Produced by Bryan Ness, Graeme Mackreth and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)










PAX MUNDI.




  PAX MUNDI

  A CONCISE ACCOUNT OF THE PROGRESS OF
  THE MOVEMENT FOR PEACE
  BY MEANS OF ARBITRATION, NEUTRALIZATION,
  INTERNATIONAL LAW AND DISARMAMENT

  BY

  K.P. ARNOLDSON

  _Member of the Second Chamber of the Swedish Riksdag_

  AUTHORIZED ENGLISH EDITION
  WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY THE BISHOP OF DURHAM

  [Illustration]

  London

  SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & CO.
  PATERNOSTER SQUARE
  1892




  BUTLER & TANNER,
  THE SELWOOD PRINTING WORKS,
  FROME, AND LONDON.




CONTENTS.


                                                  PAGE

  INTRODUCTION                                     1

  ARBITRATION                                      8

  NEUTRALITY                                      40

  FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS                            82

  THE PROSPECTS                                  138

  APPENDIX                                       165




PREFATORY NOTE.


This little work, written by one who has long been known as a
consistent and able advocate of the views herein maintained, has been
translated by a lady who has already rendered great services to the
cause, in the belief that it will be found useful by the increasing
number of those who are interested in the movement for the substitution
of Law for War in international affairs.

  J.F.G.




INTRODUCTION TO THE ENGLISH EDITION.


It is natural that the advocates of international Peace should
sometimes grow discouraged and impatient through what they are tempted
to consider the slow progress of their cause. Sudden outbursts of
popular feeling, selfish plans for national aggrandisement, unremoved
causes of antipathy between neighbours, lead them to overlook the
general tendency of circumstances and opinions which, when it is
regarded on a large scale, is sufficient to justify their loftiest
hopes. It is this general tendency of thought and fact, corresponding
to the maturer growth of peoples, which brings to us the certain
assurance that the Angelic Hymn which welcomed the Birth of Christ
advances, slowly it may be as men count slowness, but at least
unmistakably, towards fulfilment. There are pauses and interruptions
in the movement; but, on the whole, no one who patiently regards the
course of human history can doubt that we are drawing nearer from
generation to generation to a practical sense of that brotherhood and
that solidarity of men--both words are necessary--which find their
foundation and their crown in the message of the Gospel.

Under this aspect the Essay of Mr. Arnoldson is of great value, as
giving a calm and comprehensive view of the progress of the course of
Peace during the last century, and of the influences which are likely
to accelerate its progress in the near future.

Mr. Arnoldson, who, as a member of the Swedish Parliament, is a
practical statesman, indulges in no illusions. The fulness with which
he dwells on the political problems of Scandinavia shows that he is
not inclined to forget practical questions under the attraction of
splendid theories. He marks the chief dangers which threaten the peace
of Europe, without the least sign of dissembling their gravity. And
looking steadily upon them, he remains bold in hope; for confidence
in a great cause does not come from disregarding or disparaging the
difficulties by which it is beset, but from the reasonable conviction
that there are forces at work which are adequate to overcome them.

We believe that it is so in the case of a policy of Peace; and the
facts to which Mr. Arnoldson directs attention amply justify the
belief. It is of great significance that since 1794 there have been "at
least sixty-seven instances in which disputes of a menacing character
have been averted by arbitration"; and perhaps the unquestioning
acceptance by England of the Genevan award will hereafter be reckoned
as one of her noblest services to the world. It is no less important
that since the principle of arbitration was solemnly recognised by
the Congress of Paris in 1856, arbitral clauses have been introduced
into many treaties, while the question of establishing a universal
system of international arbitration has been entertained and discussed
sympathetically by many parliaments.

At the same time Mr. Arnoldson justly insists on the steady increase of
the power of neutrals. Without accepting the possibility of "a Neutral
League," he points out how a necessary regard to the interests of
neutrals restrains the powers which are meditating war. And I cannot
but believe that he is right when he suggests that the problems of the
neutralization of Scandinavia, of Alsace and Lorraine, of the Balkan
States, of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, demand the attention of all
who seek to hasten "the coming peace."

It would be easy to overrate the direct value of these facts; but
their value as signs of the direction in which public opinion is
rapidly moving can hardly be overrated. They are symptoms of a growing
recognition of the obligations of man to man, and of people to people,
of our common human interests and of our universal interdependence.

I should not lay great stress on the deterrent power of the prospect of
the ruinous losses and desolations likely to follow from future wars.
A great principle might well demand from a nation great sacrifices;
and the very strength of a policy of Peace lies in the postponement
of material interests to human duties. But none the less the wide
expansion of commercial and social intercourse, joint enterprises, even
rivalries not always ungenerous, exercise a salutary influence upon
the feeling of nation for nation, and make what were once regarded as
natural animosities no longer possible.

Under the action of these forces we are learning more and more to
endeavour to regard debated questions from the point of sight of
our adversaries, to take account of their reasonable aspirations, to
make allowance for their difficulties, even to consider how they can
best render their appropriate service to the race, while we strive no
less resolutely to keep or to secure the power of fulfilling our own.
We could not regard our enemies as our grandfathers regarded theirs.
Already the conviction begins to make itself felt that the loss of one
people is the loss of all.

Meanwhile the growth of popular power and popular responsibility brings
a wider and more collective judgment to bear upon national questions.
The masses of peoples have more in common than their leaders, among
whom individual character has fuller development. The average opinion
of men, when the facts are set forth, responds to pleas of fellowship
and righteousness, and tends to become dominant.

Such influences in favour of international Peace spring out of steady
movements which, as they continue, will increase them. The past does
not limit their power, but simply reveals the line of their action.
Above all, they correspond with that view of our Christian faith which
the Holy Spirit is disclosing to us by means of the trials of our age.
Through many sorrows and many disappointments we are learning that the
fact of the Incarnation assures to us the unity of men and classes and
nations; and a wider study of history, which is now possible, shows
that the course of events makes for the establishment of that unity for
which we were created.

I cannot therefore but hope that the Essay of Mr. Arnoldson, which
gives substantial evidence of the reality and growth of this movement
towards Peace, will confirm in courageous and patient labour for an
assured end all who join in the prayer that it may please God "to give
to all nations unity, peace, and concord."

  B.F. DUNELM.

  AUCKLAND CASTLE,
  _October 14th, 1891_.




PAX MUNDI.




INTRODUCTION.


It was the small beginning of a great matter when, on December 22nd,
1620, a hundred Puritans landed from the ship _Mayflower_ upon the
rocky shore of the New World, having, during the voyage, signed a
constitution to be observed by the colonists.

These pious pilgrims were guided by the conception of religious freedom
which should construct for them there a new kingdom. They had, say the
annalists of the colony, crossed the world's sea and had reached their
goal; but no friend came forth to meet them; no house offered them
shelter. And it was mid-winter. Those who know that distant clime, know
how bitter are the winters and how dangerous the storms which at that
season ravage the coast. It were bad enough in similar circumstances
to travel in a well-known region; but how much worse when it is a
question of seeking to settle on an entirely unknown shore.

They saw around them only a bare, cheerless country, filled with wild
animals and inhabited by men of questionable disposition and in unknown
numbers. The country was frozen and overgrown with woods and thickets.
The whole aspect was wild; and behind them lay the measureless ocean,
which severed them from the civilized world. Comfort and hope were to
be found only in turning their gaze heavenward.

That they did conquer that ungrateful land and open the way for the
boundless stream of immigration which for wellnigh three centuries has
unceasingly poured in, must find its explanation in the faith that
upheld their ways amid the dangers of the wilderness, amid the hunger,
cold, and all manner of disheartening things, and gave them that power
which removed mountains and made the desert bloom.

These Puritans, strong in faith, were the founders of the New World's
greatness; and their spirit spoke out to the Old World in the greeting
with which the President of the United States consecrated the first
transatlantic telegraph cable in 1866:--

"Glory be to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill to men."

When this message came to us, the roar of cannon was but newly hushed,
and the man of "blood and iron" had victoriously set his foot upon one
of Europe's great powers; the same Austria which since then has, by the
Triple Alliance, united its warlike strength with Germany.

But that message has not been an unheeded sound to all; especially
to those whose warning voices the people never listen to before the
misfortune falls, but who are always justified after it has struck.
Yes! perchance in the near future it may again appeal to their reason,
and find a hearing only when Europe has fallen into untold miseries
after another war.

While menacing forebodings of this long expected war were spreading in
the summer of 1887 through various parts of our continent, a little
company of courageous men, strong in faith, like the pious pilgrims of
the _Mayflower_, gathered together for the voyage across the sea to
the New World, there to lay the foundation of a lasting work for peace.

Their first object was to present to the President of the United States
and to Congress an address aiming at the establishment of a Court of
Arbitration, qualified to deal with disputes which might arise between
Great Britain and the United States of North America. In that address,
signed by 270 Members of the British Parliament, allusion was made to
the resolutions on peace which from time to time had been brought into
Congress; and those who undersigned it declared themselves ready to
bring all their influence to bear in inducing the Government of Great
Britain to accept the proposition which should come from the Congress.
Amongst those who signed it were, besides many distinguished Members of
the House of Commons, several peers, including some of the bishops.

The address was presented to President Cleveland on October 31st, by
a deputation of twelve Members of Parliament, whose spokesman, Mr.
Andrew Carnegie, in his introductory speech, said: "Few events in the
world's history would rank with the making of such a treaty. Perhaps
only two in our own country's history could fitly be compared with
it. Washington's administration established the republic; Lincoln's
administration abolished human slavery. We fondly hope, sir, that
it may be reserved for yours to conclude a treaty not only with the
government of the other great English-speaking nation, but with other
lands as well, which shall henceforth and for ever secure to those
nations the blessings of mutual peace and goodwill. The conclusion of
such a treaty will have done much to remove from humanity its greatest
stain--the killing of man by man. And we venture to hope, that if the
two great nations here represented set such an example, other nations
may be induced to follow it, and war be thus ultimately banished from
the face of the earth."

In the President's favourable answer he mentioned that no nation in its
moral and material development could show more victories in the domain
of peace than the American; and it appeared to him that the land which
had produced such proofs of the blessings of peace, and therefore need
not fear being accused of weakness, must be in a specially favourable
position to listen to a proposal like the present; wherefore he
received it with pleasure and satisfaction.

A week later, Nov. 8th, the son-in-law of Queen Victoria, the Marquis
of Lorne, presided over a great meeting in London, at which many
eminent men were present. The chairman emphatically remarked in his
speech, that the settlement of international disputes by a Court
of Arbitration has the advantage that, through the delay which is
necessary, the first excitement has time to cool. The meeting declared
itself unanimously in favour of the proposed memorial. Thereupon
followed many similar expressions of opinion in England, whilst
simultaneously in twenty of the largest cities of North America mass
meetings were held, which with unanimous enthusiasm gave adhesion
to the cause, and petitions of the same character flowed in to the
President and Congress from the various parts of the great republic.

Encouraged by these preparatory movements amongst the two great
English-speaking peoples, M. Frédéric Passy, with other Members of
the Legislative Assembly of France, placed himself at the head of a
movement to petition the French Government, requesting that it should
conclude an Arbitration Treaty with the United States.

Such a memorial, bearing the signatures of 112 deputies and 16
senators, was received with much interest by the President.

On April 21st, 1888, Passy and forty-four other deputies moved a
resolution in the Chamber to the same effect; and the idea has been
carried forward in many ways since then, especially by a petition to
the President of the United States from three International Congresses
held in Paris, June 23rd-30th, 1889.




ARBITRATION.


Should these efforts lead in the near future to the intended result,
International Law would thereby have made an important progress.

It can no longer be denied that International Law does actually exist;
but we undervalue its significance because we are impatient. We do
not notice the advances it has made because they have been small;
but they have been numerous; and slowly, step by step, international
jurisprudence has progressed. This affects not only the awakening sense
of justice and acknowledged principles, but also their application,
which from the days of Hugo Grotius, 250 years ago, down to Martens,
Bluntschli, Calvo, and other most distinguished jurists of our day, has
been the subject of great scholarly activity, by means of which the
various regulations of jurisprudence have little by little been pieced
together into a foundation and substance of universally accepted law.

What has been most generally done to gain the object in view has
been the INSERTION OF ARBITRAL CLAUSES in treaties which were being
concluded or had already been concluded in reference to other
questions. In this direction SIGNOR MANCINI of Italy has been
especially active. As during the time he was Minister of Foreign
Affairs he had the concluding of a great number of treaties between
Italy and other countries, he made use of the opportunity to insert
into almost all--in nineteen instances[1]--an arbitral clause.

We have examples of treaties with such clauses in the commercial
treaty between Italy and England, 1883; Norway, Sweden, and Spain, by
a supplement in 1887; also England and Greece, 1886. According to the
first two agreements, all disputes about the right understanding of
the treaties shall be settled by arbitration, as soon as it becomes
apparent that it is vain to hope for a friendly arrangement. In the
Greco-English treaty it is further stipulated that all disputes which
directly or indirectly may arise in consequence of that treaty always
shall, if they cannot be amicably arranged, be referred to a committee
of arbitration, which shall be nominated by each party with a like
number of members; also that if this committee cannot agree, there
shall be appointed a tribunal of arbitration, whose decision both
nations bind themselves to accept.

The idea of concluding distinct TREATIES OF ARBITRATION, or of giving a
widely extended range to arbitral clauses, so that they should affect
the whole relation of the contracting parties to one another, is
comparatively new.

So far as I know, Mr. William Jay was the first who in modern times
advocated this idea, in a work which came out in New York in 1842, and
in which he proposed: that in the next treaty between, for example, the
United States and France, it should be stated that in case any dispute
should arise between the two nations, not only in respect of the
interpretation of that treaty, but also in respect of any other subject
whatever, the dispute should be settled by means of an arbitration by
one or more friendly powers.

A similar proposition was presented to Lord Clarendon in 1853. By
sending a deputation to the plenipotentiaries at the CONGRESS AT
PARIS in 1856, the English "Peace Society" succeeded in inducing
them to introduce into, one of the protocols a solemn recognition
of the principle of Arbitration. In the name of their governments
they expressed the wish that the states between which any serious
misunderstanding should arise, should, as far as circumstances
permitted, submit the question to the arbitration of a friendly power
before resorting to arms. This proposition, which was unanimously
adopted, was made by Lord Clarendon, the representative of England, and
supported by the emissaries of France, Prussia, and Italy,--Walewsky,
Manteufel, and Cavour.

But the first movement in favour of independent Treaties of Arbitration
came up in a petition in 1847, from the English Peace Society to
Parliament.

The next year this subject was discussed in the Peace Congress at
Brussels.

A few months later, Cobden brought forward in the House of Commons
an address to the Government, with the request that the Minister of
Foreign Affairs should be charged to invite foreign powers to enter
into treaties with this object. The proposal was in the beginning
received with astonishment and scorn; but called forth later an earnest
and important debate.

About six years later, HENRY RICHARD drew the attention of many
influential members of the American Congress to the relations
which were felt to be favourable for trying to arrange a treaty of
arbitration between Great Britain and the United States. American
statesmen, less bound by the old traditions of European diplomacy
would, it was thought, be able with greater freedom to attempt such
a novelty. The replies to this application were very favourable and
encouraging, and in various ways since then attempts have been made to
realize the idea.

IN MANY PARLIAMENTS from time to time propositions in this direction
have been brought forward and approved.

On July 8th, 1873, Henry Richard brought before the English Parliament
a proposition requesting the Government to invite negotiation
with foreign powers for creating a universal and well-established
international system of arbitration. The then Prime Minister,
Gladstone, expressed himself as favourable to, the proposal, but
advised its being withdrawn. Richard, nevertheless, persisted that it
should be dealt with, and obtained the remarkable result, that it was
carried with a majority of ten.

This example was followed by the ITALIAN CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES, Nov.
24th of the same year; and again on July 12th, 1890;[2] by the STATES
GENERAL OF HOLLAND, Nov. 27th, 1874; by the BELGIAN CHAMBER OF
REPRESENTATIVES, Dec. 19th, 1875; and shortly after by the SENATE of
the United States of America, and CONGRESS also, June 17th, 1874; and
April 4th, 1890.

The last-named resolution of Congress had been accepted by the Senate,
Feb. 15th of the same year, being recommended by the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, and runs thus:--

 The President be, and is hereby requested to invite from time to
 time, as fit occasions may arise, negotiations with any government
 with which the United States has or may have diplomatic relations,
 to the end that any difficulties or disputes arising between them,
 which cannot be adjusted by diplomatic agency, may be referred to
 arbitration, and be peaceably adjusted by such means.

On May 9th, 1890, Don Arturo de Marcoartu moved in the SPANISH SENATE
that the Spanish Government should enter into relations with other
European powers to bring about a permanent tribunal of arbitration in
Europe. In the first place, the mover proposed that the states should
come to an agreement upon a general truce for five years. In that
interval a congress of emissaries from all the European Governments and
Parliaments should be called together. The business of the congress
should be to work out a code of international law. The proposition was
urged, especially with regard to the necessity of finding a reasonable
solution of the great social question, since all effort in that
direction appears to be hopeless so long as the savings of the nations
are swallowed up by military expenditure. The Minister of Foreign
Affairs requested the Senate to take the proposition into serious
consideration, and on June 14th the Senate resolved to authorize the
Government to enter into negotiations with foreign powers for the
object indicated.

Neither are the Scandinavian Parliaments unaffected by this movement.

As far back as 1869 the question of arbitration was mooted in the
SWEDISH PARLIAMENT by Jonas Jonassen. In 1874 he proposed in the second
chamber that Parliament should submit to the King "that it would behove
his majesty on all occasions that might present themselves to support
the negotiations which foreign powers might open with Sweden or with
each other with reference to the creation of a tribunal of arbitration
for the solving of international disputes." The committee which dealt
with the proposition advised its acceptance. The Lower House passed
it, March 21st, by seventy-one votes against sixty-four; but the Upper
House rejected it.

The miserable dealing of the Parliament of 1890 with the question I
shall have occasion to refer to further on.

In the same year, the question made surprising advance in NORWAY. On
March 5th the Storting voted on the motion of Ullmann and many others,
by eighty-nine votes against twenty-four, an address to the King, which
begins thus:--

 "The Storting hereby respectfully approaches your Majesty, with the
 request that your Majesty will make use of the authority given by the
 constitution in seeking to enter into agreements with foreign powers,
 for the settling by arbitration of disputes which may arise between
 Norway and those powers."

And concludes with these words:--

 "In the full assurance that what the Storting here requests will be an
 unqualified benefit to our people, it is hereby submitted that your
 Majesty should take the necessary steps indicated."

A similar resolution was very near being voted by the DANISH FOLKETING
in 1875. The proposition as brought forward was, May 13th, unanimously
recommended by the committee in charge, but on account of the
dissolution of the House two days later, could not be acted upon.

Several years ago a petition was circulated in the various districts
of Denmark, by which Parliament was urged to co-operate as early
as possible in bringing about a permanent Scandinavian treaty of
arbitration.

In such a treaty, binding in the first instance for thirty years,
the petition affirms that the three northern kingdoms will have an
efficient moral support when there is occasion to withstand the
efforts of the great powers to entice or to threaten any of them to
take part in war as allies on one side or the other. Such a treaty
will, therefore, in great measure serve to preserve the neutrality of
the northern kingdoms, and thereby their lasting independence.

This petition was dealt with in the Folketing, March 27th, 1888. After
a short discussion, the following motion of F. Bajer was passed by
fifty votes against sixteen.

 "Since the Folketing agrees with the wish expressed in the petition,
 provided it is shared by the other States without whom it cannot be
 carried out, the House passes on to the order of the day."

In his little paper: _On the Prevention of War by Arbitration_, F.
Bajer writes:

 "It may certainly be granted, that a little State like Denmark cannot
 well work at the creation of a European tribunal of arbitration,
 so far as that means setting itself at the head of a movement for
 inviting the other European States to a Congress by which its creation
 shall be adopted.

 "But a little State like Denmark can always do something in the
 direction of arbitration between States. It can bring the matter a
 practical step forward by applying first to the other small States,
 especially to the neighbour States of Sweden and Norway, and proposing
 to them that mutual disputes shall in future, as far as possible, be
 settled by arbitration when other means have failed. The relations
 between the three northern kingdoms are indeed now so friendly that a
 war between them can hardly be thought of for a moment. But--as was
 said in confirmation of the resolution in the first northern Peace
 Meeting, respecting a permanent arbitration treaty between the three
 kingdoms--they have carried on many bloody internecine wars, which
 have only benefited their powerful neighbours, but have been in the
 highest degree injurious to themselves; and the possibility of war
 between the three northern kingdoms is not excluded so long as they
 are not simultaneously neutralized, or in some other way engaged to
 carry out a common foreign policy. It is no longer ago than 1873
 that the so-called "pilots' war" in Oeresund caused much bad blood
 among relatives on both sides of the sound. That that was settled
 authoritatively by the mutual declaration of the 14th of August is
 due to circumstances on whose continuance for the future it is not
 possible to reckon. Had a strained relation at the same time obtained
 between one or more of the great powers within or without the Baltic
 ports, and had these endeavoured to sow discord between the coast
 powers, that they might fish in the troubled waters, and feather
 their own nests by getting these small states as their allies; and
 if one power had got Denmark, but its enemy got Sweden-Norway as an
 ally--a new northern fratricidal war would have broken out. Even if
 such a future possibility cannot be entirely eradicated by a mutual
 arbitration treaty amongst the northern nations, a new guarantee for
 peace would be secured." (Bluntschli's expression.) "For the small
 northern kingdoms would by such a treaty acquire an excellent moral
 support when it came to withstanding the attempt of the great powers
 to entice or threaten them into taking part in wars as their allies.
 Such a participation is always a dangerous game, because, as history
 shows, the small States lose rather than gain. The small States are
 used as counters for the great ones to play with."

At this point we may remark, that as far back as 1848, the same year
that the Peace Congress was held in Brussels, Feb. 2nd, a treaty (the
Guadaloupe-Hidalgo Treaty) was concluded between the United States of
America and Mexico, containing a clause that a committee of arbitration
shall settle, not only such differences as may arise directly
concerning that treaty, but also shall, as the highest authority,
adjudicate as far as possible all disputes which may arise between the
high contracting States.[3]

SWITZERLAND concluded, July 20th, 1864, a similar treaty with the
HAWAIAN ISLANDS, and on October 30th with SAN SALVADOR.[4]

Siam, whose monarch has given many proofs of sympathy for Oskar II.,
concluded a similar treaty, May 18th, 1868, with the UNITED KINGDOMS,
and also with BELGIUM, Aug. 29th of the same year.[5] The CENTRAL and
SOUTH AMERICAN REPUBLICS, HONDURAS, and THE UNITED STATES OF COLOMBIA
did the same when on April 10th, 1882, they signed an arbitration
treaty between themselves.[6]

Since that time this vigorous idea has grown into the CENTRAL AND SOUTH
AMERICAN ARBITRATION LEAGUE, and is now making good way towards being
applied to the whole of America.

The question now is, whether the VALUE OF PEACE TREATIES, in general
or in particular, which are established between mutually distant small
States can be estimated as highly as the good intention of their
creation, which is habitually acknowledged to be good? Are they
something to be depended upon? Will they be carried into effect?

That depends in the first place upon what is meant by peace treaties.

If reference is made to certain international settlements which the
conquered, with hatred in their hearts, bleeding, upon their knees were
FORCED to accept, we may at once grant that they imply no security
for peace, but, on the contrary, are a fresh source of warlike
complications.

Thus, for example, the conclusion of peace which France was FORCED to
sign at Versailles, Feb. 26th, 1871, and by which Alsace-Lorraine was
torn from France, became a volcano which now for nineteen years has
held the nations in suspense and unrest, and still threatens to ruin
Europe.

Neither would it be advisable to set much store on such obligations as
the Western Powers undertook in the agreement which goes by the name
of the NOVEMBER TREATY, to help us to defend the northern part of our
peninsula against Russia; because a guaranteed neutrality implies in
reality more danger than safety, if the guarantee is not mutual; that
is, in this instance, if our eastern neighbour is not included in the
guarantee; which is so far from being the case that the treaty, on the
contrary, is a source of menace and distrust to him.[7]

With respect to certain treaties of alliance, whose object is to
collect THE GREATEST POSSIBLE NUMBER OF BAYONETS as a mutual security
against other powers, who, on their side, seek to protect themselves
by uniting their forces, nobody can see in them anything else than a
guarantee for an armed peace, which, by the necessity of its nature,
leads to war.

If, on the contrary, by peace treaties are meant such international
contracts as are NOT WRITTEN IN BLOOD; such as relate to trade and
commerce, industry, art, science and so on, it would be in vain to seek
for a single instance of the breach of contract, either on the side of
the weaker or the stronger.

Neither can any example in our time be pointed to of open violation of
the rights of a small country in its quality of an independent State,
as long as these rights have stood under the mutual guarantee of the
great powers.

As evidence to the contrary, the London treaty of May 8th, 1853, has
been adduced, which was intended to secure Denmark's neutrality; the
Treaty of Paris, April 14th, 1856, respecting the Black Sea; and the
fifth article of the Peace of Prague in 1866. But here the fault lies
in a misunderstanding.

What the Treaty of London established was not the indivisibility of
Denmark, but of the Dano-German monarchy. The German territory was to
be fast linked to the Danish. This was admitted, as a principle, by the
treaty to be fitting and right, but the treaty contained no trace of
stipulations as to guarantee.

With respect to Russia's breach of treaty of the stipulations as to
her banishment from the Black Sea as a military power,[8] it must
be remembered that the representatives of the powers, and of Russia
also, on January 17th, 1871, signed a protocol, whereby it was
settled as an essential axiom in international law, that no power can
absolve itself from the obligations which are entered into by treaty
without the consent of the contracting parties. Therefore Russia
openly acknowledged that her declaration of not choosing to abide
by the injunctions stipulated for in the Treaty of Paris respecting
the Black Sea, was precipitate, and that, consequently, the treaty
was permanently in force until it was formally abrogated. This took
place in the new treaty of March 3rd, of the same year. Besides, here
comes in what was said above about the value of such treaties as are
concluded after brute force has determined the issue. And this not only
was the case in the Black Sea stipulations, but also with respect to
the unfulfilled promises of article 5 of the Treaty of Prague, whereby
the Danish people was to be given the opportunity for a plebiscite in
determining upon their reunion with Denmark. As to the peace treaties
between the lesser States, which certainly have important trade
relations one with another, but which, on account of their mutually
distant position, cannot reasonably be expected to go to war with each
other, it is true that one cannot in general attribute any special
importance to them. Nothing is gained by over-estimating their value.
But they deserve to be brought forward as enrichments of international
law and guide-posts for other States. And that the small States need
not wait until the great ones are ready to unite appears just as much
in accordance with the nature of the case as with the interests of
their own well-being.

Calvo, undeniably the first authority in these matters, emphasizes
as a significant fact, that no single example can be pointed to in
which States, after their mutual disputes have been referred to the
consideration or judgment of arbitrators, have sought to _withdraw from
the operation_ of the decision. And according to Henry Richard and
other authorities, by allowing international questions to be settled by
arbitration, at least in sixty-seven instances, disputes of a menacing
character have been averted.

I shall not here give a detailed account of all these instances, but
only with the greatest conciseness refer to some of them.

In 1794 a contest between England and the United States of America
respecting St. Croix river was settled by arbitration; in 1803
France was in the same way condemned to pay 18 million francs to the
United States of America for unlawful seizure of vessels; in 1818 a
threatening dispute between Spain and the United States of America was
settled by arbitration, and a contention between these and England was
arranged by the Emperor of Russia, who was chosen as arbitrator, etc.

The best known of such disputes was the so-called Alabama question,
which threatened a desolating world-war. This affair sprang out of the
North American civil war 1861-65. The Southern States had privateers
built in England, among which the _Alabama_ especially wrought great
mischief to the Northerners. The Government of the Union considered
that England had broken her neutrality in allowing the equipment of
the privateer, and requested compensation.

A bitter feeling grew up and war appeared inevitable. But on January
24th, 1869, an agreement was happily entered into, which, with fresh
negotiations, led to the Washington treaty, May 8th, 1871. In harmony
with this the dispute was referred for settlement to a Court of
Arbitration consisting of five members, of which England and the United
States each chose one, and the neutral states of Italy, Switzerland,
and Brazil, likewise each chose one. These five met on December 15th,
1871, as a tribunal of arbitration, at Geneva, and delivered their
judgment on September 14th following (four votes against England's
one), that the English Government had made a breach in its duty
as a neutral power with respect to some of the privateers under
consideration, and therefore England would have to pay an indemnity of
15-1/2 million dollars to the United States.[9]

England bowed to the award and fulfilled her duty.

In the same way the powerful insular kingdom voluntarily submitted
to settlement in the weary contention regarding the possession of
Delagoa Bay and the surrounding region on the east coast of Africa. The
dispute was entrusted for settlement, in 1874, to the President of the
French Republic, MacMahon, and he decided in July, 1875, in favour of
Portugal. That the new contention between these two States, which for
some time now has excited an inflammable spirit, not only in Portugal,
but in other countries as well, will be arranged in the same friendly
manner, there is but little doubt.

The claim of Portugal is much older than that of England. Its special
ground is the discovery of the coast which was made by Portuguese
mariners three hundred years ago. The Portuguese urge, that since
the coast is theirs, they have a right to go as far inland as they
choose and place the country thus entered under their dominion. They
say further, that they have made a treaty with a native ruler over a
kingdom which stretches far inland, and that ruined fortresses are
still to be found which show that they once had this distant region
in possession. To this assertion Lord Salisbury answers, that where
ruined fortresses are found they only testify to fallen dominion. The
English Government could not recognise Portugal's construction of the
contested question; according to that construction the question would
virtually turn upon the possession of Shireland and Mashonaland (the
inland country north and south of the Zambesi). It denied Portugal's
claim to this territory as so entirely groundless that it could not
enter into such a question; but has on the other hand made a peremptory
claim, arising from Portugal's violence towards the natives who are
under England's protection, for dishonour to the English flag, and for
other international offences, etc.

The right of possession of the regions in question can no longer
be regarded as doubtful, since Portugal had set aside the general
international axiom, that the claim for possession according to
colonial usage can only be held valid when colonization is actually
carried out to the furtherance of civilization and public safety.
Portugal's assertion that the signatories of the Congo Act would be
the right adjudicators of the question was denied, upon the ground
that Portugal had delayed to make her claim valid when Nyassaland was
declared to belong to the sphere of England's interests. On July 1st,
1889, the Under-secretary, Sir James Fergusson, in the Lower House,
explained that the Portuguese Government had been informed that they
would be held answerable for all loss which Englishmen might suffer
by the annulling of the Delagoa railway convention. The same day Lord
Salisbury informed the Upper House that the English Government would
send three war-ships to Delagoa Bay, to be ready in case of need.
Portugal's conduct was, in his opinion, unjustifiable.

Then came the noble lord's ultimatum, with the demand that Portugal
should recall all Portuguese officers and troops from the territory
which stands under the sovereignty of England or lies within the sphere
of England's interests, and give an answer within twenty-four hours;
otherwise England would be compelled to break off her relations with
Portugal. This threatening manner of procedure, by which a weaker
nation was humbled by superior power, roused bad blood in Portugal and
was sharply censured in many parts of Europe; yes, even in England,
and in Parliament, in the press, and at many great public meetings.
At one of these meetings, composed of 700 workmen delegates from
various parts of England and 130 Members of Parliament, in quality
of vice-presidents, it was unanimously resolved to protest against
Lord Salisbury's conduct as at variance with the dignity of the
British nation; and to request that the dispute should be settled by
arbitration--so much the rather, as the more certain one is of being
in the right, the more confidently can one's cause be placed in the
hands of an impartial tribunal. Later on the English Government,
together with the North American virtually resolved on this expedient
for solving, the difficulties relating to Delagoa Bay. Portugal made
difficulties and delays, but at length declared herself willing to
enter into a proposal for arbitration.[10] All three States were now
united in asking the Government of Switzerland to choose three of her
most distinguished jurist officials as arbitration judges.

At the time when the first Anglo-Portuguese contest was settled by the
President of the French Republic there occurred a second example of
both importance and interest. For many years there had been a menacing
boundary dispute between Italy and Switzerland, just a little seed of
quarrel, such as formerly always broke out into bloody strife, since
according to the traditions of national honour not an inch of a patch
of ground must be given up except at the sword's point. But the two
kingdoms decided to commend the case to an arbitrator, viz., the United
States minister in Rome, P. Marsh, who, after a careful study of the
claims of the contending parties, declared judgment in favour of Italy,
and so the contention was adjusted.

Two DANGEROUS DISPUTES, which in 1874-75 and 1880 threatened an
outbreak of war between CHINA and JAPAN, but were happily solved by
arbitration, might be named, but for fear of being prolix I dare not go
more particularly into them, instructive as they are.

The first arose as a result of a murder of some Japanese on the island
of Formosa, and was settled by the English minister in Pekin, who was
chosen by both parties as arbitrator, who decided that China should
give Japan in redress a large sum of money, which was done.[11]

The second of these disputes concerned the sovereignty of the Liu
Kiu Islands, and was adjusted by a compromise brought about by
ex-president Grant, who in a conversation with the Chinese Minister
uttered these memorable words: "An arbitration between two nations
will never satisfy both nations alike; but it always satisfies the
conscience of humanity."[12]

Not to be tedious, I pass over here many other remarkable instances in
which war and lesser misfortunes have been averted by arbitration; and
will now name further only some of the latest date.

In 1887 a lengthened dispute about boundaries between CHILI and the
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC was adjusted by arbitration, through the mediation
of the United States Ministers in the two countries. After a complete
and precise fixing of the boundary line, an agreement was added: That
the Straits of Magellan shall for ever be neutralized; free passage
shall be secured to ships of all nations, and the erection of forts or
other military works on either of its shores shall be forbidden.

Fresh in the memory is the passionate quarrel between SPAIN and GERMANY
about the CAROLINE ISLANDS. That was submitted, on Prince Bismarck's
proposal, to Pope Leo XIII. for settlement, and was adjusted by him.

Most people now living remember the AFGHANISTAN BOUNDARY question,
which was happily solved by the friendliness on both sides of the
RUSSIAN AND ENGLISH Governments. The whole world followed for a while
that dispute with anxiety and disquietude. The press unhappily, as
usual, employed its influence in stirring up the national passions
in both countries. But before it had gone too far, fortunately the
feelings were quieted by the public being reminded that both England
and Russia had taken part in the resolution of the Paris Congress,
which declared that when any serious dispute arose between any of
the contracting powers, it should be referred to the mediation of a
friendly power. Upon this ground the English Government proposed to the
Russian that the "dispute should be referred to the ruler of a friendly
State, to be adjusted in a manner consistent with the dignity of both
lands." This proposal was accepted, but did not come into practice. It
was not needed. The Afghanistan boundary commission itself carried out
its duties to a successful issue.

Still later many smaller INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES have been solved by
arbitration; for instance:--

Between ITALY and COLOMBIA in South America, respecting Italian
subjects who had suffered loss through the last revolution in Colombia,
in which Spain as arbitrator decided in favour of Italy.

Between BRAZIL and ARGENTINA respecting their boundaries, a dispute in
which both parties appealed for a settlement to the President of the
United States of America, and which was adjusted by him.

Between the UNITED STATES of North America and DENMARK, in which the
latter was, by the chosen arbitrator, the English Ambassador at Athens,
Sir Edward Monson, after long delay freed from the obligation to pay
compensation to the Americans, because the Danish authorities had fired
at an American ship which in 1854 was escaping out of the harbour of
St. Thomas, and which was suspected of carrying supplies to Venezuela,
at that time in insurrection.

In conclusion it can be urged,--

That FRANCE and HOLLAND agreed to have the boundary between their
possessions in Guiana determined by arbitration.[13]

That the international committee which met in Washington to arrange the
impending fishery question between GREAT BRITAIN, CANADA and the UNITED
STATES, decided to recommend the creation of a permanent tribunal of
arbitration for adjusting future disputes respecting these relations;
also:

That the council of the Swiss Confederation, at the combined request of
PORTUGAL and of the CONGO STATE Government has undertaken to arbitrate
the possible disputes which may arise respecting the regulation of
boundaries amongst their African territories.

Besides these and other instances which I am acquainted with, many
others have certainly taken place, though attracting less attention.

The idea of arbitration goes peacefully and quietly forward, and the
world therefore takes little notice of it.

It is quite otherwise with the crash of war, whose external show of
greatness and glory, and whose inward hatred and crime, are desolating
the happiness of the nations and are accompanied by distress and gloom.

The one is a fearful hurricane which rends the mountains and breaks in
pieces the rocks.

The other is the still small voice, mightier than the devastating
storm, since it speaks to us in the name of everlasting righteousness,
because it is the voice of God.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: Mazzoleni, in his "L'Italia nel movimento per la Pace,"
gives twenty instances. See pp. 58, 59. TRANS.]

[Footnote 2: On a motion by Ruggiero Bonghi, supported by Crispi in
a speech in which he said that the future depended upon a European
tribunal of arbitration.]

[Footnote 3: See Martens' "Nouveau recueil général," xiv. p. 32 (art
xxi.), and Calvo, "Droit International," II., § 1499.]

[Footnote 4: According to a Manuscript by President Louis Ruchonnet,
addressed to F. Bajer.]

[Footnote 5: See "Svensk förfaltningssamling," 1869, No. 74, page 26,
and "Lois Beiges," 1869, No. 36, § 24. In the Swedish-Siamese treaty,
art. 25, it is stated: "Should any disagreement arise between the
contracting parties which cannot be arranged by friendly diplomatic
negotiation or correspondence, the question shall be referred for
solution to a friendly neutral power, mutually chosen, whose decision
the contracting powers shall accept as final." Similar agreements are
to be concluded between Italy and Switzerland, Spain and Uruguay, Spain
and Hawaii, and between France and Ecuador.]

[Footnote 6: The Treaty is given word for word in the _Herald of
Peace_, July, 1883.]

[Footnote 7: In this treaty, which was concluded at Stockholm, Nov.
21st, 1855, the King of Norway and Sweden bound himself not to resign
to Russia, or to barter with her, or otherwise allow her to possess,
any portion of the territory of the united kingdoms, nor to grant to
Russia right of pasture or fishery, or any similar rights, either on
the coast of Norway or Sweden. Any Russian proposal which might be made
under this head must be made directly to France or England, who then
by sea and land must support us by their military power. A glorious
contrast to the declaration of neutrality, Dec. 15th, 1853!]

[Footnote 8: Conquered Russia had to bind herself, at the conclusion of
peace, not to keep war ships in the Black Sea, not to have any haven
for war ships on her coasts. Stipulations which were perceived by all
thinking men at the time to be untenable in the long run.]

[Footnote 9: £3,196,874 were received by Sec. Fish, Sept. 9th, 1873.
See Haydn's "Dictionary of Dates."]

[Footnote 10: _The Arbitrator_, 1890, April.]

[Footnote 11: The Japanese Government demanded redress, which was at
first refused by China. This led to a stormy correspondence, which at
last became so bitter that both sides prepared for war. The Japanese
troops had already taken possession of Formosa. During this dangerous
juncture, the British minister in Pekin, Sir Thomas Wade, offered to
mediate as an arbiter. The offer was accepted, and led to an agreement
between the Chinese Government and the Japanese ambassador in Pekin,
by which China was to pay Japan 50,000 taels, and the Japanese troops
were to evacuate Formosa. When Lord Derby, who was at that time Foreign
Secretary of Great Britain, received a telegram from Sir Thomas Wade
respecting this happy result, he answered him: "It is a great pleasure
to me to present to you the expression of the high esteem with which
her Majesty's Government regards you for the service you have rendered
in thus peaceably adjusting a dispute which otherwise might have had
unhappy consequences, especially to the two countries concerned,
but also for the interests of Great Britain and other parties to
treaties." Sir Harry Parkes, the English minister in Japan, wrote to
Lord Derby, that the Mikado, the Emperor of that land, had invited him
to an interview for the purpose of expressing his satisfaction at the
result, and through him to present his warm thanks for his brave and
efficient service. The Japanese minister in London also called upon
Lord Derby and expressed the thanks of his Government to Mr. Wade. "He
could assure me," said Lord Derby, when he repeated the words of his
excellency, "that the service which has thus been rendered will remain
in grateful remembrance among his countrymen."]

[Footnote 12: This dispute had assumed quite a serious and menacing
character when the ex-president Grant, on his journey round the world,
came to China. When his arrival became known, the Chinese prince, Kung,
submitted to him that he should use his great influence in mediating
between the two countries. A specially interesting conversation
followed: "We have," said Prince Kung, "studied international law
as it is set forth by English and American authors, whose works are
translated into Chinese. If any value is to be set upon principles
of international right, as set forth by the authors of your nation,
the doing away with the independence of the Liu Kiu Islands is an
injustice." Grant reminded him that he was there only as a private
individual, but added, "It would be a true joy to me if my advice or
efforts could be the means of preserving peace, especially between
two nations for whom I cherish such interest as for China and Japan."
Immediately afterwards he returned to Tokio, the capital of Japan,
called upon the Emperor and his Minister, and advocated a peaceable
settlement of the dispute. He wrote to Prince Kung the result of his
mediation, and produced a scheme for a Court of Arbitration.]

[Footnote 13: At the Peace of Utrecht, 1713, it was decided that the
course of the river Maronis was the boundary. But that river divides
itself into two branches which embrace a large tract of land, almost
a fifth part of French Guiana. Neither France nor Holland had claimed
that land until gold beds were discovered there, and it had to be
decided which of the two arms of the river was to be considered as the
Maronis, and which as a tributary.]




NEUTRALITY.


Side by side with the idea of arbitration, another pacific idea,
already powerful, is pressing forward, and growing into an
International Law, namely, the Law of Neutrality.

He is neutral, who neither takes part for, nor against, in a dispute.
Neutrality is the impartial position which is not associated with
either party. The State is called neutral which neither takes part in a
war itself, nor in time of war sides with any of the warring parties.

In ancient times neutrality was not understood as a national right.
Neither the Greek nor the Latin language has any word to express
the idea. In the days when Roman policy was seeking to drag all the
nations of the earth into its net, the Romans saw in other peoples only
tributaries who had been subdued by their armies, subject nations who
had submitted to the Roman yoke, allies who were compelled to join in
their policy of conquest, or lastly enemies, who sooner or later would
have to bow before their victorious legions. Neutral States there were
none.

The centuries immediately following the dissolution of the Western
Roman Empire were filled with constant strife. This continued long
before the refining power which exists in the heart of Christianity
began to show itself in the foreign relations of States.

The foundations of modern Europe were laid in war.

During the Crusades the whole of our continent was under arms. The
struggle against the "infidel" was not simply a contest between one
State and another, it was also a contest between Christian Europe and
Mohammedan Asia. To be neutral in such a struggle would, according to
the judgment of the time, have been equivalent to denying the faith.
Within the European States, feudalism exerted no less a hindrance to
the embodiment of the principle of neutrality. It would have been
thought the gravest crime to loosen the bond of military service which
compelled vassals to support with arms the cause of their feudal lords.
It was only with the close of the age of feudalism, when Europe began
to separate into three or four great monarchies, that neutrality in
politics became a means of preserving the balance.

In later times increasing COMMUNICATION and TRADE have above all
contributed to the development of neutral laws. Without the sanction
of these, a naval war between two great nations would have made any
maritime trade all but impossible. Down to the close of the last
century, however, neutral rights were dependent either on national
statutes or on special treaties concluded between one State and
another. The law only gained certain international importance towards
the close of the eighteenth century through the NEUTRAL ALLIANCES which
from time to time were contracted between States.

In the period between 1780 and 1856 the subject gained an entrance by
degrees among all maritime nations except England, who, independent
of it, and always relying on her own strength, continuously sought to
maintain unlimited domination at sea.

In 1854-56 begins, so far as neutrality is concerned, a new era of
international law.

From this time the opposition which England raised to the practical
application of neutrality in naval war may be regarded as having
broken down. On the 30th of March, 1854, the French Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Drouyn de Lhuys, published a communication, including, amongst
other things, that the neutral flag during the then begun (Crimean)
war, should be regarded as a protection for all neutral and hostile
private property, except contraband of war. The same day the English
Government gave forth in the _London Gazette_ a similar declaration,
and on April 19th of the same year the Russian Government notified in
the _Official Gazette_ of St. Petersburg that Russia would, during that
war, act upon the same rules as the Allied powers.

The provisions, which thus the Western powers on one side, and
Russia on the other, believed themselves bound to observe towards
neutral states, were at the Peace of Paris, 1856, solemnly ratified
as International Law in force for all time. The principles which the
plenipotentiary signatories of the Peace Treaty of Paris agreed upon in
a proclamation of April 16th, 1856, are as follows:--

1. Privateering is and shall be abolished. 2. The neutral flag shall
protect property belonging to the enemy, with the exception of
contraband of war. 3. Neutral goods, except contraband of war, may
not be seized under the enemy's flag. 4. Blockades in order to be
obligatory must be fully effectual; that is, shall be maintained with a
strength really sufficient to prevent approach to the enemy's coast.

The Governments which signed the treaty bound themselves also, in this
proclamation, to communicate the resolutions to the States which were
not called to take part in the Paris Conference, and to invite them to
agree in these decisions. All the European States except Spain, and a
number of powers outside Europe, declared themselves ready to carry out
in practice the entire resolutions of the proclamation.

Many wars since then have shaken Europe; but under all these
misfortunes the warring States have not only conscientiously observed
the principles laid down in 1856, but they have gone further, in
certain points, in applying them, than they by it were bound to do.
Thus the Austrian Government issued an order, during the war with
France and Sardinia, with respect to maritime national law, in many
points far beyond what hostile or neutral powers had any ground for
requesting. The Imperial decree not only charged its military and civil
officers to follow strictly the injunctions of the proclamation, but
Sardinian and French vessels, which lay moored in Austrian waters, were
also to be permitted to load freight and proceed to foreign seas, on
condition that they took on board no contraband of war or prohibited
goods of any description. Immediately on the outbreak of war, the same
principles were adopted by France and Sardinia. These States, however,
went a step further than Austria, inasmuch as they unreservedly
declared that they would not regard coal as a contraband of war.

During the Dano-German War, in 1864, and the war between Austria and
Prussia and Italy, in 1866, the international principles of maritime
law received a similarly wide interpretation.

During the North American Civil War important questions came up, which
more or less affected the principle of neutrality. The question, which
became one of the greatest importance, arose in respect of the injury
which the commerce and navigation of the Union suffered during the war
from various privateers which were built in England on the Southerners'
account.

The ALABAMA QUESTION took its name from the privateer which went out
from Liverpool and occasioned the greatest devastation while the
war lasted. Although the executive of the Union at Washington duly
directed the attention of the English Government to the fact that
allowing the pirate to leave the English port would be equivalent to
a breach of the peace, yet the Government took no measures to prevent
the vessel leaving. The American Government, who with reason regarded
this omission as a violation of the laws of neutrality, claimed from
England full compensation for the property which had been destroyed
in the course of the civil war by the Southern privateer which came
from an English port. I have previously given more particularly the
constitution and functions of the Court of Arbitration appointed to
settle the threatening dispute which arose on this occasion. The
arbitration award had to be adjudicated in accordance with the three
following fundamental principles of international law:--

A neutral Government is bound:--

1. To guard assiduously against any vessel being armed or equipped
in its ports, which there is reason to believe would be employed for
warlike purposes against a peaceful power, and with equal assiduity to
prevent any vessel designed for privateering, or other hostility, from
leaving the domain of the neutral State:

2. Not to allow any belligerent power to make use of its ports or
harbours as the basis of its operations, or for strengthening or
repairing its military strength, or for enlisting:

3. To use every care within its ports and harbours and over all persons
within its domain, to prevent any violation of the obligations named.

The contracting parties to this treaty agreed to hold themselves
responsible for the future, and to bring them before the notice of
other Maritime powers, with the recommendation that they also should
enter into them.

The historical facts here produced show that the mutual interest
nations have in the inviolability of the seas has effectually
contributed to the development of an accepted international law.

When the necessity of making the principles of neutrality binding at
sea was once understood, it was not long before the value of adopting
them on land became apparent.

In the documents, for instance, by which Belgium, Switzerland and
Luxemburg are neutralized, it is distinctly stated that the permanent
neutrality of these States is in full accord with the true interests of
European policy.

According to the actual modern law of nations, there is a permanent
neutrality guaranteed by international deeds of law and treaties, and
one occasionally resting upon free decisions.[14]

As instances of permanent and guaranteed neutrality, we have: The
NEUTRALIZATION OF SWITZERLAND. Ever since the unhappy Italian war in
the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Swiss Confederation has
endeavoured to assure to the country the security which neutrality
gives.

This neutrality was recognised and guaranteed by the great European
powers at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 (art. 84 and 92), and later
was further solemnly confirmed by a special act of the powers at Paris,
Nov. 20th of the same year, in which it was stated:

"The powers declare ... by a permanent act that the permanent
neutrality and inviolability of Switzerland, as well as its
independence of foreign influence, accords with the true interests of
European policy."[15]

THE NEUTRALIZATION OF BELGIUM. In virtue of the Treaty of London, Nov.
15th, 1831 (art. vii.), further confirmed by the powers April 19th,
1839, a permanent neutrality was awarded to Belgium.

This country, which for centuries had served as a battle-ground for
foreign powers, especially for France and Germany, was hereby secured
against such dangers, and at the same time the field for European
warfare was materially narrowed.

Article vii. of the London protocol runs thus: "Belgium shall, within
the boundaries established in art. i. and iv., form an independent
State. The kingdom is bound to observe the same neutrality towards all
States."[16]

During the Franco-German war 1870-1, the neutralization of Belgium was
threatened with violation by France, and further guarantees were given
in new protocols arranged by England.

THE NEUTRALIZATION OF THE ARCHDUCHY OF LUXEMBURG resulted from the
London protocol of May 11th, 1867.

As an evidence of the power and importance in our day of entering into
agreements of neutrality, the following may be adduced:--

During the Franco-German war, 1870-1, the Prussian Government
complained to the guaranteeing powers of conduct at variance with
neutrality on the part of Luxemburg, and threatened no longer to
respect the neutrality of the Archduchy. (Despatch of Prince Bismarck,
Dec. 3rd, 1870.)

In consequence of this, Count Beust, the Austrian chancellor, in an
opinion given Dec. 22nd of the same year, remarked, that upon the
ground of the principle of European guarantee, it belonged to the
powers who had signed the document of neutralization, to inquire into
and to settle whether a violation had taken place on the part of the
neutral State, and not to one of the belligerent powers.[17]

Besides the States named, a permanent neutrality has been secured to
the IONIAN ISLANDS according to the treaties of London, 1863-64; and
also to the SAMOAN ISLANDS, in virtue of the agreement between England,
Germany, and the United States of North America, whereby, amongst
other things, it was settled that in case of any difference of opinion
arising; an appeal should be made to arbitration; and that a supreme
tribunal should be created with a supreme judge, whom the King of
Sweden and Norway has been empowered to name.

       *       *       *       *       *

One general advantage which neutralization affords is the
simplification with respect to foreign policy thereby obtained.

The attitude of a neutralized State can be reckoned on beforehand by
all parties.

In proportion to its military importance and position, a neutral
country constitutes in many ways a security to all the powers.

It is in close connection with neutralization that in these days an
ever-growing need is becoming apparent to localize wars as much as
possible; that is, to confine them to those who begin them.

As a result of the extraordinarily rapid development of world-wide
trade and intercourse, and the consequent community of interests, a war
between two States necessarily occasions more or less derangement to
the rest.

In this increasing solidarity lies the surest guarantee that neutrality
will be respected.

We may already be justified in drawing the conclusion that the security
of neutral States will continually increase.

       *       *       *       *       *

Supported upon these foundations of history and of international
law, a discussion was raised on the neutralization of Sweden, in the
First Chamber by Major C.A. Adelsköld, and by myself in the Second,
in the hope thereby not only to oppose the King's bill for the
extension of the war department, but also especially to open the way
for a profitable solution of the tough, old, threadbare question of
Defence.[18]

Before this resolution was brought into the Riksdag, I had read it to
seventy members of the Riksdag, who unanimously accepted it, as did
also, later on, in the main, a majority of the [Norwegian] Storting.
[19]And as soon as the purport of the resolution became generally known
through the press, there came in from popular meetings all over Sweden
numerous congratulatory addresses to Major Adelsköld and myself.

But from its very commencement the proposition met with an
unconquerable opposition from those in power.

With great unanimity efforts were made in this quarter to depreciate
the value and the historical importance of the principle of neutrality.
All possible means were used with this object, to touch the tenderest
fibres of the national feelings. It would be a disgrace to us, it was
said, to employ any other than military power in asserting our primeval
freedom. We should thereby break off from our glorious history, and
draw a black line over its brilliant warlike reminiscences. There were
certainly neutral countries to be found, but their neutrality was not
the result of their own desire, but proceeded from the great powers
themselves. Should we then, they say further, be the first people to
take such a step? Would it not be equivalent to begging peace of our
neighbour, and declaring ourselves incapable before the whole world?
The sensible thing would be to further develop and strengthen our army.
The resolution was called a political demonstration of indigence; a
disgusting nihilist plot, and so on. One member of the Riksdag proposed
that it should be consigned to a committee charged with arranging for
sending beasts abroad. Scoffs came thick as hail; and when it became
known that the mover in the _Second Chamber_ was its author, the really
guilty one, he was branded as a universal traitor,--just as the year
before, when he raised a peaceable question about extended liberty of
conscience.

In my defence of the resolution in the Riksdag, I sought to anticipate
all objections to it which were worthy of notice.[20]

Amongst these I give special attention to the following five:--

 1. "The powers will not enter into the neutralization of Sweden.

 2. "But if, contrary to expectation, they did, the safety of the
 country would gain nothing by it.

 3. "On the contrary, our independence would be diminished by a
 guaranteed neutrality.

 4. "Without lessening our military burdens for defence.

 5. "The proposition is untimely."

With regard to the first objection, _viz._, that the powers would not
enter upon Sweden's neutralization, it appears to me that circumstances
of great weight imply the contrary.

We may be quite sure that the powers will first and foremost consult
their own interests. Scandinavia may be certainly regarded as specially
valuable as a base of military operations to any of the great Baltic
and Western States. But it would be quite a matter of consideration,
whether these powers would not gain more by the reciprocal security of
being all alike cut off from this base, than by the doubtful advantage
of being possibly able to reckon upon Scandinavia as an ally.

A neutralized Scandinavia would be a Switzerland among the seas; a
breakwater in the way between England and France on the one side,
and Russia and Germany on the other. In case of a war between these
great powers it would now be of considerable moment for any of them to
get the powers along the coasts of the Sound and the Belts, upon its
side. And how difficult it would be for the latter to preserve their
neutrality during such a war, must be evident to everybody.

So the interests are seen to be equally great on all sides. It may
therefore be deemed prudent to establish, in time, a permanent
neutrality of the powers along the coast. Here, according to my view,
lies a great problem for the foreign secretaries of the united kingdoms
and Denmark.

My reason for speaking here of neutralizing the whole of Scandinavia
is, that I am convinced that the brother-nations take entirely the same
view as the Swedish. With respect to the general interests of European
peace, the neutralization of Scandinavia would be more important than
that of Switzerland and Belgium, because the interests of the great
powers are greater and more equally balanced around the Scandinavian
North than around those two small continental States.

We have old friends in the Western powers; we have gained a new friend
in united Germany and by the neutralization of Scandinavia we shall
not only make friendship with Russia, but Denmark will gain that of
Germany, perhaps causing the last-named power to fulfil its duty to
Denmark with respect to North Sleswick, seeing that it need no longer
fear that its small neighbour would ever be forced into an alliance
with a powerful enemy of Germany.

But it is not only the political interests of the powers which would be
advanced by the neutralization of Scandinavia.

In the course of the last ten years world-wide traffic has made an
unheard-of growth and connecting links between nations have been formed
in many regions. As an example of the effect of these we may mention
that even thirty years ago the normal freightage for corn was 50-60
shillings sterling per ton, from the Black Sea to North Europe; but
the freightage from California and Australia to Europe, now, hardly
exceeds the half. A European war would exercise a paralyzing effect
here. Every one who has any conception of the influence of the price of
corn on, to speak broadly, the whole civilization of modern times, will
easily understand this.

Before the century closes this development will have woven a net of
common interest all over our continent, and necessarily called forth
such a sensitiveness in the corporate body of Europe, that, for
example, an injury in the foot of Italy may be said to cause pain right
up to Norway.

The merchant fleet of Norway, alone, is indeed the third in rank of all
the merchant fleets of the world. As is well known, the united kingdoms
take an advanced place in the carrying trade by sea. According to what
was told me by a distinguished merchant, the transport trade undertaken
by Norwegian and Swedish ships between foreign countries is five times
greater than that between home and foreign lands. Consequently, as the
keen competition between steam and sailing vessels increases, the only
country which can dispense with the service of our sailing vessels
is England, the great power upon which we may reckon always as an
ally. Most of the remaining countries, on the other hand, require our
merchant fleet.

Since, now, we could not of course defend our merchant service in a
war, and other and greater nations may be jeopardized as much as we, it
may be assumed that they would be willing, through the neutralization
of Scandinavia, to secure its fleet against the eventualities of war.

If we add such interests as affect trade and credit, civilization and
humanity, to the political interests, it appears that we may plead on
grounds of strong probability that the great powers would be willing to
guarantee our neutrality.

According to the second objection, the country would gain no security
from a guaranteed neutrality, even if, contrary to expectation, such
could be obtained.

Perfect safety cannot be attained here on earth by any system.
This is as true for nations as for individuals but I believe that
a neutrality thus guaranteed would be a strong protection to our
national independence, whilst in a not inconsiderable degree it would
contribute to the preservation of peace, and gradually help to lessen
the military burdens of all lands; consequently, and in the first
place, of our own.

Treaties, it is said, are broken as easily as they are made. Even if
it be true that this has occurred, it does not necessarily follow that
it must continue to occur. New factors may come in making it more
difficult to break engagements that have been entered into.

Experience shows that righteous laws have been transgressed, but no
one would aver that they are therefore unnecessary. As the moral power
of the law makes it possible to diminish the police force, so also
treaties of neutrality make it possible to diminish the military forces.

Besides, our opponents ought to bring forward evidence that the rights
of States at present neutralized have been violated. That they have
been threatened is true, and it would have been a wonder if this had
not happened under the lawless condition which has obtained among
nations.

The idea of neutrality has, nevertheless, as I have tried to show by
many examples, little by little developed into a valid principle of
justice; and the growth continues. The neutralization of Scandinavia
would bring it a great step forward, to the blessing both of ourselves
and of other nations.

According to objections 3 and 4, a guaranteed neutrality would diminish
our independence without contributing to lessen our burdens for defence.

The truth is, that international law as at present constituted does
not permit another power to interfere under any pretext with the
internal concerns of a neutral state, and therefore not with anything
which affects its system of defence or its measures for preserving its
neutrality. With these the neutral State, and it only, can deal.

As a proof of this being so, Luxemburg was neutralized in 1867 upon
condition that the strong fortress bearing that name should be
demolished. But this circumstance, imperative for the general peace
of Europe, shows on the other hand that guaranteeing powers do not
willingly impose upon a State any serious duty of fortifying itself in
order to defend its rights. Nevertheless the powers found it needful
to make a supplementary clause to the protocol by which the congress
concluded the neutrality of Luxemburg, whereby it was emphasized, as a
matter of course, that the article respecting the destruction of the
fortress of Luxemburg did not imply any sort of limitation of the right
of the neutral State to maintain, or, if it chose, to improve its own
works of defence. Belgium did indeed construct the great fortresses
around Antwerp long after the country was neutralized.

In reference to what one and another has said about the value of the
subject, nothing is needed beyond the fact that neutral rights have,
even in its present position, been respected in all essentials. That
a neutral power must abstain from mixing itself up with the policy
of other powers cannot imply a greater limitation of its right to
self-regulation than that a guaranteeing power shall abstain from
attacking a neutralized State or from making military alliance with
it. There is certainly a limitation for both parties, as far as
is necessary for adopting an intelligent union between States,--a
limitation of physical force and of love of war.

The neutral State has not to submit to any guardianship beyond what
any man must do and does, when he subjects his passions to the control
of a moral purpose.

Seeing that a guaranteeing State has no right to interfere in our
internal concerns, not even in anything we think good for our defence,
we shall always be free to keep up a military force, large or small.
But a neutralized State is obliged to disarm the troops of other
belligerent powers that may overstep its frontiers, just as of course,
under the lawless condition which war is and which it entails, it has,
according to its ability, to protect its boundaries with arms. But if
this duty cannot exempt Switzerland and Belgium from proportionately
large war burdens in time of peace, this would not at all in the
same degree affect the neutralization of the Scandinavian peninsula,
since there could never be a question of disarming troops which had
overstepped its boundaries, but only of preventing the war-ships of
a belligerent power from entering Norwegian or Swedish seas, a thing
which, under the protection of a guaranteed neutrality, could not take
place.

Respecting the fifth objection, which declares that the proposition
is untimely, I do not hesitate to express my opinion that just now,
during the truce which prevails, is the time to bring it forward. The
need of a settled peace increases everywhere, and it is therefore
probable that a proposition to the great powers respecting a guaranteed
neutrality for the united kingdoms would meet with general sympathy in
Europe.

On these and many other grounds I sought to maintain my proposition.

It was opposed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Baron Hochschild,
amongst others, who declared that he could not possibly support it. He
informed us that the whole of his colleagues in the Government took
the same view of the subject as himself. He desired that the bill as
well as the contingent appointment of a committee should be thrown out
totally and entirely.

As the minister in this way has made the matter into a cabinet
question, there could not well, under the present conditions, be any
question of the adoption of the bill.

In spite of this, however, the request of the Foreign Minister was not
complied with, seeing the Second Chamber adopted an amendment after
fifty-three members had voted for the acceptance of the original bill.

By the amendment which was adopted, the Chamber did not accept the
grounds of the committee's opinion--which the Foreign Secretary
approved--but, in the hope that the Government would spontaneously
carry out the chief object of the bill, accepted for the present the
report of the committee that no address be sent to the King on the
subject.

By reason of this result in the Second Chamber no action was taken in
the First on the matter.[21]

During the debate in the Second Chamber, April 28, the Foreign
Secretary remarked that I must have overlooked the fact that the
European powers had, ever since 1814, looked upon the two kingdoms of
the Scandinavian peninsula as a political unity in questions relating
to peace and war; why otherwise should I propose from the first that
the sister kingdom should have the opportunity of expressing itself on
a matter which concerned Norway equally with Sweden. This objection was
without foundation.

During the drawn debate, March 3, I had already taken occasion to
point out that it would not be seemly for one moving a resolution in
the Swedish Riksdag to act as spokesman for Norway at the same time
expressing my confidence that the Storting would meet us in a friendly
manner, if the Riksdag approved the bill with respect to Sweden.[22]

That the neutralization ought to include not only Norway, but Denmark
too, seems to be obvious.

A highly esteemed jurist, Count L. KAMAROWSKY, professor of law at
the University of Moscow, puts it as a matter of great importance
in the interests of the world's peace that international seas
and coasts should be neutralized.[23] This particularly affects
Denmark in connection with the other two Scandinavian States. Such
a neutralization, he says, will lead to a disarmament in the Sound
and Belts. These great traffic-ways would then be accessible for the
merchant and war vessels of all nations. They must not be fortified,
but the freedom of navigation would be watched over by an international
committee.

At the CONFERENCE at BERLIN in 1885, where fifteen States were
represented, just principles were adopted for the navigation of the
Congo and the Niger. Free navigation and commerce on these rivers was
secured to the flags of all nations. The same principle was likewise
extended to their tributaries and lakes, together with canals and
railroads which might in the future be constructed to get past the
unnavigable portions of the Congo and Niger. Not even in time of war
may the freedom of communication and commerce be interrupted. The
transport of contraband of war alone is forbidden. An international
commission takes care that all these international agreements are kept
in force. This authority, composed of delegates from each of the States
which took part in the Berlin Conference, is independent of the local
authorities in Congo-land.

Now, every free people has naturally an independent right to arrange
its own affairs as it chooses, upon condition that it grants the same
right to every other State.

In consequence of this principle in international law, neutralization
is applied in very varied ways according to the very varying conditions
of those who have the benefit of it, and altogether in harmony with
their wishes. Thus, for example, neutralization when it concerns a
territory, consists not only in forbidding any warlike operation in
the domain thus rendered inviolate, but involves a similar prohibition
with respect to any marching or countermarching of armies, or smaller
detachments, even of single officers or soldiers.

A canal or a strait may be so neutralized, on the other hand, that all
warlike operations are forbidden in it, but nevertheless it is open for
passage through, yet upon condition that no belligerent has a right, in
passing through, to land upon the shores of the neutralized region.

This is the kind of neutralization which appears applicable to the
Scandinavian seas.

       *       *       *       *       *

One question which for a long time came up constantly at the congresses
of Peace Societies, was the NEUTRALIZATION of the SUEZ CANAL, until it
became at last solved in practice. After tedious negotiations, this
burning question was settled by an agreement between England and France
in the treaty of October 24, 1887, which was later entered into by the
other powers interested and that important channel of communication
became at all times inviolate.[24]

Upon the programme of the friends of peace questions have long been
mooted respecting the neutralization of Elsass-Lothringen, and of
the Balkan States, together with that of the Danube, Bosphorus,
Sea of Marmora, Dardanelles, and their European coasts; whereupon
should follow the rendering inviolate of Constantinople; as also
of the Baltic, and as a result of this, the neutralization of the
Scandinavian kingdoms.

In connection with the neutralization of the Sound has arisen the still
newer question of the non-German region north of the North Sea Canal,
now in course of construction, between the mouth of the Elbe and the
naval port of Kiel.

By constituting Elsass-Lothringen into an independent neutral State,
a division would be made between France and Germany, and these great
powers would be separated by a huge wall of neutral States which would
also narrow in an essential degree the European battle-field.

The same result is hoped for from a confederacy of neutral States on
the Balkan, with respect to the relations between Russia and Austria,
as well as with respect to the whole of Europe.

The Sound is one of the most important arteries of the world's
commerce. About one hundred vessels of all nations pass daily through
this strait, but only about ten (on the average, however, certainly
larger ships) pass through the Suez Canal, which in the interests of
the world's trade has become neutral.

It can be nothing but a gain to Europe that the entrances both into the
Baltic and the Black Sea should be rendered inviolate.

In an address upon the importance of the Sound to the North, given
to the National Economic Society, Mr. Bajer pointed out that so long
as the Sound and its coasts were not rendered inviolate, military
devastations will be carried on in and around the strait by belligerent
powers; also that the facts that the Sound is not Danish only, but
Swedish also, and that Sweden has a common foreign policy with
Norway, make it probable that it may the sooner be understood to be
for the European interest that all three northern kingdoms should be
simultaneously neutralized, and not one of them only.[25]

In consequence of Mr. Bajer's indefatigable zeal for the united
co-operation of the northern kingdoms in the cause of peace, this idea
has gained many influential adherents in foreign countries also; and
on his proposition, two international congresses, Geneva, Sept. 16th,
1883, and Berne, Aug. 6th, 1884, unanimously accepted the following
resolution, which in its general meaning was adopted by the First
Northern peace Meeting at Gotenberg, Aug. 19th, 1885:--

 Considering that,--

 1. The geographical position of the three northern States, is such,
 that they might, with a larger military and commercial naval power
 than they now possess, hold the keys of the Baltic:

 2. Whilst the very weakness of these States probably removes all
 danger of their using the advantages of this position against Europe,
 the same weakness may one day expose them, either by force or fraud,
 to be plundered by their powerful neighbours:

 3. The inviolability of the three northern States, and their
 independence of every foreign influence, is in the true interest of
 all Europe, and their neutralization would tend to the general order.

 4. Their independence, which is indeed a common right of all nations,
 can only be secured to the northern nations by their neutralization.

 5. This neutralization ought to have for its object and legal effect:

 Firstly, To place beyond all danger of war all those portions of land
 and sea which belong to Sweden, Denmark and Norway.

 Secondly, To secure at all times, even during war, to all merchant and
 war-ships, whatever flag they carry, whether that of a belligerent or
 not, full liberty to run into the Baltic from the North Sea, or _vice
 versâ_, whether sailing singly or in fleets.

 On these accounts the meeting declares,--

 That Denmark, Sweden and Norway ought to be neutralized, and that this
 neutralization ought to include:--

 1. With respect to the mainland and islands of Norway, Sweden and
 Denmark, that all parts of this territory shall be at all times
 entirely neutral.

 2. With respect to the Sound and the Little Belt, that in time of war,
 ships belonging to any belligerent power shall be forbidden to show
 themselves in these seas; which, on the other hand, shall be always
 open for merchant craft, even those belonging to belligerent powers,
 as well as for war-ships belonging to neutrals.

 3. With respect to the Great Belt, that this strait shall always be
 open for merchant and war-ships of every flag, including belligerents,
 whether singly or in fleets; but that these ships shall be entirely
 forbidden to undertake any inimical action on the coasts of the
 above-named strait, or in its seas, within a distance exceeding the
 maximum range of its artillery before sailing in or sailing out, or
 indeed any attack, seizure, privateering, blockade, embargo, etc., or
 any other warlike action whatever.

 The meeting expressed its desire to see an international congress
 arrange and conclude a treaty which should be open for all European
 nations to enter into and sign, which should establish on the
 above-named basis, under the guarantee of the signatory powers, the
 neutrality of the northern States, together with the creation of a
 really solid tribunal of arbitration, which, as the highest court of
 appeal, should solve all difficulties that might arise with respect to
 the said treaty.

That the neutralization of the Suez Canal, so long looked upon as
a pious wish, may in the near future lead to the inviolability of
Egypt, will doubtless be suggested. When this is accomplished, the good
understanding between France and England will be further strengthened,
and a foundation thereby laid for an extended co-operation in the
service of the peace of the world, in the young Congo State, with
its twenty millions of inhabitants and a territory equal to half
Europe; a realm founded without costing a drop of blood, from its
first commencement sanctioned and declared a neutral community by the
European powers unanimously, which will some day be looked upon as one
of the fairest pages in the history of the human race.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 14: This and the following regulations are taken from
Bluntschli's "Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilizirten Staatens,"
Nordlingen, 1872. Some of the treaty provisions and questions are
grounded upon "Recueil des traités, conventions," etc., par Ch. de
Martens and F de Cussy, Leipzig, 1846, and "Archives diplomatiques:"

--Since practical abstaining from war is the natural assumption of
neutrality, a neutral State is bound not to assist any belligerent
power in warlike purposes.

--A neutral State may not supply a belligerent power with weapons or
other war material.

--If private persons furnish belligerent powers with war material as
articles of commerce, they assuredly run the risk of confiscation by
the contending parties of such articles, as contraband of war; but the
neutral _State_ is not to be regarded as having violated its neutrality
by tolerating trade in contraband of war.

--Permission freely to purchase food even upon account of a belligerent
power is not regarded as a serious concession towards that State,
provided that the permission is general, applying alike to both parties.

--A neutral State may not permit the war-ships of a belligerent power
to run into its ports or (with any other object than to procure
provisions, water, coal, etc.) to traverse its sounds, rivers and
canals.

--Belligerent powers are bound fully to respect the right of peace
of the neutral States, and to abstain from any invasion of their
territories.

--Where a violation of neutral territory has taken place from ignorance
of the boundary and not from evil intent, the neutral State shall
immediately claim redress, compensation, and the adoption of measures
necessary to prevent a similar mistake in future.]

[Footnote 15: See in respect of this act, "Recueil des traités,
conventions," etc., Ch. de Martens and F. de Cussy, Part iii. p. 243
Leipzig, 1846.]

[Footnote 16: See Ch. de Martens and F. de Cussy, in the above-named
collection, Part iv. p. 575.]

[Footnote 17: Respecting the correspondence on this question, see the
remainder of "Archives diplomatiques," 1871-72.]

[Footnote 18: Motion in the Second Chamber, No. 97.

Since the European States have settled into their present grouping, the
material preponderance of the great powers over the smaller countries
has more and more diminished the possibility of these defending their
external liberty and independence by military power only.

There are States whose whole male population cannot equal or barely
exceed the number, which a great power can command for its fully
equipped army.

In olden time, a small high-spirited people might with success fight
against a greater and more powerful neighbour. In consequence of the
weak organization, the feeble spirit of cohesion and the slightly
developed art of war, it was then possible.

Now this condition is changed. As a rule we find that the military
strength of a State is in direct proportion to its population and
material wealth.

The consequence is that the smaller States have virtually ceased to
be belligerent powers. Such examples as Germany's proceeding against
Denmark in 1864, and England's against Egypt in 1882, or in general,
when the stronger State only needs to consider how large a portion of
its forces must be employed to accomplish its object, are not to be
considered as wars, but as military executions.

As to our own country (Sweden), it certainly has, together with Norway,
an advantage in its situation above other small powers. But it concerns
us that we utilize this advantage with wisdom and at the right time.
This is not to be done by turning Sweden into a military State, because
even if we did so to the greatest possible extent, we should, if left
to ourselves, not even so be in a condition to defend ourselves against
our powerful neighbours.

In proportion as a nation exhausts its resources by military
preparations, its ability lessens to cope with an over-powering enemy.

In our day, not only are great and well-disciplined hosts required for
carrying on war, but great material riches are equally indispensable.
The relation between a nation of four or five millions, and one of
forty or fifty millions, is like that between the dwarfs and the giants.

It is easily understood that patriotic feelings may bewilder the
judgment, and that our nation, with its brilliant war memories, can
only with difficulty perceive this simple truth, and with reluctance
accommodate itself to the changed condition which modern times have
created.

Let us, however, realize that we are standing at the parting of the
ways; that we have before us the alternative, on the one hand, of a
barren and ruinous militarism; on the other, the seeking of our defence
in a neutrality guaranteed by the united powers; making it possible for
us to get our defence adjusted, without any very great difficulty, and
settled upon a footing so satisfactory.

The first-named alternative would, in our naturally poor land,
excessively depress our natural vitality, and in a great degree prevent
our progress as a cultured people keeping pace with greater and
wealthier nations. The second would put us into a position to confine
our military burdens within reasonable limits, and to expend the powers
and resources of prosperity thus relieved, in means of promoting
business, trade, science, and well-being of all kinds.

The clear-sighted friend of his country, who sees the population in
ever-swelling numbers leaving their homes for a foreign shore, seeking
a new fatherland, will surely not hesitate in his choice.

It will perhaps be said that such a choice does not now lie before us.
There are two opinions about that. But in one thing we may all unite,
namely, that a settled neutrality for Sweden is a thing to be aimed at.
Here almost every interest of the fatherland converges.

But if such a neutralization is considered by many not a sufficient
peace-protection under all circumstances, yet no one with reason can
deny that it does form a security for our country against foreign
powers.

Accepting this conclusion as correct, it follows that we should find
some practicable means of realizing it; and if hindrances do meet us,
we shall, on nearer inspection, find that they are not great, but with
hearty goodwill and perseverance may be overcome.

This is my conviction.

In drawing attention to the subjoined, I would further bring to mind
that the seat of war in Europe is limited in the proportion in which
the number of neutralized States grows, a condition of things which may
little by little in an essential degree impede or prevent the outbreak
of war; that the peculiar situation of Sweden (greatly superior, for
example, to Belgium or Switzerland) must naturally facilitate its
neutralization; that, lastly, the neutrality proposed does not stand
in the way of arranging our own defence, but that rather, in case
Parliament rejects his Majesty's army bill, adapts itself powerfully to
contribute to a right solution of the _Defence question_; and so much
the more, as all suspicion that that old vexed question aims perhaps
at something more and other than DEFENCE of the country would thereby
disappear.

For this reason--and since we cannot expect that other powers should
take the first step and offer us what we do not ask for--I respectfully
propose:--

 _That Parliament shall in writing express to the king its desire that
 it might please his Majesty to initiate, amongst the states with which
 Sweden has diplomatic relations, negotiations for bringing about a
 permanent guaranteed[26] neutrality of Sweden, in harmony with the
 principles of modern international law._

  K.P. ARNOLDSON.

 STOCKHOLM, _February, 1883_.

This motion was supported by--

  S.A. HEDLUND,
  WILL. FARUP,
  J. ANDERSSON, Tenhuset,
  J.E. ERICSSON, Alberta,
  PER PERSSON,
  F.F. BORG,
  J. JONASSEN, Gullahs,
  C.J. SVEN'S,
  A. TH. WAYLEN'S,
  P.M. LARSON, LA,
  P.G. PETERSON,
  ARVID GUMOELIUS,
  J. JONASSEN,
  ERIC OLSSON,
  J.A. ERICSSON,
  LARS NILSSON,
  C.G. OTTERBORG.]


[Footnote 19: Taken from the following communication:

At a meeting, March 31st, 1883, of the Association of members of the
Storting, a document was presented, being a motion in the Second
Chamber, No. 97, respecting the Neutralization of Sweden; which
document was sent to the president of the meeting by a Swedish M.P.

In consequence of this the following declaration and resolution was
voted unanimously: Recognising that the neutralization of a single
country is in the interest of universal peace; that being secured
from foreign attack by stronger nations, gives ability to use its
own resources and develop its institutions, including its defence,
according to its special requirements; that the condition and situation
of our country give equal opportunity for working for this object,
and facilities for its attainment; and that the action taken in the
Swedish Rigsdag upon the question, seriously calls our attention to it
on the ground of the constitutional relation between the kingdoms and
their union in war and in peace; a committee is requested to take into
consideration, how the question may be subjected to further attention.

  A. QUAM, Secretary of the Association.]

[Footnote 20: Protocol of the Second Chamber, No 33, April 28th, 1883.]

[Footnote 21: See on the dealing with the question in Parliament,
"Riksdagstrycket" 1883. Motion in the Second Chamber, No. 97, pp. 1-8;
First Chamber, protocol No. 33, pp. 3-4, etc., etc.]

[Footnote 22: Mr. Arnoldson's speech ran thus:--

"The second speaker on the Right propounded certain difficulties,
amongst others, one referring to Sweden's union with Norway. Since
Sweden and Norway have the same foreign policy, and the initiative
in this question comes from Sweden, the Union King ought certainly
to be able to act freely in the common interest of the two kingdoms.
In any case, it is probable, as Mr. Hedlund remarked, that if the
Riksdag takes the first step it will not be long before the Storting
comes to meet us. It was chiefly on the ground of courtesy that I did
not undertake to speak for Norway too in the Riksdag. We know that
the Norse--and it does them honour--are tenacious of their right of
deciding for themselves. I do not think it would be seemly for the
mover of such a resolution as this to make himself their spokesman
in the Swedish Riksdag--not to mention the positive incorrectness
of the proceeding. This is why I limited the matter to Sweden in my
proposition."]

[Footnote 23: "Revue de droit international et de Legislation
comparée," 1888, 2.]

[Footnote 24: The most important provisions of the treaty are the
following:--

Article 1. The Suez Canal shall always be free and open whether in time
of war or peace, for both merchant and war-ships, whatever flag they
carry. The treaty-powers therefore decide that the use of this canal
shall not be limited either in time of peace or war. The canal can
never be blockaded.

Article 4. No fortifications which can be used for military operations
against the Suez Canal, may be erected at any point which would command
or menace it. No points which command or menace its entrance or course
may be occupied in a military sense.

Article 5 provides that, although the Suez Canal shall be open in
war-time, no belligerent action shall take place in its vicinity or
in its harbours, or within a distance from its area which shall be
determined by the international committee that watches over the canal.

Article 6 is a continuation of the foregoing and runs thus: In time of
war none of the belligerent powers are permitted to land, or to take on
board, ammunition or other war material, either in the canal or in its
harbours.

Article 8. The powers are not allowed to keep any warship in the waters
of the canal. But they may lay up war-ships in the harbours of Port
Said and Suez to a number not exceeding two of any nation.

Article 9. The representatives in Egypt of the powers who signed the
treaty shall be charged with seeing to its fulfilment. In all cases
where free passage through the canal may be menaced, they shall meet
upon the summons of the senior member to investigate the facts. They
shall acquaint the Khedive's Government with the danger anticipated,
that it may take the measures needful to secure the safety and
unimpeded use of the canal. They shall meet regularly once a year
to ascertain that the treaty is properly observed. They shall most
especially require the deposition of all works and dispersion of all
collections of troops which on any part of the area of the canal might
either design or cause a menace to the free passage or to the security
thereof.

Article 10 treats of the obligations of the Egyptian Government and
runs thus:--

The Egyptian Government shall, so far as its power by firman goes, take
the measures necessary for enforcing the treaty. In case the Egyptian
Government has not adequate means it shall apply to the Sublime Porte,
which will then consult with the other signatories of the London
treaty of March 17, and with them make provision in response to that
application.

Article 14 sets forth: Beyond the duties expressed and stipulated for
in the paragraphs of this treaty, the sovereign rights of his Imperial
Majesty the Sultan are in no way curtailed, nor are the privileges and
rights of his Highness the Khedive as defined by the firman.]

[Footnote 25: Nationaloekonomisk Tidsskrift, xxii. pp. 139-155. See
also _Politiken_, 1890, March 31. Article "Oeresunds Fred," signed,
Defensor Patriæ.]

[Footnote 26: The word "guaranteed" was inserted in the motion contrary
to the opinion of the committee]




FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS.


In other ways the European powers have shown that, with a little
willingness to do so, they can work together in the interests of peace.

We have an illustrative instance of this in the DANUBE COMMISSION,
which, since 1856, has watched over the traffic in the Delta of the
Danube, neutralized by the Treaty of Paris.

This commission, which is composed of members from all the great powers
and Turkey and Roumania, and was originally appointed only for a short
time, has, in consideration of its great value as an international
institution, been renewed from year to year, and has had its power
gradually extended. The commission possesses its own flag, its customs
and pilotage, its police, its little fleet, and so on. It has for
thirty years exercised an almost unlimited power over the mouths of the
Danube, has made laws, raised a loan, carried out works, and in many
other respects given evidence of the possibility of united co-operation
amongst the powers under many changing and intricate international
relations.

In the so-called EUROPEAN CONCERT is seen a commencement of an extended
co-operation in a similar direction. The war between Servia and
Bulgaria was confined within certain limits by the united will of the
powers, and Greece was obliged to subdue her fierce military ardour.

Again, so far as concerns such coalitions as it is evident are not
formed for the whole of Europe, but are said to aim at securing peace
by accumulating forces, it could hardly be expected, from their very
nature, that they would fulfil the alleged design in themselves.
But, on the other side, it would be short-sighted to overlook their
importance as a link in the gradually progressive development of the
interests of various nations in the common concerns of Europe. One
token in this direction is the proposal which was brought forward
in the beginning of 1888 by a number of deputies in the Austrian
Parliament, urging the Government, after procuring the consent of
the Hungarian Government, to initiate negotiations with Germany for
the purpose of getting a GERMANO-AUSTRIAN ALLIANCE adopted by the
Parliaments of both realms, and constitutionally incorporated in the
fundamental law of both States. This proposal may have hardly any
practical result, but it is worth notice as one of the small rays of
light which from time to time point the way to a common goal.

Thither point too, though indeed from afar, those propositions for
DISARMAMENT which now and then crop up, but which, quite naturally,
fade away as quickly as they come, so long as the principle of
arbitration does not prevail in Europe.

"Europe's only salvation is a general disarmament," cries the
illustrious Frenchman Jules Simon, and yet louder the Italian
ex-minister, Bonghi. The latter a distinguished Conservative statesman,
utters these powerful words in the _International Review_ (Rome).

 "The ideas of peace, which I have just expressed and which are also
 entertained by the masses, sound almost like a jest in the menaces of
 war which we hear around us. And they are ridiculous if the policy
 which the Government follows is considered serious. The great thing
 is to be able to guess how long the ludicrous shall be regarded as
 serious, and the serious as ludicrous; and how long a proceeding so
 devoid of sound reason as that of the great European powers will be
 counted as sense. I, for my part, am persuaded that such a confusion
 as to the meaning of the words cannot endure continually, and that the
 present condition of things, whether people will or not, must soon
 cease. But we ought not to wait until the change is brought about by
 violence, nor indeed till it comes by violence from--below. Dynasties
 must give heed to this, and must hold me responsible for saying it--I,
 who am a royalist by conviction."

In the English House of Commons, Mr. A. Illingworth, May 30th, 1889,
questioned the First Lord of the Treasury, Mr. W.H. Smith, "Whether the
Government had recently made a proposal to the continental Governments
that they should agree upon a considerable and early reduction of
armaments? and with what result? And if not, whether Her Majesty's
Government would without delay initiate such negotiations, having for
their object to lessen the military burdens and the dangers which
menace the peace of Europe."

In his answer the First Lord of the Treasury[27] said: "If any
favourable opportunity manifested itself, the Government would have
pleasure in using its influence in the direction indicated by the
honourable member. But the questioner should bear in mind, that an
interference in a question of this sort often does more harm than good
to the object he wishes to attain. I can assure him that the Government
is as deeply impressed with this question as himself, and it has often
expressed its view in the House, that the present armed condition of
Europe is a great misfortune and a danger to the peace of the world."

In the German Parliament, also, similar utterances may be heard; in
the latest instance from one of the Centre, Reichensperger, who in the
military debate, June 28th, 1890, expressed the wish that they could
set in motion a general disarmament. The speaker had certainly spoken
in favour of the Government bill for adding 18,000 men to the peace
footing of the army. But he wished alongside of that to say, that as
the decision of the Emperor in summoning a conference of working men
from all parts of Europe had been greeted with applause, so would the
civilized world, with still greater applause greet the tidings that
William II. had advocated a general disarmament.

       *      *       *       *       *

Many entertain the belief that the first condition of such a
disarmament must be to absolve the rulers themselves from the dangerous
power they possess in being able at their discretion to declare war,
conclude peace, and make alliances one with another for warlike aims.

In our country many propositions have been brought forward for limiting
this power especially with regard to the concluding of treaties without
so much as consulting the whole Swedish Cabinet.

As is well known, even in the time of Gustavus Adolphus, the royal
power did not extend beyond the king having to consult the Riksdag, and
to obtain its consent, whether he were engaging in a war or entering
into an alliance with foreign powers. The absolute monarchs seized
upon greater power, and the law-makers of 1809 simply ratified this
dangerous extension of it.

Now we are unceasingly told, when the subject of defence is on, about
sacrifices. They declare to us that no sacrifice should be esteemed too
great. The State has the right of enlisting soldiers by compulsion,
fathers, husbands and sons, for the defence of the country; and not
only when it is really a question of defence, but when it is a matter
of preparation for defence, that is drill, even if this extend to years
of barrack life in time of peace.

These are the sacrifices demanded from the people.

There are those who think, would it not be much better if the people,
on their side, demanded a little security that the country should not
be far too thoughtlessly plunged into war--war which can no longer be
carried on by paid volunteers, but with members of families conscripted
by force, by means of compulsory service?

Such security could be effected by changing the formulas of government
§§ 12 and 13, and the constitutional law § 26, partly so that the
conclusion of treaties should require the confirmation of a united
meeting of the Swedo-Norse cabinet councils, and partly also,
that certain treaties, namely such as include a greater political
intricacy, should be subjected to the confirmation of the Riksdag
and the Storting, as has been the case with certain treaties of
commerce--bagatelles in comparison with the entanglement of the
kingdoms in war.

It is simply an assertion, refuted by experience, that the king cannot
make use of the law here treated of.

During the Crimean war, according to a treaty, we should have been
entangled in the war, had not the Peace of Paris intervened. So also
during the last Dano-German war, when interference on our part, as the
result of a treaty, would have taken place, had not the death of King
Frederic VII. occurred.

The same thing would have happened during the last Franco-German war,
if the battle of Wörth had not thrown out the reckoning, according to
a treaty which entailed our interference. Into all these treaties the
king could enter without giving the whole Cabinet the opportunity of
expressing its opinion.

The danger of such a power begins to be increasingly felt, especially
in England. In 1886, Henry Richard raised in the House of Commons
the question of abolishing the right of the sovereign to declare war
without the consent of Parliament. The proposition was certainly
rejected, but with the large minority of 109 against 115 votes. That
the proposition could gather round it such a minority may certainly
be regarded as a remarkable sign of the times. In 1889, W.R. Cremer
made a similar motion in the House. He proposed that a "parliamentary
committee should be chosen to examine and arrange foreign matters,
which were then to be laid before Parliament." This proposal fell
through but progress was made, and Mr. Cremer still awaits a suitable
occasion for renewing it.

A characteristic expedient is pointed out by the well-known Belgian
professor of political economy, de Molinari, in an article published in
the _Times_.

He shows, in the first place, how solidarity among the civilized States
of the world has lately increased in a marvellous degree, for not long
ago the foreign trade of a civilized nation and the capital invested in
other States was of very small importance. Each country produced nearly
all the requisites for its own consumption, and employed its capital
in its own undertakings. In 1613, the whole of England's imports and
exports amounted to only five million pounds sterling. A hundred years
later, indeed, the united foreign trade of the whole of Europe did not
amount to so much as the present foreign trade of little Belgium.
Still more unimportant were the foreign loans. Holland was the only
country whose capitalists lent to foreign Governments, and persons were
hardly to be found who ventured to put their money into industrial
undertakings in foreign lands, or even beyond the provinces in which
they dwelt. Consequently at that time a neutral State suffered little
or no injury when two States were at war. A quarrel between France and
Spain or Germany then did no more harm to English interests than a war
between China and Japan would do now.

At present it is quite otherwise. Trade and capital have in our day
become international. While the foreign traffic of the civilized world
two hundred years ago did not exceed one hundred millions sterling, it
runs up now to about five thousand millions; and foreign loans have
augmented in the same degree. In every country there is a constantly
increasing portion of the population dependent for its subsistence upon
relations with other peoples, either for the manufacture or exportation
of goods, or for the importation of foreign necessaries. In France a
tenth part of the population is dependent in this way upon foreign
countries, a third in Belgium, and in England probably not far from a
third.

So long as there is peace, this increasing community of interests is a
source of well-being, and advances civilization; but if a war breaks
out, that which was a blessing is turned into a common ill. For, not
to mention the burden which preparations for defence impose upon the
neutral nations, they suffer from the crisis which war causes in the
money market, and from the cessation or curtailing of their trade with
the belligerent powers.

From these facts, de Molinari deduces a principle of justice--NEUTRAL
STATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORBID A WAR, as it greatly injures their own
lawful interests.

If two duellists fight out their quarrel in a solitary place, where
nobody can be injured by their balls or swords, they may be allowed
without any great harm to exercise their right of killing. But if they
set to work to shoot one another in a crowded street, no one can blame
the police if they interfere, since their action exposes peacable
passers-by to danger. It is the same with war between States. Neutral
States would have small interest in hindering war, if war did not do
them any particular harm; and under those circumstances their right
to interfere might be disputed. But when, as is now the case, war
cannot be carried on without menacing a great and constantly increasing
portion of the interests of neutrals, yes, even their existence, their
right to come in and maintain order is indisputable.

The worst is that, after all, the belligerent nation itself never
decides its own fate. That is settled by a few politicians and military
men, who have quite other interests than those of business. It is
often done by a single man; and it may be said without exaggeration,
that the world's peace depends upon the pleasure of three or four men,
sovereigns or ministers, who can any day, at their discretion, let
slip all the horrors of war. They can thereby bring measureless misery
and ills upon the whole civilized world's peaceable industries, not
excepting even those of neutral nations, with whom they have nothing to
do. The most absolute despots of the rude old times had no such power.

Self-interests of purely political nature give the neutral States,
especially the smaller ones, the right to do what they can to prevent
war between other powers; because it is an old experience that war
among the great powers readily spreads itself to the little ones.

De Molinari states further that the neutral States may so much the more
easily ward off all this evil, as they have not only the right, but
also the power, if they would set themselves to do it.

Thereupon he unfolds his proposition:--

"With England at the head, and with Holland, Belgium, Switzerland
and Denmark as members, there might be formed a confederation, 'THE
NEUTRAL LEAGUE,' for the purpose of attacking any of the other powers
who should begin a war, and of helping the attacked. The States named
have a united strength of 460,000 men, and can place on a war footing
1,200,000. To these may be added the fleets of England, Holland
and Denmark, which together form the strongest naval power in the
world."[28]

Suppose that a complication takes place between two great powers on the
continent of Europe--Germany, France, Austria, or Russia--there can be
no doubt that if the "League" united its strength with the threatened
power, that power would become thereby so superior to its opponent that
victory would be certain.

For this reason a peaceable interference on the part of the League
before the war broke out, would make the most warlike amongst the
powers consider.

But the fact that no State could stir up a war without meeting a
crushing superior force would lead to a constant and lasting state of
peace, and disarmament.

De Molinari thinks his plan would be advanced by forming an association
in the countries named, which should work for an agreement between them
in the above-named direction.

The proposition will never of itself lead to any practical result. But
it is at least useful in having pointed out the growing interest which
neutral powers have in maintaining peace unmolested. This interest
shows itself already in general politics in the zealous pains with
which, on the outbreak of war, all powers not implicated unite to
"localize" war, that is, to limit it to as few partisans, and to as,
small an area, as possible. The peace interests of neutral States
become year by year more powerful factors in politics.

Here we must bear in mind that more States are continually passing over
into the condition of unconsciously forming "a neutral league." They
are approaching the goal which they have long been striving after by
arms and by diplomacy. "They are," to quote Bismarck, "satisfied and
do not strive for more." Such States are Germany and Italy, which have
achieved their unity, and Hungary, which has gained its freedom.

Nevertheless all great causes of war are not thereby eradicated from
Europe.

In the forenamed article by the Russian jurist, Kamarowski, light is
thrown upon this circumstance with scientific clearness.

He says respecting Germany, that this country has essentially realized
its national unity, and thereby reached a justifiable object; but
at the same time has been guilty of two serious violations of the
principles of international right.

"It carried on the war against France with an inflexible and altogether
unnecessary severity, and it tore from that State Elsass-Lothringen."

The attempt is certainly made to justify this by the fact that both
these provinces formerly belonged to Germany, and that it was an
absolute necessity for Germany to acquire a military guarantee against
a fresh attack on the part of France.

Kamarowski shows both these grounds to be untenable. If nations
should continually look back to the past, and strive to renew the old
conditions, they never could found a more durable or righteous state of
things in the present.

What ought to be decisive is, that in these unhappy provinces the
sympathy of the great part of the population is completely on the side
of France.

The possession of Strasburg and Metz has not only failed to give
Germany the anticipated security; it has, on the other hand, compelled
the Germans to live since 1871 in perpetual unrest; to keep on foot
an immense army, and to expend their last resources in building
fortresses. Besides, this possession cripples German activity in
both internal and external political questions. The situation of
France is equally unenviable; constantly kept in suspense, and with
the feeling of having been unjustly treated, and longing for revenge.
Is it possible, with this deadly hatred between two of Europe's most
civilized states, to think of a lasting peace?

And what can the Governments of these nations do with respect to this
evil, unless they set themselves to eradicate it?

Kamarowski proposes three different solutions of the question of
Elsass-Lothringen. A European congress might arrange the destiny of
these provinces, by dividing them, for example, so that Elsass should
remain united to Germany, and Lothringen to France; or by forming them
into two or more cantons united to Switzerland; or lastly, by letting
them become an independent State with a self-chosen mode of government,
but with the _sine quâ non_ that they shall be neutralized, and placed
under the guarantee of combined Europe.

It would be almost immaterial to Europe which of these three expedients
were chosen; therefore the choice might be left to the inhabitants of
Elsass-Lothringen themselves; and the opportunity might be given them
of expressing themselves by a plebiscite, uncontrolled by any influence
from either the French or German side.

This naturally affects Danish South Jutland in an equal degree, which
Germany wrenched from Denmark by a gross breach of international law.
That the writer does not adduce this instance may be simply because he
does not regard it as involving any danger of war.

Kamarowski finds this to be much more pronounced with regard to the
EASTERN QUESTION.

This is more threatening than that of Elsass-Lothringen. Ever since
the close of the last century the Turkish Empire has, on account of
its internal condition, been doomed to fall to pieces, and its final
dissolution is only a question of time. It is difficult to say what is
to be done with the remains.

The only reasonable and righteous settlement is to allow the Christian
peoples who were in the past subjected by the Turks, and who compose
the great majority of the population in European Turkey, to form
independent States. Manifold causes have hitherto prevented the
organization of the political life of these nations, shorn of political
maturity in consequence of protracted thraldom, mutual jealousy,
and influences of the great powers, who under all manner of excuses
have played their own game at the cost of these people, pretending
to protect them, while they sought to make them into their subjects.
Russia has doubtless, even if unintentionally, in the greatest degree
helped to set these nations free, and to produce the present position
by which Servia and Roumania have been changed, from being subject
to Turkey, into independent States; and Bulgaria, instead of being a
Turkish province, has now a less subject position as regards Turkey.
"It is," says the writer, "not altogether without reason that the
Russians accuse their Southern Sclav brethren of ingratitude"; but
he admits that Russia ought partly to blame herself. She has, for
instance, at times shown a decided inclination to force her forms of
thought and policy upon them, and to get the whole of their inner
national life placed under her authority. This action of Russia is
blameworthy, both because it violates the independence which belongs
of right to every State, and because it is foolishly opposed to
Russia's own well-known interests. By such a policy she can only betray
her Sclav mission, create more than one new Poland for herself, and
artificially shift her political power from north to south, thereby
weakening her national strength.

Kamarowski further describes the selfish schemes of England and Austria
in the Balkan peninsula.

These plans are even more distasteful to the Christian population than
Russia's, because it stands in the closest relation to that country
both as to race and a common religion. England and Austria seek to
entice this people by the prospect of freer institutions and greater
economic well-being but they can only drag them into their net at the
cost of their national and moral independence. And the jealousy between
these powers, Russia on the one hand and Austria and England on the
other, each wanting to get the advantage, or to possess itself of
the remains of the dying realm, is a standing menace to the peace of
Europe. This danger would disappear if people could be satisfied to let
these nations belong to themselves.

Now that Austria has carried out the injunction laid upon her by the
Berlin Congress--for the present to undertake the management and
administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina--she ought to withdraw from
these provinces, whose population should be allowed to decide their own
fate by universal suffrage, whether this would result in the union of
Bosnia with Servia, and of Herzegovina with Montenegro, or whether the
situation should be arranged in some other way. All that Austria has
any ground for requiring is, the free navigation of the Danube and the
straits (Bosphorus and Dardanelles), and therewith her true interests
in this region would be abundantly satisfied.

The Christian States which, alongside of Turkey, have spread over
the Balkan peninsula, are Greece, Roumania, Servia, Montenegro and
Bulgaria. The last named still stands in subjection to Turkey, but has
the same right to full independence as the neighbour States. It is
evidently their vocation to divide amongst themselves the remains of
Turkey in Europe, for their population in an overwhelming proportion
consists of Southern Sclavs and Greeks. But unhappily they seem to
have little conception of this their task, because they live in a
constant state of jealousy and bickering. These States are all only
just in the embryo. They have not yet by a long way attained their
natural boundaries. A large number of Greeks and Bulgarians are still
under the direct government of Turkey. It would be labour lost to
attempt to guess how many small States will form themselves out of the
ruins of Turkey, or what political form they will take. The author
remarks that it would be best for them to arrange themselves into one
or more confederations with self-government for each single State
composing this alliance.

Europe, in harmony with international justice, should see to it: (1)
that the peoples of the Balkan peninsula should not become the prey
of any foreign power; (2) that they should not be allowed to trespass
upon each other's domains; (3) that their development should as far
as possible proceed in a peaceful and law-abiding way; (4) that they
should divide the inheritance of Turkey in a thoroughly just manner, so
that the political boundaries should be marked out in harmony with the
wishes and interests of the inhabitants; (5) that they themselves do
not invade the domains of other States, and that they recognise all the
maxims of international justice.

A European congress, co-operating in such an arrangement of the
conditions of the Balkan peninsula, would contribute in no small
degree to remove the causes of war in Europe, and would do effective
work in the cause of freedom and civilization. Greece would acquire
all the islands of the Archipelago, together with Candia and Cyprus.
Macedonia would, according to the conditions of its nationalities,
be divided between Greece and Bulgaria. The natural boundary of the
latter would be the Danube on the one side and the Archipelago on the
other. Constantinople would remain the capital of a Bulgarian kingdom,
or of a Southern Sclav federation; or again, a free city with a small
independent territory.[29] The fortifications on both sides the
Bosphorus and Dardanelles should be destroyed, and both these straits
be thrown open to the navigation of all nations.

After being obliterated from the list of European nations, Turkey would
peacefully continue its existence in Asia.

But not even so are all the causes of war removed from our continent.
Many are to be found in the RELATIONS BETWEEN RUSSIA AND ENGLAND
especially two, says Kamarowski.

One is the opposition between the dissimilar forms of government in
these countries. England is the advocate of liberal social institutions
all over the continent, but Russia poses as the mainstay of unlimited
sovereign power and of conservative principles. Yet doubtless Russia
will sooner or later, with a firmness and consistency hitherto lacking,
strike into the path of political reform, and then this contrast will
be assimilated.

The other consists in the opposing interests of the two powers upon
the Eastern Question. But if this question is solved as the author
proposes, by the whole Balkan peninsula being permitted to form itself
into independent States under the guarantee of united Europe, this
cause of strife would also be removed. Russia need no longer threaten
India. Russia's true well-being can never consist in spreading herself
over the deserts and wastes of Asia, or in the endless compulsory
subjection of hostile races under her. She will doubtless in time
perceive this.

Historical facts have already marked out the domain of both realms and
the boundaries of their influence. The greater part of Southern Asia is
more or less subjected to England. The whole of Northern and Central
Asia belongs to Russia. Russia and England have a common mission in
Asia--to promote the Christian civilization of the world; and in this
direction each has her special call.

Also in the relations between RUSSIA AND GERMANY are found indeed
inflammable materials; but with wise action on both sides they may be
got rid of.

Russia has, more than any other power, promoted the unity and powerful
position of Germany. Except during the strife between the Empress
Elizabeth and Frederic II., constant friendly relations have obtained
between Russia and Prussia; so, under Frederick II. and Catherine II.,
and during Prussia's struggle against Napoleon I. while the friendship
between Alexander II. and William I. made possible the wars of 1866 and
1870-71. The House of Hohenzollern, which has never been any friend of
popular freedom, felt drawn to Russia upon the ground of its devotion
to conservative modes of thought and its absolutism.

But since Prussia has realized her goal--that of being the leading
power in Germany--the relations with Russia have become more and more
strained.

One of the chief causes has been the disputes caused by economic
questions, and that of the customs in particular.

In addition to this is the general misunderstanding fomented by the
press. The political press, says Kamarowski, ought to serve the cause
of peace to-day more than ever. Unhappily it by no means does. With
few exceptions it helps to fan and feed national hatred, and to stir
up enmity between the European States. Most of the principal organs
have a narrower horizon than this. Some of these papers and periodicals
are worked only as business undertakings, to make the greatest
possible profit to the shareholders; the best of them defend with
gross one-sidedness the interests of their own country; seldom do they
disclose any insight into great, purely humanitarian interests. The
political press is, therefore, for the most part a constant source of
reciprocal suspicion and hatred, which hinders the States of Europe
from entering into the condition of peace they all inwardly so long
for. Dip at random into a heap of most of the great papers, and you
will find the strangest ideas respecting international justice; rank
self-assertion in judgment, and purely barbarous sentiments respecting
subjugating and destroying so-called hereditary enemies.

Lastly, there is a cause of tension between Russia and Germany in
their opposing attitude with regard to the Sclav question; and if a
satisfactory solution is not found for this question in a peaceable
way, a crowd of complications will arise, into which Russia will
inevitably be drawn.

We have first the Polish question. In our day Russia is entering,
through the power of circumstances, more and more into her historic
vocation of giving freedom and unity to the Sclavs. But this
undertaking stands in direct opposition to the policy which was
expressed in the partition of Poland.

Russia's future _rôle_ may be to favour a confederation of all the
Sclav peoples. Her true mission cannot be to subdue or trample down any
Sclav nationality, but much rather to emancipate them all. Emancipate
from what? From the yoke of Turkey and of Germany. So far as the former
is concerned, a great part of the work has been already carried out.
With regard to the Germans, Russia cannot think of the restoration of
the disputed and long obliterated boundaries of the Sclav races, which
were lost in the struggle with the Germans; but she may assist the
organization of the bodies politic of the Sclav races, and co-operate
in revivifying those branches of the nation which are not altogether
dead.

The author desires, therefore, that Poland should be restored by
Russia's own act. Yet Poland must not demand her boundaries as they
were before 1772 (that is, the possession of Lithuania). Once admitted
into a Sclav confederation, she would cease to be a menace to any one,
but would serve as a bulwark between Russia and Germany.

The solution of the Sclav question might, according to the author's
idea, bring with it the dismemberment of the Austrian Empire. The
German part would go to Germany, and Trieste and South Tyrol fall to
Italy. Austria's Sclav provinces would be acknowledged as independent,
and either unite themselves with the Sclav federation on the Balkan
peninsula, or form a separate State. The situation in Bohemia would be
the most difficult to arrange, since in part it is a German-speaking
country; but as a Sclav land, it ought under no circumstances to be
entirely given over to the Germans. Hungary also would obtain its
independence, but must, on its own part, recognise the freedom of
Croatia. The inhabitants of the various portions of the Austrian Empire
would themselves have to decide their fate, and in the interests of
all, a European congress should be summoned, to maintain the general
peace, and to prevent one nationality from subjecting or swallowing up
another.

But while Professor Kamarowski here and elsewhere in his treatise
speaks of congresses, he does not mean thereby the meetings of
diplomatists to which that name now applies.

Congresses ought, he says, to be actual international organs, whose
object is not to serve the fluctuating and conflicting interests of
policy, but the strict principles of justice. They must be permanent
institutions, and being so, help on international reforms, such as
a gradual disarmament and a codification of international law; that
is, a correct digest of the various regulations and principles of
international law, forming a common law for all civilized nations.

In the last named direction there is in the field already THE
ASSOCIATION FOR THE REFORM AND CODIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL
LAW, founded at Brussels, Oct. 10th, 1873, and in an important
degree consisting of the most eminent jurists of the nations. This
association, which meets annually for the discussion of international
law in various parts of Europe, deals also with the scholarly inquiry
into the continually growing material, springing from the many
international congresses, which so often now, with various objects,
meet first in one part then in another of the civilized world. As
examples of some of the most recent of these may be named: The post and
telegraph conferences; the conference on maritime law in Washington,
representing twenty-one separate States, with the purpose of working
out a universal system of signals for preventing collisions; the
African conference at Brussels, with representatives of most of the
European powers for considering the best way of civilizing Africa,
getting rid of the slave trade, and limiting the exportation of
alcohol;[30] the railway meeting at Lugano, for introducing a uniform
time table and scale of freight, on all railways of the European
continent; the Madrid conference, for international protection of
industrial property, and above all the Labour Congress held at Berlin
by William II.'s invitation.

Whilst in this way the nations' own desire and the needs of the case
grow and branch into great common interests, the friends of peace
unceasingly set before themselves this distinct goal, "Right before
might."

To paint the historic background of the activity of the friends of
peace would be almost synonymous with bringing forward all that is
uniting, important and lasting in the history of the nations. It would
be a "saga" on the welfare of the human race through all time. Such a
task I do not undertake. I give only a short indication of what, in our
own time, organized peace-work is.

Its activity was almost a result of the wars of Napoleon, which were
terminated by the Peace of Paris, November, 1815. These wars had
deeply stirred the minds of many, both in the old and new world, and
directed their thoughts to the apathy of the Christian Churches in not
proclaiming, with unmistakable emphasis, that war is irreconcilable
with the teaching of Christ.

This view was represented in America by Dr. W. ELLERY CHANNING, and Dr.
NOAH WORCESTER, who as early as 1814 stirred up the friends of peace
to organize themselves into united work.

A Peace Society was formed in New York in August, 1815; and in November
of the same year the Ohio Peace Society. The Massachusetts Peace
Association (Boston) started in January, 1816, and a similar society
was begun in Rhode and Maine in 1817. These, with that of South
Carolina, united in 1828, and formed the AMERICAN PEACE SOCIETY, an
association which is still in active operation. Also in Philadelphia an
association was formed, which was succeeded in 1868 by the UNIVERSAL
PEACE UNION.

In 1814 a zealous philanthropist, Mr. William Allen, a member of
the Society of Friends, invited a number of persons to his house in
_London_ to form a peace association. They did not at once agree
upon the best method, and the proposal was deferred for a time. But
after the conclusion of peace was signed in 1816, Mr. Allen, with the
assistance of his friend Mr. Joseph Tregelles Price, also a member
of the Society of Friends, called his friends together again, and
succeeded in bringing into existence the English peace association,
under the name of the PEACE SOCIETY.

The source from which the association sprang is to be found in the
Society of Friends (Quakers), that sect which has always been a
faithful proclaimer of the peace principles of Christianity. But the
founders were not all of this society. Some were members of the Church
of England and of other religious persuasions.

As the foundation of its effort, the association advanced the great
principle that war is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and to the
true interests of mankind. It has always been open to persons of all
persuasions. One of its first stipulations was, that "the society shall
consist of all ranks of society who will unite in forwarding peace
on earth and goodwill amongst men." The association has always been
international. From its commencement it proclaimed its desire to bring
other nations as far as possible within the reach of its operations.
Some of the first acts of the founders were to translate its most
important writings into French, German, Spanish and Italian.

Immediately after, in 1816, Mr. J.T. Price, the most zealous amongst
the founders, undertook a journey to _France_ to gain adhesion and
co-operation amongst Christians and philanthropists in that country.
Many hindrances lay in the way of forming an association in that
country which should have peace only for its object. These difficulties
were overcome by founding a Society of Christian Morals (_La Société
de morale Chrétienne_), whose aim was to bring the teaching of
Christianity to bear upon the social question. This society continued
for more than a quarter of a century and numbered amongst its members
many illustrious Frenchmen. Its first president was the Duke of
Rochefoucauld-Liancourt; its vice-president was the Marquis of the same
name, the son of the above. Amongst the members were Benjamin Constant,
the Duke of Broglie, de Lamartine, Guizot, Carnot, and Duchatel. The
promotion of peace was one of the objects of the Society.

A branch of it was formed in _Geneva_, under the leadership of Count
Sellon, and the English parent society stood in close and lively
connection with both these associations. It had for many years in its
service an active man, Stephen Rigaud, who travelled through France,
Belgium, Germany and Holland, held meetings, distributed tracts, and
formed committees and associations in furtherance of peace.

Between the years 1848 and 1851 a still greater aggressive peace
movement was set on foot upon the European continent, by means of
congresses held at Brussels, Paris and Frankfort, and by the attendance
of many hundred delegates from all the countries of Europe.

This effort for peace was entered upon by the Secretary, Mr. Henry
Richard. At least twenty times he visited the Continent, speaking
for peace and arbitration in many, if not most, of the largest
cities--Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Pesth, Dresden, Leipsic, Munich,
Frankfort, Brussels, Antwerp, Bremen, Cologne, the Hague, Amsterdam,
Genoa, Rome, Florence, Venice, Milan, Turin, etc.

These efforts bore good fruit. The friends of peace began to stir.
Peace societies were formed, devoted attachments were made, and
personal intercourse created between the adherents of peace principles
in various lands.

This was especially the case in France, where _la Ligue Internationale
de la Paix_ was founded by M. Frédéric Passy. In 1872 the name of the
league was changed to the _Société Française des Amis de la Paix_.
This name it retained until its amalgamation with the _Comité de Paris
de la Fédération Internationale de l'Arbitrage et de la Paix_, founded
by Mr. Hodgson Pratt in 1883. The new society, formed of the union of
the two, bears the name of the _Société Française de l'Arbitrage entre
Nations_.

The _Ligue Internationale de la Paix el de la Liberté_ was founded
at Geneva by M. Charles Lemonnier as far back as 1867. Under the
powerful leadership of this aged captain of peace the league has, by
its activity in promoting the idea of the "United States of Europe,"
constantly sought to work in a practical way for its object,--peace and
freedom.

The same year, too, were founded the _Ligue du Désarmement_ and the
_Union de la Paix_, at Havre.

But the most remarkable occurrence in this domain was the spontaneous
interchange of addresses and greetings between workmen in France and
Germany, which led to the formation, in Biebrich on the Rhine, of an
ASSOCIATION OF GERMAN AND FRENCH WORKINGMEN.

As a result of a visit from Mr. Richard three years later, there was
founded at the Hague, Sept. 8th, 1870, "THE DUTCH PEACE SOCIETY," by
Mr. Van Eck and others. Later in the same year ten similar associations
sprang up in the Hague, Amsterdam, Zwolle, Groningen and other places.
One of these, the "Women's Peace Society," in Amsterdam, under the
leadership of Miss Bergendahl, deserves to be named, on account of its
advanced character. In 1871 this union took the name of the "_Peace
Society's National Union for Holland_," and in 1878 of the "Peace
League of the Netherlands." Its present name is the "_Universal Peace
Association for the Netherlands_" (_Algemeen Nederlandsch Vredesbond_).
For seventeen years Mr. Geo. Belinfante as the indefatigable secretary
of this Union. He died in 1888, and was succeeded by M.C. Bake, of the
Hague.

In 1871 the BELGIAN ASSOCIATION was formed at Brussels, and at the same
time a local association at Verviers. Later on, April 15th, 1889, was
founded the Belgian branch of the International Arbitration and Peace
Association (_Federation Internationale de l'Arbitrage et de la Paix,
section Belge_), under the leadership of M.E. de Laveleye.

The ENGLISH PARENT SOCIETY has, in the course of three-quarters of a
century, employed every means that can serve to advance a public cause.
By lectures and public meetings; by the distribution of literature and
a diligent use of the press; by appeals to the peoples; petitions to
the Governments; resolutions in parliament; by adapting themselves to
Sunday and other schools, by influencing the religious community, the
clergy and teachers; by combinations and interviews with peace friends
in all lands--by all practicable means it has sought to work towards
its goal.

First and foremost, it has advocated arbitration as a substitute for
war, laboured for the final establishment of an International Law, and
a Tribunal for the nations, and for a gradual reduction of standing
armies; at the same time it has never ceased to raise its voice
against the wars in which England and other nations have engaged. At
a Universal International Peace Congress, held in London under the
auspices of the society in 1843, it was resolved to send an address
"to the Governments of the civilized world," whereby they should be
earnestly conjured to consider the principle of arbitration, and to
recognise it. This address was sent to forty-five Governments. By a
deputation to the powers at the Paris Congress in 1856, this society
succeeded, as before said, in getting the principle of arbitration
recognised, etc.

From the commencement, the English and American peace societies have
worked side by side with brotherly concord. There are over forty peace
societies in America. Besides these already named--viz., the _American
Peace Society_, and the _Universal Peace Union_--the following are most
important: _The Christian Arbitration and Peace Society_, Philadelphia;
_the National Arbitration League_, Washington; _the American Friends'
Peace Society_, for Indiana and Ohio, founded December 1, 1873; and
_the International Code Committee_, New York, of which David Dudley
Field is president.

On the 25th of July, 1870, the English WORKMEN'S PEACE ASSOCIATION, now
called the INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION LEAGUE, was founded by members
of the "Reform League," a great union of workmen in London. Two years
later this Arbitration League, under Mr. W. R. Cremer's powerful
leadership, had well-appointed local associations all over the country,
and nearly a hundred zealous leaders in various towns. Since then Mr.
Cremer has become a Member of Parliament, and as such has had the
opportunity of helping the peace cause in many ways; for example, as
a zealous participant in the deputation of twelve to the President of
the United States, which has been mentioned more particularly in the
beginning of this work.

In April, 1874, was formed the WOMEN'S AUXILIARY OF THE PEACE SOCIETY.
This continued to work in connection with the English parent society
until 1882, when a division took place. Part of the members gathered
themselves into an auxiliary, now called the LOCAL PEACE ASSOCIATION
AUXILIARY OF THE PEACE SOCIETY, which has thirty-three sub-associations
in England only. The other part formed the WOMEN'S PEACE AND
ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION.[31]

At the same time great progress was made upon the Continent.

In Italy a LEAGUE OF PEACE AND BROTHERHOOD was founded as early as
1878, by Signor E.T. Moneta.

A workmen's peace association was formed at Paris in 1879, by M.
Desmoulins and others, under the name of the _Société des travailleurs
de la Paix_.

At the close of 1882, The DANISH PEACE SOCIETY, or "Society for the
Neutralization of Denmark," was founded in Copenhagen, with FREDRIK
BAJER, M.P., as chairman, and twenty-five local associations in
Denmark.[32] There is also at Copenhagen a "Women's Progress Society,"
which, with Mrs. Bajer as president, placed the cause of peace
prominently upon its programme.

At a meeting of members of the Riksdag, in the spring of 1883,
a SWEDISH PEACE SOCIETY was formed, which has for its object to
co-operate with the _International Arbitration and Peace Association_
of Great Britain and Ireland, in working for the preservation of peace
among nations, and the establishment of an International Tribunal
of Arbitration, under the mutual protection of the States, to which
disputes that may arise may be referred. The first chairman of the
society was S.A. HEDLUND, who has long laboured in Sweden for the
spread of information as to the efforts of the friends of peace.

The same year a NORWEGIAN PEACE SOCIETY was formed, which, however,
like the Swedish sister association, has been apparently only
dead-alive of late.

This is the result, certainly in great degree, of the slender interest
taken by the cultivated classes, who in general pose as either
indifferent or antagonistic to peace work; indifferent, because, in
ignorance of the subject, they look upon organized peace effort as
fanciful and fruitless; antagonistic, because they see in these efforts
a hindrance to getting the national defence strengthened by increased
military forces. As regards Norway, there are, however, signs that a
different view of things has lately begun to make itself felt.[33]

In France the peace societies received strength in 1884, through
the foundation by M. GODIN of the _Société de Paix et d' Arbitrage
International du Familistère de Guise_ (Aisne), Godin's activity has
embraced not less than forty-two departments in France. Besides these
may be named the _Société d'Aide Fraternelle et d'Etudes Sociales_, the
_Société de Paix par l'Education_ at Paris, the _Groupe des Amis de la
paix à Clermont-Ferrand_, _La Fraternité Universelle_ Grammond, Canton
de St. Galmier (Loire), and the _Association des Jeunes Amis de la
Paix_, Nîmes.

The INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND PEACE ASSOCIATION for Great Britain
and Ireland was founded in 1880.[34] This association, with which the
Scandinavian society should co-operate the most closely, has a worthy
chairman in Mr. HODGSON PRATT, a man whose devoted and untiring zeal
has made him a distinguished leader of the peace movement, to which he
has dedicated the whole business of his life.

His sphere of action has also included the Continent, and borne good
fruit. Amongst others he succeeded in instituting peace societies at
DARMSTADT, STUTTGART and FRANKFORT; a committee of the association at
BUDAPEST; and in ROME, the _Associazione per l'Arbitrato e la Pace tra
le Nazione_, with RUGGIERO BONGHI as president; and also in MILAN, the
_Unione Lombarda per la Pace e l'Arbitrato Internazionale_.

In the course of the last three years, 1886-90, the idea of peace has
made great progress in Italy. The movement has not been confined to any
special class of society, or to any particular political or religious
party, but has spread alike amongst all.

In the autumn of 1888 the central committee of the _Italian League
of Peace and Liberty_ sent out a leaflet, with a protest against any
war with France. The central committee, which numbers amongst its
members, senators, deputies, and many of Garibaldi's former companions
in arms, declares: "The league requires all Italians, young and old,
women and men, philosophers, tradesmen and working men, to unite all
their energies in the great work of peace; that there may be an end of
armaments, which are a positive ruin to all nations."

In the course of 1889 several important peace congresses were held.
In Milan, such a congress met for the first time, January 13th,
representing 200 associations in France, Italy, and Spain and for
the second time, April 28th, when fifty-four Italian societies were
represented. Eight days after the first Milan meeting, a similar one
took place in Naples, attended by 3,000 persons, which expressed the
united views of five hundred associations.

Lastly, a congress was held in Rome, May 10-14, which represented
thirty-nine peace associations, the ex-minister Bonghi in the chair.
The meeting expressed the desire that governments would find means to
diminish the war burdens by international agreements similar to those
by which economic and scientific matters are already arranged, as well
as questions dealing with general sanitary concerns. A committee,
consisting of six senators and deputies, was afterwards chosen for
further work in the cause of peace.

A specially noteworthy feature in these Italian peace congresses is the
deep repugnance to the Triple Alliance--which is regarded as a standing
menace of war,--and a strong craving for good relations with France.

The way to this lies through increased peaceful connection. This was
especially manifest in the meeting at Rome, which had to prepare for
the participation of Italians in the Peace Congress at Paris in the
summer of 1889.

The Congresses of 1889 formed part of the great commemoration of the
Revolution; that meeting of international fraternity which, in the
words of President Carnot in his opening, speech, "shall hasten the
time when the resources of the nations, and the labour of mankind,
shall be dedicated only to the works of peace."

One of these gatherings, the Universal Peace Congress, June 23-27,
which was composed of delegates from the peace societies of Europe and
America, had, amongst other vocations, to express itself on certain
general principles for carrying forward the idea of arbitration. It
specially maintained and emphasized that the principle of arbitration
ought to form a part of fundamental law in the constitution of every
State.[35] Before the meeting closed, it was decided that the next
Universal Congress should be held in London in 1890.

The other assembly, an INTERPARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE (June 29-30),
composed exclusively of legislators from many lands, was entitled to
express itself more definitely on the adoption of actual measures;
notably, on the best means of bringing about arbitration treaties
between certain States and groups of States.

With this Interparliamentary Conference, this international
parliamentary meeting, we come to the beginning of a new and exalted
organization, forming almost a powerful prelude to co-operation between
England, America and France, such as I spoke of in the commencement of
this book.

After the emissaries of the 270 members of the legislature had in the
autumn of 1887 fulfilled their mission to America, and had started an
active movement there which has since spread over the whole American
continent, English and French representatives of the people met in
Paris, October 31st, 1888, and decided on behalf of many hundreds
of their absent associates that a meeting of members of as many
parliaments as possible should take place during the Universal
Exposition in 1889.

This resolution was carried into effect. On June 10th about one
hundred parliamentary representatives assembled in Paris from Belgium,
Denmark, England, France, Hungary, Italy, Liberia, the United States
and Spain. Nearly four hundred members of various parliaments had given
their adhesion to the design of the meeting. Jules Simon opened the
proceedings. Many important resolutions were passed, with a view to
practically carrying into effect the principle of arbitration. After
this it was arranged that a similar assembly should meet annually in
one or other of the capital cities of the countries in sympathy; in
1890, in London; and lastly, a committee of forty was chosen, composed,
according to resolution, of six members of every nationality, which
should undertake the preparation of the next conference, send out the
invitations, collect the necessary contributions, and in the interim do
all in their power to remove the misunderstandings which might possibly
arise, when it appealed, as it would be needful to do, to public
opinion.

Pursuant to the invitation of this committee, the second International
Assembly of Members of Parliament met in London, July 22-23, 1890.

In consequence of the second Universal Peace Congress, the central
gathering of the peace societies, being held only a short time
previously (July 14-19), a large number of influential men attended
this international meeting of legislators; but whilst amongst those who
took part in the first named conference, the Universal Peace Congress,
were a fair number of M.P.s of various countries, yet (with few
exceptions) all those who took part in the interparliamentary meeting
were members of one or other national legislative assembly.

The second Interparliamentary Conference, in London, 1890, had double
the attendance of the first, in Paris, members from Austria, Belgium,
Denmark, England, France, Germany, Holland, Hungary, Italy, Norway,
Spain and Sweden; besides which, more than a thousand representatives
of the people, who were prevented attending, signified by letter their
adhesion. Amongst these were Gladstone, Clemenceau, the Vice-president
of the German Reichstag, Baumbach, the Italian Prime Minister Crispi,
Andrassy, and three French Ministers. Ninety-four Italian senators
and deputies, and thirty-one members of the Spanish Cortes, in their
respective addresses, expressed their sympathy with the work of the
conference. The ex-Lord Chancellor, Lord Herschell, acted as chairman.

The most important resolution of the meeting was, that all civilized
governments were urged to refer all disputes in which they might be
involved to arbitration for solution.

Those present bound themselves to work to the best of their ability for
the object, especially through the press and in the national assembly
of their own lands, and thus gradually win public opinion over to the
cause.

As a first step towards practically settling international disputes by
arbitration, the conference urged that in all treaties affecting trade,
literature, or other arrangements, a special arbitral clause should be
inserted.

Amongst other resolutions it was voted, that a parliamentary committee
should be created in each country for mutual consultation on
international matters.

Lastly, a standing interparliamentary committee of thirty members
was chosen, to serve as a connecting link in the interval between the
conferences.

The third Interparliamentary Conference will meet in Rome in 1891.

In the fact that these conferences are composed of legislators chosen
by the people lies their peculiar significance. They speak with power,
because they are supported by millions of electors in various lands.
The weight of their utterances naturally increases in the proportion
in which the number of members grows. As yet this parliament of the
peoples represents only a minority of the national assemblies; but the
day may be coming when it will express the opinion of the majority, and
that would be the triumph of right over might.

       *       *       *       *       *

In the effort to reach this goal there must be no settling into
stagnation. The peace societies especially must work with all their
might to get friends of peace into parliament, and subscribe to enable
them to take part in the interparliamentary meetings. It would, of
course, be still better if the means for their attendance were supplied
by a public grant.

Here the NORWEGIAN STORTING has set an example which will be to its
honour for all time; for after about sixty members had joined the
interparliamentary union, and chosen Messrs. Ullmann, Horst and Lund
as representatives to the conference in London, 1890; and after the
Arbitration resolution moved had been adopted by the Storting (voted
July 2nd, 1890, by eighty votes against twenty-nine), a subsidy of
1,200 kroner was granted for the travelling expenses of the three
delegates to, the London conference.

This is probably the first time in the life of the nations that a State
has granted money in support of a direct effort to make a breach in the
old system of Cain.

There is less strain in America: a similar inception seems to be at
hand. Long before the great rousing in 1887, the present United States
Minister, JAMES G. BLAINE, was possessed with the idea of bringing
about a peace-treaty between all the independent States of North and
South America. He stood at the head of the Foreign Department of the
Union when General Garfield was President, 1881, and already at that
time entertained this grand idea. He desired, in order to realize it,
to invite all the American States, by means of government emissaries,
to take part in an international congress at Washington. In the interim
Garfield died, and when Arthur became President, Blaine ceased to be
Minister of Foreign Affairs; but as soon as, upon Harrison being chosen
to the presidency, he became Foreign Minister again, he resumed the
interrupted work.

In June, 1888, the President confirmed a resolution adopted by
Congress, empowering him to invite all the American States to a
conference composed of emissaries from their governments, with the view
of establishing a Tribunal of Arbitration for settling differences that
may arise between them; and for establishing by commercial treaties
more facile trade combinations, adapted to the needs of the various
States, and their productive and economic well-being.

The invitations were issued, and met with approval by all the
independent States throughout America.

The representatives of these States met at Washington, Oct. 1st,
1889, in a deliberative assembly, which was styled the PAN-AMERICAN
CONFERENCE. Mr. Blaine was voted to the chair, and under his leading
the members of the congress decided to begin with a circular tour of
forty days through the whole of the States of the Union. Its labours
were afterwards continued until April 18th, 1890.

The results of the Conference as regards the common interests of
trade and commerce, etc., will only be felt gradually, since many
of these matters are of intricate character, and in some instances
require entirely fresh international transactions. But as regards
the chief thing--viz., the establishment of a permanent tribunal of
arbitration--the object was achieved.

Congress almost unanimously[36] adopted the resolution of the report
of the committee respecting the election of such a supreme judicial
authority in case of any menacing international disagreement.

The members of the Conference were not authorized to conclude binding
treaties. Their task was confined to deliberating upon affairs which
might have a reciprocal interest in various countries, and then laying
before their governments such resolutions as in the opinion of the
Conference might best promote the well-being of all the States.

Nevertheless the majority of the States later bound themselves to the
conclusions of the congress. Indeed, a week before the assembly broke
up the respective members for Brazil, Bolivia, Columbia, Equador,
Guatemala, Hayti, Honduras, Nicaragua and Salvador, were empowered to
sign at Washington the arbitration-treaty adopted by the Pan-American
Conference; and the other governments have since in the same way
sanctioned it.[37]

When this document has been fully confirmed, a quarter of the inhabited
world will be rendered inviolate, and 120 millions of men set free from
the chronic frenzy of war.

If minor breaches of the peace possibly may not thereby be for ever
prevented, yet certainly the irresponsible system of violence will
become powerless against the force of civilization which is spreading
over the whole Western hemisphere.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 27: As an adherent of the Conservative party, he has always
held to a strong armed force, and hardly ever supported peace efforts.]

[Footnote 28: That he does not take in the Scandinavian peninsula, must
be because he regards the position of the northern kingdoms as too
remote from the continental quarrels to be sensibly disturbed by them;
or because he has not a high opinion of the fitness of their military
forces for attack, which is here alluded to.]

[Footnote 29: According to the proposal of an old diplomatist, the
Sultan should be given a similar position in Constantinople to that
of the Pope, now, in Rome. Thereby the Sultan would become innocuous
to Europe, but continue to be the "Ruler of the Faithful" to Asia.
("La question d'Orient devant l'Europe democratique." Paris: E. Dentu,
_libraire_, 1886).]

[Footnote 30: In the United States Congress, Mr. Blaine has introduced
a bill for calling an international conference in Washington, in 1891,
for making an alliance, whose object is the suppression of slavery and
the prohibition of alcohol in uncivilized countries. The conference is
further to discuss the creation of a tribunal of Arbitration, for the
solution of international questions, and a general disarmament.]

[Footnote 31: Since amalgamated with the Women's Committee of the
International Arbitration and Peace Association.]

[Footnote 32: For the objects of this Association see Appendix.]

[Footnote 33: "On August 8th, 1891, at a meeting at Seljord, a New
Norwegian Peace Association was formed, and a provisional Committee
appointed." TRANS.]

[Footnote 34: For programme of the Association see Appendix.]

[Footnote 35: This principle is likely to be realized by the bill of
the constitution of the Brazilian Republic, sanctioned by the executive
of the new free State, which proclaims that the Government may not
begin a war without having first appealed to arbitration.]

[Footnote 36: The scruples entertained by Chili, Argentina and Mexico
appear to have been dropped, in the case at least of the two last
named.]

[Footnote 37: For provisions of this Treaty see Appendix.]




THE PROSPECTS.


The events which I have here described will perhaps one day be regarded
as the transition into a new era. But specially here, in the Old World,
with its many unsettled accounts, we cannot rely upon bright pictures
of the future. We are convinced of nothing beyond the range of our own
knowledge and experience.

I have thought so myself, and therefore I have endeavoured to keep to
facts which no one can deny.

It is a fact that WARS CONTINUALLY DIMINISH in proportion as peoples
are brought nearer to one another by trade and commerce. The old
warlike condition has ceased. Formerly not a year passed without war in
Europe--in the Middle Ages hardly a week. After 1815 an international
peace reigned over most of the European States for forty years. In the
Scandinavian peninsula that peace is continuing still. Before that
time, at least until 1721, Sweden was almost continually involved in
war. We reckon two hundred and sixty years of war to the Kalmar Union,
and the proneness to invade and defend the countries on the other side
the Baltic.

The old CAUSES OF WAR ARE BEING REMOVED. Certainly new ones arise as a
result of selfish patriotism, breaking out in new acts of violence. But
these outbreaks of barbarism become continually more rare. Unhappily,
they are so much the more horrible when they do occur, but yet much
More transitory. This is applicable to all the great wars in the last
half of the present century. No thirty years' war is known now.

In consequence of the shorter flow of blood the wounds get time to
heal, and the divided interests are allowed to grow together again.
The levers of civilization are again in motion; commerce spreads over
land and sea by steam, electricity, and other motive powers. The
victories of Alexander and Napoleon are cast into the shade by the
triumphal procession of the tiny postage stamp around the world. Trade
and industry, art and science, efforts in the direction of universal
morality and enlightenment, all branch out and weave around the
nations a boundless web of common interests, which, though at certain
intervals violently torn asunder by brute force, grows together again
with increased strength and in broader compass; until one day, under
the majesty of law, it will form an irresistible civilizing power.

This is what in REALITY IS TAKING PLACE. Men do not in general see it;
and this, because they busy themselves so much with warlike notions,
and trouble themselves so little about events of the character that I
have dwelt upon in the foregoing pages.

       *       *       *       *       *

The friends of peace ought to stimulate one another, especially when
there is gloom over the great world, and no one knows whence the
approaching calamity may spring. Once it was warded off from our land
by a wise measure of one of our kings. I refer to Oscar I., when he
saved us from being embroiled in the chances of war, by drawing up a
DECLARATION OF NEUTRALITY in 1854, which was approved by the united
powers, and earned for him the homage and gratitude of the Swedish
Riksdag, in an address which lauded him as one of the wisest and
noblest of kings.[38]

But there is little security that the same expedient will always lead
to a like successful result, if people wait till war is at the door
before setting to work.

In time of peace, and during the specially good relations which obtain
between the two English-speaking nations, as well as between France
and America, our fellow-workers on both sides the Atlantic are making
use of the favourable opportunity for trying to get this good relation
established by law.

It may well be asked why we, who are friendly with the whole world,
should not be able to do the same, not only with respect to Siam, but
also first and foremost with our near neighbours.

It was this thought which led to the Arbitration resolution in 1890, in
the Storting and in the Riksdag.

At the first meeting of the Left (Liberals) of the Storting, Feb. 4th,
the subject was discussed and gained unanimous adhesion. Whereupon
followed the resolution in the Storting on the 21st, which was adopted
by a large majority, March 5th, after the Minister of State (Stang) had
delivered a long speech against the resolution in vain.

After this successful result, a similar resolution for Sweden was
brought into the First Chamber by F.T. Borg, and in the Second by J.
Andersson. The reports of the committees upon it ran diversely. The
committee of the First Chamber opposed, and that of the Second Chamber
approved, the resolution. On May 12th the question was thrown out in
both Chambers.[39]

Mr. Borg spoke with dignity for his resolution in a long speech. This
was answered by the chairman of the committee, with a reminder of the
perverse condition of the world and of the human race. The resolution
contained a "meaningless expression of opinion." It was a real danger
for small nations to go to sleep, hoping and believing in a lasting
peace. It was now just as in the olden times: those who loved peace
and would preserve it "must prepare for war." The speaker had, as
chairman of the committee, expressed sympathy with the resolution, but
he added, "one does not get far with paper and words; and, according to
my opinion, the honourable mover of the resolution will certainly show
more love for peace if he, next year, on coming back with this peace
business, will set about it with a proposition for some ironclads and
artillery regiments or such like things, of more effectual service than
the platonic love which he has expressed; and I venture to predict that
both the committee and the Chamber will support him more powerfully
than to-day."

After another distinguished genius had expressed himself in the same
well-known fashion, wherein proofs were conspicuous by their absence,
and the narrow circle of thought was filled with scorn and slighting
talk about "pious notions," etc., the High Chamber threw out the bill
by fifty-six votes against four.

In the Second Chamber the debate was opened by the Foreign Minister
with a speech which clearly enough justifies the "MEMORIAL
DIPLOMATIQUE" where it points to the necessity of the study of the
arbitration-system having a high place amongst the requirements made of
those who enter the path of diplomacy;--a thing that they have actually
begun seriously to set before themselves in England.

In full accord with the evidence brought forward above, the judicial
professor of the Chamber declared in short that the Chamber would
disgrace itself by adopting the resolution before it.

After the mover of the resolution and some who shared his views had
expressed their hope that the Chamber would not fall back from the
position it took in 1874 upon this question, a speaker rose who
requires to be met, Herr A. Hedin.

He began with the assertion that if a refusal of the report of the
committee would show that the Chamber had now changed its opinion,
they had before them sufficient reason for this. He wondered that a
resolution of such a nature as this had been brought forward, so soon
after the unpleasant experience which the country and people of Sweden
lately had in a so-called decision by arbitration. "The Chamber will
please to remember," continued the speaker, "that the king, with no
authority from the Riksdag, agreed with Spain to appeal to arbitration
upon the difficulties that had arisen on the right understanding of
the prolonged commercial treaty with Spain. Also the Chamber will
please to remember that this arbitration tribunal neither acted upon
the plan settled in the agreement, nor did it act in harmony with
the instructions of the treaty; and what was worse, the so-called,
or supposed, sentence which this one-man arbitration tribunal passed
did not concern the matter, which according to the agreement was to
have been settled by arbitration, but quite another, which could not
reasonably be subjected to arbitration--though the matter was, so far
as we were legally concerned, made to appear as though Sweden had
received an injustice in the principal matter which should have been
tried by arbitration, but which was not--a circumstance which, with the
Spanish authorities, has greatly weakened the position in law due to
Swedish citizens, whose rights have been violated in so unprecedented a
manner by the mode of procedure in consequence of which arbitration was
appealed to."

All this had truth in it. But does that prove anything against the
usefulness of arbitration clauses in treaties of commerce?

The agreement referred to between the united kingdoms and Spain,
January 8th, 1887, establishes:--

 "A question which affects customs or the carrying out of commercial
 treaties, or relates to results of some special violation of the
 same, shall, when all attempts to come to an amicable agreement and
 all friendly discussions have proved fruitless, be referred to an
 arbitration tribunal, whose decision shall be binding on both parties."

According to this it may be plainly seen, that the well-known
Swedo-Spanish SPIRIT-DISPUTE, to which Mr. Hedin alluded, ought to have
been solved in its entirety by arbitration. The Spanish Government,
however, maintained that this affected Spanish internal concerns,
since in fact the forced sale of Karlstamms-Volagets brandy stores
in Spain took place as a result of a new spirit law, to which the
arbitration clause in this case could not be applied.

This starting-point for the judgment of the whole dispute was accepted
by the Swedish Government; which also agreed to let an arbitrator
settle whether the question of the spirit tax was independent of
the treaty or not. Both Governments agreed to choose the Portuguese
ex-Foreign Minister, Count de Casal Riberio, as arbitrator, and he
expressed himself in favour of the Spanish construction. And with this
the whole matter was settled.

No one can seriously think that the method of procedure on the Swedish
side, which led to so distressing a violation of justice as that
referred to by Herr Hedin, could prove anything against the principle
of arbitration. On the other hand, it appears to betray the character
of the statesmanship of our then Foreign Minister; which indeed earned
for him a diamond-set snuffbox from the Emperor William II., but
otherwise, the blame only of sensible people.

Herr Hedin, who has a weakness for strong expressions, had the
opportunity of using some such in their right place. Unhappily, this
cannot be said with truth of the closing words of his speech, where he
remarks that the expressions of the Foreign Minister are so decisive
against the bill that they deal the report of the committee of the
Second Chamber a right deadly blow.

The committee had proposed that the king, with the authority which §
11 in the form of government accords him, should seek to bring about
such agreements with foreign powers, that future possible differences
between the powers named and Sweden should be settled by arbitration.

The deadly blow must be the remark of the Foreign Minister that
questions affecting the _existence and independence of nations_ must be
excepted from decisions by arbitration.

This principle is known to be universally accepted, and in no way
stands in antagonism to the report of the committee, which of course
left the hands of the king as free as possible to promote the idea of
arbitration according to circumstances.

However, the report of the committee was thrown out by eighty-eight
votes against eighty-three.

Herr Hedin got his way. He has always been the consistent opposer of
the active friends of peace; and this time he has besides won the
gratitude even of our Government organ, _Nya Dagligt Allehanda_, which
calls his speech glittering; meaning that upon this resolution "there
was no need to waste many words," and continues thus:--

 "The resolution is worthy of notice, because it shows the return of
 the Chamber to a sounder perception of this question. It seems at last
 to recognise the extravagance of the expectation certain fanatics
 entertain of bringing about a lasting peace by so apparently simple
 a means as a tribunal of arbitration. We have indeed, as Herr Hedin
 reminded us, now had experience ourselves of how unsatisfactory
 this can be; and it certainly appears that they must be lacking in
 common sense who would question the justice of the Foreign Minister's
 reminder, that arbitration cannot be appealed to when a nation's
 political freedom or independence is touched by the issue."

I may here beg leave to calm the ruffled feelings of the honourable
Government organ by bringing to remembrance the lesson, otherwise
applicable also, which our dismembered sister-land on the other side
of the Sound offers us.

At the London Conference in 1864, the representative of England, Lord
Russell, referred to the decision arrived at by the Paris Congress
in 1856, that States which had any serious dispute should appeal to
the mediation of a friendly power before taking to arms. In harmony
with this the British plenipotentiary proposed that the question,
whether the boundary line should be drawn between the lines of
Aabenraa-Toender, on the one side, or Dannewerke-Sli on the other,
should be decided by arbitration. Prussia and Austria consented to
accept the mediation of a neutral power; but Denmark replied to the
proposition with a distinct refusal. In the same way Denmark refused
the proposal made first by Prussia, and later by France, that a means
of deciding the boundary should be sought in a plebiscite of the people
in Sleswick.

_Denmark trusted too much upon might and too little upon right.
Otherwise Sleswick had still been Danish._

If the axiom be correct, that disputes which affect the existence
and independence of nations ought not to be submitted for solution
to arbitration, it is of so much the greater moment to try to get
international complications settled in this way, because they may swell
up into questions of the kind first named; since in any case this means
could be adopted as a last resource in time of need. History knows
of no example of the destruction of a free nation by the impartial
judgment of arbitration.

       *       *       *       *       *

Now it may well appear honourable on the part of the free nations of
the Scandinavian peninsula that they should openly show to the whole
world that they are prepared (in full harmony with King Oscar II.'s
pacific expressions in the speech from the throne to the Riksdag
and the Storting in 1890), for their own part, in all international
circumstances to substitute justice for brute force, and this without
compromising and meaningless limitations. In the Swedish arbitration
resolution, as well as in the Norse, lies the road certainly to
efficiently carrying out the neutral policy so strongly emphasized in
the speech from the throne. Besides the public gain, which a favourable
result in both Chambers would have been, a unanimous co-operation in
this cause would in a great degree have facilitated the solving of the
important QUESTION OF THE UNION (UNIONELLE TVISTEMAAL).

The last named consideration will indeed claim more attention as the
consequences of the divergent decisions of the Storting and the Riksdag
develop themselves. That these consequences will be scattering, rather
than uniting, the friends of peace in both lands must keep in view;
and must look out, in time, for means to soothe them, as long as they
continue.

       *       *       *       *       *

That which lies nearest my heart has been to help, with cheering
words, to strengthen the faith of my fellow-workers. If these words
have succeeded also, here and there, in scattering doubts, so much the
better. Little-faith is faint-hearted. Without confidence in a cause,
there is no action. Ignorance may be enlightened, superstition wiped
out; intolerance may become tolerant, and hate be changed into love;
ideas may be quickened, intelligence widened, and men's hearts may be
ennobled; but from _pessimism_ which can see nothing but gloomy visions
nothing is to be expected. This offspring of materialism is one of
the most powerful opponents which the cause of international law and
justice has to encounter. It is only self-deception to conceal the fact
that it still reigns in our Christian community.

These gloomy-sighted people refer us to history, which on every page
tells of crime and blood, sorrow and tears. We answer by pointing to
the development of civilization, and show how all things slowly grow
and ripen, whether in human life or in the world of nature.

Human perfection does not provide for an individual being a law-abiding
member of a human community, and exclude a community from being a
law-abiding member of an alliance of States. The abolition of war
therefore in no way pre-supposes universal righteousness, but only a
certain degree of moral cultivation.

But that this perfection is not attained to cannot be any rational
objection _against_ striving after the perfect. Discontent with
imperfection ought much rather to goad us on to work for what is better.

Now, war is not something imperfect only: it is a summing up of all
human depravity--a condition which we might expect all enlightened men
and women would turn against with combined energies. That this does not
take place is an evidence that the enlightenment is not so great among
so-called cultivated people.

The dazzling external show of war conceals from many its inner reality.
This applies not only to the horrors of the battle-field and their
ghastly accompaniments. Fancy's wildest pictures of the infernal abyss
are nothing to the descriptions eye-witnesses give of this veritable
hell. Tolstoï's pen and Veretschagin's pencil give us an idea of
it.[40] From this misery spring untold sufferings for thousands upon
thousands of innocent victims; and, besides, it remains to be a flowing
source of fresh calamities.

The ARMED PEACE is a similar calamity, which threatens European
civilization with complete overthrow. We have got so far in the general
race in the science of armaments that the yearly outlay in Europe
for military purposes, including the interest of national debts,
is reckoned as about twelve milliards of kroner,[41] 650 millions
sterling, which of course must imply a corresponding limitation of
productive labour.

In time of peace the European armies are reckoned at four millions
of men. In time of war this can grow to nineteen millions; and in a
few years when, as intended, the new conscription law comes into full
effect, to something like thirty millions.[42]

War, the personification of all human depravity, desolates the
progressive work of culture, and the armed peace which ruins the
nations prepares new wars and augments the misery. Ignorance, war, and
poverty follow one another in an unvarying circle.

By the side of this wild race for armaments goes on a terrible struggle
for existence, and discontent reigns in all lands. This condition
of things, which fills the world with unrest and fear, must in the
near future have an end. It will either come in the form of a social
revolution, which will embrace the whole of our continent, or it may
come by the introduction of an established condition of international
law.

It is the last named outcome that active friends of peace labour for.
They strive to enlighten the nations as to the means of removing and
preventing these calamities; and they hope that the so-called educated
classes will cease to be inactive spectators of these efforts. While
they do not feel called upon to oppose the nonsense of folly, they
listen respectfully to objections dictated by a sincere patriotism. In
that feeling we ought all to be able to join. It depends upon the way
in which this is expressed whether we can work together or must go on
separate lines.

Commonly, we commend an action as virtuous when it does not oppose our
interests, but brand it as blameworthy when it in some way threatens
our position.

Thus we read, with glad appreciation, the deeds of our own warriors;
but our admiration is changed into resentment when the exploits are
achieved against ourselves by the heroes of other nations. When one
says in Sweden, "I am not a Russian, indeed"; they say in Russia, "You
behave yourself like a Swede." It needs an independent third party to
give an impartial judgment. Right must be right.

If our so-called enemy is _really_ in the right, he does not become
wrong _because_ he is called our enemy; and if we conquer and kill
him, we only thereby increase a hundredfold our terrible guilt. It is
in the long run a loss to both sides. Here, at any rate at least, a
_compromise_ is needed, for it is seldom the fault of _one_ when two
quarrel.

But the endeavour to get a permanent arbitration tribunal established
cannot, in any way, be reasonably opposed to efforts for the welfare
of one's own country. The very consciousness of the existence of such
a tribunal would little by little, as a matter of course, bring about
the reign of law. It would indeed be a marvellous perversion of ideas
which esteemed it dishonourable to feel bound, in case of disputes
with other countries, to appeal to law and justice; inasmuch as this
very unwillingness to seek the path of justice must excite a serious
suspicion as to the cause you maintain.

To lay hold on the sword under the influence of passion is like taking
a knife when intoxicated; and it is a crying absurdity to expect
people, who soberly know what they are doing, to go to homicide with
a light heart. That is to say, that a good man in severe conflict
as to his duty, may possibly be forced to do a bad action to escape
participation in a still worse. If he forbears to kill his brother,
this last will murder his father. When warriors are led out to battle,
the brilliant uniform ought to be laid aside, and the troops clad in
sombre mourning, which would better accord with the naked reality.
When they have slain many and come back in triumph, decorated with
honourable Cain-badges, they are wont in their homes to point with
pride to their brothers who lie silent in their blood. They earn a
character for having done something great; they are received with
exultation and honourable distinctions, and praised as gods in popular
story. But the whole spirit and conception is false IF Christ's
teaching of love is true; and we should long since have grown out of
this heathenish religion if there had not been incorporated with it
so much patriotism, both true and false--the false wrapped in those
high sounding words and phrases of self-love and vanity which still
exercise so great a power over the easily excited spirit of the nations.

But if we set our thoughts free, confined as they are by warm devotion
to our hereditary soil, and now and then venture to look out over the
wide world, we shall see points of contact in the progressive effort
of humanity; and it is our highest honour to be able to take an active
part in this. Barriers are crumbling away one after the other. They do
not go down with violence; they vanish as new ideas smooth the way for
a higher conception of human dignity. Inquiry dissipates prejudice, and
continually shows us new phases of the inner cohesion of the life of
nations.

The inhabitants of Europe, says DRAPER, show a constantly increasing
disposition towards the complete levelling of their mutual
dissimilarities. Climatic and meteorological differences are more and
more dissolved by artificial means and new inventions; and thence
arises a similarity, not only in habits of life, but in physical
conformation. Such inventions soften the influences to which men are
subjected, and bring them nearer to an average type. With this greater
affinity one to the other in bodily form, follows also a greater
similarity in feeling, habit and thought.

Day by day, too, the economic fellowship of Europe increases.
Communications by ship, railroad, post and telegraph are developed; by
means of State loans, share and exchange connections, interests are
knit together. Therefore we see the Bourse, the barometer of economic
life, fluctuate when serious rumours of war are afloat; an evidence
that common economic interests and war are at variance one with the
other.

I shall not venture further, but simply indicate in closing that even
the differences in language will certainly go on being gradually
adjusted.

It is a remarkable fact, says the above-named investigator, that in
nearly all Indo-Germanic races, family appellatives, father, mother,
sister, brother, daughter, are the same. A similar agreement may be
observed in the names of a great number of everyday things, such as
house, door, way; but one finds that whilst these observations hold
good in respect to the designation of objects of a peaceful character,
many of the words which have a military signification are different in
the different languages.

Here lies, perhaps, the germ of a future progressive growth which will
rise higher heavenward than the tower of Babel.

I believe, for my part, that the English language, both on the ground
of its cosmopolitan character and of its great expansion, is already
on the path of transition into a universal common language. According
to Mulhall, it has spread since 1801, 310 per cent., whilst German has
increased 70, and French 36 per cent. A hundred years ago, Gladstone
says, the English tongue was spoken by fifteen millions; it is now
spoken by 150 millions; and according to the computation of Barham
Zincke, in another hundred it will be spoken by at least 1,000 millions.

The computation is probably correct; and then not only in America,
but in every part of our globe, the remembrance will be treasured of
the little flock of Puritans who, ere they landed from their frail
_Mayflower_ upon the desolate rocks of a strange coast, drew up in that
undeveloped language the great social law for their future, which
begins with the words, "In the name of God be it enacted."

Mankind will hold them in remembrance for their faith in a high ideal,
these persecuted, weary, sick, and hungry men. For it was that faith
which upheld them under continued trials and sufferings, and brought
them a victory guiltless of blood, but fraught with blessing to coming
generations.

Even if many of us do not believe in the way those Christian heroes
believed, yet we may in this materialistic age have strong confidence
in the power of good, and so pronounced, that we shall gain something
for our cause.

In the life of Society, however, as in external nature with all its
teeming variety, we observe a subserviency to law, which may be taken
as the surest pledge of the final triumph of the cause of peace.

For my part, I see herein the Divine government of the world.

And therefore my love for this idea can never be extinguished.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 38: Transactions of the Riksdag, 1853-1854, No. 4.

In the introduction to the address to the Riksdag the king observed,
that he had, in providing for the welfare of the nation, found himself
obliged to declare Sweden neutral; consequently he informed the Riksdag
of the Declaration of Neutrality, respecting which the king said:--

"The system which the king intends steadily to adhere to and employ is
a strict neutrality, founded upon sincerity, impartiality, and full
regard to the rights of all the powers. This neutrality will entail
upon the government of his Majesty of Sweden and Norway the following
duties, and secure to it the following benefits: 1. To hold himself
free from any participation in any contentions which directly or
indirectly may be advantageous to one and injurious to another of the
belligerent States....

"Such are the general principles of the neutral position, which his
Majesty of Sweden and Norway designs to take in case war should break
out in Europe. His Majesty feels persuaded that it will be accepted as
in accordance with international law, and that the exact and impartial
observance of these principles will make it possible for his Majesty
to continue to sustain those connections with friendly and allied
powers which his Majesty, for his people's weal, so greatly desires to
preserve from every infringement."

To this communication, satisfactory answers, accepting the decision
announced by his Majesty, arrived from the various Governments in the
following words: ...

"His Majesty has been pleased to announce to the assembled Estates
of the Realm the attainment of this result, so satisfactory for the
undisturbed continuance of peaceful transactions and the uninterrupted
course of trade and navigation so much the more as on account of the
political relations of Sweden and Norway with foreign powers, they may
be regarded as for the present amply secured. His Majesty gratefully
acknowledges that the patriotism and the reliance upon the paternal
designs of his Majesty which the Estates of the Realm have manifested
on this occasion may be regarded as having in an important degree
contributed to the attainment of the desired object. His Majesty, in
expressing his sincere satisfaction, will continue to devote incessant
pains to all the measures which the maintenance of neutrality may
require in harmony with the principles laid down and promulgated by his
Majesty. With his Majesty's royal favour and constant best wishes to
the Estates of the Realm."

The address of thanks from the Riksdag to the king:--

"After the Declaration of Neutrality made by your Majesty on behalf
of the united kingdoms, and in concert with the King of Denmark, had
been accepted by the European powers and also the United States,
it pleased your Majesty to inform the Estates of the Realm of this
result, so satisfactory for the undisturbed continuance of our
peaceful transactions, and for the uninterrupted course of our trade
and navigation. Your Majesty has at the same time been pleased also
to express your gracious appreciation of the patriotism and reliance
upon your paternal designs which the Estates of the Realm have on this
occasion manifested.

"The representatives of the Swedish people hold in grateful remembrance
these expressions of your Majesty's high satisfaction, and beg
respectfully to assure your Majesty of their deep and warm gratitude.
The Fatherland is indebted to your Majesty's incessant and unremitting
pains in securing the friendly relations of the united kingdoms
towards foreign powers during the contests in which a great part of
Europe is at present embroiled. The Estates of the Realm offer sincere
homage to the resolution and wise forethought with which your Majesty,
under these troublous conditions, has safeguarded the interests, the
independence and power of the united kingdoms. With confidence between
the king and the people, with mutual co-operation in working together
to promote the true welfare of our beloved Fatherland, they will, with
the blessing of the Highest, be henceforth preserved. The peace we
enjoy is the dearer because it is the evidence of the fidelity with
which the best interests of the country are guarded by your Majesty.
Ready to follow her noble king in all vicissitudes, the Swedish nation
implores the blessings of Providence upon the vigilant fatherly love
whose untiring care for the people's welfare reaps its reward in this
answering love.

"The Estates of the Realm, remain," etc.]

[Footnote 39: Riksdagen protocol, 1890. First Chamber, No. 37; Second
Chamber, No. 45.]

[Footnote 40: When Wellington once, as a victor, went over the field of
battle, he burst out with the cry, "There is nothing so disastrous as a
victory, except a defeat."]

[Footnote 41: That is 12,000,000,000; sufficient to furnish the annual
pension of a minister of State, 2,000 kroner, for EVERY man and woman,
old man and suckling in the whole of Norway.--ED. of Danish edition.]

[Footnote 42: Five times as many able-bodied men as there are men,
women, old men and children in the whole of Norway.--Do.]




APPENDIX.


_Note on page 123._

The ASSOCIATION for the NEUTRALIZATION of DENMARK.

The objects of this Association are to work for:

1. Securing for Denmark a permanent neutrality recognised by Europe,
like that of Belgium or Switzerland;

2. The concluding of Arbitration treaties between Denmark and other
independent States, especially the two Northern Kingdoms;

3. The solution by a pacific means of the North Sleswick question in
accordance with the principle of popular veto.


_Note on page 125._

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION and PEACE ASSOCIATION (40 and 41, Outer
Temple, London, W.C.).


OBJECTS.

Among the objects of this Association are the following:

1. To create, educate, and organize public opinion throughout Europe in
favour of the substitution of ARBITRATION for WAR.

2. To promote a better understanding and more friendly feeling between
the citizens of different nations.

3. To correct erroneous statements in the public press or in
Parliaments on International questions.


MODES OF ACTION.

1. To establish in the chief cities of Europe Committees or Societies
which shall correspond with each other on all matters likely to create
disputes, with the view of ascertaining the facts and of suggesting
just and practical modes of settlement.

2. Where Committees cannot at present be formed, to obtain the services
of individuals acting in co-operation for the same purpose.

3. To form a medium of communication between men of different countries
by a Journal devoted to these purposes, and to promote International
fraternity and co-operation, mutual appreciation and esteem.

4. To hold periodical conferences and congresses in all parts of Europe.

5. To correspond and work with similar Associations and committees in
America.


WHAT THE ASSOCIATION HAS DONE.

It has held two International Congresses on the European continent.
Many visits have been paid to cities in Germany, Italy, France,
Switzerland, Belgium, Austria, and Hungary, for the above purpose. In
these countries, including America, the Association has directly or
indirectly corresponded with more than six hundred persons, many of
whom are Members of Parliament, journalists, literary men, professors,
merchants, and manufacturers.

Corresponding Committees and Societies have been founded by the
Association in Germany, Hungary, Italy and France; and Societies are
affiliated in Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and California.


WHAT IT DESIRES TO DO.

To complete the "International Federation" of Peace-makers proposed by
the Congress held at Berne in 1883.

To promote the formation of Societies belonging to this Federation in
all parts of Europe.

To form Branches of the Association in various parts of England.

To publish a foreign edition of the monthly paper, _Concord_, in French
and German.


_Note on page 137._

The following are the provisions of the Treaty agreed to at the
PAN-AMERICAN CONFERENCE.

Article I.--The republics of North, Central, and South America hereby
adopt arbitration as a principle of American International Law for the
settlement of all differences, disputes, or controversies that may
arise between them.

Article II.--Arbitration shall be obligatory in all controversies
concerning diplomatic and consular privileges, boundaries, territories,
indemnities, the right of navigation, and the validity, construction,
and enforcement of treaties.

Article III.--Arbitration shall be equally obligatory in all cases
other than those mentioned in the foregoing article, whatever may be
their origin, nature, or occasion; with the single exception mentioned
in the next following article.

Article IV.--The sole questions excepted from the provisions of the
preceding article are those which, in the judgment of any one of the
nations involved in the controversy, may imperil its independence. In
which case, for such nation, arbitration shall be optional; but it
shall be obligatory upon the adversary power.

Article V.--All controversies or differences, with the exception
stated in Article IV., whether pending or hereafter arising, shall
be submitted to arbitration, even though they may have originated in
occurrences ante-dating the present treaty.

Article VI.--No question shall be revived by virtue of this treaty
concerning which a definite agreement shall already have been reached.
In such cases arbitration shall be resorted to only for the settlement
of questions concerning the validity, interpretation, or enforcement of
such agreements.

Article VII.--Any Government may serve in the capacity of arbitrator
which maintains friendly relations with the nation opposed to the
one selecting it. The office of arbitrator may also be entrusted to
tribunals of justice, to scientific bodies, to public officials, or to
private individuals, whether citizens or not of the States selecting
them.

Article VIII.--The court of arbitration may consist of one or more
persons. If of one person, he shall be selected jointly by the nations
concerned. If of several persons, their selection may be jointly
made by the nations concerned. Should no choice be made, each nation
claiming a distinct interest in the question at issue shall have the
right to appoint one arbitrator on its own behalf.

Article IX.--When the court shall consist of an even number of
arbitrators, the nations concerned shall appoint an umpire, who shall
decide all questions upon which the arbitrators may disagree. If the
nations interested fail to agree in the selection of an umpire, such
umpire shall be selected by the arbitrators already appointed.

Article X.--The appointment of an umpire, and his acceptance, shall
take place before the arbitrators enter upon the hearing of the
question in dispute.

Article XI.--The umpire shall not act as a member of the court, but his
duties and powers shall be limited to the decision of questions upon
which the arbitrators shall be unable to agree.

Article XII.--Should any arbitrator, or an umpire, be prevented
from serving by reason of death, resignation, or other cause, such
arbitrator or umpire shall be replaced by a substitute to be selected
in the same manner in which the original arbitrator or umpire shall
have been chosen.

Article XIII.--The court shall hold its sessions at such place as the
parties in interest may agree upon, and in case of disagreement or
failure to name a place the court itself may determine the location.

Article XIV.--When the court shall consist of several arbitrators, a
majority of the whole number may act notwithstanding the absence or
withdrawal of the minority. In such case the majority shall continue
in the performance of their duties, until they shall have reached a
final determination of the questions submitted for their consideration.

Article XV.--The decision of a majority of the whole number of
arbitrators shall be final both on the main and incidental issues,
unless in the agreement to arbitrate it shall have been expressly
provided that unanimity is essential.

Article XVI.--The general expenses of arbitration proceedings shall
be paid in equal proportions by the governments that are parties
thereto; but expenses incurred by either party in the preparation and
prosecution of its case shall be defrayed by it individually.

Article XVII.--Whenever disputes arise the nations involved shall
appoint courts of arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the
preceding articles. Only by the mutual and free consent of all of such
nations may those provisions be disregarded, and courts of arbitration
appointed under different arrangements.

Article XVIII.--This treaty shall remain in force for twenty years from
the date of the exchange of ratifications. After the expiration of that
period, it shall continue in operation until one of the contracting
parties shall have notified all the others of its desire to terminate
it. In the event of such notice the treaty shall continue obligatory
upon the party giving it for at least one year thereafter, but the
withdrawal of one or more nations shall not invalidate the treaty with
respect to the other nations concerned.

Article XIX.--This treaty shall be ratified by all the nations
approving it, according to their respective constitutional methods;
and the ratifications shall be exchanged in the city of Washington on
or before the first day of May, A.D. 1891. Any other nation may accept
this treaty and become a party thereto, by signing a copy thereof
and depositing the same with the Government of the United States;
whereupon the said Government shall communicate this fact to the other
contracting parties.


Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London.