next year when German naval plans were so greatly enlarged, Englishmen pondered upon the situation. It was difficult for most of them to conceive that Britain could be in any danger, for British supremacy on the seas was a tradition, and British control had been unquestioned since the day of Trafalgar. None the less a new generation was coming into public life which believed that recently Germany had increased much more greatly than England; that this greater Germany now bade fair to be so powerful on the sea that Britain was no longer safe, as before, aloof in her "splendid isolation"; that she could no longer wisely stand alone; and that she should enter into closer relations with friends in Europe and everywhere else in the world. Apparently the leader of this group in England was King Edward VII, who came to the throne in 1901. He had sincere admiration for France, and he took the lead in seeking her friendship. In 1904 England and France settled all their difference's, and entered into the Entente Cordiale (friendly understanding). Three years later, under what seemed increasing menace of German naval expansion, Britain and Russia settled their differences also. Accordingly, by 1907 the new naval policy of Germany had brought England out of her long aloofness from European affairs into close and friendly relations with France, and cordial relations with Russia.

The statesmen of Britain settled outstanding differences, not only with France and with Russia, but with Italy and the United States, and they had already made alliance with Japan. British naval forces, once scattered all over the world, were silently drawn in and concentrated in the waters about Britain and Ireland. But the uneasiness was felt rather for the future than for the immediate present, because it was believed that for a long while Germany's utmost efforts could not really challenge the British navy. Her supremacy on the sea

A great change presently occurred. In 1904-5, during the Russo-Japanese War, modern warships were really tested for the first time; and many lessons were learned then. After the great battle of Tsushima it was seen, as some experts had before pointed out, that high speed, which would enable a warship to take such position as it wished, heavy armor, and great guns of long range, conferred immense superiority. But these principles could only be applied at their best on a ship of very great size. In 1907 the British launched the Dreadnaught, a battleship which was the largest, the swiftest, and most heavily armored warship that had ever been put afloat, and it had also the largest number of giant guns of long range. This monster, it was believed, would be invulnerable to the attacks of ordinary warships, able to overtake or outrange an antagonist, always able to choose its own range, and beyond the enemy's range batter the enemy to pieces. For a moment Britain seemed to have got great superiority over all other rivals, but it was she who had the greatest number of the older vessels, and it was possession of them which gave her such lead over the German navy. Germany. with her new naval program, was building the greatest number of new ships, and immediately she altered the plans and began making new vessels of the Dreadnaught type. It was evident to the thinking that all unexpectedly she had a chance to overcome England's naval preponderance and threaten her command of the seas. The Dreadnaught

Most of the English people did not quickly understand the great changes occurring, or the altered position of affairs. But in 1909 appeared the play, An Englishman's Home. It portrayed a nation so ignorant as to be without fear, when it was really without means of defence. It told of England suddenly invaded, unable to resist. It stirred the English people to their depths, and aroused them at last more than the warnings of statesmen and writers. There was profound alarm and depression, during what An Englishman's Home was known as the Naval Panic of 1909. Some Englishmen felt hopeless, some wanted a great army, but most cried for huge naval increase, and this was swiftly undertaken. Eight great battleships were proposed for that year, and actually construction was so rapidly advanced that Britain after a short time of anxiety found herself, not indeed with a fleet greater than the two next most powerful navies, but with one considerably stronger than the battle fleet of the German Empire.

Many people in both countries declared there was no reason for conflict between the two nations, and sincerely deplored the growing suspicion and ill-will, but uneasiness and anger increased. In both countries newspapers and periodicals did not cease to point out how the foe threatened vital interests, and that preparations must be hastened so as to be ready for inevitable conflict. In England men recalled what had once been done to France. In Germany the Flottenverien taught that England had ever been the enemy in Germany's way, and that real greatness could come only after another war of liberation. Some Germans believed that the British might try to destroy their fleet. Some Englishmen feared that Germans might suddenly try to dash across into England, and, once there, annihilate their empire. Increasing Suspicion

Thus the force of events ranged Great Britain ever more closely with Germany's opponents. It may be that most people in both countries abhorred the thought of war between them. Englishmen felt that their preparations were merely defensive. But the great danger in the situation arose from the very fact that conflict seemed inevitable to so many. Englishmen often believed that the ambitions of the German Empire could only be fulfilled by sweeping the British Empire away, and taking the best parts for a greater Germany; many Germans were taught that while England ruled the seas Germany could develop only on sufferance. More and more were Germans told Drifting toward danger that England had joined their enemies in an einkreisung, an effort to encircle and crush them. Year by year it came to be better understood that Englishmen must not make again the mistake of 1870, not again allow France to be crushed, for then afterward they might have to fight alone against Germany in a hopeless struggle.

Before the last evil days of July 1914 there was some effort to clear away the hostility and suspicion. Germans often said they desired the friendship of England, and that the two powers working together could ensure the peace of the world. Many Englishmen wished that a friendly understanding could be reached, and would have given much to win the true friendship of the German people. They were not, however, willing to let their naval superiority be impaired. A British statesman speaking in 1912 declared that naval power was a necessity to Englishmen, but not to Germans: to them it meant expansion, to England existence. Already in 1907, at the Second Hague Conference, England had proposed limitation of armaments, but Germany refused. Indeed, Germans boasted that they could keep up the race, while England must presently fall behind. English leaders announced that their naval construction would be regulated by whatever Germany did. They were most anxious to make an arrangement by which both powers would cease the construction of so many warships, but a decisive supremacy over the German Empire they were firmly resolved to maintain. Germans were not willing to grant a "naval holiday," but in 1913, at a time when great changes in the Balkans caused them to desire increase of the army above all things, there appeared to be some slackening in their building of warships, and peaceful men in both countries hoped that better things would result. Efforts for an understanding

In 1912 Lord Haldane, lord chancellor, one who loved and respected German things, went to Berlin on the emperor's invitation, to try to bring about an understanding. Lord Haldane's mission

Germany proposed a treaty between the two countries by which each would engage not to attack the other; in event of either being involved in war, the other should observe toward the party involved a benevolent neutrality, though this agreement was not to affect existing engagements. England refused, for the result would have been to permit Germany to support her allies in the Triple Alliance, while Britain would have been debarred from supporting against German attack her friends, with whom she was not allied. The negotiation, therefore, failed but it seemed to smooth the way for a settlement later.

Indeed, in the earlier part of 1914 an Anglo-German agreement was drawn up, by which all the principal differences between England and Germany, with respect to the Bagdad Railway and Asiatic Turkey were arranged, and it almost seemed that Sir Edward Grey had at last done with Germany what he had accomplished with France in 1904. This treaty, it is said, was to have been signed in the autumn, but before that time the Great War had begun and Germany and the British Empire were locked in a mortal struggle. This is one of the tragedies in the history of Europe. The two great antagonists seem almost to have reached a settlement just before it was too late. But it was too late. It is probable that Great Britain was sincere in wishing for peaceable settlement of the issues between Germany and herself. What were the real German intentions cannot yet be known. Doubtless many Germans sincerely desired to have friendship and good understanding with Britain. But some critics have seen good reason to believe that Germany entered into the negotiations of 1912 and 1914 not so much because she wished lasting peace with Great Britain but because the military leaders hoped to keep her inactive until they had first dealt with Russia and France. Many secrets yet lie hid in state papers, or the breasts of the men who were leaders. The projected agreement of 1914


General accounts: G. P. Gooch, History of Modern Europe, 1878-1919( 1923); G. Egelhaaf, Geschichte der Neuesten Zeit ( 4th ed. 1912); Heinrich Friedjung, Das Zeitalter des Imperialismus, 1884-1914, 3 vols. ( 1919-22); B. Gebhardt, Handbuch der Deutschen Geschichte ( 2d ed. 1901); Felisc Rachfahl, Deutschland und die Welt Politik ( 1923); Graf Ernst Reventlow, Deutschlands Auswätige Politik, 1888-1913 (ed. 1918), strongly nationalist and Pan-German; T. Schiemann, Deutschland und die Grosse Politik, anno 1901-1914 ( 1902-15); Fürst Bernhard von Bülow, Deutsche Politik (ed. 1917), trans. by Marie A. Lewenz, Imperial Germany ( 1914); Die Grosse Politik der Europäischen Kabinette, 1871-1914: Samlung der Diplomatischen Akten des Auswärtigen Amtes, ed. by J. Lepsius, A. M. Bartholdy, F. Thimme, vols. I-VI ( 1922), relating to the period ( 1871-90), based on the archives of the German Foreign Office, in course of publication--a new source of the utmost importance for understanding recent European history. Treaty of Berlin: F. Bamberg, Geschichte der Orientalischen Angelegenheit im Zeitraume des Pariser und Berliner Friedens ( 1892); G. B. Guarini, La Germania e la Questione d'Oriente fino al Congresso di Berlino, 2 vols. ( 1898); A. Avril, Négociations Relatives au Traité de Berlin, 1875-1886 ( 1886), documented, best account, by a diplomat; B. Brunswick, Le Traité de Berlin, Annoté Commenté ( 1878). The Triple Alliance: A. C. Coolidge, The Origins of the Triple Alliance ( 1917); W. Fraknoi, Kritische Studien zur Geschichte des Dreibundes ( 1917); A. Singer, Geschichte des Dreibundes ( 1904); A. N. Stieglitz, L'Italie et la Triple Alliance ( 1906); E. von Wertheimer , Graf Julius Andrassy, 3 vols. ( 1910-13); and above all, Politische Geheimverträge Oesterreich-Ungarns von 1879-1914, Volume I ( 1914), edited by Dr. A. F. Pribram from the archives of Vienna, constituting one of the most important contributions to the history of diplomacy for some time, English trans. by D. P. Meyers and J. G. D'A. Paul, ed. by A. C. Coolidge ( 1920). Relations with Russia: S. Goriainov, "The End of the Alliance of the Emperors," American Historical Review, January, 1918, based on papers in the Russian archives made accessible by the Russian Revolution, and explaining certain important matters for the first time.

Policy before the war: a good brief account is G. W. Prothero, German Policy Before the War ( 1916). Germany and England: Charles Sarolea, The Anglo-German Problem ( 1915); B. E. Schmitt, England and Germany, 17401914 ( 1916); Archibald Hurd and Henry Castle, German Sea Power ( 1913). The Bagdad Railway: André Chéradame, Le Chemin de Fer de Bagdad ( 1903); D. Fraser, The Short Cut to India ( 1909); Morris Jastrow, The War and the Bagdad Railway ( 1917); E. Lewin , The German Road to the East ( 1916); G. Mazel, Le Chemen de Fer de Bagdad ( 1911); Paul Rohrbach, Die Bagdadbahn ( 1902). Biographies and memoirs: Margaretha von Poschinger, Kaiser Friedrich, 3 vols. ( 1898- 1900), trans. Life of the Emperor Frederick ( 1901); H. Welschinger, L'Empereur Frédéric III, 1831-1888 ( 1917); A. H. Fried. The German Emperor and the Peace of the World ( 1912); ( Christian Gauss, editor), The German Emperor as Shown in His Public Utterances ( 1915); Hermann Freiherr von Eckhardstein, Lebenserinnerungen und Politische Denkwürdigkeiten, 2 vols. ( 1920), contains some interesting and important information upon attempts to draw Germany and England together; Fürst Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe- Schillingsfürst , Denkwüdigkeiten, 2 vols. (ed. 1907), trans. by G. W. Chrystal ( 1906); Denkwürdigkeiten des Generalfeldmarshalls Alfred Grafen von Waldersee vols. I. II ( 1923).



Le peuple a devancé la Chambre, qui hésitait. Pour sauver la patrie en, danger, il a demandé la République.

Proclamation du Gouvernment de la Défense Nationale aux Français, Septembre 4, 1870: Archives Diplomatiques, 1871-1872, ii. 503.

Si la France est attaquée par l'Allemagne, ou par l'Italie soutenue par l'Allemagne, la Russie emploiera toutes ses forces disponibles pour attaquer l'Allemagne.

Si la Russie est attaquée par l'Allegmagne, ou par l'Autriche soutenue] par l'Allemagne, la France emploiera toutes ses forces diponsibles pour combattre l'Allemagne.

Military Convention, August 1892 ( Basis of the Dual Alliance): Documents Diplomatiques. L'Alliance Franco-Russe ( 1918).

If the rise of the German Empire is the most memorable example of the swift growth of a European power, France after 1871 affords the best instance of the recovery of a people crushed down by fearful defeat. Before 1870 France was the leading power on the Continent; but the events of the Franco-German War changed all this suddenly and completely. The months between July, 1870, and June, 1871, were afterward remembered by the French as L'Année Terrible, the Terrible Year. In the course of that time France had been crushed to the dust by the enemy, then torn by the uprising of the Commune in Paris. She had lost two important frontier provinces with 1,600,000 inhabitants; in the war itself she had suffered casualties The downfall of France of almost half a million; her war materials had been captured; the Germans had carried destruction and suffering over a wide extent of the country; there had been an indemnity of five milliards of francs to pay the victors; while the cost of the war had been ten milliards more. Germans believed that France was so far crushed that she could not recover or be dangerous to them for a long time again, and the friends of France could only look to the future with a hope they could not yet feel.

Actually, she began to recover almost at once. No nation in the world has had the qualities of greatness more thoroughly than the French. From the ruin of the Hundred Years' War, from the losses of her wars of religion, from the disasters of the last years of Louis XIV, and from the complete overthrow when Napoleon was defeated by Europe, always she recovered easily and well, because of the excellence and strength, the vitality, the brave character, the inexhaustible courage of French men and women. At present, after the long exhaustion of the Great War in which she bore the brunt, the best augury of the recovery of France from her grievous weakness is the memory of what she has done in other times. For Germany in this time of humiliation and ruin the example of France then may be, perhaps, the best encouragement she can have. Quick recovery

Before the recovery began, however, there was one more terrible disaster. A period of great change and disorder ever gives opportunity to the violent and radical among men. Many of the French people had just suffered so terribly that they were ready now for any violence or revolution. Such things have been often before: during the Hundred Years' War when the Jacquerie rose in France; on a great scale in Russia, after the awful disasters of 1916 and 1917; and in many parts of Germany, after the empire had fallen. Further disaster

The Commune of Paris came at the end of the war, while confusion still reigned in France. Paris had long been a Radicalism in Paris stronghold of republican, radical, and socialist sentiment. Many of the workmen of the city had listened to doctrines opposed to the existing social system, and they had been taught that very sweeping changes would be necessary to bring happiness to the mass of the people. The siege of Paris was just over, and Paris had greatly suffered. Many of the workingmen had no employment in the general prostration of business. They had been members of the National Guard which undertook the defence of the city, but the National Assembly which had been elected to make peace with the Germans dissolved the Guard. The people of Paris had proclaimed a republic in 1870; the Assembly was monarchist and conservative; and the liberals and radicals of the cities distrusted what it might do. Moreover, payment of obligations, which had been suspended by a moratorium during the siege, was now ordered, and immense hardship resulted to a large number of people who had no employment or business and so could not pay their debts. Hence a great number of poor, hungry, savage people, who still had the arms with which they had fought against the Germans, stood in idleness distrusting their government, and very ready to follow new leaders. Suffering in the city

In France the government was strongly centralized. The radicals believed that improvement could come only through decentralization of the state into small parts or communes, with the management of affairs in these parts. Thus the different communes, which had different interests, would be able to manage affairs to their best advantage; and the cities, more liberal than the rural districts, would be able to develop without interference from a government based largely on the country. This scheme was supported by some republicans who feared that monarchy would be restored by the central government, and by socialists, who believed that in communes they could effect the reforms which they sought for. In Paris the idea was taken up by the discontented. After some conflict with The Commune of Paris, 1871 the Assembly, a commune was established in March, 1871, and the red flag of the socialists adopted. The men of the Commune appealed to the people of France to follow them in their revolution, and for a moment it seemed to observers that France, just defeated by the Germans, was now about to split up into pieces. But the people were against such innovation. As the French prisoners returned from Germany, the Assembly made ready to overthrow the Commune, and this was done after a second terrible siege during April and May, and a fearful week of fighting in the streets. The city suffered far more terribly from the bombardment of the French armies and the incendiarism of the Communalists than it had from the Germans; and the government showed no mercy in the vengeance which it took on the conquered rebels. A radical and socialist revolution

France now proceeded to the work of restoration and building for the future. May 10, 1871, the Treaty of Frankfort was ratified by the National Assembly. The first task now was to set free the occupied districts from the Germans by paying the indemnity. The French people responded magnificently to the government's appeals, and far more money was subscribed to loans than was needed. In the autumn of 1873, six months before the terms allowed by the treaty, all the indemnity had been paid, and the last German soldiers were out of the country. Financiers all over the world were surprised at the money which French peasants and workmen brought forth; and there were not wanting Germans who declared that if France were ever conquered by Germany again, the indemnity would be vastly greater. The indemnity paid

For two years the executive power was wielded by Thiers, whom the Assembly had chosen. During his time two important reforms were made. In 1871 the excessive centralization of the government, which had prevailed since Napoleon I, was partly undone. A considerable amount of local government was established: local voters Local government and the army were to elect the council of the commune, and in the smaller communes the mayor was to be chosen by the council, the central government appointing the mayors only in the principal towns. In 1872 the army system was reorganized, by a law which in effect introduced the military system of Prussia.

As the work of reconstruction proceeded the most important problem was to settle the government. The Assembly had been elected for the purpose of making peace with the Germans. When this was done it did not dissolve itself, and in the existing state of things there was no power able to dismiss it. In September, 1870, the revolutionists in Paris, who overthrew the imperial government, had proclaimed a republic. This republic had been promptly acknowledge by the United States, and, after a little delay, by the principal governments of Europe. Such a government had not been constituted by the people. In August, 1871, however, the Assembly accepted for the time being the government existing, and gave to the executive the title of "President of the French Republic." The Rivet Law by which this was done asserted also that the Assembly had constituent powers. Accordingly, the Assembly undertook to decide what form of government should be permanently established. The National Assembly

Most of the members of the Assembly wished a restoration of the monarchy, while some hoped for a Bonapartist empire again. Perhaps monarchy might have been restored now, except that its advocates were divided in two parties, the Legitimists and those who supported the House of Orléans. It was hoped that the two branches of the Bourbon family could unite, but it proved impossible to bring this about. Thus time drifted on, with no permanent government established, and the people showing more and more that they desired a republic. After a while those who wished for a monarchy, but believed it unwise to insist on their wishes, combined with those who wanted The Republic established a republic, and agreed to establish a conservative arrangement. In 1875 a series of "organic laws" in effect constituted a republican government, and are often referred to as the Constitution of 1875. A republic was not formally set up. It was, indeed, merely recognized in the phrase "President of the Republic," in a provision which could only be carried by one vote in a chamber of 705. The French Republic, therefore, was established unwillingly and with great hesitation, and it was not formally proclaimed.

The government of the French Republic was based on models which the English-speaking people had worked out in the experience of a long time. In some respects it resembles the American form, but substantially the British system was followed. The executive power is apparently vested in a president, who is elected for seven years by the two chambers of the legislative body meeting together as a national assembly. An outsider might think that he really is head of the army and navy and that he really carries out the laws and appoints the officials. Actually, however, as in England, the executive and administrative powers are in the hands of the ministry. As in Great Britain, the ministry is entirely dependent upon a majority in the chambers, the legislative body. The French government: the executive

The legislature is composed of two houses, a senate and a chamber of deputies. The senate consists of 300 members elected indirectly by electoral colleges for a term of nine years, one third renewed every three years. By the Constitution of 1875 some of the members were to be elected for life, but this was done away with in 1884. The more important branch is the chamber of deputies, whose members are elected by manhood suffrage for a term of four years. The ministry is responsible to this parliament, practically to the chamber of deputies, which is all-powerful in the making of laws and passing appropriations. Actually, the ministry is a committee of the chamber, as the cabinet in Britain is of the house of commons. The legislative

This system of government which makes France a parliamentary republic differs in one very important respect from the British system. In Great Britain, as in the United States, there have usually been two important parties, opposing each other, and contending in elections for control of the government. This system has tended to make political stability in Great Britain, since the ministry often rests on the solid support of the majority party. But in France, as in most Continental countries, there are many parties, often differing from each other only a little. No one of them is large enough to control a majority of the votes in the legislative assembly, and support for a ministry can be obtained only by effecting a combination, or, as it is called in France, a bloc, of those parties which are willing to make common cause. Often this brings instability and shortness of tenure, since the fall of a ministry can easily be brought about by some of the parties withdrawing from the bloc to enter into new combinations. Therefore ministries in France, as in Italy, may change with bewildering rapidity, causing outsiders uninformed to believe that the French are fickle in politics and not yet trained in governing themselves. Such is, of course, not the case. Foreign critics declare that such insecurity of ministries tends to weaken administration and hamper France in her dealings with other countries; Frenchmen, admitting this, assert that their system represents more delicately than does the British system different shades of political thought. Political parties

The bloc

Generally speaking, since the establishment of the republic in 1875, Frenchmen have gone steadily forward on the way of learning real self-government. They tried to establish it suddenly in 1791. In a few years it was evident they had failed. Again in 1848 a republic was established, but this again was easily and quickly overthrown. When a third republic was proclaimed in 1870, it might seem that it also had little chance to survive; Selfgovernment in France many were opposed to it, and many believed it must soon disappear. The Third Republic, however, acquired stability year after year, and at present it is so thoroughly established that its overthrow seems outside of proper calculation. This was partly because the people of France got more and more acquaintance with self-government in the latter part of the nineteenth century. It is not sufficient that a constitution be written and adopted providing that the people have certain institutions. Such constitutions in Portugal and in Spain and in some of the South American countries result in little more than that the elections are controlled by the army and the government by a few politicians; for most of the people have little education, little interest in political affairs, and almost no training in them. Great Britain has no written constitution in any single document, and yet her government has long continued stable and firm, at the same time flexible and increasingly democratic; for it has rested on the support of a great number of men and women possessing considerable acquaintance with the management of their government, having inherited this knowledge from ancestors who had interest in the government before them. Increasing stability of the republic

The continued success of self-government among the people of England is in great measure due to the training which English people long had in the affairs of county and parish, to the vigorous local self-government which has existed for generations in England. In France this had once existed also, but it withered away and disappeared when the strongly centralized monarchy of the Old Régime was made by the kings. Matters, which in England would have been attended to by the leading men of the county or the parish, were directed from Paris or managed by officials sent out from the central government. This tended to produce, as it always does for a while, a very efficient government machine; but in course of time the people in the localities, having very little to do in manag- Local selfgovernment ing their affairs, to a great extent lost their capacity for self-government. Therefore, the first French republics were made at the top rather than the bottom, and soon fell for lack of strong foundation in the political experience of the people themselves. This was, perhaps, apparent to the republican leaders as time went on. By the Constitution of 1875 a greater measure of local government was provided for; this was extended in 1882, when the elected councils of municipalities were permitted to elect the mayors; and in 1884 when localities were given still larger powers of self-government. Since then the French people have been slowly learning to some extent the art of governing themselves, in the places where they live and carry on their affairs. Necessary in A democratic republic

It was well understood by the republican leaders in France that if there was to be universal suffrage for men, there must be general education of the children. In 1881 a law was passed to make primary education free of cost to parents, and next year it was made compulsory for children from six to thirteen. Previous to this time a quarter of the men and more than a third of the women of the country were illiterate, and education was to a considerable extent, as it had long been, in the hands of religious orders and teachers. Gradually education was extended until very few men and women were unable to read and write, though the percentage of illiteracy was never reduced so low as in Germany, which had long led the world in the thoroughness and extent of its educational work, if not always in the excellence of its character. Gradually, also, education was made entirely secular, and withdrawn completely from religious teachers. And along with this went splendid development of higher education, in upper schools and universities. Technical and industrial teaching were not neglected, though they never attained the prominence or the reputation abroad that the German system won. Foreigners who went abroad for their edu- Education

Public, secular instruction

cation went almost always to the German Empire rather than to England or France; and this was especially true of students from the United States, who went to Germany and then developed in America the German system of higher education. This was due not only to the merits of German universities but to the prestige of Germany from her mighty development and successful wars, from advertising and clever propaganda. But critics realized more clearly after a time that the English system, and especially the French, not only produced erudition, but trained the character, cultivated spirit and taste, fineness of soul and good judgment, in a way which the more mechanically regulated, state-supervised system of Germany often was unable to do. Reputation abroad

Bismarck, it is said, favored a French republic since he believed such a government would be unstable and weak, and because it would keep France isolated and without friends among the monarchies and empires of Europe. For a long time she was without allies, but the republic held its own steadily, and while it was disliked by a considerable and powerful portion of the population who were anxiously awaiting its overthrow, it was able to weather each crisis that developed. Business became settled; the government undertook vast and expensive schemes of material development, improving railroads and canals, and presently the French people found themselves in the midst of the greatest prosperity which had come to them in the nineteenth century. Taxes were high and there was a huge national debt, but this debt was held almost entirely in France, and interest payments on it, derived from taxes taken from the people, went back to them again. Prosperity and improvement

But however fair the picture may seem now, there was much trouble while the improvement was taking place, and often it seemed that the republic would endure little longer. There was constant though diminishing danger in the relations with Germany, and there were internal Difficulties problems of the greatest difficulty resulting from opposition of the monarchists and clericals and the relations between church and state.

The English have altered their monarchy so far that of the kingship little remains but the name of king, and actually their government is far more democratic than most republics. They have clung to king and some monarchical forms, however, because of attachment to the past, and will probably for some time to come be reluctant to part with scepter and crown. The French, who are more logical and direct in processes of thought, did away with monarchy abruptly, though in their case also the process could not be achieved at once, and restorations of king or emperor followed the establishment of two republics. Clericals, the more conservative people, and those who loved to venerate the past, preferred monarchy to republic, distrusted government by the people, and did not believe France could be strong and respected until she had a king once more. After 1871 these men and women looked confidently for the fall of the republic after a while through incapacity and weakness; and when the course of time disappointed them, they plotted and hoped for an opportunity to bring the fall of the republic to pass. The monarchists

When the hazards of the first few years after 1871 had been successfully passed, the most dangerous crisis came in 1888. General Boulanger, a handsome, striking figure, whose very appearance excited the admiration and attachment of the unthinking, had made himself popular among the soldiers by his measures while minister of war. He took advantage of some scandals of the time, and of certain grievances which always exist, and presently let it be known that the government needed reforming. It was also told among his friends that if he were at the head of affairs, France might get revenge on the Germans. He soon had supporting him, besides the undiscriminating multitude, monarchists, clericals, and others; and friends of the General Boulanger republic feared that if he tried a coup d'état, as Louis Napoleon once had, he might indeed be able to seize power. But the government was firm, and at the critical moment he hesitated to act, and presently fled to Belgium. Then he was condemned for plotting against the state. His party fell to pieces almost at once, and he died by his own hand in exile. Other disquieting times followed, but never one so serious again.

Case In 1896 began the scandal of the Dreyfus Case, which continued to disrupt French society and disturb the government for the next ten years. Dreyfus, an Alsatian Jew, a captain of artillery in the French army, had been arrested very secretly and condemned to be imprisoned for life in French Guiana for selling military information. He protested his innocence. Soon his cause was taken up by friends and others, and a bitter and sensational controversy arose. After many vicissitudes, it was demonstrated that the accused man was innocent and that scandalous conditions existed in military circles. In the end the French government gave Dreyfus and his associates complete and honorable vindication; but during the years of passionate struggle, while this was being attained, the government was attacked and undermined by monarchists and reactionaries, by clericals, and by many who desired France to be a military power more than a democratic state. Finally all this came to naught. The Dreyfus

As the years went on, with France prospering greatly and the republic growing constantly stronger, the government proceeded to deal with the difficult matter of the relations between church and state. In the Middle Ages the church had claimed superiority over all earthly things, and immunity from interference by the civil power. As stronger secular governments developed, their officials refused to accept the supremacy of the church in the state, and attempted, while not interfering with religious matters, to subject ecclesiastical matters, or the things which Church and state concerned church regulation, to the civil authority of the state. Thus arose some of the greatest and most memorable struggles in medieval times. In the period of the Reformation and of the development of strong nation states, the matter was settled differently in various places. In Lutheran countries the church was made strictly subordinate to the state, and in England the church became part of the government itself. In Catholic countries various arrangements had been worked out.

In France the settlement now was based on the Concordat of 1801. This arrangement provided that the churches and buildings, which were in 1801 the property of the people, should be granted to the use of the clergy; the higher ecclesiastics, the archbishops and bishops, were to be appointed by the French government with the consent of the pope; the lower ecclesiastics, the priests, were to be appointed by the bishops, with the consent of the government of France. The church was thus controlled to a considerable extent by the state, and supported by it as part of the state, for the salaries of the ecclesiastics were paid by the government; on the other hand, in the government the church had much influence and power. This condition of affairs continued on through the nineteenth century, with the clericals looking back fondly to the times before the Revolution, detesting the republicans, and supporting and teaching monarchical principles and hoping for a restoration of kings. The bishops and priests did not hesitate to use their influence against the republic. Meanwhile the government removed all clerical influence from the national system of education, allowing no religious exercises in the schools and not permitting clergymen to teach in them. Almost all of the population was Roman Catholic, but a great part of the men were held lightly by religious ties, and decided matters affecting the country from the point of view of politics rather than religion. So the government now proceeded to measures The Concordat of 1801

The church hostile to the republic

which had never before been brought about in a Roman Catholic country except in violent change or upheaval.

The republican leaders declared that there could not be national unity while the religious orders, which had in recent years increased enormously in influence and wealth, engaged in teaching hostile to the government. Accordingly, in 1901, the government passed the so-called Law of Associations, by which religious orders were not allowed to exist unless authorized by the state. Many of the religious orders were not willing to ask the government for permission to exist, the law was vigorously enforced, and large numbers of monks and nuns were driven out of their establishments. In 1904 the government went further, passing an act which forbade even the authorized orders to do any teaching after 1914. All this was denounced by the faithful, who supported the orders, and who believed that their own liberty was infringed when they were deprived of the right to have their children taught by the instructors they most preferred. The state, however, was now resolved to have a monopoly of the education of its children. The state takes measures against religious orders

Matters went much further. Many Frenchmen regarded Roman Catholicism, as well as other religions, as something to be cherished by those who wished it, but not imposed by the state or supported by government taxes; reasoning thus with the tolerant or contemptuous feeling which Voltaire and Diderot had long before them. Many others believed that clericalism was hostile to the republic, that the priests as well as the members of the teaching orders aroused opposition to the government and made division and weakness in the nation. They supported the principle, therefore, that church and state should be separate, and that while the church in its religious capacity was not to be interfered with by the government, it was not any longer to be supported by the government, but by voluntary contributions from its members.

SEPARATION of Church and State 1905

In 1905 this was effected by a law which annulled the Concordat. Something was to be done for aged clergymen and for those who had just become priests, but the state was no longer to pay the salaries of churchmen, nor was it any longer to control their appointments. The church buildings, still national property, might be used freely by members of the Roman Catholic Church, or of other sects, provided the members of a congregation formed an association cultuelle (association of worship).

This arrangement, which seemed proper to Frenchmen who were without strong religious ties, violated a great deal that was deeply rooted in a venerable past and loved and respected by many men and most women in France. There had been a great deal of sympathy for the members of religious orders, who seemed dispossessed of their property and driven forth from their homes; now there were riotous scenes about some of the churches. Not a few Catholics, however, believed that the trend of modern conditions made separation best for the church; and some of the ecclesiastics were willing at last to compromise with the authorities of the state. But the pope condemned the law, and good Catholics had then to oppose it. In 1907 the government passed a further law by which the churches might be used, provided the priest or minister made a contract therefor with the local official. The republic was stirred to its depths during the years that followed, but the authorities, supported by socialists, progressives, radicals, and others, were firm, and in the end seemed to have the support of most of the nation. Nevertheless, it was truly felt that there was now between the Roman Catholic Church, which held the faith at least nominally of almost all of the French people, and the government of the republic a breach which only time could heal. Actually the division continued until the beginning of the Great War, when in the fearful danger and suffering of the time churchmen rallied loyally to the patrie, and many of Troubles ensuing

Division in France

the people came back to the church more than for a great while before.

During all the latter part of the nineteenth century wealth increased in France beyond what Frenchmen had ever had before. The total amount of this wealth was much less than in England or the United States, and the standard of living was lower than in the English-speaking countries; but there was a high average prosperity and wide distribution of property. This arose especially from two causes: the land was distributed among a large number of proprietors, and the size of families was small. Economic prosperity

In France during the Revolution and even more in the period preceding much land previously owned by nobles or the church had come on the market and had been sold in small holdings. In this way a great deal of landed property formerly in possession of a few wealthy proprietors--as was the case in Russia until the Revolution of 1917, and as was largely the case in Britain until the terrible taxation of the War--changed hands, and in course of time was sold to peasant farmers. The result of this was to create a great body of small owners, having the means of achieving more prosperity and well-being than ever before. Some observers who lived then believed that this amelioration was only for the time, that the lands would later pass out of the possession of the new owners, or else that they, having more children because they could support them, would be no better off, and that when the holdings were divided up among these larger families of the next generation there would again be miserable cultivators living upon scanty patches of ground. Previously birth rate in France had almost always been high. Now Arthur Young, the celebrated traveler, predicted that the country would become a veritable rabbit-warren, so fast would the population breed. But this did not take place. About the middle of the nineteenth century the English economist, John Stuart Mill, noticed that the French birth rate Property and birth-rate

Smaller families

had fallen, and that families were smaller. He explained this by saying that the new body of proprietors accustomed to a higher standard of living, refused to lower it by having more children than they could properly support; that they were unwilling to lower the standard of the next generation by dividing their property among so many children that the amount for each would be insufficient.

All through the century this tendency continued with ever greater force. By the time of the Franco-German War the population of the country was no longer increasing rapidly, and since that time it has scarcely increased at all. The results have seemed good and bad. On the one hand there has been a generally high standard of living. For many Frenchmen there has been a great amount of leisure and comfort, which has enabled them to be the foremost leaders of civilization and thought, and to enjoy deeply, in their manner, the civilization of their era. On the other hand the population of France has stood still while that of England has overtaken it, and while that of Germany threatened to become twice as large. Hence, there was always the danger that France might be overwhelmed by superior numbers. Vainly the government tried to encourage larger families, offering to exempt the fathers of several children from taxation, and even offering prizes to the mothers of large families. There were a few large families, but generally the birth rate remained so low that in the latter part of the nineteenth century there was much fear that the population might even be declining. Enemies of France declared that this stationary or declining population and small birth-rate showed that the French were a decadent, immoral, and diseased people; as in the dying Roman Empire long before, there was no longer enough vigor to produce the men and women to carry on the destiny of the nation. On the other hand, it was maintained that what was taking place in France had always characterized highly civilized people who had risen to better Stationary population in France

Causes alleged

intelligence and standard of living; and that in France well-being and intelligence were so universally diffused, that habits existing only among the upper classes elsewhere prevailed generally in France among the people.

The recovery of France was beset with difficulties that seemed very disheartening at the time. Not only did she have to pay the indemnity, and repair the losses caused by her defeat, but when once the money had been paid to Germany and recovery was going well forward, she was watched with jealous suspicion by the Germans, who, having overthrown and plundered her, wished her to remain weak and friendless, so that she could not possibly take vengeance. At first the French, smarting under their humiliation and the sense of their wrongs, declared openly that they would have revenge as soon as they could. Bismarck and his military colleagues had believed that the terms of the treaty were such that France would remain weak for some time; but when the indemnity was paid off sooner than had been considered possible, the French people went onward in marvelously swift recuperation. The Germans did not doubt that they could defeat France again, but some of the leaders taught that if there must be another war it would be easier and wiser to strike the enemy down before full strength was recovered. Germany and France

In this manner arose the once-renowned Affair of 1875. France had adopted the Prussian system of universal military training, and in that year passed a law to complete the reorganization of her army. What followed is still enveloped in obscurity, but it would seem that German leaders believed it would be well to strike before the new law produced its effects, and that Bismarck desired to impose a new treaty by which France would not be permitted to maintain a large army. There was a great war scare, and the French feared they were about to be attacked. If such was the German intention, it speedily brought from Russia and from Great Britain intimation

The Affair of 1875

that they would not this time stand aside and see France first attacked and then crushed; and the crisis soon passed. France now passed definitely out of her position of hopeless inferiority, and gained steadily in strength and assurance.

But however swift and splendid her recovery was, it came too late to enable her to settle her account with the Germans. As the years passed France grew stronger and greater than before, but meanwhile Germany was growing more rapidly still in population, wealth, and military power. Furthermore, the German Empire was the center and head of the greatest military alliance in the world, and all through Bismarck's time France remained in isolation. But as time went on Russia drew away from Germany and it seemed to Frenchmen that their chance might some day come if Germany were involved in war with Russia or if Russia formed an alliance with France. In 1887 relations between the two countries were strained as a result of Boulanger's activities, and also because of the arrest by the German government of M. Schnaebelé, a French official, near the frontier. During the crisis Russia moved troops toward the German border, showing clearly her attitude toward Germany and France. Bismarck speaking in the reichstag had said that if France again attacked Germany "we should endeavor to make France incapable of attacking us for thirty years . . . each would seek to bleed the other white." But Schnaebelé was released, and Boulanger's efforts came to nothing. The Schnaebelé affair

With the passing of Bismarck and the beginning of a new policy by William II, a great change came swiftly to pass: Russia and France drew together in the Dual Alliance. There had been obstacles enough in the way without the skilful manipulation of Bismarck. Napoleon I had invaded Russia and brought about the burning of Moscow, and Napoleon III had been the leader of the combination which crushed Russia in the Crimean War. On the other hand Frenchmen remembered the terrible retreat of the The entente between Russia and France Grand Army in 1812, and they had recently seen Russia the firm friend of Prussia while they were being trampled in the dust. Moreover Frenchmen had been the leaders in political reform in Europe, and now constituted the largest body of self-governing freemen on the Continent; while in Russia, conservative autocrats ruled a people in lowly condition. But the mere fact that they were separated and some distance apart served to remove the causes of friction. Now they were both isolated as a result of German statecraft, France in the west, Russia in the east; they both needed allies; both felt insecure without the support of some powerful friend; and Russia badly needed money for internal development, which could be obtained in France better than anywhere else. These causes operated swiftly, once the influence of Bismarck was removed. Even before his fall the Russian government, which had previously borrowed in Germany, began placing huge loans in France and seeking an agreement. Negotiations and friendly visits began in 1890. Then in 1892 the two powers entered into an entente or friendly understanding and a military convention, sanctioned but not signed by the tsar in 1893. It was believed for a long time that a treat of alliance had been signed, but in 1918 the publication of a French Yellow Book made it plain that no treaty had been signed, and that what had long popularly been designated as the Dual Alliance rested upon the entente and the Military Convention of 1892-3. The agreement stipulated that in case one of the parties to the treaty was attacked by Germany, the other would stand by its partner with all of its power. The Military Convention of 1892-3

The result of the Dual Alliance of 1893 was in some sense to restore the balance of power in Europe, to take France out of her position of loneliness and inferiority, and to shake the hegemony of the German Empire. But actually it did little beyond making France feel more secure. The Triple Alliance was believed by competent Result of The alliance observers to be stronger than its rival, and France and Russia were, moreover, in active rivalry with Great Britain. Therefore, after 1893, as before, France found that it was hopeless to think of attacking Germany to get back the lost provinces and restore her position; and in course of time desire and expectation of doing this so far died out that they cannot be reckoned as important causes of the war of 1914.

During the generation after the Franco-German War France came into dangerous and increasing rivalry with Great Britain. This resulted from colonial expansion and the naval expansion which went with it. Once her recovery was well begun, France turned her eyes beyond Europe with the purpose of building up a new colonial empire and retrieving abroad her losses. She had great success in north Africa, in southeastern Asia, and in some of the islands, especially Madagascar; and it was no long time before she had built up the second largest colonial empire in the world. Along with this went naval expansion, which awakened the ever-watchful jealousy of Britain, particularly after the formation of the Dual Alliance, for England was apprehensive of Russian expansion in Asia down toward India, just as she was of French naval increase and French expansion in north Africa toward the Nile. Great tension and much hostility developed year by year, and in the latter part of the century the situation seemed fraught with the ominous possibilities of conflict which a decade later made so dangerous the relations between Germany and England. The crisis came in 1898, when British forces, which had moved up from Egypt and just conquered the Sudan, came in contact with French forces which had moved eastward across Africa to Fashoda on the upper Nile. England demanded that France withdraw, and this was at first refused. But it was as hopeless for France to contend with the overwhelming sea power of Britain as it was for her to contest France and Great Britain with Germany on the Rhine, and so she yielded completely. The episode left great bitterness in the hearts of Frenchmen. At this time some of them believed that they had best forget the recent past and join with Germany against England, their traditional foe. Until this time, however, Germany had seemed drawing closer and closer to England. But in reality a turning point had been reached. Germany and England were to begin drawing apart now in bitterest rivalry, which would one day lead to war, while after a few years England and France were to enter on a friendship which would later be the salvation of them both.


General accounts:
Gabriel Hanotaux, Histoire de la France Contemporaine, 4 vols. ( 1903-5), trans. by J. C. Tarver, Contemporary France, 4 vols. ( 1903-9), best, covers the period 18701882; the most recent work of importance is Émile Bourgeois, Modern France, 2 vols. ( 1919); J. C. Bracq, France under the Republic ( 1910); F. Despagnet, La Diplomatie de la Troisième République et le Droit des Gens ( 1904); Frederick Lawton, The Third Republic ( 1909); Émile Simond, Histoire de la Troisième République de 1887 à 1894 ( 1913); Edgar Zevort, Histoire de la Troisième République, 4 vols. ( 2d ed. 1898- 1901), covers the period 1870-94. The Commune: Maxime Du Camp, Les Convulsions de Paris, 4 vols. ( 5th ed. 1881), conservative; Edmond Lepelletier, Histoire de la Commune de 1871, 2 vols. ( 1911-12), best. The beginning of the restoration of France: Paul Deschanel, Gambetta ( 1919); Jules Simon, Le Gouvernement de M. Thiers, 8 Février 1871-24 Mai 1873, 2 vols. ( 1879), trans., 2 vols. ( 1879); L. A. Thiers, Notes et Souvenirs de M. Thiers, 1870-1873 (1903), trans. by F. M. Atkinson ( 1915), E. Zevort, Thiers ( 1892); J. Valfrey, Histoire de la Diplomatie du Gouvernement de la Défense Nationale, 3 vols. ( 1871-3), Histoire du Traité de Francfort et de la Libération du Territoire, 2 vols. ( 1874-5), the latter contains valuable materials not elsewhere published.

Church and State:
Aristide Briand, La Séparation des Églises et de l'État ( 1905); E. Lecannet L'Église de France sous la Trois-ième République ième République, 2 vols. ( 1907-10),Catholic, covers the period to 1894; Paul Sabatier, A Propos de la Séparation des Églises et de l'État ( 4th ed. 1906), trans. Disestablishment in France ( 1906). The Dreyfus Affair: Joseph Reinach, Histoire de l'Affaire Dreyfus, 7 vols. ( 1898- 1911), best, sympathetic. The Dual Alliance: the all-important source is Documents Diplomatiques, L'Alliance Franco-Russe, published by the French government ( 1918); C. de Freycinet, Souvenirs, 1878-93 ( 1913), valuable, by one of the principal participants; V. de Gorloff, Origines et de l'Alliance Franco-Russe ( 1913); J. J. Hansen, L'Alliance Franco-Russe ( 1897), by a participant; A. Tardieu, La France et les Alliances ( 1904), English trans. ( 1908), excellent. Foreign politics: H. G. de Blowitz, Memoirs ( 1903); G. Hanotaux , Fachoda ( 1909); R. Pinon, L'Empire de la Méditerranée ( 1904), France el Allemagne, 1870-1913 ( 1913); Christian Schefer , D'Une Guerre à l'Autre: Essai sur la Politique Entérieure de la Troisième Republique, 1871-1914 ( 1920); G. H. Stuart , French Foreign Policy from Fashoda to Serajevo (18981914) ( 1921).


Methinks I see in my mind a noble and puissant nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking her invincible locks; methinks I see her as an eagle mewing her mighty youth, and kindling her undazzled eyes at the full midday beam. . . .

MILTON. Areopagitica ( 1644).

There is no country so interested in the maintenance of peace as England. . . . She is not an aggressive Power, for there is nothing that she desires. . . . What she wishes is to maintain and to enjoy the unexampled Empire which she has built up, and which it is her pride to remember exists as much upon sympathy as upon force.

Speech of the EARL OF BEACONSFIELD at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, London Times, November 10, 1876.

Britische Herrschsucht und Handelseifersucht sind die Triebfedern gewesen, welche die Welt organisiert und in Bewegung gesetzt haben, um den Vernichtungskrieg gegen em friedliebendes Volk zu führen;

GRAF ERNST REVENTHLOW, Deutschlands Auwärtige Politik, 1888-1914 (ed. 1918), p. 477.

THE history of Great Britain in the later period has to do largely with the growth of the British Empire, with great and increasing dangers that threatened, and afterward with a mighty triumph. Until recent years it is generally a record of prosperity and power. More interesting, perhaps, it is also a story of increasing control of the government by the people, until at last the British have become one of the most democratic nations in the world. This very progress has brought them serious problems, perplexing and not yet settled. Great Braitain in the past generation


By the Electoral Reform Law of 1867 only a part of the lower class was allowed to vote, but seventeen years later the franchise was extended also to the agricultural workers and the laborers in the mines. By this Reform Law of 1884, 2,000,000 men were added to the electorate so that 5,000,000 persons had the franchise, or one person out of every seven of the population. Manhood suffrage was not yet established, as it had been in France and in the German Empire, though actually almost every man was now allowed to vote, and the representatives elected by them to the house of commons held the principal powers of the government and directly controlled the executive organ of the state. Meanwhile, the year before, a Corrupt Practices Act limited the amount of money a candidate might spend for election expenses, and provided such severe penalties for bribery and corruption as to bring them virtually to an end in Great Britain. The year after the Electoral Reform Law, the Redistribution Act of 1885 practically divided Great Britain into electoral districts, bringing representation into accord with population. Previously representation had been by counties and by boroughs. Now the small boroughs were merged into their counties, most of the larger ones were made one-member constituencies, the counties were divided into one-member constituencies on the basis of the population within them, and the larger cities were given representation in accordance with the number of inhabitants in them. Thus practically was brought to pass parliamentary representation of people, instead of districts or corporations, something that had been proposed in Cromwell's time but soon discarded. The Representation of the People Act, 1884

The Redistribution Act, 1885

This wide extension of the electorate in England was accompanied, as it was in the United States, by persistent demand for the extension of democracy upon a broader basis by admitting not only more men to a share in the government but also the women of the nation. The The women's movement women's movement in Great Britain, as in the United States, went on for a considerable time before it won much attention, and when at last it was noticed, it was older than most people suspected. During the period of the Puritan Revolution, and also more than a hundred years later in France during the French Revolution, women demanded their "rights" as equals with men, and asked to share in the governing of the state. Nevertheless, the feminist movement is essentially a thing of the nineteenth century. It was only the effects of the French Revolution, and more particularly of the Industrial Revolution, that made it possible for most women to escape from the inferior position in which they had always previously been held. When in 1792 Mary Wollstonecraft declared that women ought to have part in choosing the representatives who governed them, she was regarded as a foolish radical. It is true that in New Jersey, one of the American states, in the period 1797-1807, women were actually permitted to vote, but this was an isolated case, and in both of the great English-speaking countries during the first half of the nineteenth century the advocates of women's suffrage, principally Quakers, were considered to be urging something impracticable and immoral, something contrary to the laws of God. But in England especially, where the Industrial Revolution first made such great headway, conditions changed profoundly, and, with them, the position of women, so that it was no longer possible to apply the old arguments with such effect as before. Formerly woman's place had been the home, and it was supposed that almost all would marry, but now a great number worked for wages in factories outside the supervision of their men at the same time that more and more men emigrated to the colonies of the empire. By the middle of the nineteenth century there were 365,000 more women than nineteenth in England, and over 1,000,000 more in 1900. It was obviously impossible for a large number of Eng- In earlier times

The work of the Quakers

Women more numerous than men in England

lish women to marry, and it was evident that many were supporting themselves. In many cases they were paying taxes, but they had no voice in the government, no control over those who made laws affecting them; they were subject to taxation without representation. At the same time women were steadily having their minds broadened by more education than women had ever had before, and they were developing a greater sense of responsibility, stronger feeling of individuality, and greater sense of their dignity and power. It seemed to them that the doctrines established by their forefathers, and proclaimed so grandly during the French Revolution--that all men were equal and that government depended on the consent of the governed--ought to be considered to apply to women as well as to men. Charges affecting women

Both in England and the United States feminist reformers got some ridicule but not much attention. Most of the women, conservative and timid, had no interest in the movement, and most men were opposed to it because it ran counter to a vast mass of old custom and established ideas. But in 1866 John Stuart Mill moved in the house of commons to include women in the provisions of the bill then pending to extend the franchise. He declared that women's interests were closely connected with men's, and that unless men helped them to rise, they would pull men down to a lower condition. His proposal was easily defeated, but thereafter almost every year a bill was proposed to allow women to vote. The women's suffrage movement

To advocates the progress of the movement often seemed slow, but in reality it was more rapid than any previous movement to extend the suffrage to men. It was not always remembered that until the beginning of the nineteenth century the franchise, if held at all, was confined almost entirely to a few men of the upper classes. Actually after a while women in England were allowed to vote and be voted for in local elections, and it was generally Progress of the movement believed that they had a higher position than the women of any other country except, probably, the United States. One by one the old legal inequalities were abolished, until scarcely any remained, and women's economic opportunities became constantly better. Nevertheless, they were still subject to some discriminations, and an everincreasing number of women, who desired complete equality with men, believed that this could never be attained, and that women would never be able to take their proper share of the duties of the commonwealth until they were admitted to vote for members of parliament upon the same conditions as men. Betterment of women's position

The movement went on making slow but certain progress, though the majority of the people, both men and women, continued to be against it. Finally, about 1905, a small number of more radical women, under the leadership of Mrs. Emmeline Pankhurst, tiring at impediments and delay, lack of public interest and attention, undertook to procure votes for women by force and compulsion, which, they said, had been the method that men had employed. Then for a few years was carried on a campaign ridiculous and alarming. "Wild women," as they were called, screamed and interrupted public meetings, harassed public officials, interfered with the carrying on of the government in which they had no part, and perpetrated all sorts of pretty violence and outrage. When arrested and imprisoned they tried the "hunger strike," which had previously been employed by political prisoners in Russia, starving themselves, so that the government, which desired that no woman should be killed in this contest, invariably released them. By 1914 these suffragettes had become so great a menace and nuisance that some foreigners believed Englishmen to be decadent and not capable of dealing with troublesome questions. The suffragettes did attract a great deal of attention for their cause, but they also aroused much hostility and strong The suffragettes

Results of their work

dislike. They had set the dangerous precedent of women employing force, when the whole tendency of civilization had been for force not to be employed against women. Moreover, they afforded one of the first conspicuous examples of a procedure--since not uncommon--of an organized minority boldly making itself intolerable so as to compel the yielding of the things which it wanted. But when the war began in 1914 they immediately ceased their campaign, and rallied to the support of the country. During the contest the women of Great Britain performed indispensable and tremendous service, and it was generally recognized that the suffrage should be given to them if they desired it. Women and force

The great expansion of democratic feeling during the war led to a further extension of the suffrage to men, and at the same time many women were also admitted. In 1918 all men of twenty-one years or over, with fixed residence or business premises for six months, and all women, thirty years of age or more, already entitled to vote in local elections and women whose husbands were so entitled, were given the parliamentary franchise. The electorate was increased by 2,000,000 men and 6,000,000 women, so that one out of every three of the entire population could vote, thus extending suffrage to a larger portion of the population than had been done in any great country before. The government of the United Kingdom had been put into the hands of its people about as far as was possible under the existing system; and the people had more complete control and were able to make their wishes felt more immediately and directly than any other great nation in the world. It was said now by some that further reform must lie, not so much in the direction of extending the suffrage as in so changing the system that industries and groups, rather than districts, should be represented. Thus, it was believed, the people might, perhaps, obtain more complete Extension of the franchise 1918

Changes in reprasentation suggested

economic control as well as control of political matters. But opponents protested that such an arrangement would merely be a reversion to a more primitive and less good system, tried and discarded in the past.

During the period 1867-1918 all sorts of reforms were carried forward for the purpose of making the body of the people able to share in their government and also for the bettering of their condition. In 1867 Robert Lowe had said: "We must now educate our masters." This was undertaken by the Liberals who came into power under Gladstone almost immediately after Disraeli had carried the second Electoral Reform Law. A great change was made in 1870. Down to this time English education, except for a very few of the wealthy, was far behind what existed in Germany or the United States. There were the two old universities of Oxford and Cambridge, unrivalled in beauty and ancient charm, but giving only the culture which befitted the children of the ruling classes. Beneath them were certain "public schools" like Eton and Rugby, where also sons of the aristocrats might receive splendid teaching of the humanities and fine training in the development of character. But this was by far the best part of a system which had been devised principally for the upper classes. In 1870 there were thought to be about 4,000,000 children of school age, of whom only half attended any school. Of these 2,000,000, half attended schools poorly organized and often not well conducted. The rest went to schools under government inspection and partly supported by the government but managed by the Church of England, so that in England, as in France and in Spain, a considerable part of the education remained in the hands of the church. Several small reforms had already been made, but it was evident that a great deal was yet to be done. There was much difference of opinion, as there was in similar instances in most European countries. Some believed that it was well for religious teaching to be Improvement of education

Education of the children in 1870 given; others that education ought to be entirely without religious influence, and compulsory and free. The Education Act of 1870 was a compromise, as has usually been the case in England. Existing voluntary schools doing good work were to be retained and get more assistance from the government, and they might continue their religious instruction. Elsewhere "board schools" were to be established, supported by the government, by the local rates, and partly by fees paid by the parents of the children attending. In them no religious denominational instruction was to be allowed. This reform by no means brought the educational system of Great Britain up to the standards of Switzerland and the German Empire; it did not make education entirely free and compulsory, and it left it partly under denominational control. None the less, it greatly bettered conditions and to a considerable extent provided education free of cost to the children. Before the end of the century four fifths of the children went to school. The work was carried forward in 1918 by one of the great reforms of the period of the war, when a law was passed providing that all children between five and fourteen years must go to school, and providing that the expense of education should be divided equally between the central government and the local authorities. Reform: the Education Act of 1870

The admission of the lower classes to the electorate and to a share in the government in 1867 and 1884 was not followed by an overturning of the government, such as people in the upper classes had feared, nor by any exceedingly radical demands. Nevertheless, as in the earlier part of the century, a whole series of reforms was gradually carried out, the two parties vying with each other in making the changes. The Liberals believed that they ought to be made; the Conservatives considered them inevitable and believed it better for the government to grant them than for the mass of the people to compel them. Some of the changes had to do with taking away privileges from Social and economic reforms particular classes. In 1870 the civil service was reformed. Next year the University Tests Act practically completed the removal of the religious tests, which before had restricted the privileges of the great universities mostly to members of the Church of England. Another group had to do with bettering economic conditions and protecting labor. In the period 1878-1901 factory legislation was extended and simplified; and during the same time laws were passed to regulate better the conditions in the mines. The state socialism of Bismarck had put the German Empire ahead of other countries for a while in the improvement of social and economic conditions, but similar work was undertaken also in the United Kingdom when the Liberal Party came into power under Sir Henry CampbellBannerman, Mr. Asquith, and Mr. Lloyd George in 1905. In the course of the years immediately following a Workingmen's Compensation Act ( 1906) made employers liable to pay compensation to employees injured by accident. An Old Age Pension Act ( 1909) provided that every person over seventy years of age with an income of less than £31 10s. should receive a pension from the state. Long effort had been needed to secure this law, since while its advocates asserted that it would make happier the last years of deserving unfortunates, opponents declared that all such legislation was ruinous since it tended to pauperize people, encouraging them to rely on assistance from the state rather than on their own efforts. In 1911 was passed a National Insurance Act which provided insurance for sickness and loss of employment, the funds to be subscribed generally, though not always, by the employees, and by the employers and the state. Regulation of industry and labor

Beginning with 1824 a series of statutes, especially the statute of 1871, gradually legalized the trade unions, which workingmen had already formed for protection and advancement of their interests, and in order to raise their wages, but which the state long continued to oppose. In Trade unions 1901, it is true, the house of lords declared, in the Taff Vale Case, that members of trade unions were liable singly and collectively for the acts of their union. This was merely corporate responsibility added to the corporate privileges which unions had already acquired; but it was felt by many that workingmen's unions were so much weaker than the powerful employers, and so much more in need of assistance, that they needed special protection. Therefore in 1906 the Trades Disputes Act gave immunity to trade-union funds. Actually, however, trade unions were becoming exceedingly powerful in Great Britain. More and more they were able to deal as equals or superiors with the employers, and cause the government itself to heed their wishes. Memories of long oppression and tyranny on the part of capitalists and employers made many leaders of the workingmen regard all employers with dislike and suspicion. Gradually they adopted socialist ideas and began to hope that a day might come when capitalism and middle-class employers would be done away with completely. Numerous strikes were called, it sometimes seemed, more for the purpose of harassing the employers than anything else. Particularly did the doctrine spread among British workingmen that they were made to work too many hours for the benefit of employers, that thus numerous people could find no work to do, and that only if hours were reduced and production restrained would there be work enough for them all. The Taff Vale case

As Britain became a completely industrialized country with its artisans composing so great a portion of the people, leaders aspired to found a Labor Party, to take control of the government some day for organized labor, which would then be able to reconstruct the state. In 1893 an Independent Labor Party was founded, which proposed to have the government bring about an eighthour day of labor, collective ownership, and state control of railways, shipping, and banks. Most of the British The Labor Party laborers were not yet ready to accept socialistic doctrines, and they did not give this party their support. In 1906 another Labor Party was formed. It became one of the smaller groups in the house of commons, with power increasing as time went on, and its advocates expecting it to be the dominant party in the future.

Labor disputes became constantly more bitter and labor leaders more aggressive in the years just before the war. The wiser of the leaders desired nothing more than the real improvement of laboring people; but it was often believed that the numerous harassing strikes and refusal to work more than a certain amount were seriously hindering production and putting Britain behind in industrial competition with Germany and the United States. During the Great War British labor gave splendid response to the needs of the country, the unions consenting to put aside the rules which they had made for their protection. But it was very evident that they expected their reward to come after their country had triumphed. Some of them declared that then the state must take over the mines and the railways and other great instruments and sources of production to be used for the people themselves, and that much must be done by the government to give the workers a larger share in the goods of the state. In 1917 the British Labor Committee issued a Report in which it declared that there must be democratic control of all the machinery of the state, and that the system of private capitalists must yield to common ownership of land and capital by the people. At the end of the struggle the powerful "Triple Alliance" of miners, transport workers, and railwaymen was strengthened, and the organized laborers of the country drew up in powerful array threatening to enforce their wishes by "direct action " of paralyzing strikes. By this time it seemed that the trade unions in Great Britain, as in some other countries, were no longer struggling so much for the protection of them- Labor powerful and aggressive

Report of the British Labor Committee

selves as to enforce the special interests of their own particular class.

Social betterment in the United Kingdom had lagged far behind the wishes of some of the Liberals, especially one of the new leaders, the Welshman, Mr. Lloyd George, and the desires of the socialist and radical teachers. The condition of a great part of the people seemed much less good than that of the Germans, protected by their vigorous and paternal government, or of the inhabitants of the United States and some of the British dominions, where new lands were being opened up and great natural resources made use of. The evils accompanying industrialism had not yet disappeared. For its size Britain was the wealthiest country in the world, but much of this wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few. Some estimated that half of the national income went to 12, per cent. of the population, that all the rest of the people were poor, and that in some communities a third of them were always on the verge of starvation. Before 1914 travelers were struck by the appalling misery of the slums of Glasgow and the dreadful poverty of districts in London. The ignorant, obstinate, and arbitrary methods of the British trade unions were often to be explained and excused because of the long-standing and terrible conditions which they confronted. But it is not improbable that excessive growth of the population more than any evils of capitalism had brought these conditions about. Wealth and Poverty in Great Britian

Most of the land had long since come into the possession of a few great owners. In England two thirds of the soil was owned by 10,000 persons, and almost all of Scotland by 1,700 persons; many of the large estates being entailed, so that they could not easily be alienated or divided, and so that usually they passed intact from one generation to another. To a considerable extent Britain was a country of beautiful parks and estates, with picturesque old villages, delightful to the tourist's eye, though often Much land Owned by a few aristocrats antiquated, unsanitary, and not sufficient for the needs of the rural population. The agricultural laborers were crowded off the land, or else entirely at the mercy of powerful landowners. At the other extreme were the great landed proprietors, with large fortunes and extensive investments, taxed lightly on their lands, wealthy, powerful, constituting--far more than in France and as much as in Germany--an aristocratic caste above the other inhabitants. They completely dominated fashionable and social life; they filled many of the important places in the government; and some of them composed the house of lords. Generally they had been wise and careful, and had contributed not a little to the welfare of the country; and it was partly for these reasons that they had been able to retain so much of their position and their power. But many Englishmen had long thought it a misfortune that their agriculture should so far decline and their rural population diminish; and there had long been agitation, which increased during the war, for the government in some way to compel the breaking up of the great estates and to settle part of the population upon them. The nobility in Britian

It was partly the cost of the social legislation, which was sought and which was being carried through, that led to one of the greatest revolutions in British government for generations. This was the virtual taking away of the. power of the house of lords by the Parliament Act of 1911. More money was needed by the government, and Mr. Lloyd George, chancellor of the exchequer, now proposed to increase the budget partly by increased income taxes and also by heavy taxation on the unearned increment of land values, that is, where the value of unoccupied or unimproved land was increased not through anything done by the owner but by the mere increase in population or surrounding values. Thus, he proposed to get the larger amounts of money needed by higher taxes on the possessions of the wealthy; but his scheme was The house of lords and the budget denounced as striking at the very security of property; and when the provision passed the house of commons at the end of 1909 it was at once rejected by the lords.

When parliament was now dissolved and a new election held the issue before the country was the "veto power" of the upper house. Parliament in the beginning had been an assembly of estates--as the states general continued to be in France--which after a while developed into a body of two houses. Its principal functions were advisory and judicial, and it long continued to be known as the "High Court of Parliament." In course of time, however, the principal business of parliament came to be the passing of legislation and the appropriation of money. In the passing of bills it was necessary that both houses give their consent, nor could a bill become law if either the lords or the commons refused. During the eighteenth century the principle was equally well established that bills for the appropriation of money were to originate in the commons and not to be altered by the lords. In other respects, however, the house of lords continued to have the veto power and used it not infrequently. On several important occasions there had been bitter disputes between the two houses, and in two memorable instances the government had employed a particular device to overcome the opposition of the lords. In 1711 the government wished to have the approval of parliament for the Treaty of Utrecht which had just been negotiated. It was easy to get such approval from the commons, but there was a majority opposing in the lords. Thereupon Queen Anne announced the creation of twelve new peers, whose coming into the house of lords made a majority favorable to the measure, which was then approved. Similarly in 1831 and 1832 the lords opposed the bill for electoral reform, which the commons had passed, and which a majority of the people wanted. There was no ordinary way by which this opposition could be The house of lords and the house of commons

Creation of new peers

removed, since the lords held their seats by hereditary title, but again the government made ready to create a large number of Whig peers who would ensure the passage of the bill. Under this threat the lords yielded, and the Reform Bill of 1832 became law. Now in 1910, after the lords had rejected the Finance Bill, parliament was dissolved and elections held on the issue of abolishing the veto power of the lords. The Liberals won and brought forward such a bill, which the lords rejected. Again parliament was dissolved and the issue bitterly contested in general elections, and again the Liberals triumphed. Early in 1911 it was announced that a sufficient number of new peers would be created to carry the bill. Then the house of lords yielded and the bill was enacted into a law. An effective threat

This Parliament Law of 1911 provided that the lords should have no power whatever to reject any money bill, and that any other measure passing the commons in three successive sessions within a period of not less than two years should become law despite the lord's veto. Thus the constitution of parliament was fundamentally altered. For a long time the lords had been more powerful and important than the commons, but since the eighteenth century the commons had been getting an ascendancy greater and greater. None the less, the lords might still oppose and successfully obstruct. Now substantially this power was taken away from them, and only that part of parliament which was elected by the people remained with great influence in the state. According to the law the king still possessed the right to veto a bill; but no sovereign had done this since 1707, and actually this prerogative had been completely lost. It should be said that in 1719 a bill had nearly passed parliament by which the executive would have lost the right to create new peers. Had this taken place, neither the Reform Law of 1832 nor the Parliament Act of 1911 could have been enacted without a revolution, since it was only upon the The Parliament Law of 1911

The Peerage Bill of 1719

threat of creating new peers that the house of lords had yielded and surrendered its power. It is probable that the upper house of the English parliament will presently be reconstituted on a more modern basis. At present its power is far less than that of the American senate, which, since 1913, has been made directly dependent on the people. By the Parliament Act of 1911 also the maximum duration of a parliament was fixed at five years, instead of seven years, as previously since 1716. In the same year also the commons voted to pay their members, something once done, but not done for a long while. Future of the house of lords

Meanwhile earnest efforts were being made to settle the Irish question, and it began to seem that at last success was nearly at hand. During much of the nineteenth century Ireland had been governed by coercion acts and military rule, against which the secret societies retaliated again and again with outrage, destruction, and terror. Bad as conditions were, they had risen not from any special wickedness of Englishmen, but as a result of methods that were everywhere applied in times past, and because of circumstances particularly unhappy. These conditions were changed all too slowly. But in the latter part of the nineteenth century a great alteration came to pass. The Irish were able to make their protests and resistance more troublesome and much more effective. Steadily the people of Britain had been becoming more humane and more sensitive to wrong and the suffering about them. Moreover, Britain was slowly being transformed into a democracy, with the power of the government increasingly in the hands of the people. And just as in the nineteenth century a great series of reforms had been carried out for the betterment of the lot of the mass of the people in Britain, so, after a while, as the people of Britain and their leaders understood more clearly the conditions in Ireland, they turned themselves to the long and difficult task of improving conditions and undoing the wrongs once committed. The Irish Question

Efforts for amelioration

Roman Catholics had been emancipated in 1829, but the work of completing the removal of religious discrimination was effected in 1869 by the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland, the Protestant church which the British government had long before established and endowed with property, and which had until recently been supported with tithes paid by the Catholic Irish. Next, urged on by violent agitation and the savage lawlessness of some of the Irish, the government gave its attention to the question of the land. Beginning with 1870 a series of acts was passed by which Irish tenants were protected in their tenures, and assured some compensation for their improvements made on land while it had been in their possession; and presently the government itself took measures to see that they were not made to pay excessive rents. More important still, another series of laws, passed in the last quarter of the century, gave government assistance to the peasants so that they might buy their lands and become owners themselves. They were to repay the government, with moderate interest, in small payments over a long period of time, the terms being so generously arranged that presently it was cheaper for an Irishman to buy his land than it was to pay rent. By 1910 half of the island was in possession of small holders, who were slowly paying the government; and it was evident that in course of time Ireland would be owned by peasant proprietors more than almost any other country. Slowly but surely now the people were laying the foundation for considerable prosperity. Further progress would lie in setting up again, if modern conditions made that possible, the old commerce and industry of the island. Reforms in Ireland

The Land Purchase Acts

But some Irishmen were not satisfied. They remained discontented with the government that made them part of the United Kingdom. Some of them wished complete independence and separation, like the adherents of Young The struggle for Home Rule Ireland who arose about 1840, and like the Fenians who were active after 1860. But most of the people followed more conservative leaders. About 1870 the Home Rule movement began under Isaac Butt, and was soon carried forward by Parnell. This was designed to secure Irish self-government for an Ireland which would nevertheless continue in the United Kingdom, joined with Great Britain. Most of the people in Britain, however, were opposed even to this partial separation. Home Rule was advocated by the Liberal Party under Gladstone in 1886 and in 1893; but both times the bill that was introduced into parliament failed to be enacted as a law. For some years nothing further was accomplished, but the Irish under their new leader, John Redmond, continued their efforts. The great opportunity came when the Liberal Party under Asquith and Lloyd George were trying to bring about their social reforms. They soon needed all the support in parliament that they could get. The Irish Nationalist members were willing to vote with them on condition that, in return, a Home Rule bill should be passed. The Liberals were the more willing to do this since many of them favored Irish selfgovernment. Thus it was by Irish support that the Parliament Act of 1911 was finally put through; and in the following year the Third Home Rule Bill was brought into parliament. Butt and Parnell

A memorable struggle followed. It was known that the house of lords would refuse to sanction such a measure, but no longer could the lords do more than delay the passage of any measure. The Home Rule Bill of 1912, which satisfied many of the Irish people, was passed again by the commons in 1913 and 1914, in spite of the veto of the lords, and was on the point of becoming law when the Great War broke out. The Third Home Rule Bill Passed

Meanwhile, however, very serious opposition had developed from it large part of the inhabitants of Ulster, the northern province, partly peopled by Protestant immigrants from England and Scotland, who declared that they would under no circumstances permit themselves to be separated from the government of the United Kingdom. They said that they feared religious and economic oppression from the Catholic majority in Ireland if Home Rule were established over them; and they proclaimed that they would resist such separation by force. The Great War put an end to the question for a while, the Home Rule Bill being passed, but the law suspended for the duration of the conflict. Ulster

It was most unfortunate that this question had not been completely settled long before, since events were now to show that it was almost too late to undertake any settlement at all. For some time there had been coming into greater prominence a group of Irishmen who desired to revive the Celtic literature and character of the past. In 1893 they had founded the Gaelic League. From this had come it great deal of excellent writing in the so-called Irish Literary Revival, and also some attempt to revive the use of the Celtic tongue, which by the beginning of the twentieth century had almost come to an end in the island. This movement went further under the guidance of men whose motto was Sinn Fein (We Ourselves), who wished to get complete political independence for Ireland. In 1904, under the leadership of Arthur Griffith and others, they established the Society of Sinn Fein. They endeavored to teach the Irish people to have nothing to do with the British government in Ireland. Sinn Fein

The spirit of these people and of other radicals in Ireland was greatly stirred by the mighty changes of the war. In April, 1916, some of them suddenly rose in rebellion in Dublin. The insurrection was quickly crushed and the rebels sternly punished, but large results followed. The Irish people had not yet received the Home Rule and self-government they had so long sought for, and Ireland and Britain they felt now little disposed to make allowance for the difficulties in which the British government found itself during the struggle of the nations. When the government ruled with firmness it alienated most of the people; when it tried leniency they merely turned to the leadership of Sinn Fein. Many of them now lost their desire for Home Rule, and hoped that soon under Sinn Fein they would Home Rule, and independence. This the people of Britain would in no wise consider, since for hundreds of years rulers and statesmen had been trying to bring about the union of the British Isles, and also because the geographical position of Ireland was such that she could control the principal lines of communication from Great Britain overseas to the sources of Britain's raw materials and food. If an independent Ireland were ever hostile to Great Britain in war, or if she got into the enemy's hands, then the British might be starved into surrender and their empire destroyed. The Rebellion of 1916

By 1917 the people of Britain were quite willing to have Irishmen govern themselves in domestic matters, but they insisted that Ireland should continue to be united with Great Britain and under the control of a central government in the matters which affected them all. Mr. Lloyd George, who had become the prime minister, called an Irish Convention to settle a scheme of Irish selfgovernment, but no agreement could be reached that was satisfactory to either of the extreme parties, the Ulster Unionists or Sinn Fein. Most of the Protestants of Ulster wanted no Home Rule, and the adherents of Sinn Fein sought independence. At the end of the war, when a general election was held in the United Kingdom, Sinn Fein won a sweeping victory in Ireland, electing three fourths of the representatives chosen. They announced that they would not sit in the parliament at Westminster. Early in 1919 they proclaimed a republic. An Irish republic proclaimed, 1919

The foreign relations of Great Britain during this period are best related in other connections. Down to about Foreign relations 1900 she strove to stand aloof as much as possible from Continental affairs. Her interests were principally imperial and colonial: the protection of the colonies which she had already acquired, and, from time to time, the acquiring of new ones. For this a strong navy rather than a strong army was necessary, and so Britain did not come into rivalry with great military powers like AustriaHungary and the German Empire, but with those, like France and Russia, whose interests were also colonial and naval, and whose ambition it was to extend territorial possessions. All through the nineteenth century there was fear that Russia might expand down through the Balkans and along the Black Sea until Constantinople was obtained, or that she might push southward from Turkestan until British control of India was endangered. So it was that in 1878, during the Russo-Turkish War, Britain made ready to oppose Russia as she had done before in the Crimean War; and at the Congress of Berlin as before at the Congress of Paris, she succeeded in holding Russia back. More acute was the rivalry with France, the old enemy with whom in the past England had carried on so many wars. With France there had been good relations after the overthrow of Napoleon I. But following the establishment of the Third Republic, when Frenchmen turned from Europe to build up a great colonial empire again, and when in furthering this they developed strong naval power, Britain became cold and suspicious. The rivalry culminated in 1898, when British moving southward from Egypt met Frenchmen moving eastward in the Sudan, at Fashoda. The two nations came to the very brink of war, which was only avoided through surrender by France. Thereafter conditions became better and this period was seen to have been a turning-point. Hitherto Germany and England had had few conflicting interests. While the most dangerous opponents of Britain seemed to be Russia and France, the partners in the Dual Imperial and colonial interests

Rivalry with Russia and with France


Alliance, there were many ties between Germany and England. England had been friendly to the Triple Alliance. In 1887 she had made with Austria-Hungary and Italy an agreement concerning the Mediterranean. From 1898 to 1901 it seemed that Germany and Britain might come together in an agreement or alliance. But a great revolution in diplomatic affairs now took place. In a few years more Britain regarded the German Empire as her most formidable and dangerous rival, and helped to form the Triple Entente with Russia and France.

Conservatives had charge of the government under the first ministry of Benjamin Disraeli, earl of Beaconsfield ( 1868). Soon they were followed by the Liberals in the first ministry of William E. Gladstone ( 1868-74). The Conservatives returned with the second ministry of Disraeli ( 1874-80). Then the Liberals with Gladstone's second ministry ( 1880-5); and after the Conservatives had displaced them under the first ministry of the marquis of Salisbury ( 1885-6) and the second Salisbury administration ( 1886-92), the Liberals presided under Gladstone's third ministry ( 1886), and his fourth ( 1892-4). When Gladstone resigned, impatient at the defeat of his Home Rule Measure by the house of lords, the Liberals remained in power for a while under the earl of Roseberry ( 1894-5). They were then displaced by the Conservatives under the third Salisbury administration ( 18951902). When Lord Salisbury was compelled through failing health to retire from his long political service, he was succeeded by the Conservative leader Mr. Arthur Balfour ( 1901-5). After a sweeping victory the Liberals returned under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman ( 1905-8). Because of failing health he resigned, but the Liberals remained in power under Mr. Herbert Asquith ( 1908-16). Ministries and prime ministers

The Great War which broke out in 1914 brought a truce to party opposition; leaders of all parties were invited to assist; and the United Kingdom was governed by a coali- The war Coalition government tion cabinet. In 1916 the elderly Mr. Asquith resigned, when about to be superseded in effect by Mr. Lloyd George, previously his principal colleague and assistant. The coalition government continued under Mr. George until after the end of the war and was returned as a result of the first general election held since the beginning of the struggle. For some time it remained in power ( 1918-22); but the members of the coalition gradually drifting apart as the necessity that had combined them became less great, the coalition was presently broken, and the election following saw a victory of the Conservatives, previously its principal part. They conducted the government for a short time under Mr. Bonar Law ( 1922-3), and when his poor health forced retirement, under Mr. Stanley Baldwin ( 1923- ). With the quarrel of Mr. Asquith and Mr. George ( 1916) the Liberals divided into two parties. Presently they were deserted by great numbers of people. Their more conservative supporters went over to the Conservative Party. The more radical drifted to the Labor Party, which became now the second most important political party in the kingdom. Mr. Lloyd George

Growth of the Labor Party


R. H. Gretton, A Modern History of the English People, 1880-1910, 2 vols. ( 2d ed. 1913), Liberal; Sir Spencer Walpole , History of Twenty-Five Years, 1856-1880, 4 vols. ( 1904-8), moderate Liberal; Paul Mantoux, A travers l'Angleterre Contemporaine ( 1909). Biographies and memoirs: Sir Sidney Lee, Queen Victoria: a Biography ( 1903); Edward Legge, King Edward in His True Colours ( 1913); J. A. Spender, The Life of the Right Hon. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, 2 vols. ( 1923); Alexander Mackintosh , Joseph Chamberlain (ed. 1914); Winston Churchill, Lord Randolph Churchill, 2 vols. ( 1906); Harold Spender, The Prime Minister [Mr. Lloyd George], ( 1920); John (Viscount) Morley , The Life of William Ewart Gladstone, 3 vols. ( 1903), admirable; Sir George Arthur, Life of Lord Kitchener, 3 vols. (1920); John (Viscount) Morley, Recollections, 2 vols. ( 1917); R. B. O'Brien, Life of Charles Stewart Parnell, 3 vols. ( 1898); H. D. Traill, Marquis of Salisbury ( 1891); Lady Gwendolen Cecil , Life of Robert, Marquis of Salisbury, I, II ( 1921-2); and Lytton Strachey, Eminent Victorians ( 1919). Social and economic: C. J. H. Hayes, British Social Politics ( 1913), documents; Graham Balfour, The Educational System of Great Britain and Ireland ( 2d ed. 1903); W. L. Blease, The Emancipation of English Women (ed. 1913); Charles Booth, Editor, Life and Labor of the People in London, 17 vols. ( 18921903), containing a vast amount of information about poverty and the condition of the working class; Frederic Keeling, Child Labor in the United Kingdom ( 1914); R. E. Prothero, English Farming Past and Present ( 1912); The Report of the Land Enquiry Commitee, A. H. Dyke Acland ( chairman), 2 vols. ( 1914); A. R. Wallace, Land Nationalization ( 1882); Sidney and Beatrice Webb , A Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain ( 1920).

The Irish Question:
for a general account, E. R. Turner, Ireland and England, in the Past and at Present ( 1919); P. W. Joyce , A Concise History of Ireland from the Earliest Times to 1908 ( 20th ed. 1914); W. O'C. Morris, Ireland, 1494-1905 (ed. 1909); Ernest Barker, Ireland in the Last Fifty Years ( 18661916) ( 1917); Sir Horace Plunkett, Ireland in the New Century ( 1904); for critical and hostile accounts, T. D. Ingram, A History of the Legislative Union of Great Britain and Ireland ( 1887), A Critical Examination of Irish History, 2 vols. ( 1900), from the Elizabethan conquest to 1800; on Irish conditions, Louis Paul- Dubois , L'Irlande Contemporaine et la Question Irlandaise ( 1907).

Home Rule:
The A B C Home Rule Handbook, ed. by C. R. Buxton ( 1912); Against Home Rule: the Case for the Union, edited by S. Rosenbaum ( 1912). The Rebellion of 1916: W. B. Wells and N. Marlowe, A History of the Irish Rebellion of 1916 ( 1917). Sinn Fein: R. M. Henry, The Evolution of Sinn Fein ( 1919); P. S. O'Hegarty, Sinn Fein, an Illumination ( 1919). There is a vast amount of information about Great Britain and the United Kingdom in the Parliamentary History, the Parliamentary Debates, and the numerous Parliamentary Papers.


For ever extending its base, the new Democracy now aspires to universal suffrage--a fatal error, and one of the most remarkable in the history of mankind. . . . We may well ask in what consists the superiority of Democracy. Everywhere the strongest man becomes master of the State. . . .

Among the falsest of political principles is the principle of the sovereignty of the people . . . a principle which has unhappily become more firmly established since the time of the French Revolution.

Were we to attempt a true definition of Parliament, we should say that Parliament is an institution serving for the satisfaction of the personal ambition, vanity, and self-interest of its members. The institution of Parliament is indeed one of the greatest illustrations of human delusion.

KINSTANTIN POBIEDONOSTSEV, Reflections of a Russian Statesman (trans. R. C. Long, 1898), pp. 26, 27, 32, 34, 35.

ALEXANDER III ( 1881-1894), son of the murdered Alexander II, was determined to avenge the death of his father, and crush all elements of disorder. The voice of God, he said, bade him strengthen and preserve his autocratic power. In temperament he was a reactionary like his grandfather, Nicholas I. And in the efforts which now he made he was constantly abetted by Pobiedonostsev, Procurator of the Holy Synod, a minister who at the end of the century stood for what Metternich had upheld at the beginning. Alexander believed that the good of the Russian state would be obtained if autocracy was strengthened and new ideas kept out, and he set himself to the task of undoing what the reactionaries thought were Alexander III his father's mistakes. Pobiedonostsev developed with sincerity a philosophical basis for the ideas which he strove to apply, and, like Metternich, he afterward explained them in his Reflections. He believed that autocratic government was not only best for the Russians, but best in itself, and that democracy was a cumbersome thing which had arisen in the errors of the western peoples. In the parliamentary system he not only saw the defects which others have seen, but believed it to be altogether useless. Pobiedonostev

In a short time the great reforms of Alexander II were largely undone. The peasants were put back under the control of the local upper classes as much as possible. In 1886 it was decreed that breach of contract by a Russian laborer should be a criminal offence, thus binding the lower classes with stricter economic control. More important still, in 1889 the local elected magistrates were replaced by officials known as Land Captains, to be appointed by the provincial governor from among the upper classes of the neighborhood, and they were given not only judicial but also administrative functions, so that they had practically unlimited authority over the peasants, ruling them at the behest of the central government. In this way the administration of justice sank back into the evil state of a generation before. About the same time the character of the zemtvos, or provincial assemblies, and the dumas, or councils of the cities, was changed, by increasing the representation of the upper classes and diminishing that. of the lower, and then taking from the assemblies thus altered much of their power. Reaction

Lands Captains

In upholding their system the methods of Metternich's age were employed. There was stern regulation of the press, and many newspapers were stopped. The universities were put under strictest control. A great part of all the Russian people were illiterate, but pernicious western ideas were to be kept from those who got an education ern Russia. the radicals and nihilists were remorselessly Repression pursued by the secret police; and the police of Russia under the direction of Von Plehve, reached a terrible efficiency previously not attained. For a long time all this seemed to succeed well enough. The tsar spent the thirteen years of his reign apart from his people, apart from his ministers even, guarded by the secret police and by innumerable sentries, safe from the enemies who continued to threaten his life as they had threatened his father's. The old system of government and church remained unaltered and unshaken. The Nihilists lost influence after the asassination of Alexander II, and presently lost heart. The great mass of the people, an ignorant peasantry devoted to the old Russian system and traditions even in the midst of misery which they endured but did not understand how to cure, remained passive and loyal. There was no powerful middle class yet, and the central government with its vast organization of officials seemed to hold unassailable position.

Alexander ardently wished to bring about greater unity and strength by obliterating the local differences which divided the peoples of his domain. Such an ideal was no new thing. It had been cherished by the rulers of Austria half a century before, by the Hungarians when they got power to govern, and it was a policy which the rulers of Germany were vigorously carrying out in Schleswig and Posen. Most of the great states of Europe had once been formed by bringing together different peoples; and though long time had obliterated most of the differences, some of them still remained. Such divisions were marked and important in Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire. In the Dual Monarchy Germans and Magyars often worked together with utmost difficulty, while a great number of Bohemians, Rumanians, Poles, and South Slavs were held together largely by force. In the western world it was not generally realized that the Russian Empire contained peoples as diverse and forces almost as disruptive Russification

Subject peoples

as those within Austria-Hungary. There was indeed a great difference: the power of the Dual Monarchy was based upon a minority made up of Germans and Magyars, while the power of Russia was founded upon the Great Russians the largest, the strongest, and the most important element in the state. None the less the vast expanse of the empire contained other elements of much importance which had not yet been welded together, while in the outlying portions were large districts containing non-Russian peoples who had lost their freedom and were held in unwilling subjection.

All of central and most of northern Russia were held by the Great Russians, but to the south in the Ukraine, the richest district of the empire and one of the chief sources of the wheat supply of the world, the people, while Slavic in race and adherents of the Eastern Catholic faith, spoke a dialect which differed from that of the Great Russians as much as Low German was unlike High German, and they had developed literature of their own. To the west lay the White Russians, also Slavs and also belonging to the Orthodox Church, but speaking yet another dialect of Slavic, and the Lithuanians, an Indo-European people closely related to the Slavs, with their own distinct speech, and adhering to the Roman Catholic religion. Over Lithuania and to a less extent the Ukraine, Polish culture prevailed and some of the upper classes were Polish, for in the days of her greatness the Kingdom of Poland had included these outlying dominions. To the east of European Russia the vast reaches of her Asiatic empire contained a sparse population of many diverse peoples but also, as the principal class, Russian immigrants from Europe. All of these parts, Great Russia, the Ukraine, Lithuania, Siberia, were sufficiently alike to unite naturally, and the local differences which persisted would, under good administration, do no harm or else disappear in time. The peoples of Russia

This was not so in some of the outlying parts which brought Russia down to the sea or into contact with central Europe. In the far north were the Lapps, a Mongolian people, unimportant in their distant frozen plains. To the south of them, and by the sea, were the Finns, also an Asiatic people, whose country had long been possessed by Sweden, so that not only was the civilization Swedish and the religion Lutheran but the people of the upper class were Swedish. Finland had long been of the distinct state, as Poland had been at first, organized as a grand duchy, and connected with Russia through the person of the tsar. These people had been taken by conquest, had no real bond of union with the Russian people, they were greatly jealous of any encroachment on their privileges, and determined to maintain their identity and character. To the south of the Gulf of Finland, on the Gulf of Riga, and down the coast of the Baltic, were provinces--Esthonia, Livonia, Courland--taken from Sweden or Poland as Russia won her outlets here on the sea. Their people were Finns or Letts, a branch of the Lithuanian people, completely dominated by a German upper class, the "Baltic Barons." Farther to the west and the south, and thrusting itself in between Prussia and AustriaHungary, was Poland, formerly the Kingdom of Poland which Russia had organized and united with herself under the tsar, and a part of the independent Poland of earlier days. The Poles were Roman Catholic in religion, and while Slavic in race, were a distinct branch of the Slavic people, speaking a tongue as different from Russian as Swedish was from the Germany. For a long time they had been the leading branch of the Slavs in Europe; they continued to feel that their civilization was higher than that of the Russians; they clung to their nationality and Roman Catholic faith with passionate devotion; and longed vainly, it seemed, for freedom and independence once more. Far to the southeast, between the Black and the Caspian seas, Outlying parts of the empire was Caucasia, comprising a great number of little peoples of different races and religions, strongly conscious of separate nationality. The great diversity of peoples in the Russian Empire was strikingly seen in some of the cities on the Volga, where the market places were thronged with multitudes of strange peoples speaking a babble of different tongues.

Nor was this all. In European Russia the larger number of the Jews of the world long continued to live, clinging to their faith, their customs and their racial consciousness as the Jews have generally done. More important but less striking was the German element. For a long time Germans had been penetrating the lands of the Russian Empire, where, by their superior culture and efficiency, they were able to exploit the natives. In the Baltic Provinces the upper class was German; in other places were isolated colonies preserving language and racial character; almost everwhere were German business men and skilled artisans, who controlled or directed a great part of the economic life of the state; while for a century and a half the tsars had usually married German princesses, and been attended by German favorites and assistants. Russia with a vast population of backward people, with illimitable resources and raw materials to be exploited and used, lying right to the east of the German Empire with its intelligent, highly developed, and aggressive people, was for Germans the best field for economic expansion. Jews and Germans

It had long been the ambition and the proper policy of states to achieve as complete unity as possible. In the United States of America, where the population had been increased by emigration from all parts of Europe, an English-speaking nation, with much coherence and unity, had been easily achieved because of an excellent system of education and as a result of liberal institutions. The children of immigrants in the United States of their own accord gave up the alien speech and the foreign customs Unification which their parents had brought. But in Russia, where there was no general system of education, where the government was oppressive and inefficient, such unification could only be brought about by force, and this the Russian government tried to do in the latter part of the nineteenth century.

Under Alexander III continued attempt was made to Russianize all the people. The Jews, the most evidently alien part of the population and greatly disliked, were subjected to such persecution as to deprive them of "the most common rights of citizens." They were concentrated together in the west, in what was known as the Jewish Pale, forbidden to own land, debarred to a great extent from schools and the professions, and often left to the mercy of mobs. The Poles continued to be excluded from the government, and Russian was to be taught in their schools. In the next reign the particular privileges of Finland were withdrawn, and the government put in the hands of Russian officials; while in the Baltic Provinces Russian was proclaimed as the official tongue. The Russian Church, as always, coöperating with the government, forwarded the work. The Holy Synod persecuted the members of other sects and forcibly converted some of them to the Orthodox Church. Methods of Russification

This policy of Russification was also an aspect of the extreme nationalism which grew constantly so much stronger in Germany, in Russia and other places. During the latter part of the nineteenth century there rose up among the Slavs, and especially among the Great Russians, a host of writers who asserted that almost all of the inhabitants of the Russian Empire, and many peoples of central Europe and the Balkans, were of the great Slavic race, best of all races in character and institutions, and destined to have the most glorious future of any of the peoples of the earth. The Russian autocracy, the Orthodox Church, the village community of the Slavs, were all Extreme Slavic Nationalism the best things of their kind. These nationalists inculcated the doctrine of Pan-Slavism, just as in central Europe Pan-Germanism was similarly taught. It was their object to unify the peoples within Russia and so make her stronger, ready to undertake the mission of protecting all the other Slavs, perhaps some day of uniting them all together.

Under Alexander III the Russian government was able to maintain itself and resist all progress. The tsar and some of his principal officials believed sincerely that the system they upheld was for the best interests of the people, and they labored hard to make Russia strong and great. But such government--above the influence and criticism of the mass of the people, controlled entirely by the Autocrat of all the Russias yet largely administered by a vast number of officials with whom he if ever came in contact, and who therefore did much as they pleased--contained the causes of its own destruction. Many of the officials were corrupt and inefficient, powerful only in oppressing the people beneath them, not able to rule honest be or well. After a while the Russian government came to be something like the systems which had endured so long in western Europe and then fell almost of their own weight about the time of the French Revolution. It might long maintain itself in ordinary times over the great multitude of passive Russian peasants, but most probably it would be silently undermined by imperceptible forces, and if some great disaster came it might suddenly fall into ruins. During the last part of the nineteenth century the old Russian system in reality was being shaken by the Industrial Revolution. Then in 1905 the disasters of the Russo-Japanese War shook it to its base, and the greater calamities of the War of the Nations at last destroyed it altogether. Stregth And weaksystem

The policy of Alexander III was continued by his son Nicholas II ( 1894-1918). Like the last French ruler of Nicholas II the Old Régime, he was amiable in character, but also weak and easily swayed, whether by the German Emperor in foreign affairs or by his wife and his ministers at home. He took what he found, and he upheld it because he believed it was good. To diminish his autocratic power would be most foolish, he thought. For a long time his most trusted adviser was Pobiedonostsev. Von Plehve was made Minister of the Interior and given enormous power for the continuance of his work. Nicholas approved the policy of Russianizing all the parts of his dominions.

The forerunner of the great changes soon to take place. was the Industrial Revolution, after the emancipation of the serfs the most important thing in the history of Russia in the nineteenth century. Especially under the guidance of Count Sergei Witte, who became Minister of Finance in 1893, a large industrial development went forward. The Dual Alliance had just been made between Russia and France, and a great amount of capital was loaned by the French. Rapid increase of the Russian agricultural population, obliged to support itself upon holdings of land not sufficiently large, drove increasing numbers of Russian peasants to the cities in search of work. Tariffs were levied to protect new industries, factories multiplied, and the population of the cities rapidly increased. Railroads were constructed or extended, until Russian mileage exceeded that of any European country; though, because of the large distances within the empire, railway facilities continued to be more inadequate than in any other great country of Europe. The Industrial Revolution In Russia

About the middle of the nineteenth century more than nine tenths of the people of the Russian Empire lived scattered in the country. Upon this rural population, ignorant and extremely conservative, the earlier reformers and radicals had been unable to make any impression; and so the nihilist movement had come to an end largely because it remained a movement with leaders but without many Social conSequences in Russia followers among the people. Now there grew up a larger urban population, an industrial proletariat which responded more quickly to the ideas of leaders who wished to change the government and the system that existed. In Moscow, in St. Petersburg, in the Polish cities, increasing crowds of overworked, ill-paid workingmen, were very willing to think of changes in the state. There now rose up the party of the Social Democrats, who hoped that later on the existing system would be overthrown, after which, in a regenerated Russia, socialism might be established. The new leaders obtained adherents more easily than the old, yet the urban population of Russia at the end of the century was still less than 14 per cent. of the whole. But now the new ideas began to affect the peasants, hitherto inert. The Social Democratic Party of the workmen organized the factory operatives of the towns, who tried to better their condition and get their reforms by strikes. Among the peasants, who had no land or who had not enough land to support them, the Socialist Revolutionary Party rose up, these peasants desiring to take from the great proprietors their estates, which were then to be divided in small holdings. Socialism

The great changes which now took place resulted directly from terrible disasters which affected all of the people. For some time in the latter part of the nineteenth century Russian foreign policy continued as it had been in the earlier part; friendship was maintained with Prussia and the German Empire and Russia continued to try to expand to the sea. Her efforts to dominate the Balkans and, perhaps, control Constantinople were frustrated by Great Britain after the Russo-Turkish War in 1878, and thereafter by the opposition of Austria-Hungary. Germany drew closer in alliance with the Dual Monarchy, but under Bismarck's masterly handling of foreign relations Russia was bound to Germany by a secret treaty. In 1890, however, the new German Emperor refused to prolong this, Foreign affairs and Russia soon joined France in the Dual Alliance, changing her foreign policy completely. She now had increasingly the opposition of Germany as well as of Austria in the Balkans, and while continuing to take great interest in affairs there she turned her attention more and more to expanding her dominions in Asia. All of northern Asia, or Siberia, had been taken as far as the Pacific, but the Russians hoped to go southward and reach ports on the warmer seas. Much progress was made, but always in western Asia the power of Great Britain in the end blocked the way.

In the eastern half of the continent Russia's southern neighbor was China, and here the prospect of success was greater, for at the end of the century China seemed just about to fall to pieces. Still farther to the east, it is true, the Japanese, in the island empire, had just taken up western civilization and methods with amazing capacity, and in 1894-5 gained a complete triumph in the ChineseJapanese War; but Japan was not yet regarded as a match for any great European power, and at once Japan was by Russia, Germany, and France compelled to give up most of the fruits of her victory. The so-called TransSiberian railway, which had been begun in 1891, and which was to run from Moscow to Vladivostok on the Pacific, was being pushed steadily forward, and Russian expansionists dreamed of splendid possessions soon to be got from the diving Chinese Empire and the acquisition at last of an ice-free ocean port. This was a time when apparently China was about to be divided up among predatory European powers. In 1897 the Germans seized Kiao-Chau. Next year France got concessions in southern China the same time Russia obtained much greater ones in the north. In 1898 she obtained from the Chinese government the right to build the Siberian railway across Manchuria; she was soon in possession of that province, and she got a lease of the great stronghold, Port Russia, China, and Japan Arthur, at the end of the Liao-tung peninsula, from which Japan had shortly before to go, and which she now joined with her railway by a branch line, and converted into one of the strongest positions in the world. After the Boxer outbreak in 1900, the Russians took complete possession of Manchuria, and, in the years that followed, threatened to advance farther and absorb Korea, which lay on the flank of their communication between Manchuria and Liao-tung. Not only had Japan long wished to obtain Korea, but such was its geographical position, pointed directly at the heart of Japan, that in the hands of Russia it might be as dangerous as Belgium, in the possession of Napoleon or the German Empire, would have been to Great Britain. In February 1904 the Japanese suddenly struck and then declared war.

Japan was greatly inferior in resources, but she had a splendid modern army of brave, hardy, and devoted soldiers, and an excellent fleet. Russia, far stronger, with greater army and fleet, was badly organized and poorly prepared, and fought moreover far from her base. Japan was close to the area of conflict. The RussoJapanese War, 1904-5

The beginning of the struggle found the Russian fleet in the east divided, part at Port Arthur, part at Vladivostok. At once, before declaration of war had been made, the warships in Port Arthur were attacked and greatly damaged. When at last, some months later this fleet came forth to give battle, it sustained a terrible defeat. The squadron at Vladivostok was destroyed; and the Japanese got undisputed control of the sea. Japan gets Control of The sea

Meanwhile they bad sent a great army over into Korea, from which an inferior force of Russians was quickly driven. Then one Japanese army advanced into Manchuria, while another went down the Liao-tung peninsula to lay siege to Port Arthur. Everywhere the Russians were defeated. In September at Liao-yang was fought the first great battle in which the fearful new devices of Japanese Victories on land

The Russo-Japanese War

war were used by large armies. The Russians were entrenched in a wonderfully fortified position, but after terrible slaughter the Japanese drove them out. Meanwhile the Japanese tried to carry the almost impregnable fortress of Port Arthur by storm. Hideous slaughter resulted, but in January, 1905, after a long siege, the fortress was taken. At the end of February the main Japanese army, reinforced by the army which had captured Port Arthur and now amounting to nearly three hundred thousand men, attacked the Russians who had about the same number. In the next two weeks, in a great struggle known as the Battle of Mukden, the Russians were driven back in complete defeat, losing a third of their number. Mukden

In all the principal engagements thus far the Russians had been beaten, but they might still hope for victory in the end, for whereas the Japanese had brought into play nearly all their force the Russians, who were not yet vitally wounded, had used only a part of theirs. If they could get control of the sea, the Japanese armies would at once be cut off from their base and quickly forced to yield; and if this failed, then in a contest of resources Japan might first be worn out. The Baltic fleet, what remained of Russia's power on the sea, was already on its way around the world, superior to the enemy in numbers, but inferior in equipment and personnel. May 27, 1905, it encountered the Japanese fleet under Admiral Togo in the Battle of Tsushima, near Japan, by far the greatest sea fight since Trafalgar, and one of the most decisive in history. There the Japanese ships, with superior speed and range of fire, took the position which they desired and performed the maneuver of "capping the line"; for as the Russian ships advanced in column formation, they at their own distance steamed across the path of the approaching enemy and destroyed his ships in succession. The Russian fleet was annihilated, and Japanese control of the sea was finally assured. Tsushima, The decisive victory

The war was not yet won, however. Japan was almost completely exhausted. If the Russians persisted, time was probably on their side. But domestic considerations now caused them to lose heart and abandon the struggle. President Roosevelt of the United States attempted to mediate, and plenipotentiaries met at Portsmouth, where a treat was signed September 5th. By the terms of the Treaty of Portsmouth, Russia abandoned to Japan Port Arthur and her rights in the Liao-tung peninsula, gave over her attempt upon Manchuria and Korea, and ceded to Japan the southern part of Sakhalin, an island to the north of the Japanese group, and, indeed, forming an extension of the archipelago of Japan. In the Far East Japan become now the dominant power, and presently seemed to threaten China. The Treaty Of Portsmouth, 1905

Russia had yield principally because such internal unrest and confusion had arisen that the whole structure of her government seemed near to the point of collapse. The system which the government had upheld by force, by arbitrary arrest, by secret trial, by banishment to Siberia, through the power of the secret police and the army, could be maintained only so long as Russia was at peace. Now the government was deeply involved in a distant war, which was never popular, which most of the people ill understood, in which patriotic fervor was never aroused. Had there been a great success, the military glory abroad might have stilled discontent at home, but when news came of repeated and shameful defeats in Manchuria and on the seas about China, popular fury burst out, and the radicals among the workingmen of the towns, the radical peasant in the country, the liberals of the upper and middle classes, and all the oppressed peoples--the Jews, the Poles, the Finns, and other--turned against the authorities, and it was no longer possible to resist them. Discontent and disorder in Russia

In July, 1904, Von Plehve was blown to pieces by a bomb; in the following February the Grand Duke Serzei, Terror and uprising reactionary uncle of the tsar, was assassinated; and after that a great many murders of officials took place. In the cities workingmen declared great strikes, and presently a general strike brought widespread demoralization. In the country districts angry and ignorant peasants drove away country gentlemen and noble landlords, burning their houses and taking their lands as peasants in France had done a century before. In some parts of the country it was difficult to operate the railways, and in outlying provinces armed insurrections broke out. On "Red Sunday," January 22, 1905, a great procession of strikers in St. Petersburg followed a priest to present a petition to the tsar, but the troops fired upon them, and the bloodshed aroused wild indignation and horror. During all this time the liberals of the upper classes were demanding reforms, and they along with many others insisted that the war should be ended. "Red Sunday"

Nicholas II soon yielded to the general clamor. He tried at first to give satisfaction with small reform. Some concessions were made to the. Poles, the Lithuanians, and the Jews, and presently Finland got back her constitution, while the arrears due from the Russian peasants were remitted. But he was urged to summon a national assembly, and in August, 1905, proclaimed a law establishing an Imperial duma, or assembly, to advise him in legislative work. He dismissed Pobiedonostsev and other reactionaries previously all-powerful, and appointed Witte to be prime minister in the cabinet now to be set up. Then he issued the October Manifesto which established freedom of religion, of speech, and of association, and promised that thereafter no law should be made without the consent of the duma. A series of decrees provided that the members of the duma should be elected practically by universal suffrage. The old Council of State, which had been much like a king's council in the Middle Ages, was now changed so that part of its members were indirectly elected, and it The first Duma Proclaimed, 1905

The October Manifesto

was made the upper house of the national assembly with the duma as the lower.

These reforms had been yielded in a period of great weakness. The bureaucracy of officials and most of the powerful upper class were sternly against such concession. Moreover, the reformers almost immediately began to fall apart. To the radicals it seemed that little had been accomplished, and they desired to bring about much more fundamental changes. The liberals divided into two parties: the "Octobrists" were content with what had been granted by the tsar in the October Manifesto, and they wanted a strong united Russia now under his rule; the "Constitutional Democrats" or "Cadets" under their wellknown leader, Professor Miliukov, wanted a constitutional government like that of England or France, with responsible ministers completely controlled by elected representatives of the people, and they advocated a federal union for the different parts of the empire. Speedy reaction

In September, 1905, the war with Japan was ended; the government was immediately relieved from much of its embarrassment, while it had now a far greater military force to be used at home. It was not long before the nobles, great landlords, and reactionaries generally united, and becoming stronger, by means of armed forces known as the "Black Hundreds" began to drive away the radicals and undo the changes which they had accomplished. During the same time the tsar began to withdraw the powers given to the duma. In the decree of March, 1906, he proclaimed that the fundamental laws of the empire were not to be within the power of the duma, and declared that foreign affairs, the army, the navy were exclusively within his own jurisdiction. In May, 1906, the first duma assembled, but it was unable to control the ministers, and after a bitter struggle it was dissolved in July. The Cadets, who had made up the majority of the body, would not accept the dismissal, and retiring to Viborg in Finland, The "Black Hundreds"

The first Duma, 1906 called on the Russian people to support them. But reaction was now running strongly; many opponents of the government were put to death and many more banished from the country.

A second duma was assembled next year, but, the opponents of the government again controlling it and again seeking radical changes, it also was dissolved after sitting for three months. The tsar now issued a decree by which the electoral law was so altered that control would pass to the conservatives and the wealthy classes. The third duma, elected in 1907, contained a majority willing to acquiesce in the government's policy. The duma, accordingly, remained a consultative body, much like the English parliament had been three hundred years before; which was, perhaps, as much as the Russian people were capable of using in their stage of political evolution. The Almanach de Gotha, with what the Russian radical Trotzky described as unconscious humor, declared that the government of Russia was "a constitutional monarchy under an autocratic tsar." Under Stolypin, the principal minister, stern measures were taken against the radicals, and they were completely suppressed. Some reforms were indeed made. In 1906 the peasants were allowed to become owners of their land allotments in the mir; and so far as this was carried out, it brought the old communal holding to an end. The second duma, 1907

The third duma, 1907

Such was the Russian Revolution of 1905. Temporarily, in the midst of the weakness of the government, it accomplished striking reforms, and was not unlike the first part of the French Revolution long before. But it was soon seen to be more like the Revolution of 1848 in central Europe, for its movers were really too weak to accomplish important lasting results, and it soon lost most of its gains in the period of reaction that followed. It could scarcely be otherwise. Russia continued to be, as before, remote from the principal currents that were affect- Failure of the Russian Revolution of 1905 ing European life. The vast expanses of her lonely plains were still people almost entirely by illiterate and superstitious peasants, steeped in ignorance, bowed down by toil, engaged in rude agriculture, living in small groups far from great cities. Only under extraordinary circumstances--if the usual government was completely shattered by some great disaster--would these people carry through a revolution; and the urban population, as always before, was too small to do much by itself. There might be reaction and stagnation; there might be slow alteration through a considerable period of time; or else great changes might follow some utter disaster and mortal stroke from outside. Had the Russo-Japanese War lasted longer, or had the defeat been more terrible, the revolution might have gone further. But on this occasion the Russian government made peace in time to save itself at home. Adverse condition

What the future of Russia might have been had peace lasted, whether the reactionaries would have seated themselves more firmly in power, or whether constitutional progress would have gone slowly forward, cannot be known. In the years between the Revolution of 1905 and the Great War the country seemed to settle down; slowly the harsh measures of government were lessened; the ravages of the war were repaired; the army was strengthened; a great appropriation was made to rebuild the navy; and increasingly Russia took her place once more in European councils. Again she became a powerful member of the Dual Alliance. Presently she settled her differences with England, which at the moment had to do mostly with Persia --that country now being virtually divided between them ( 1907). Then along with England and France Russia made the Triple Entente ( 1907), a combination that was a more effectual counterpoise to the Triple Alliance than the Alliance had been. Despite the new friendship with England, however, and the older friendship with France, German influence continued strong at the Russian The years before the Great War

The Triple Entente

court. A secret agreement was concluded between Germany and Russia in 1905, and a more open one was made five years later. But now that Russian expansion in the Far East had been checked she had turned again with greater interest to the Balkans, coming there into more and more dangerous rivalry with Austria-Hungary and the German Empire. Once Russia had been the champion of Bulgaria, but that state had been brought under the influence of the Central Powers, and Russia now gave her support to Servia, whom she encouraged and assisted as much as she could. It was the clash of interests growing out of the intrigues and rivalries of the Balkan states and of the Great Powers which stood behind them that produced the Bosnian crisis of 1908-9, in which Russia yielded; the crisis of 1912, occasioned by the Balkan War, in which she held her own; and the crisis of 1914, which led to the War of the Nations, in which presently Russia, AustriaHungary, and the German Empire all went down into ruin. Relations With the Central Powers

The Great War


General: Gregor Alexinsky (trans. by B. Miall), Modern Russia ( 1913), by a socialist; Maurice Baring, The Russian People ( 2d ed. 1911); H. G. S. von Himmelstjerna (English trans. by J. Morrison), Russia under Alexander III and in the Preceding Period ( 1893); Ludwik Kulczycki, Geschichte der Russischen Revolution, 3 vols. ( 1910-14), German trans. from the Polish, covers the period 1825- 1900; Alphons Thun, Geschichte der Revolutionären Bewegungen in Russland ( 1883); and for a book revealing with peculiar ability and force the part of the ruling class, Konstantin P. Pobiedonostsev, Reflections of a Russian Statesman (trans. by R. C. Long, 1898). The Jews: Israel Friedländer, The Jews of Russia and Poland ( 1915).
Siberia: George Kennan, Siberia and the Exile System, 2 vols. ( 4th ed. 1897); M. M. Shoemaker, The Great Siberian Railway ( 1903).

The Russians in Asia: A. J. Beveridge, The Russian Advance ( 1903); Lord Curzon, Russia in Central Asia ( 1889); Alexis Krause , Russia in Asia ( 1897). hostile; H. Lansdell, Russian Central Asia, 2 vols. ( 1885): G. F. Wright, Asiatic Russia, 2 vols. ( 1902), best account. Japan: F. Brinkley and Baron Kikuchi, A History of the Japanese People from the Earliest Times to the End of the Meiji Era ( 1915), best; Marquis de la Mazelière, Le Japan: Histoire el Civilisation, 5 vols. ( 1907-10); G. H. Longford. The Story of Korea ( 1911). The Russo-Japanese War: K. Asakawa, The Russo-Japanese Conflict ( 1904); A. Chéradame, Le Monde et la Guerre RussoJaponaise ( 1906); A. S. Hershey, The International Law and Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War ( 1906); A. N. (General) Kuropatkin , The Russian Army and the Japanese War, 2 vols. (trans. by A. B. Lindsay, 1909); The Russo-Japanese War, by the Historical Section of the German General Staff, trans. by Karl von Donat, 5 vols. ( 1908-10), it was the German military experts who most thoroughly comprehended the lessons of this conflict; F. E. Smith and N. W. Sibley, International Law as Interpreted During the Russo-Japanese War ( 1905).

The Revolution of 1905 and the years following: Maxime Kovalevsky , La Crise Russe ( 1906); Paul Miliukov, Russia and Its Crisis ( 1905); Bernard Pares, Russia and Reform ( 1907); S. N. Harper , The New Electoral Law for the Russian Duma ( 1908); Paul Vinogradoff, The Russian Problem ( 1914). Diplomacy of the Great War and the period preceding: Sir George Buchanan, My Mission to Russia and Other Diplomatic Memories, 2 vols. ( 1923); Alexander Iswolsky, Recollections of a Foreign Minister ( 1921); Maurice Paléologue (trans.) An Ambassador's Memoirs ( 1923); Count Serzei Witte (trans.) Memoirs ( 1921).



[ Austria Erit In Orbe Ultima
Austriae Est Imperare Orbi Universo
Alles Erdreich Ist Oesterreich Unterthan]

Motto of the Hapsburgs, adopted in 1443.

The Turkish Empire is in its last stage of ruin, and it cannot be
doubted but that the time is approaching when the deserts of Asia
Minor and of Greece will be colonized by the overflowing popu-
lation of countries less enslaved and debased. . . .

SHELLEY, A Philosophical View of Reform ( 1820, printed 1920), p. 26.

THE domestic history of Austria during the period 18671914 was one of political discord and much discontent on the part of the subject peoples, but withal much advance in prosperity and material greatness. The Industrial Revolution, which had for a generation been changing central Europe, went forward in the Dual Monarchy as in the new German Empire, though it was far eclipsed by the mighty progress there. Railway communications were developed and great factories arose in Austria and Bohemia, bringing industrial prosperity for part of the people. During the second half of the nineteenth Century also agriculture in the fertile plain of Hungary was developed as never before, until Hungary became one of the great wheat-producing districts of Europe. Furthermore, public improvements were made, and education was fostered, not in Germany and in France, yet so far that The Dual Monarchy

Austria-Hungary was one of the progressive countries of Europe.

The domestic politics of all this period were concerned with the relations between the two partners in the Dual Monarchy, and then with the relations between each one of them and the subject peoples whom they ruled. By the Augsleich or Compromise of 1867 Austria and Hungary were joined together under an agreement which was arranged for ten years. Accordingly once in a decade the arrangement was brought forward for renewal, and on each occasion there was more strain and confusion than a presidential election caused in the United States. Each time it was necessary to renew or rearrange commercial relations and decide about apportionment of contributions to support the general government. Austria continued her industrial development while Hungary remained for the most part an agricultural district. In the Monarchy, however, the interests of both were subserved by putting protective tariff duties upon foreign manufactures for the benefit of Austria, and protective duties upon foreign agricultural products to benefit Hungarian proprietors. The proportions to be contributed by each for joint expenditure caused much difficulty. By the first Ausgleich treaty Austria was to give 70 per cent. and Hungary 30 per cent., but forty years later Hungary's share was somewhat increased to 36.4 per cent., she having meanwhile enjoyed much advantage. More furious were the disputes that raged about the question of the army. Like France, AustriaHungary adopted the Prussian system of compulsory military service. Since unity was necessary in the making of strong military power, the authorities at Vienna declared that German should be the language of command throughout the army, but the Hungarians sternly insisted that their language should be used for the troops which Hungary furnished. This question threatened at times to destroy the Ausgleich, and in 1897 it was not possible to The Ausgleich

Contributions for joint expenditure


come to any agreement. The use of German was enforced however, by decree of the emperor-king. Meanwhile questions of recruiting and appointing officers were left to the governments of the two parts.

During all of this time the partners were held together because people in Austria and in Hungary saw that the two countries could not easily stand alone in the midst of their hostile subjects and surrounded by more powerful neighbors. At times the disputes were so furious and bitter that to outsiders it seemed impossible for them to live together longer, but always the fundamental need of association remained and was well understood. Furthermore, there was a strong connecting link in the person of Franz Josef ( 1848-1916), Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, whose personal qualities endeared him to his subjects. Much about his character and motives remains ill-understood, but strange and terrible misfortunes made him the most romantic and pathetic great personage in Europe. Ties connecting Austria and Hungary

He came to his throne in the midst of the disasters of 1848. Not many years later he lost in wars with France and Prussia the Italian provinces, which seemed then his brightest possession, and the position of leadership in Germany which Austria had so long had. The state was constituted anew, and much prosperity came, but in the year after the disastrous war with Prussia, his brother, Maximilian, Emperor of Mexico, was captured by his enraged subjects and shot as a conspirator against the state. In 1889 his only son, the Archduke Rudolph, died by suicide in the midst of mysterious and romantic circumstances never entirely cleared up. Eight years after this his wife, the beautiful Empress Elizabeth, from whom he had long been estranged, was stabbed to death by an anarchist at Geneva. Finally, his nephew, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, now heir to the throne, was murdered by assassins. And in 1916, during the war that followed hard The ending of the House of Hapsburg on this deed, the aged Emperor passed away just before his empire was destroyed.

In the Dual Monarchy the Empire of Austria included the archduchies of Upper Austria and Lower Austria, the kingdoms of Bohemia, Dalmatia, and Galicia, and the various districts of Bukowina, Carinthia, Carniola, Istria, Moravia, Salzburg, Styria, and Trieste. The Kingdom of Hungary included Hungary, Transylvania, CroatiaSlavonia. The total area of Austria was 116,000 square miles, a little less than the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary, which was 125,000. In 1910, at the time of the last census, the population of Austria was 28,000,000 while that of Hungary was 21,000,000; the total population, including that of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was annexed to the Dual Monarchy jointly, was 51,000,000. Parts of the Dual Monarchy

By the constitutional laws of 1867 the government of Austria was vested in the emperor and in the reichsrath, (imperial assembly), composed of a house of lords, consisting of peers hereditary or appointed by the emperor for life, and a house of representatives, elected at first by the provincial diets or assemblies, but after 1873 chosen directly by a narrow electorate. The franchise was widened by an electoral reform in 1896, and in 1907 equal and direct manhood suffrage was established. The government was carried on by ministers, responsible to the reichsrath in theory, but actually dependent mostly on the emperor, who was also easily able to control the reichsrath, of which the upper house was extremely conservative and aristocratic, and the lower divided among numerous political parties and constantly torn by bitter racial disputes. The government of Austria

The general policy of the Austrian government was the maintenance of the power and privileges of the German inhabitants who had brought together the parts and long been the masters. Out of 28,000,000 inhabitants they numbered only 10,000,000, and with the development of Peoples in Austria greater national feeling in the different parts their task became constantly harder. Some local self-government was granted to the different parts, but not enough to satisfy the local populations. The Czechs of Bohemia had long wanted an autonomy like that which had been granted to the Hungarians, and often adopted such tactics in the abgeordnetenhaus, the lower chamber of the reichsrath, that the uproar and confusion made it impossible for anything to be done. The Slovaks and the South Slavs nursed their grievances and, in spite of no little advance in prosperity, longed for their freedom. In Galicia the Austrian government succeeded better than anywhere else, but that was because it conserved the privileges of the Polish upper class, and so got their good will, while it left the Ruthenians and the Polish masses in lowly condition.

Government in Hungary was founded directly upon a series of laws passed during the Hungarian uprising in 1848, suppressed as soon as the uprising failed, but guaranteed in 1867 when the Ausgleich was agreed on. It was vested in the King of Hungary, who was Emperor of Austria, and exercised by his ministers who were responsible to a parliament. This parliament consisted of an upper aristocratic house, the Table of Magnates, most of them hereditary noblemen, and a lower, the Chamber of Deputies, consisting of members almost all of whom were elected from Hungary proper by a narrow electorate rigidly limited by property qualifications. This electorate was so arranged as to keep power altogether in the hands of the 10,000,000 Hungarians, who were a little less than half of the entire population. Local self-government was given to the subject peoples in Hungary, the. Rumanians of Transylvania and the South Slavs of Croatia-Slavonia, more grudgingly than it was given in Austria. The government of Hungary

Altogether, in the Hapsburg Monarchy government by ministers responsible to a parliament dependent on the people was really established only in small part. In Hungary most of the people had no voice in electing representatives, and until 1896 this had been the case in Austria also. In both parts of the Dual Monarchy government was in the hands of ministers controlled by the crown, and a bureaucracy, cumbersome and inefficient also dependent on the crown. General character of government in the Dual Monarchy

The foreign policy of Austria-Hungary during this period had to do mostly with ambitions in the Balkans and attempts to extend to the south. With the new German Empire cordial relations were established. With respect to Italy the old ambitions were completely given over. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, while other European powers were making themselves greater by colonial expansion the Dual Monarchy hoped to reach southward along the eastern shore of the Adriatic and down through the Balkans to an outlet, perhaps at Salonica. As early as the War for Greek Independence it was evident that Austria and Russia were suspicious of each other in rivalry about the Balkans. This was more apparent in 1877, when the Russo-Turkish War began. In the next year, at the Congress of Berlin, when Russia was forced to let a great part of what she had accomplished be undone, Austria-Hungary was given the administration of the two Turkish provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, peopled with South Slavs, and conveniently adjoining her own Slavic provinces of Dalmatia and Croatia-Slavonia. In the following year she joined the German Empire in alliance, from which she got added protection against Russia, though Germany was not yet disposed to forfeit the friendship of Russia. Foreign policy

Year by year the rivalry of Austria-Hungary and Russia for greater power and influence in the Balkans increased. In 1897 an agreement was made between Austria and Russia, and their "superior interest" in the provinces of European Turkey was recognized by the Great Powers. Russia, AustriaHungary and the Balkans

At that very time, however, began the new direction of German policy which tended toward expansion in Asiatic Turkey, and which therefore supported Austria-Hungary. The two powers now worked together in close understanding for predominant influence in the Balkans and at Constantinople, for the gradual exclusion of Russia, and the connecting of the German-planned Bagdad Railway with the road running from Constantinople to Vienna and Berlin.

It was not merely ambition but sound policy which caused statesmen of the Dual Monarchy to take interest in Balkan affairs. As the Ottoman Empire had shrunk and decayed in Europe part of the South Slavic and Rumanian people whom Turkey ruled were incorporated in Austria and in Hungary, while part of them afterward shook off the sultan's yoke and set up independent states for themselves. In Transylvania and Bukowina there were more than three million Rumanians, while in Rumania, just across the Carpathian Mountains there were 8,000,000 more. In the southern provinces of the Monarchy just before the war there were 7,000,000 JugoSlavs, while across the border in Montenegro and Servia there were 5,000,000. Once these people had been glad to escape the Turkish yoke by being taken into the Austrian dominions, and now in the Dual Monarchy they had no little prosperity and progress. But meanwhile, Rumania and Servia had grown up, and in course of time, as the Ruman and South Slavic subjects of Austria-Hungary saw themselves treated as inferiors and debarred from equal rights, some of them began to yearn for the day when they might be united with their brethren. Thus the statesmen of the Dual Monarchy saw it threatened with disintegration. Just before the Great War, it is said, the ill-fated Archduke Franz Ferdinand cherished the scheme of admitting the Slavs to a partnership with Magyars and Germans; but this plan, which would probably have failed to cure the ills of the state, never was tried. The Dual Monarchy and the Balkan States

Generally it had seemed best to the leaders to pursue an aggressive policy, and try to control the small neighboring states in the Balkans, and thus make it impossible to draw parts of the monarchy away. A good understanding was effected with Rumania which became virtually an appendage of the Triple Alliance. For some time very friendly relations were established with Servia, while Russia had great influence in Bulgaria; but after a while Bulgaria favored the Teutonic powers, and Servia came under the influence of Russia.

The history of the Balkans in the nineteenth century is largely a story of the disintegration of the Turkish Empire in Europe and the establishment of separate states from its ruins. The Turks, who three centuries before had the most splendid position in Europe and who had been dreaded by all Christian peoples, were now weak and declining, and would undoubtedly have suffered the fate of the Poles had they not been farther removed from strong neighbors, and had the Great Powers not been too jealous to unite to despoil them. They had come into Europe from Asia Minor in the fourteenth century. In 1361 they took Adrianople; in 1398 they broke the power of Servia; and soon afterward overran Bulgaria and Wallachia. A pitiful remnant of the Eastern Roman Empire survived on the Bosporus, but in 1453 they captured Constantinople, which was thenceforth the center of their power. Their dominion was rapidly extended up through the Balkans; Hungary was overrun; and turning to the east they subjected the Russians and the Tartars along the northern shore of the Black Sea. For a while they were the greatest naval power in the world; their galleys swept the eastern Mediterranean; they conquered the islands and much of the north African shore. In 1571 the Christian powers of the west combined to defeat them in the great naval battle of Lepanto, and this was in fact a decisive triumph; but for another century the Ottoman power continued to The former greatness of Turkey be mighty and terrible on land. The king of Poland was reduced to pay tribute, and in 1683 Vienna itself was besieged by a Turkish host.

The foundations of this mighty structure presently began to decay, though the edifice long stood erect in its splendor. Gradually the vigor of the rulers declined amidst the pleasures of Constantinople; and the Janissaries, the terrible organized mercenaries who had so long defeated all their enemies, fell behind rival armies in discipline and equipment, and were finally able to inspire terror only in the Turkish government itself. Moreover, the Turks had never perfected any strong organization in their empire. Always deficient in political ability, they depended on force and chicane for holding together their dominions. Like the Mongols once in Russia, the Turks ruled their Christian subjects in the Balkans by taking advantage of differences in race and religion to keep them apart, and by punishing them savagely if they resisted or failed to pay tribute. They did not attempt really to incorporate the Servians, the Bulgarians, the Hungarians, and the Greeks in a compact Ottoman Empire, but reduced them to serfdom or put them under tribute, otherwise leaving them largely to themselves, so long as they continued submissive. Always the Turks were a minority of the population, and so far as they lived among their subjects they lived as an upper ruling class, never winning affection or loyalty or gratitude from their subjects, and never mingling with them to form one united people. Misgovernment and oppression of the subject Christians by the Turks proceeded less from Turkish brutality than from incapacity. And it must be remembered that during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, at a time when Catholics in Ireland and England and Protestants in the Austrian dominions suffered under disabilities and persecution, the Ottoman Empire allowed the greatest measure of religious freedom permitted by any government in Europe, and that Decline of the Ottoman power

Organization of the Ottoman power

Christians exercised their religion, as a rule, unmolested, and were freely admitted to hold office in the state.

Such an empire, like the ancient empires of the east, could be held together only so long as its military organization remained strong enough to crush all rebellions within and meet its enemies without. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries this was so, but the turning point came in 1699, when by the Treaty of Carlowitz the Turks were forced to yield their outlying possessions in Hungary, in Transylvania, on the northeastern Adriatic, and the Sea of Azov. In the eighteenth century the Ottoman Empire began to yield before Austria and Russia, and in the nineteenth it began to break up from within. Rapid decline

In the days of their greatness the Turks had been a concern and a danger to all Europe, though the protection of Christian Europe usually fell to Austria alone. During the nineteenth century, while the strength of the Turks was ebbing, their European provinces became the great danger spot of Europe, because of rivalry for possession of the spoils. In the latter part of the eighteenth century, Russia, expanding southward, took Turkish territories north of the Black Sea, and afterward threatened to go slowly forward until she dominated the Balkans and arrived at Constantinople. Austria was much interested in this, for already she had many subjects who had once belonged to Turkey, and expected to get more; but at first she was not greatly hostile to Russian expansion, and in 1790 an arrangement was planned by which the Ottoman dominions should be divided between Austria and Russia. England, however, already dreaded the appearance of a great European power on the ruins of Turkey, and exerted herself then, as afterward, to save the Ottoman state from destruction. Rivalry concerning the spoils

During the first half of the nineteenth century England was the principal supporter of Turkey, and, along with France, fought the Crimean War in 1854 to save her from England, then Australia, opposes Russia Russian aggression. She intervened decisively also in 1878 and again saved Turkey from destruction. But after that time Austria came more and more to be Russia's principal opponent in the Balkans, dreading the extension of Russian power southward. During much of this time either Russia or Austria would gladly have got the Ottoman provinces, but failing that, each was resolved that no other power should get them. Gradually it was recognized that a great European war might very easily grow out of attempted aggrandizement by any of the Great Powers in the Balkans, and so for the most part the Powers exerted themselves to preserve the Ottoman state. It was due almost solely to this that Turkey survived down to the time of the Great War, and it is owing to similar rivalries and international conditions that a part of her still remains.

But by 1914 only a remnant of Ottoman power existed in Europe. In less than a century she had lost all her possessions in Africa, and in Europe she had saved only a small district around Constantinople. The principal steps in the dismemberment of European Turkey since the time of the French Revolution were the Treaty of Adrianople between Russia and Turkey in 1829, which ended the War for Greek Independence; the Treaty of San Stefano and the Congress of Berlin which brought to an end the struggle between Russia and Turkey in 1877-8; and the Treaty of London, 1913, which concluded the First Balkan War. All of the crises which led to these settlements were brought about partly because of misgovernment and oppression of Christian subjects by the Turkish government, partly because of the indignation which this aroused either in Russia or among the Balkan peoples themselves, and partly because of the desire of Russia or Austria at first, and later of the Balkan states, to seize for themselves what was slipping away from the weakening grasp of the Turks. The dismember- of Turkey, 1829-1913

In the early part of the nineteenth century the submerged peoples of Turkey began to seek their freedom at the same time that the Turkish dominions were beginning to crumble from internal decay. Ali Pasha, of Janina, first made himself almost independent in Albania, then, as governor of Rumelia, began to intrigue with foreign powers. In 1804 the Serbs, still under Turkish rule, began a long struggle for their independence, and in 1817 some of them won their autonomy, thus making the foundation of the Servian kingdom. The beginning of Servia, 1804-1817

Meanwhile the Greeks had begun a struggle which aroused sympathy all over Europe. They had, indeed, been treated with considerable moderation, and in the islands of the Ægean they were already practically independent. They had retained their distinctive character, and the spirit of nationality was aroused among them early in the nineteenth century by revived study of the Greek classics and recollections of the Hellas of old. In the Greek Catholic Church they had a strong organization which served to maintain their national spirit and urge them forward to obtain their independence. In 1814 was founded the Hetairia Philike (friendly union), a secret society something like the Carbonari in Italy later on. Revolt broke out in 1821. It was led by Prince Ypsilanti in the north and by various others of the Hetairia in the Peloponnesus or Morea. The northern movement was broken at once, but in the south the Greeks had command of the sea, and a long struggle inclined in their favor. In 1824, however, the sultan called to his assistance the great pasha, Mehemet Ali, of Egypt, and the powerful fleet which was now brought to the Turkish side soon reduced the Greeks to despair. Unless they could get help from abroad it was apparent that their cause was doomed. Volunteers from other countries--notable among whom was the English poet, Lord Byron enlisted in their service, but they accomplished little of importance. Revolt of the Greeks

The European governments, whatever the sympathies of their people, were at first reluctant to intervene, because they dreaded any disturbance of the existing arrangement in Europe. But in 1823 Great Britain recognized the belligerency of the Greeks, and already the sympathy of the Russian people had been stirred profoundly, though the only result was negotiations which dragged on and led to nothing. In 1827, however, the combined fleets of England and France, attempting to enforce a truce between the Greeks and the Turks, destroyed the fleet of Mehemet Ali at Navarino. The sultan now rashly declared war, and a Russian army entering the Balkans pressed on to Constantinople itself. Independence of Greece

By the Treaty of Adrianople which ended the war Turkey practically acknowledged the independence of Greece, which was defined and established at an international conference at London three years later. At the same time she acknowleged the autonomy of Servia; of Moldavia and Wallachia, the Danubian principalities, which became a Russian protectorate; and gave up to Russia such claims its she had to certain districts in the Caucasus, which Russia afterward acquired for herself. Thus by the settlement of 1829 Turkey lost her outlying European provinces--Greece, Servia, and what was afterward the Rumanian kingdom. The Treaty of Adrianople, 1829

The old conditions continued in the territory left to her, for in the midst of all the great growth and changes of the nineteenth century the Turks changed almost not at all. There were the same stagnation, inefficiency, heavy oppression, and lack of progress; and the fierce wildness of the rude and long-oppressed Christian population was suppressed from time to time by outbursts of fearful cruelty and destruction. About 1875 an insurrection broke out in Herzegovina, a district to the west of Servia, peopled by Serbs, but still under Turkish rule. While the rebels were being encouraged by the surrounding states, Monte- Revolt of the Bulgars, 1876 negro, Austria, and Servia, in 1876, the inhabitants of Bulgaria--a large province east of Servia and south of the Danube, and so nearer to Constantinople and Turkish oppression--rose against the Turks also. Servia and Montenegro declared war on Turkey, and great sympathy was aroused in Russia, many of the tsar's subjects enlisting to fight as volunteers. Generally the Turks were successful, but the awful atrocities committed by them upon the Bulgarian peasants aroused the indignation and horror of Europe, especially in England, where Gladstone declared that the Turks must be expelled "bag and baggage" from Europe, and in Russia, which made ready to intervene.

In the spring of 1877 Russia did begin war. Rumania, declaring now complete independence, joined her, and the allies pushing rapidly southward soon got the passes of the Balkan Mountains which were the gateway into the country. At Plevna, in northern Bulgaria, where a network of highways converged, Osman Pasha, an able Turkish commander, fortified himself to oppose them. The allies had not sufficient forces completely to mask this fortress and also advance against Constantinople, but for some time they were unable to take it. In December, however, Plevna fell, after a memorable siege. In another month the Russians had pushed on and taken Adrianople, and Constantinople itself would have fallen except for the rising jealousy of Austria and above all the determined hostility of Great Britain. None the less, in March 1878, the Turks concluded with Russia the Treaty of San Stefano, by which at last was aknowledged complete independence of Montenegro and Servia, to whom some territory was yielded; and almost all of Turkey's European territory, except for a small area including Adrianople and the capital and another area in Albania on the Adriatic, was given to a new Bulgaria, autonomous but tributary to the sultan. The RussoTurkish War, 1877-8

Treaty of San Stefano 1878

This would have made Bulgaria the most important state in the Balkans, and for some time, doubtless, she would have been largely dependent on Russia. But owing to the efforts of Austria and Great Britain this treaty was almost at once undone at the Congress of Berlin, which reduced Bulgaria and restored to the sultan much of what he had lost, though Bosnia and Herzegovina were put under the administration of Austria-Hungary. The result of this was that Turkey, though considerably reduced, still stretched from the Black Sea to the Adriatic Sea and still rested on the Égean, and she continued the foremost power in the Near East. The Treaty of Berlin, 1878

Continued decline of Turkey

The decline and decay of Turkey continued, although after 1876 she was ruled by Abdul Hamid, a man of sinister and evil reputation, but subtle and skilful in upholding Turkey by playing upon the rivalries of the powers. Meanwhile the new Balkan states were growing in experience and strength and beginning to hope for the day when the complete break-up of the Ottoman power would enable them to become greater still.

In 1908 Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina; and Bulgaria declared her complete independence. In 1911 Italy, which had at last acquiesced in French possession of Tunis and approved French expansion in Morocco on condition that France make no objection to Italian occupation of what was left to take east of Tunis, suddenly seized Tripoli, and although a long and exhausting struggle was maintained by the tribesmen in their deserts, supported by officers from Turkey, yet the Ottoman government was in 1912 compelled to yield its last African possession. This incident was of much importance in the large changes of these years. The German government strongly disapproved of this attack on its friend, but could not hinder its ally. On the other hand both England and France encouraged and approved, and it was evident that Italy would be loath now to offend


these powers, since they controlled the Mediterranean Sea, and because only with their good will could Italy keep her possession.

European Turkey shrunk to small size in Europe, but the old evils of misgovernment continued as they always had been. The Turks had been brave and admirable soldiers, and under favorable circumstances they had revealed a character pleasant and with noble traits. But they never mastered the art of organizing and governing well. They were often tricked and deceived by their subjects, but in last recourse their method was to employ dull, stupid, and brutal force, and with greatest cruelty compel submission. In the country left to them outside Constantinople their subjects were still oppressed with ruinous and foolish taxes, and still treated with inferiority and contempt. In the western district, the mountainous country of Albania, Turkish authority was defied; but in Macedonia and Thrace the people groaned under grievous misrule. The people of Macedonia especially were Servians, Greeks, and above all Bulgarians, mingled together. They often looked with longing eyes to their brethren in Servia, Greece, and Bulgaria, over the borders; and always the governments of these countries, especially Bulgaria, looked forward to the day when, on the dissolution of Turkey, these populations would be incorporated in the greater Balkan states of the future. Ceaselessly agents from over the border tried to stir up the Christians of the Turkish country to be ready for the day of deliverance, and always they tried to prepare the way for the incorporation of as many of them as possible in their respective countries. These three little nations hated with a great hatred the Turk, who had once oppressed their fathers, but so great had their own rivalries become, that in the earlier years of the twentieth century they hated each other still more. It was accordingly an extraordinary diplomatic triumph and a great surprise to the rest of Europe, when, after The Turks, Macedonia, and the Balkan states

ASIA IN 1914

secret negotiation, early in 1912, Bulgaria, Servia, Montenegro, and Greece concluded an arrangement by which they agreed to act together. This agreement, it is believed, was largely the work of the great Greek statesman, Venizelos.

In 1908 the Ottoman government had been overthrown by a revolution. The new leaders, the Young Turks, strove to reform the government and restore the vigor and power of the state. Actually, at the time it seemed that they did more harm than good. They soon undertook a policy of nationalization, attempting to assimilate their various subjects. So, they withdrew privileges from the Christian peoples in Macedonia, and began bringing Mohammedans in. This led to disorder, massacre, and reprisal. The Balkan states, desired that this come to an end. In the autumn the Turks concentrated some of their best troops north of Adrianople for maneuvers. Immediately the four Balkan states issued simultaneous orders for mobilization, after which the Turks ordered mobilization next day. It was evident now that the little states of the peninsula, encouraged by the example of Italy, were really willing to go to war. The Great Powers in much alarm endeavored, too late, to prevent a conflict. But Montenegro immediately declared war. October 14th, Servia, Bulgaria, and Greece presented an ultimatum to Turkey, and the next day fighting began. Such was the beginning of the First Balkan War. Causes of the First Balkan War

Turkey was known to be in the latter stages of decay; but the Turks had always been brave, steady fighters. Weak though their state might be, it was supposed that their army, organized and trained by Germans, was still in fair shape; it was believed to be greatly superior to the military force which the Balkan powers could assemble against it. But the four Balkan armies moved forward at once, and struck a series of terrible blows by which the power of Turkey in Europe was ruined. The little Mon- The Balkan allies victorious tenegrin army advanced southward and laid siege to Scutari. The Servians defeated the Turks at Kumanovo, overran part of Macedonia, presently captured a large Turkish force in the stronghold of Monastir, and even crossed Albania and reached the Adriatic at Durazzo. The Greeks at once got control of the Égean Sea, the task which had been assigned them, and, in addition, moved their army rapidly forward, pushing the Turks back and driving some of them into the fortress of Janina, and some into the seaport of Salonica.

Meanwhile the greatest tasks were being done by the Bulgars. To them had been assigned the work of holding the main Turkish forces in Thrace. At once they moved down upon the principal fortress, Adrianople, sacred in the eyes of the Turks, and key to the Thracian plain. Near by they encountered a Turkish army, which was defeated at Kirk-Kilisse, and driven from the field in total rout. A week later they destroyed the military power of the Turks in a greater and more desperate battle at Lüle-Burgas. Thrace was now cleared, and the Bulgarians advancing swiftly in triumph were stopped only by the strong fortifications of the Tchataldja line, which protect Constantinople, and had in days of need long before often halted invaders from the north. Great victories of the Bulgars

Within six weeks Turkish power in Europe had been destroyed. The Turks had been defeated in all the great battles and had lost command of the sea. The relics of their forces had been driven down upon Constantinople, or were hopelessly shut up in the beleaguered fortresses of Adrianople, Scutari, and Janina. The Turks asked for an armistice, and a peace conference assembled in London. The London Conference

This conference between the Turks and their foes was soon broken off, and at the beginning of February hostilities were again begun. The Bulgarian troops at Tchataldja were not able to force the Turkish lines and take Constantinople, but no more were the Turks able to drive End of the First Balkan War them away. Meanwhile the Greeks took Janina, and the Bulgarians Adrianople. The Great Powers had already proposed mediation. On April 19th an armistice was signed and at the end of May a treaty made whereby an Albania was to be constituted by the powers, and the Turks were to keep a small district outside of Constantinople; otherwise what had belonged to Turkey in Europe was to go to the victorious Balkan states. This would probably meet the wishes of Greece and Bulgaria, provided they could agree among themselves, but it debarred Servia and Montenegro from getting a great part of what they expected, on the shores of the Adriatic, in Albania. Servia yielded, because of the injunctions of the Great Powers and because she hoped for compensation elsewhere, but Montenegro, bent on having possession of Scutari, continued the siege of that mountain stronghold, and, after prodigies of valor, captured it. Presently, however, the threats of the powers compelled her to give it up again. Treaty of London, 1913

A second Balkan War soon followed. This struggle was directly the result of the decision of the powers not to permit Servia, Montenegro, or Greece to take territory in Albania, and this had been done because of the insistence of Austria that an Albania must be maintained. It had in the first place seemed almost inconceivable that the Balkan states with their bitter rivalries would be able to act in alliance, but they had carefully agreed beforehand what each should have, provided they defeated Turkey, and it is possible that if there had been no interference they might have divided the spoils without fighting. Now that they were forbidden to touch Albanian territory, however, Servia demanded that the agreement of 1912 be revised so as to give her compensation elsewhere, but a week later this was refused. Savage fighting had already broken out between Bulgarians and Servians and Greeks. At the end of June, suddenly, without any declaration of war the Bulgarians armies attacked the The Second Balkan War, 1913 Servian and the Greek forces, and a few days later Montenegro, Servia, and Greece declared war on the Bulgars.

It is probable that the Teutonic powers had encouraged Bulgaria to resist the Servian demand, and it is certain that they expected her to win easy triumph, just as they had expected a Turkish victory the preceding autumn. They were grievously mistaken. Neither the Greeks nor the Servians were overwhelmed, but began driving the Bulgarians back before them. And while this struggle was being waged, with inconceivable atrocities on both sides, the doom of Bulgaria was sealed by unexpected action of the Rumanian government. Rumania suddenly demanded that Bulgaria cede a strip of territory on her southern border; and when this was refused her powerful army was moved down upon the Bulgarian capital while the Greeks and the Servians were advancing from other sides. At the same time the Turks reoccupied Adrianople. The King of Bulgaria threw himself upon the mercy of his foes. In August the stern Treaty of Bucharest was imposed, by which Bulgaria lost most of what her great victories had gained from the Turks; Rumania took that which she had demanded; Servia and Greece got the territories which they had taken in the First Balkan War, while Bulgaria was engaging the main Turkish forces. Bulgaria overwhelmed

The Treaty of Bucharest, 1913

The result of the two Balkan wars was that to Turkey in Europe there were left only Constantinople and a small area of territory northward. Steadily the state sank lower into feebleness, decrepitude, and ruin, while foreign capitalists and diplomatic agents in to intrigue and control. Turkey had drifted away from the old friendship with Britain, and become more and more dependent on the Germans, so that at the beginning of the Great War she was brought into the struggle to aid the German Empire almost like a vassal state. The relics of the Ottoman state

Of the Balkan countries the oldest was Montenegro, whose hardy population of rude mountaineers had never Montenegro been entirely conquered by the Turks. Her complete independence was formally acknowledged by the Treaty of San Stefano, and by the Congress of Berlin in 1878. The people were Serbs, closely related to the population of Servia. Owing to the good offices of England an outlet was procured for them in 1880 on the Adriatic, at Dulcigno. The government was in theory a constitutional monarchy, but actually the prince was a patriarch and leader of a tribal people.

Next in age was Servia, which got autonomous government in 1817, this autonomy being recognized more formally in the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829. In 1804 the struggle for freedom had been begun by a peasant leader, Kara (Black) George, the father of Servian independence. After successful guerilla warfare in the mountains he completely overwhelmed the Turks at Mischoz in 1806. For a few years the Turks granted virtual autonomy, but when Russia, the patron of the Balkan Slavs was occupied in the great struggle with Napoleon, the sultan again reduced the country. Presently, however, the Servians rose under another peasant leader, Milosh Obrenovitch, and Russia being free to intervene again, the sultan yielded once more. Complete independence was acknowledged in 1878. Servia 1817-78

The circumstances of the Servian war of liberation were unfortunate in that freedom was got through the efforts of two leaders both of whose families now desired to rule, with the result that the country was torn by family and dynastic disputes like the feuds of Irish princes in the Middle Ages. In a country of peasants, where tribal instincts were still very strong, it would, in any event, have been difficult to avoid this. In 1817 Kara George was assassinated so that the Obrenovitch family might rule. This was avenged in 1868 when Michael III was assassinated by partisans of the Karageorgevitch House, and in 1903 when they murdered Alexander and his queen. The Obrenovitch Dynasty was now extinct, and the throne Rival dynasties came finally into the possession of the House of Kara George.

In foreign relations Servia long remained dependent on Austria, who supported and protected her in her rash war with Bulgaria in 1886, in which she was badly defeated at Slivnitsa. But at the Congress of Berlin, eight years before, Austria-Hungary had been given the administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in which dwelt a large part of the Servian race. As time went on Servia greatly hoped some day to obtain these provinces for herself. Accordingly the friendship with Austria gradually cooled, and Servia getting more and more under Russian influence strove to free herself from economic dependence on her neighbor to the north. In 1908, when Bosnia and Herzegovina were annexed by the Dual Monarchy, and the last chance of Servia acquiring them seemed to have gone, the Servians were filled with the rage of despair, and apparently hoped to be able to fight along with Russia as an ally. When Russia yielded to Austria and Germany together, it seemed for a moment that Servia would strike by herself, but she also yielded and was compelled to accept what had been done. In 1912 she helped to form the Balkan Alliance which dismembered Turkey. She overcame all opposition and even got the long-desired outlet on the sea at Durazzo. But Austria-Hungary, unwilling that Servia should grow great or even have a port on the Adriatic, compelled her to withdraw from Albania. She did, indeed, at this time yield to Servia the sanjak (province) of Novi-Bazar, which lay between Servia and Montenegro, and which she had undertaken to administer when she got possession of Bosnia. None the less, the Servians, cheated of the fruits of their victory, turned for compensation to the east, and this helped to bring on the Second Balkan War. In this struggle Servia and Greece defeated Bulgaria, and, as a result of the Treaty of Bucharest, Servia, although terribly weakened, was left with greatly increased territory and Servia Russia, and Austria prestige. In 1915, during the Great War, she was destroyed by her enemies, but part of her army escaped and afterward assisted the Allies in their final triumph, as a result of which Servia was made the leader of a great federation of South Slavs, based upon the eastern Adriatic Sea.

The domestic history of the country records the long, slow rise of the peasants to better economic conditions. The principal occupations of the people were agriculture and the raising of cattle. Generally speaking the land was in the hands of small peasant proprietors, who lived a rude, hard life but enjoyed more economic independence than most of the peasants outside of France, and of Ireland after the Land Purchase Acts. The government was vested in a prince, until 1882, when the title of king was assumed. There was a legislature, the Skupshtina; and for some years before the war a considerable measure of constitutional self-government had been developed. The religion of the people is the Greek Catholic faith. Domestic affairs

For ages the fate of has been closely associated with that of Turkey and the Balkans. The Greeks obtained their freedom in 1829, about the same time that the Servians did. When Turkey had abandoned her claims there was some delay about fixing the status of the country. Russia desired that she have self-government and remain tributary to the sultan, but since it was believed that this would make her really dependent on Russia, Austria and England urge that Greece be established as a sovereign and independent state. This was done in 1832 as the result of an international conference held at London, and in the next year a Bavarian prince, Otto, was called to the throne. Increasing unpopularity caused his deposition in 1962, after which Danish prince was invited to rule the country. Greece 1829-32

In her foreign relations Greece was generally fortunate. In 1862 the British government gave her the Ionian Islands which lay just off the west coast, and which England had Foreign relation got during the Napoleonic Wars; and at the Congress of Berlin her northern boundaries were extended. In 1897, during a rebellion in the large Greek-inhabited island of Crete, Greece declared war on Turkey, but was at once overwhelmed and would have lost some of her territory in the north except for prompt intervention by the powers. None the less the Cretans, who had repeatedly risen in rebellion since the time of the Greek War of Independence, were now given autonomy under Turkey. In 1905, under their leader, Venizelos, the greatest Greek of his generation, they declared for union with Greece, and five years later the Treaty of London at the end of the First Balkan War brought this about. In the First Balkan War, the Greeks got command of the sea, occupied such islands in the Ægean as Italy had not taken the year before, and, defeating the Turkish armies opposed to her, got the longcoveted city of Salonica. In the second war, she helped Servia to defeat Bulgaria, and kept what she had won. During the Great War Venizelos would have had her join the Allies, but the sympathy of the sovereign was with Germany, and for a long time Greece remained neutral. The Allies occupied Salonica, and in 1917 a revolution drove the king out, whereupon Greece entered the war with England and France. In 1920 during the settlement of European affairs, at Paris, Greece received considerable portions of Turkish territory along the Ægean and up beyond Adrianople and also in Asia Minor.

The domestic history of the country during this period has no great general interest. The people are descended from the ancient Hellenes, though their forefathers mingled with the Slavic intruders who came into the peninsula in the early Middle Ages. Their language is a modification of the Greek spoken by the countrymen of Aristotle and Pericles. Indeed, modern Greek is much more like the Greek of classical times than modern English is like AngloSaxon. The people belong to the Greek Catholic Church. Domestic affairs

The government is a constitutional monarchy. The people continued the traditions of old Greece and developed much commerce and shipping, but the country has been poor and opportunity small, and large numbers of emigrants have left the homeland.

Rumania dates from about the time when Greece was established. By the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829 the Danubian principalities, Moldavia and Wallachia, were left under the nominal sovereignty of the sultan, but actually autonomous and largely dependent on Russia, who had gained them their freedom. Russian control of the country, which commanded the mouths of the Danube, awakened the jealousy of Austria, and in 1856 at the Congress of Paris the principalities were formally declared autonomous states under Turkish suzerainty and the Russian protectorate abolished, while at the same time Bessarabia, formerly an eastern part of Moldavia, lying across the Danube, and taken by Russia from Turkey in 1812, was restored to Moldavia once more. The constituent assemblies summoned in the two provinces declared for union in one state, but this was opposed by England who feared Russia, and by Austria who wanted no strong Rumanian state right on the border of her province of Transylvania, which was peopled by Rumans. None the less, the people of the two principalities proceeded to elect the same prince, Alexander Couza, and, supported by Napoleon III, who at this very time was making war upon Austria to assist Italian nationality, they were united. This union was sanctioned by Turkey in 1861. The great reforms which Couza undertook raised enemies who drove him from his throne five years later. He was succeeded by a German prince, Charles of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, in whose long reign the country went forward in development and progress. Rumania 1829-61-78

With Russia Rumania made war upon Turkey in 1877, and her soldiers won great distinction; but she gained Foreign affairs nothing, for in the settlement which followed Russia took back Bessarabia and gave the less valuable Dobrudja to the south, which had just been taken from Turkey. But the complete independence of Rumania was recognized by the Treaty of Berlin, and in 1881 her ruler assumed the title of king. Rumania took no part in the First Balkan War, but intervened decisively in the Second, and by the Treaty of Bucharest got a small portion of Bulgarian territory. During the Great War, like Italy and Greece, she maintained neutrality for some time, but in 1916 she joined the Allies. After a brief struggle she was overwhelmed, and presently forced to make an ignominious peace and see her country stripped bare. But two years later her enemies were completely overthrown and in the general settlement of European affairs at Paris, she obtained what she had so long hoped for--Transylvania, and proceeded to take Bukowina and Bessarabia also.

The domestic history of the country reveals steady development and increase in material prosperity. Even before her latest acquisitions Rumania was the largest and most populous of the Balkan states; she was rich in resources, was one of the great wheat- and oil-producing districts of Europe, and had a trade almost as great as that of the other Balkan states combined. After the settlement at Paris and the taking of Bessarabia her size was nearly doubled, and she became greater and more important than her neighbors, Austria, Hungary, or any of the Balkan states. Rumania was free from the uprisings and violent overturns which interfered with the development of neighboring states. Constitutional monarchy was established but a restricted franchise kept control in the hands of the upper classes. Under Alexander Couza a series of notable reforms was made; the property of the monasteries was confiscated, and part of the holdings of the great landowners was sold to the peasants, who at the same time were relieved of the more onerous of the feudal Domestic affairs

Prince Alexander Couze

or manorial obligations. These changes, which were carried through just about the time when Alexander II was making his great reform for the Russian serfs, partly failed to satisfy--for the same reasons as in Russia. The amount of land given to the peasants was small, and since the population increased rapidly, after a while the amount was insufficient. Furthermore, some of the feudal obligations were left upon the peasants, such obligations lingering in Rumania longer than anywhere else in Europe. The result was that while the wealth and prosperity of the country increased, it was largely for the upper classes. The mass of the people were poor, and agrarian discontent very great. During the period of the Great War, however, large estates were divided among the peasants and universal suffrage was granted. The people claim descent from Roman colonists of the time of Trajan, and their language is an offspring of the Latin; but most of the people are Slavic and most of them adherents of the Greek Orthodox Church.

Youngest of the Balkan states was Bulgaria. The Bulgarians like the Servians, had long before been formidable enemies of the Eastern Roman Empire in the days of the empire's decline, and both founded great states in the Balkan peninsula during the Middle Ages. Both of them were afterward overwhelmed by the Turks, and spent long ages in dumb and hapless subjection. Because of their rivalry and disputes the Turks had found it easy to conquer them, and afterward play them off against each other. The Bulars

In 1876 the Bulgarian peasants rose against their Turkish masters. The revolt was easily suppressed, but with such infamous cruelty that all of Europe was aroused. In 1877 Russia, moved partly by ambition to extend her influence toward Constantinople but also because of sincere sympathy for her kinsmen, declared war upon Turkey. In the next year, by the Treaty of Berlin, the Bulgaria, 1878-1908

Bulgarian country was divided into three parts, the southernmost, Macedonia, which contained many Bulgarian people, was left to the Turks; the middle part, Eastern Rumelia, was made an autonomous province under a Christian governor, but also under the direct authority of Turkey in military and political matters; while the northern part, was made into the autonomous principality of Bulgaria tributary to the sultan. Part of this enforced division was soon undone. In 1885 Eastern Rumelia joined Bulgaria. Greece and Servia were unwilling to see their new rival strengthened, and Servia suddenly attacked her. But the Bulgarians completely defeated their enemies at Slivnitsa, and the union was achieved.

The first ruler of the country was a German, Prince Alexander of Battenberg, but after a troublous reign of seven years he withdrew from the country, and presently another German, Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Cotburg was chosen. For some years the country was directed by the one great statesman whom Bulgaria has produced, Stephen Stambulov, in whose time Bulgaria threw off the tutelage of Russia and made herself truly independent. The young nation constantly grew in strength and prestige, and in 1908, at the time when Austria annexed the two Turkish provinces, the Bulgarian prince cast off all Turkish allegiance and proclaimed the independent Kingdom of Bulgaria. The Kingdom of Bulgaria 1908

Four years later Bulgaria was the principal member in the Balkan coalition which destroyed Turkish power, and after her armies had everywhere gained great triumphs she found herself in possession of the province of Thrace down beyond Adrianople. But in the next year, unwilling to compromise with her allies, she suddenly attacked Servia and Greece. She did not succeed in defeating them, and while they were driving her back the Rumanians suddenly came down from the north, while the Turks took back Adrianople. Bulgaria was forced to make abject sub- Misforutne in war mission. It was partly to get revenge and partly to undo the settlement of Bucharest that the Bulgarians joined the Teutonic powers in 1915 and helped to destroy first Servia then Rumania. But in 1918 she was the first to surrender to the Allies, and the war left her poverty-stricken, ruined and bare. The origin of the Bulgarians is not certainly known. Like the Magyars and the Finns they are apparently Asiatic intruders in Europe, but they are much mixed with Slavic people, and speak a Slavic language. Their religion is the Greek Catholic, but they have an independent church, the Bulgarian Exarchate. The principal industry is agriculture, and the Bulgarians constitute a state of small, sturdy, free, independent peasant proprietors. The government is a constitutional monarchy, under a king and a parliament, the Sobranje, elected by the people. Domestic affairs


H. W. Steed, W. A. Phillips, and D. A. Hannay, Short History of Austria-Hungary and Poland ( 1914); H. W. Steed, The Hapsburg Monarchy ( 2d ed. 1914), best, by the Vienna correspondent of the London Times; J. A. von Helfert, Geshichte Oesterreichs vom Ausgange des Wiener October Ausstandes 1848, 4 vols. ( 1869-86), the best work on the period.

The parts of the Dual Monarchy:
A. R. and Mrs. E. M. C. Colquhon , The Whirlpool of Europe, Austria-Hungary and the Hapsburgs ( 1907); Geoffrey Drage, Austria-Hungary ( 1909); R. W. Seton-Watson, Racial Problems in Hungary ( 1908), Corruption and Reform in Hungary ( 1911), The Southern Slav Question and the Hapsburg Monarchy ( 1911), excellent; Josef Ulrich , Das Oesterreichische Staatsrecht ( 3d ed. 1904), best on the subject; Alexandre de Bertha, La Hongrie Moderne, 1849-1901 ( 1901), La Constitution Hongroise ( 1898). E. Denis, La Bohème depuis la Montagne-Blanche 2 vols. ( 1903).

Austria-Hungary and the Balkans:
A. Beer, Die Orientalische Politik Oesterreichs seit 1774 ( 1883); T. von Sosnosky, Die Balkanpolitik Österreich-Ungarns seit 1866, 2 vols. ( 1913).

The Ottoman Empire:
W. Miller, The Ottoman Empire, 18011913 ( 1913), for a good introductory account; W. E. D. Allen, The Turks in Europe ( 1919); V. Bérard, Le Sultan, l'Islam, et les Puissances ( 1907); W. E. Curtis, The Turk and His Lost Provinces ( 1903); A. Vicomte de la Jonquière, Histoire de l'Empire Ottoman, 2 vols. ( 3d ed. 1914), the second volume contains the fullest account of Turkey since 1870; "Odysseus" [Sir C. N. E. Eliot ], Turkey in Europe ( 1908), excellent and suggestive; R. Pinon , L'Europe et l'Empire Ottoman ( 1913). The Eastern Question: Edouard Driault, La Question d'Orient depuis Ses Origines jusqu' à Nos Jours ( 1898, 7th ed. 1917), best; Die Balkanfrage, ed. by M. J. Bonn, ( 1914); M. Choublier, La Question d'Orient depuis le Traité de Berlin ( 1897); S. P. H. Duggan , The Eastern Question--a Study in. Diplomacy ( 1902); J. A. R. Marriott, The Eastern Question ( 1917).

The Balkan Wars:
H. M. Bralisford, Macedonia: Its Races and Their Future ( 1906); André Cheradame, Douze Ans de Propagande, 1900-1912 ( 1913); L. E. Gueschoff, L'Alliance Balkanique ( 1915), English trans. ( 1915), contains important documents and first-hand information; G. Young, Nationalism and War in the Near East ( 1915). For the military operations: J. G. Schurman , The Balkan Wars, 1912-1913 ( 1914); Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars ( Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1914); Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett, With the Turks in Thrace ( 1913); Hermengild Wagner, With the Victorious Bulgars ( 1913). Greece: Sir R. C. Jebb, Modern Greece ( 2d ed. 1901); Lewis Sergeant , Greece in the Nineteenth Century ( 1897); George Finlay , History of the Greek Revolution ( 1877), best on the subject; P. F. Martin, Greece of the Twentieth Century ( 1913). C. Kerofilas , Eleutherios Venizelos (trans. by B. Barstow, 1915). The Balkan states: W. S. Murray, "The Making of the Balkan States" ( Columbia University Studies, XXXIX, no. 1, 1910), scholarly; William Miller, The Balkans: Roumania, Bulgaria, Servia, and Montenegro ( 2d ed. 1908).

F. S. Stevenson, A History of Montenegro ( 1912). Servia: H. W. V. Temperley, History of Serbia ( 1917), best in English; Prince and Princess Lazarovich-Hrebelianovich, The Servian People, Their Past Glory and Their Destiny, 2 vols. ( 1910); W. M. Petrovitch, Serbia, Her People, History, and Aspirations ( 1915). Rumania: Oscar Brilliant, Roumania ( 1915); Nicolae Jorga, Geschichte des Rumänischen Volkes, 2 vols. ( 1905), best; D. Mitrany , Roumania, Her History and Politics ( 1915). Bulgaria: Edward Dicey, The Peasant State: an Account of Bulgaria in 1894 ( 1894); Guérin Songeon, Histoire de la Bulgarie depuis les Origines jusqu' à Nos Jours ( 1913).

[ Previous | Continue to Ch.XX ]